Salt Lake City Here We Come
By Steve Matthews
“Mormonism is not Christianity. It has always been considered a cult by the mainstream of Christianity.” – Dr. Robert Jeffress
A few weeks back, Baptist minister Robert Jeffress caused a quite a stir when he introduced presidential candidate Rick Perry at the Values Voter Summit. Rather than offering the usual vanilla platitudes in support of his favorite candidate, he made a dreadful gaffe and said something that was actually interesting. In today’s PC world, this, of course, is strictly verboten.
Jeffress’ offending words in full were,
“Rick Perry’s a Christian. He’s an evangelical Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ,” Jeffress said. “Mormonism is not Christianity. It has always been
considered a cult by the mainstream of Christianity.
In 2007, Jeffress made a similar remark about Romney in a sermon, saying
Mitt Romney is a Mormon, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise. Even though he talks about Jesus as his lord and savior, he is not a Christian.
Mormonism is not Christianity. Mormonism is a cult. And just because somebody talks about Jesus does not make them a believer.
Now I have to say, none of this terrible upsets me. Dr Jeffress’ comments about Mormonism and Romney were right on target, admirable even. Mormonism is not Christianity and Mormons, including Mitt Romney, are not Christians. Further, given the bizarre history and antitrinitarian doctrine of the Mormon faith, calling it a cult – as the word is popularly understood – is quite accurate.
At the moment, even mainstream conservative Evangelicals feel free to call Mormonism a false faith. For instance, Al Mohler, a popular Baptist theologian and public figure, has gone on record saying that Mormonism is not Christianity, thus signaling that it’s still safe to hold this opinion in the SBC.
But it’s fair to wonder just how long this will remain the case.
The history of how Protestants have viewed Roman Catholicism is instructive here. Evangelicals once were far more open about denouncing Romanism than they are now about criticizing Mormonism, yet the Protestant pulpit long ago fell silent on the sins of Rome. Mohler is a good example of this long running trend. For while he’ll offer pointed criticism of Mormonism, he has steadfastly refused to speak out decisively against Roman Catholicism. In fact, he has even gone so far as to yoke with Rome by signing the ecumenical Manhattan declaration. All in a good cause, of course.
To be fair, Mohler has criticized, if rather tepidly, some of Rome’s practices. But I’ve never heard him throw the knockout punch against Rome that he’s called to throw in his role as pastor. He won’t call Rome the Babylonian harlot. You will never hear him say Rome is the seat of Antichrist. He can’t even bring himself to deny that Romanism – with its soul-destroying false gospel of faith and works – is Christianity. To do so, it seems, is not safe. After all, denouncing Rome in unambiguous terms could make one enemies. It could get one fired. Horror of horrors, it could even get one disinvited from the Evangelical rubber chicken circuit.
Today there are two Mormons in the Republican field of presidential hopefuls, Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman. This, as far as I am aware, is a unique development in presidential politics and one that portends a growing Mormon influence in the Republican party and American politics generally. If the Lord chooses to punish this nation by giving us a Latter-Day Saint for president, it’s going to put the influence-seeking, culture-warrior Evangelical crowd in a bit of a quandary. After all, Mormons are pro-life and seem generally supportive of the of the sort of political conservatism that’s popular among Evangelicals. Pastors may one day soon be faced with the choice of speaking the truth about the false faith of a popular Mormon president or falling in line and accepting him as a brother in Christ.
If the long running Evangelical love affair with the seven-hilled Roman harlot is any indication, my guess is that when “Evangelical leaders” are faced with the choice of defending the truth or defending their political and religious spheres of influence, not a few will suddenly see the light and fall all over themselves to be first in line to lick the boots of their new Mormon masters.
Perhaps we’ll then find ourselves treated to the curious sight of Evangelical big shots forging a coalition with leading Mormons under the banner Evangelicals and Mormons Together: Toward a Common Polygamy. Maybe they could name ecumenical godfather Chuck Colson as their honorary chairman. But whatever ecumenical schemes they carry out, no doubt our latter day Luthers will be most sincere in everything they do and say. All in a good cause, of course.
Explore posts in the same categories: Politics
God's Hammer 
October 26, 2011 at 8:12 pm
Al Mohler says,
. . .I signed The Manhattan Declaration because it is a limited statement of Christian conviction on these three crucial issues, and not a wide-ranging theological document that subverts confessional integrity. I cannot and do not sign documents such as Evangelicals and Catholics Together that attempt to establish common ground on vast theological terrain. I could not sign a statement that purports, for example, to bridge the divide between Roman Catholics and evangelicals on the doctrine of justification. The Manhattan Declaration is not a manifesto for united action. It is a statement of urgent concern and common conscience on these three issues — the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage, and the defense of religious liberty.
My beliefs concerning the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches have not changed. The Roman Catholic Church teaches doctrines that I find both unbiblical and abhorrent — and these doctrines define nothing less than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But The Manhattan Declaration does not attempt to establish common ground on these doctrines. We remain who we are, and we concede no doctrinal ground. . .
http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/11/23/why-i-signed-the-manhattan-declaration/
——————————–
From the Declaration:
. . .Like those who have gone before us in the faith, Christians today are called to proclaim the Gospel of costly grace, to protect the intrinsic dignity of the human person and to stand for the common good. In being true to its own calling, the call to discipleship, the church through service to others can make a profound contribution to the public good.
DECLARATION
We, as Orthodox, Catholic, and Evangelical Christians, have gathered, beginning in New York on September 28, 2009, to make the following declaration, which we sign as individuals, not on behalf of our organizations, but speaking to and from our communities. We act together in obedience to the one true God, the triune God of holiness and love, who has laid total claim on our lives and by that claim calls us with believers in all ages and all nations to seek and defend the good of all who bear his image. We set forth this declaration in light of the truth that is grounded in Holy Scripture, in natural human reason (which is itself, in our view, the gift of a beneficent God), and in the very nature of the human person. We call upon all people of goodwill, believers and non-believers alike, to consider carefully and reflect critically on the issues we here address as we, with St. Paul, commend this appeal to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. . .
We are Christians who have joined together across historic lines of ecclesial differences to affirm our right—and, more importantly, to embrace our obligation—to speak and act in defense of these truths. We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence. It is our duty to proclaim the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in its fullness, both in season and out of season. May God help us not to fail in that duty. . .
http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration/read.aspx
October 26, 2011 at 8:15 pm
Mohler’s take on Catholic co-belligerancy: http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-06-070-f
October 26, 2011 at 8:59 pm
Nicely done, Sean. Nicely done indeed.
Ron
October 26, 2011 at 9:18 pm
Ron,
Do you mean Steve? It’s his byline.
Or Sean, in that he published the piece?
October 26, 2011 at 10:59 pm
Hugh,
LOL I did think that Sean was the author when I posted. BUT, while I was reading it I was also very happy that he was publishing such good stuff. So, had I processed the byline I might have still said – Nicely done, Sean! 🙂
Yours,
Ron
October 27, 2011 at 9:49 pm
Steve,
I’ll see your Jeffress & Mohler and raise you an Osteen:
http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/videos-for-pastors/155945-joel-osteen-endorses-mormonism-as-christianity.html?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily-Update
October 27, 2011 at 10:59 pm
Hugh,
I fold.
It seems Mr. Osteen is well ahead of the curve.
But then so are Ravi Zacharias and Richard Mouw:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/novemberweb-only/11-15-11.0.html
October 27, 2011 at 11:04 pm
Steve,
I have heard the disappointing Ravi talks.
At least one is at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9rz5hWaK3o
October 27, 2011 at 11:39 pm
Hugh,
I hadn’t seen that Mohler article before. Thanks for posting it.
What I find interesting about writers of his ilk is that they can write lengthy, impressive defenses in favor of co-belligerence, but in the end offer nothing in the way of Scriptural support for their position.
There’s a reason for that, of course: there isn’t any. We are to mark and separate from false teachers, not work shoulder to shoulder with them.
If Scripture tells us that the mere act of greeting a false teacher implicates one in his sins (2 John 11), what are we to think of a men like Mohler, Zacharias etc. who go far beyond that?
November 3, 2011 at 10:02 pm
I’ll see your political incorrectness about things like ECT and TMD and raise you some more: in the post-Jonestown age, Mormonism is certainly false but it isn’t a cult.
I understand it’s politically correct amongst funda-evangelicals and those influenced by them to use the c-word to describe otherwise sane and good neighbors in order to make a hyperventilated point about heterodoxy, and to push back on this is politically incorrect, but Walter Martin’s day has come and gone. There is such a thing as decorum and responsible speech, and to insist upon it isn’t political correctness. The older term is civility, which doesn’t have any allergies against strong speech. There is a difference between despising, for example, the errors of the Anabaptists and the mass and simply tarring false religionists with slanderous words and insinuations. All cultists are false religionists but not all false religionists are cultists.
November 4, 2011 at 8:04 am
@Zrim. LOL!
November 4, 2011 at 6:56 pm
@Zrim
Whether Mormonism is a cult depends on the meaning one attaches to the term “cult.” The Oxford English Dictionary gives as one meaning, “a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members.” Merriam-Webster gives, “a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents.”
With those definitions in mind, it seems that Jeffress’ remarks about Mormonism were right on target.
November 4, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Steve Matthews (another Steve M)
Both definitions are a bit vague. “Regarded” and “regarded by others” could result in any group being labelled a cult (including Baptists and Presbyterians) by opposing groups. Mormonism is hardly a relatively small group, but I guess that would depend on relative to what?
If Jeffress were to define what he means by cult, then we could determine whether his remarks were right on target.
November 4, 2011 at 8:33 pm
@ Steve M (from another Steve M)
Jeffress’ remarks, while not intended to formally define cult, suggest that by that term he means something along the lines of those definitions. At the very least, from what he said it’s reasonable to conclude that Jeffress believes Mormonism is spurious and unorthodox.
FWIW, Gary Crampton also believes Mormonism is a cult. In The Threat of the Promise Keepers published by The Trinity Foundation he wrote, “In our day, false and heretical churches with anti-Christian pastors are legion: Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, neo-orthodoxy, neo-evangelicalism, Charismania, and Arminianism, not to mention cults like Mormonism.”
November 4, 2011 at 11:35 pm
@ Steve Matthews
Is it Crampton’s opinion that Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, neo-orthodoxy, neo-evangelicalism, Charismania, and Arminianism are false and heretical churches with anti-Christian pastors, but not cults, while Mormonism is an example of a cult. Wouldn’t these false and heretical churches also be spurious and unorthodox?
November 5, 2011 at 12:18 am
@ Steve M
You’d have to ask Crampton that one.
November 5, 2011 at 2:57 pm
@ Steve M.
In the end, the important thing about the Mormon issue isn’t whether someone calls it a cult or prefers to identify it as a false religion. For my part, I believe that Mormonism can be called a cult in the popular sense of the term (e.g. those definitions give by Merriam Webster and Oxford, which admittedly are rather loose) and perhaps in a more exact fashion as well. Others may not see it that way.
But what’s vastly more important than what term a man uses to describe Mormonism is his understanding that it is a false faith and why it is a false faith: there’s no Gospel in it.
If a Mormon were to become President, in the eyes of many this would confer instant acceptability on Mormonism as genuine Christianity. And just as during the 20th century most Protestant ministers learned to accomodate Roman Catholicism in part due to its growing number of adherents, increasing political power and social prestige, it is reasonable to believe that a Mormon presidency would go far toward silencing Evangelical criticism of Mormonism.
I’d like to be proven wrong, but the principle of cultural engagement promoted by neo-evangelicals since the 1940s combined with Protestant confusion and outright ignorance about the Gospel makes Evangelical capitualtion to Mormonism, if not a sure thing, very nearly so. And a Mormon president will go far to hastening this.
November 6, 2011 at 1:47 am
@Steve Matthews
Am I to understand that you would prefer a “Christian” president such as Barack Obama over a Mormon president such as Mitt Romney?
November 6, 2011 at 5:00 am
Steve,
No. Just like in logic both contrarieties can be wrong, so in presidential politics both candidates can be wrong. There’s nothing that compels anyone to chose Romney over Obama or Obama over Romeny.
November 6, 2011 at 8:13 am
Steve
When confronted with the logical choice of either Marxist or not Marxist, I would choose not Marxist every time.
November 6, 2011 at 8:41 am
Steve,
Mitt Romney isn’t the only non-Marxist to choose from. Have you considered Ron Paul?
November 6, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Steve
Mitt Romney is not my first choice in the Republican primaries by any means and if he wins the primaries it will be without my vote. However, if he were to win the primary election, I’d vote for him over Obama in a second.
November 6, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Why vote for either of them? There’s nothing that compels you to.
They’re both socialists, and by voting for Romney you’re putting a man in the White House who, if we’re to take him at his word, believes blasphemous doctrine and whose presence there will likely further undermine American Christianity by making that doctrine seem more respectable.
November 6, 2011 at 9:13 pm
The evangelical churches in this country have undermined American Christianity to a greater extent than government has. In fact, it is most likely due to their abandonment of sound doctrine that we have the elected officials that now are allowing our freedoms to be trampled upon. Billy Graham’s message being considered to be the Gospel did more damage to American Christianity in the twentieth century than Mitt Romney being president would do in the twenty-first. If you are saying that four more years of Barack Obama would not be more injurious to this country than having a flawed (but not nearly so flawed) Mitt Romney as president, I am sure that anything I might say would fall on deaf ears.
November 6, 2011 at 11:46 pm
I agree with what you say about Evangelicals; they’re been their own worst enemies for a long time now. But I also believe that if they come out in support of Romney, they’ll just be driving another nail in their own coffin. Not only will a Romney administration serve to further undermine Christianinty in the US., but it will likely fail to bring any significant improvements to our current course.
Romney is an establishment Republican, and establishment Republicans believe in prettty much the same things as establishment Democrats like Obama: welfare at home, warfare abroad and funny money to pay for it all.
Remember, Romney is the guy was behind state-run medicine in Massachusetts. Do you really think the socialist leopard will change his spots once elected president?
November 7, 2011 at 12:39 am
“Why vote for either of them? There’s nothing that compels you to.
They’re both socialists…”
Right on, Steve Matthews. There are VERY few that have broken out of the false left/right labyrinth.
Republican = Democrat = Totalitarian
Very few understand that Bush (whose priest was Billy Graham) was just as much a totalitarian as the illegal-alien-usurper occupying the white house presently. And, even fewer can see through the Reagan rhetoric whose record reveals yet another garden variety totalitarian. How anyone can call bank bailouts, communistic education merged with U.S. education, and government being expanded 3-fold ‘conservative’ policy is beyond me. Yet, most conservatives accept the saying “So and so is a Reagan conservative.”
A vote for the ‘lesser of two evils’ is still a vote for evil.
The ground work for every policy being carried out by the horses ass in the white house now was laid by the horses ass before him, and the horses ass, Mitt Romney, will, if elected, simply continue these policies, and most likely, like Reagan, cloak the tyranny in libertarian rhetoric.
At the very least, in Ron Paul, you have a man who has been consistent and on target for the past 30 years. This cannot be said for any other candidate. His consistency speaks of his integrity. Ron Paul may very well be deceiving us all, but his record does NOT give us any reason to believe he is.
“If you are saying that four more years of Barack Obama would not be more injurious to this country than having a flawed (but not nearly so flawed) Mitt Romney as president”
These are the tactics of the corporate controlled media to provoke us to vote for the lesser of two evils rather than honorable yet less popular candidates. Our duty is to vote for honorable men, not evil men.
Eric
November 7, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Eric,
Good points. If you compare the last two admniistrations, you’ll see they’re very much alike in their policies: unconstitutional foreign wars, expansion of the welfare state, attacks on civil liberties, bailouts, economic boonoggles and the like. And doubt that a Romney administration will do anything to break this streak.
November 7, 2011 at 6:08 pm
Thanks, Steve. Sometimes it seems as though we dwell amongst zombies. It’s refreshing to hear others, you in this case, speaking the truth.
November 7, 2011 at 6:19 pm
The book ‘Creature from Jekyll Island’ by G. Edward Griffin is VERY informative.
November 7, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Eric and Steve
You are right there’s not a dimes worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats. There would be absolutely no difference between four more years of Obama and four years with Romney. In fact, in order to demonstrate how strongly I believe that, I am not going to simply refrain from voting. I am going to vote for Obama. I don’t want anyone accusing me of being duped by the mainstream media.
By the way guys, how are things in La La Land?
November 7, 2011 at 7:35 pm
“By the way guys, how are things in La La Land?”
Extremely well, thank-you very much!
November 7, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Sorry. I meant to say, “Double-plus-good.”
November 7, 2011 at 7:57 pm
@ Steve M
I’m going to make an assumption here – and yes, I know assumptions that can be dangerous! – but I assume that since you’ve been a regular reader of this blog for some time, you know about and are in at least some agreement with the Scripturalism of Gordon Clark and John Robbins. At its most basic, Scripturalism asserts that the Bible has a monopoly on truth and that all true theology and all phillosophy is found in the Bible and nowhere else.
Among other things, this means all true political ideas are found in Scripture.
I used to be a prettty hard core conservative. One who thought that every evil in the world started with the Democrats and all virture was found under the banner of the elephant.
Over time I started to have my doubts about this. This was about 10 years ago when I started reading Trinity Foundation stuff. The final blow to me was when I read John Robbins’ essay Conservatism: An Autopsy.
You can read it here http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/195a-Conservatism-AnAutopsy.pdf.
The big take away that I got from this article was the understanding that not only is American conservatism not the same thing as Christianity – this may come as a shock to many – but it is in fact hostile to Christianity, because conservative political theorists do not start their thinking with the Scriptures.
It’s no accident that the fouding of the US came 250 years after the Reformation, for the ideas of limited constitutional government, private property and the rule of law would never have seen the light of day but for the preaching of the Gospel first. Any rebuilding of our lost freedoms and prosperity is going to be done Christians thinking and acting like Christians, and not in any other way. It’s certianly not going to come from a Mormon thinking and acting like a Mormon, for Mormonism does not have the propositions, the ideas, necessary to create and sustain freedom.
I don’t attack Mitt Romney because I think Obama’s great. Far from it. I know you were being sarcastic earlier, but what you said is true, there’s very little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. They both worship of the state, they both deficit spend, neither has a regard for the rule of law. Haven’t George Bush and Barak Obama made that abundantly clear?
And Mitt Romney is cut from the same cloth as those two, he’s an establishment guy who will support the corrupt establishment that is leading this nation to ruin. I’m concerned that if you think putting him or someone else of his ilk in the White House will make a big difference, you’re going to be in for a big disappointment.
November 7, 2011 at 11:21 pm
Steve
I agree that modern conservatism does not base its political stances on Scripture. In fact, I have not heard any candidate run on the platform that his positions are based upon Scripture. Have you? All candidates campaign on pragmatic/utilitarian grounds. They all justify their positions by what will supposedly result from their chosen actions. The only difference is what they say will result, not the underlying philosophy.
Despite all this, if given the chance to vote between Bill Clinton and Adolf Hitler, I would not take the position that I am not going to vote because I don’t like either one of them.
November 7, 2011 at 11:28 pm
Isn’t every vote in any general election a vote for the lesser of (at least) two evils?
There is none righteous, no, not one.
November 8, 2011 at 10:16 am
“Isn’t every vote in any general election a vote for the lesser of (at least) two evils?
There is none righteous, no, not one.”
Don’t be deliberately inane, Hugh.
November 8, 2011 at 11:44 am
I know you don’t think Scripture inane, Eric, so you must be taking issue with my assertion -I thought terribly obvious- that until we get to glory, we’re ever weighing and gauging who’s the lesser “evil.”
What we ARE to do is to pray for any & all of our leaders, since they are put in place not by the electorate, an inheritance, or a judiciary, but ultimately by God himself.
Per 1 Timothy 2:1ff ~
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;
For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
No doubt Paul means socialists, capitalists, duly-elected officials, and throne-usurpers, [i]et. al.[/i]
November 8, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Jeffress may have done Romney a favor.
If this “cult” label sticks, Romney is almost certain to pick up the Jehovah’s Witness vote!
November 8, 2011 at 11:00 pm
Steve,
To answer your question, yes, at least one politician has cited Scripture to support his political reasoning: Ron Paul. Here’s a quote from his book End The Fed (by which Paul means the Federal Reserve System),
“Very simply, there can’t be a more immoral system of money than one based on a banking monopoly that can counterfeit money in secret with no oversight and protection of the people. The moral argument against the Fed should be enough for decently well-informed people to dispense with it posthaste.
Even the Bible is clear that altering the quality of money is an immoral act. We are instructed to follow the rules of “just weights and measures.” “You shall do no injustice in judgment, in measurement of length, weitht, or volume. You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin” (Leviticus 19:35-36). “Diverse weights are an abomination to the Lord, and a false balance is not good: (Proverbs 20:23). The general principle can be summed up as “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15).
The Bible assumed that money was a precious metal and honest weight and measures were to be practiced. The words of Jesus even contain a germ of the Austrian theory of the business cycle, which addresses the problem of unsustainable investments. “For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him” (Luke 14:28-29).”
It’s worth mentioning that John Robbins was part of Ron Paul’s staff in the 70s and 80s. For several of those years robbins was Paul’s chief of staff.
November 8, 2011 at 11:05 pm
Steve,
If this “cult” label sticks, Romney is almost certain to pick up the Jehovah’s Witness vote…LOL, good one 🙂
November 9, 2011 at 1:39 am
Steve
I have Ron Paul’s book. I was aware that Robbins was Paul’s chief of staff and that Gary North worked in that office at the same time. If Ron Paul wins the nomination, I will certainly support him.
My statement was “I have not heard any candidate run on the platform that his positions are based upon Scripture.” I believe that applies to Ron Paul as well as other “Christian” candidates. Their positions may be based upon their belief of Scripture, but they do not make that the basis of their campaigns. This is understandable, they are not running for Teaching Elder. They need votes from Christians and non-Christians.
I believe the Bible is our only source of truth. I believe that any political philosophy built upon any foundation other than Scripture is going to be irrational. Most Americans have been heavily influenced by the philosophies of men like John Dewey and William James. They judge whether something is right or wrong based upon the results they think it will achieve. Virtually all candidates campaign as if this were true. I believe that something is right or wrong based upon what God says about it. I don’t believe that a candidate running for national office is going to win either the primary or the general election campaigning on that basis. I believe the ignorance of biblical doctrine fostered by the vast majority of churches in this country is largely responsible for this sad state of affairs.
I still intend to vote for the lesser of two evils in the general election, even if my favorite candidate does not win the primary. I believe not voting constitutes a vote for the greater of two evils.
November 9, 2011 at 8:04 am
Steve M.: “I believe the Bible is our only source of truth.”
Good. Then why not look to the Bible on this issue? Believe it or not, God does have something to say about how Christians ought to choose their leaders.
http://archive.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=693
There’s the biblical standard. Does Mitt Romney hold up under this scrutiny? No he doesn’t, for he does not fear God, is not truthful (see his many flip-flops), and being the socialist that he is, he certainly is not a hater of covetousness. He is, therefore, disqualified.
But, you say, If Romney wins the nomination, and if Christians refuse to vote for him, won’t that mean four more years of Obama? Perhaps. But we really shouldn’t be concerning ourselves with what might happen if we don’t vote for this or that “lesser of two evils” candidate. For one, as has already been said, the “lesser of two evils” is still evil; and two, “Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?” Our concern is to seek first the kingdom of God. It is God’s concern to providentially rule the course of the future, for his ultimate glory.
Did a fear of lions deter Daniel from doing what was right in the eyes of God? No. And although Daniel was cast into the pit, did not God spare him? “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.”
November 9, 2011 at 12:33 pm
I note that Joel’s author Scott Whiteman cites in his article’s closing argument the GENEVA BIBLE’s notes.
That bastion of theonomic interpretation also opines that Pope Boniface VIII was the beast of Rev. 13:18 (see also notes #5 on Rev. 11:2, & #3 on 11:7).
Further, on Obadiah 20: “By the Canaanites, the Jews mean the Dutchmen, and by Zarephath, France, and by Sepharad, Spain.” Oh.
And of course, that Michael the Archangel is indeed the Lord Jesus Christ (see Geneva notes on Dan. 10:13, 12:1 & Rev. 12:7).
{I acknowledge that this last could be construed as guilt-by-association criticism, as the 7th-Day Adventists, Watchtower Society, & Harold Camping also all later identify Angel Michael as Messiah. They MAY all be right, but it is curious coincidence.}
Just as detractors of King James and his Bible translation are accused of political bias, so we should admit that the Geneva Bible editors and its modern day proponents are no less motivated by such interests, as well.
There is none righteous, no, not one.
November 9, 2011 at 1:01 pm
Joel (Scott?),
You say to Steve M after citing the (your?)article, “There’s the biblical standard.”
WHAT biblical standard? How orthodox must a political candidate BE? No new taxes, pull back our army, anti-sodomy, anti-abortion, and uncovetous? Are these enough?
Does a candidate need to subscribe to the Solemn League & Covenant in order to be votable?
November 9, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Joel
I am trying to understand your Daniel and the lion’s den analogy. You seem to be equating not voting in any election in which neither of the candidates is a Christian with doing what is right in the eyes of God. Unfortunately, neither you nor the article you link to makes a compelling case for that view.
Apparently, in your view, the Bible forbids any Christian from voting in an election unless one of the candidates is a Christian. The article you point to does not say this. It says we are not obligated to vote in such a case. Please find for me the place in Scripture where the Jews are instructed to refrain from voting and allow the Gentiles to select their leaders.
I don’t intend to waste my time pointing out all the logical blunders in the linked article.
November 9, 2011 at 5:34 pm
@ Steve
Are you sure you want to say that you’re going vote for the lesser of two evils? It seems to me that by making this claim, what you’re really saying is, “let us do evil that good may come.” I doubt that’s what you intend to say, but that is the meaning of your words
November 9, 2011 at 7:01 pm
Steve
It is other people who are claiming that my casting a vote is evil. I am saying it would be evil for me not to vote in this election. I agree with Hugh that we are always voting for the lesser of two evils. In some cases there is a large disparity between the lesser and the greater evil.
I am an employer. I have non-Christians working for me. I buy merchandise from non-Christians. Am I doing evil that good may come?
November 9, 2011 at 7:13 pm
Steve,
I think we both know the answer to the question is no, it is not evil to do business with non-Christians. But then that’s not what we’re discussing. We’re discussing voting for public officeholders.
And I’m still perplexed why you think withholding your consent in an election is an evil thing.
November 9, 2011 at 7:56 pm
I’m still waiting for a description & c.v. of an acceptable candidate. (Joel, Steve Matthews, or anybody!)
Christian? Insufficient?
Liberal? NO!
Charismatic? NO!
Arminian? Probably not.
Evangelical? Getting better.
Reformed? Hmm….
Paedobaptist? Now you’re cookin’!
Presbyterian? Oh yeah!
Solemn Leaguer & Covenanter? EUREKA, we found him!
How rarified need we get in this?
November 9, 2011 at 7:59 pm
Or, to put it another way:
Has there EVER been a U.S. presidential candidate who would have been acceptable to Steve Matthews or Scott (Joel?) Whiteman?
November 9, 2011 at 8:00 pm
BTW, boys & girls, this isn’t Messiah we’re voting for, it’s merely the president of the U.S.A., a glorified public servant, for crying out loud!
Whiteman makes it sound like we’re voting for a pope or king!
November 9, 2011 at 8:08 pm
I’ll take Ron Paul any day. I probably would have voted for Robert Taft, but maybe that’s just my Ohio bias showing.
November 9, 2011 at 8:09 pm
Hugh,
The president is a public servant, but the Bible calls these people ministers of God. No small thing, that.
November 9, 2011 at 11:16 pm
Hugh,
The designation, “The lesser of two evils,” is used by others to justify their vote for candidates of questionable character, I.E., those who will disobey their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution to a lesser degree than another candidate. It is easy to prove that ‘conservative’ candidates are worse than ‘liberal’ candidates because they present themselves as something they are not. They are the political equivalent of wolves in sheep’s clothing. Though this world may never be perfect we are still to vote for honorable men, men who will obey the oath of office.
“What we ARE to do is to pray for any & all of our leaders, since they are put in place not by the electorate, an inheritance, or a judiciary, but ultimately by God himself.”
No one has questioned our duty to pray for those in power and I know you don’t deny second causes. Though God has ordained everything that comes to pass we are still a responsible beings. Responsible beings are duty bound to choose honorable rulers for themselves and their neighbors if living within a system of government that affords it. We live under such a system by God’s providence.
Eric
November 10, 2011 at 12:44 am
“I’m still waiting for a description & c.v. of an acceptable candidate.”
I’ll bite. How about someone who takes the oath of office seriously. It is obvious that an oath of office is an oath to God and SHOULD be taken very seriously.
“Presbyterian? Oh yeah!”
Woodrow Wilson was the president of Princeton–a Presbyterian– and certainly did not take the oath of office seriously. He blasphemed God by breaking his oath. He was one of the biggest low-lives to usurp that office.
As I’ve said many times on this blog, Christians of all strips think the office of president is like that of monarch, it is not. They believe the president is authorized to do anything, he is not. He has a very limited role, to execute the laws passed by congress. Congress is to pass laws pursuant to the Constitution. Where the Constitution does not speak, the president MAY NOT ACT.
The Constitution is clear that a religious test should not be given to those serving in office. This same Constitution indicates that congress can pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. Religion had a certain meaning in that day and did not include atheism.
“BTW, boys & girls, this isn’t Messiah we’re voting for..”
That was good for a chuckle. Thanks, Hugh. Is that possible? Anyway, don’t we have a command to love our neighbor as ourselves. Wouldn’t it be love to our neighbor to support servants who will not steal from them, lie to them, or tyrannize them in any way? Put in another way, should I vote for someone who is going to rob my neighbor and give his property to those who don’t deserve it. And, when he seeks redress, lock him up and persecute his family.
Eric
November 10, 2011 at 9:52 am
This obviously is a blog dedicated to rather “high-level” theological discussions, so maybe this question is inappropriate here… But since it is an open forum, I’ll ask anyway.
First I must state that I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And as such, I was wondering if someone could explain to me, in layman’s terms, why I am not, in your opinion, a Christian? The reason I ask is because I know that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior and I have found other’s descriptions of me, as a member of the LDS church, very curious.
Secondarily, I was wondering how many tens of thousands… Or hundreds of thousands… Or millions of members are required in order for the LDS church to move beyond your definition of a cult?
Respectfully,
A Friend
November 10, 2011 at 10:43 am
Hi Friend.
While there are a great number of Mormon beliefs that are contrary and even hostile to Christianity, if I were to pick only two they would be Mormonism’s understanding of the person of Jesus Christ (Mormons believe Jesus is not God but rather a god) and the belief that salvation is through faith plus works.
Further, the idea that Mormonism is a cult has nothing to do with the lack of adherents, but rather it has to do with the doctrines believed.
November 10, 2011 at 11:28 am
Eric,[blockquote]…those who will disobey their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution to a lesser degree than another candidate.[/blockquote]Who can find such a righteous man? Has there ever been one in our nation’s history? Or in the world, for that matter?[blockquote]…Though this world may never be perfect we are still to vote for honorable men, men who will obey the oath of office.[/blockquote]You’ve ruled out Wilson; anyone left in the history of the world that you in good conscience could vote for?[blockquote]…Christians of all strips [sic] think the office of president is like that of monarch, it is not. They believe the president is authorized to do anything, he is not. He has a very limited role, to execute the laws passed by congress. Congress is to pass laws pursuant to the Constitution. Where the Constitution does not speak, the president MAY NOT ACT.[/blockquote]That was point about the Prez being a glorified civil servant. He’s our lackey, in theory. God puts kings, presidents, and dog catchers in their jobs.
November 10, 2011 at 11:30 am
Little trouble with the tech, there:
Eric, You say, “…those who will disobey their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution to a lesser degree than another candidate.”
> Who can find such a righteous man? Has there ever been one in our nation’s history? Or in the world, for that matter?
“…though this world may never be perfect we are still to vote for honorable men, men who will obey the oath of office.”
> You’ve ruled out Wilson; anyone left in the history of the world that you in good conscience could vote for?
“…Christians of all strips [sic] think the office of president is like that of monarch, it is not. They believe the president is authorized to do anything, he is not. He has a very limited role, to execute the laws passed by congress. Congress is to pass laws pursuant to the Constitution. Where the Constitution does not speak, the president MAY NOT ACT.”
> That was my point about the Prez being a glorified civil servant. He’s our lackey, in theory. God puts kings, presidents, and dog catchers in their jobs.
> Hugh
November 10, 2011 at 11:40 am
LDS Friend,
Hear, hear, to Sean’s post. Rightly knowing who JESUS was/is & WHAT he did/does are crucial. We believe Mormonism fails critically on both counts. The only God/man Jesus Christ died to actually save his people from their sins.
Another huge gulf fixed ‘twixt biblical Christianity & Mormonism is the disparate sources of our respective authorities:
We claim ONLY the 66 books of the Bible to be the true word of God, whereas your founder and later ‘apostles’ add supposed divine inspiration and revelation in other books.
This places the LDS in the same spiritual boat as Catholicism, Islam, and 7th-Day Adventism, to name three.
November 10, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Sean,
Thank you for your prompt response.
Statements like “there are a great number of Mormon beliefs that are contrary and even hostile to Christianity” are the exact reason I posted to this blog. I am Mormon. Jesus Christ is my savior and my example. So I know that I am a Christian – A follower of Christ.
You state that “Mormons believe Jesus is not God but rather a god.” I believe Jesus is the only begotten son of our Heavenly Father, the savior who prayed and suffered in Gethsemane, and who was crucified on the cross, and the one who now sits at the right hand of God. I don’t understand how these beliefs of mine are in any way “contrary” or “even hostile to Christianity.”
You also stated Mormons have “the belief that salvation is through faith plus works”. I believe we are all saved by the grace of God and faith in Jesus Christ. I believe that we are all judged based on our works. Again, I don’t understand how these beliefs of mine are in any way “contrary” or “even hostile to Christianity”.
As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I am simply trying to understand why I am reading statements like “there are a great number of Mormon beliefs that are contrary and even hostile to Christianity”, when they are exactly the opposite of how I feel.
Hugh,
Thank you for your response also.
I would be interested to hear your opinion as to how Mormonism fails critically on who Jesus was/is and what he did/does. (In elementary terms, please. I make no claims to being a scholar.)
And I completely understand the gulf that exists between your beliefs and mine with regard to sources. In the end, I suppose I’m just wondering why the need for labeling my religion, along with many others, “wrong”? Can’t we all just get along?
Again, respectfully…
November 10, 2011 at 4:37 pm
Dear LDS Friend,
1) We must begin with our basis for truth.
Where do you learn that, “Jesus is the only begotten son of our Heavenly Father, the savior who prayed and suffered in Gethsemane, and who was crucified on the cross, and the one who now sits at the right hand of God”?
From the Bible alone, or from the lips of men? Men may get things right, but how do you KNOW something to be true? We say that these truths are taught in the Bible, but that in and of themselves, they are insufficient for one to call himself a Christian.
And, “I believe we are all saved by the grace of God and faith in Jesus Christ. I believe that we are all judged based on our works.”
This generally comports with Eph. 2:8-10. But this too is not enough to save anyone.
2) While all our elders, teachers, or pastors should not proof-text to prove a doctrine, they (& we) derive do doctrine from a text.
Christians should use Scripture alone.
The LDS canon for determining truth includes The Book of Mormon (BOM),
Doctrine & Covenants (D&C),
The Pearl of Great Price (POGP), &
The Journal of Discourses (JOD).
3) The LDS do NOT claim to be merely another Christian sect or denomination.
To the contrary, according to one source*:
> Joseph Smith proclaimed that God Himself had designated the LDS Church as “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth” (D&C 1:30).
> The LDS Church claims to have the only true priesthood that is required to act in the name of God…
> It claims to be the “only true church” and the only church with the authority to act in God’s name.
> They do not accept any other church’s baptisms… their baptism is the only one recognized by the Lord.
> This belief, coupled with their belief in the need for a Mormon temple marriage to gain eternal life, compels them to take their message to the world…
> The Mormon Church does not claim to be Protestant. It claims to be a divine restoration of Christ’s true church. It therefore rejects the validity of any other church…
* See http://www.utlm.org/faqs/faqgeneral.htm#1
November 10, 2011 at 6:29 pm
This is the “church” of Herren Romney &
Huntsman: Not another denom, but the only true church.
Mr Huntsman has called Mr Jeffress “a moron.”
From his interview by Wolf Blitzer:
“The fact that, you know, some moron can stand up and, uh, make a comment like that, I, you know, first all, it’s outrageous; second of all, the fact that we are spending so much time discussing it, uh, makes it even worse…”
“Well, I don’t have any time to discuss this kind of issue. I say let’s respect religious, uh, beliefs; let’s show a little more tolerance in terms of what people’s belief systems are.
“Uh, Thomas Jefferson got it right when he spoke about uh, uh, tolerance for religions and the fact that they wouldn’t play a role, uh, in American, uh, politics. And here we sit over 200 years later, uh, spending more time than it’s worth on this very subject…”
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/10/news/la-pn-huntsman-mormon-20111010
November 10, 2011 at 6:33 pm
Friend writes:
On the surface couldn’t Roman Catholics say the same thing? But they, like you, believe in a different Christ – at least not the one revealed and portrayed in Scripture. Certainly the Jesus of Mormonism is not the savior who atoned completely for the sins of those He died. According to a LDS leader LeGrande Richards; “Jesus Christ redeemed all from the fall; He paid the price; He offered Himself as a ransom; He atoned for Adam’s sin leaving us responsible only for our own sins.” That is hardly the Jesus Christ of Scripture. According to the apostle John Jesus is “the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”
The 3rd LDS Article of Faith says, which is, “We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.”
Sounds to me like salvation requires you do you part and Christ’s atonement is not sufficient to save sinners from the penalty and judgment on account of their sins. I’m no expert on Mormonism, but that hardly resembles the Jesus Christ of Scripture or the Gospel and thankfully so. Christians believe that they will be judged based on Christ’s works imputed or reckoned to us. If justification depended on our works no one could possibly be saved because according to Paul “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”
Your feelings quite aside, Joseph Smith wrote:
“I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural; and who can contradict it?”
November 10, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Hugh,
Those were kinda messy responses. I’m not sure what you are trying to say. Do you affirm human responsibility? If you do, maybe we could rap this up.
Eric
November 10, 2011 at 8:49 pm
Eric,
Do you answer my questions?
November 10, 2011 at 10:55 pm
Secondarily, I was wondering how many tens of thousands… Or hundreds of thousands… Or millions of members are required in order for the LDS church to move beyond your definition of a cult?
Dear Friend,
I always understood a cult to be a group that denied the early church creeds, i.e. Trinitarianism and the deity of Christ.
Say what you will of the FV or arminianism or even amyrauldianism or charismaticism, they all believe in the Trinity and that Christ was truly God and the second person in the former.
cordially
November 11, 2011 at 12:44 am
Hugh,
“Do you answer my questions?”
What? Did I steel your toy in the sandbox or something? 🙂
I answered the below question…
“I’m still waiting for a description & c.v. of an acceptable candidate.”
My answer was…
“I’ll bite. How about someone who takes the oath of office seriously. It is obvious that an oath of office is an oath to God and SHOULD be taken very seriously.”
I’m not sure what ‘c.v.’ is.
Steve Matthews has answered the question several times. Ron Paul. Here’s a man who actually knows what the categories are.
.
.
.
.
.
“Who can find such a righteous man? Has there ever been one in our nation’s history? Or in the world, for that matter?”
You are avoiding the point and you sound suspiciously like Sean Hannity. How about someone who will obey their oath of office. Someone of good character with a record of honesty. Certainly you have elders in your church that aren’t ‘perfect’ and yet they are elders and meet the qualifications. Don’t you rejoice when elders in the P.C.A. uphold their oath and excommunicate unrepentant heretics. If it is possible to have honorable elders in the Church of Christ it should be possible to have honorable civil servants. It may not be easy to find them, but should we lower the standard and make the office available to anyone? This is just what we’ve done in the political realm.
.
.
.
.
“You’ve ruled out Wilson; anyone left in the history of the world that you in good conscience could vote for?”
If I had lived then, I’d have probably written someone in, but that was past and this is present. Again, Steve Matthews has answered the question.
.
.
.
.
“That was my point about the Prez being a glorified civil servant. He’s our lackey, in theory. God puts kings, presidents, and dog catchers in their jobs.”
Certainly God ordains everything that comes to pass. I’ll reiterate. Do you affirm human responsibility?
Eric
November 11, 2011 at 11:28 am
Eric,
Working backwards thru your post: Silly question, but yes, I affirm human responsibilty, just as I affirm God’s absolute sovereignty.
I am asking you, not Matthews. Is there no one you could have ever voted for for president?
“c.v.” stands for “curriculum vitae”: an overview of one’s trainig, experience, & qualifications. You indicate that they must “obey their oath of office.” OK. Thanks.
Finally, here’s the rub: “should we lower the standard and make the office available to anyone?”
We differ greatly over what are the qualifications. That’s our disagreement!
Your presidential-candidates’ standards are decidedly higher than mine.
November 13, 2011 at 9:17 am
@ Steve Matthews: “Romney is an establishment Republican … welfare at home, warfare abroad, and funny money to pay for it all.”
Besides the argument that electing a Mormon to the Presidency hastens the effect of giving de facto legitimacy to the cult, which I think it does, from a pragmatic point of view the above statement by Steve says it all.
LJ
November 14, 2011 at 2:56 am
LJ
You’re right. We’d be so much better off with a Marxist who hates, with all his being, everything this country has stood for and has done more damage to this country in four years than any previous President (in fact more than most thought possible) than a establishment Republican.
Presidents in this country are elected by all the citizens, not Christians only, so I don’t understand how electing a Mormon gives defacto legitimacy to the “cult”. Even if it did, what sort of legitimacy would not voting against Obama give to whatever his actual beliefs are?
Romney is not my cup of tea, but if you are suggesting there is no difference between Romney and Obama, I am obligated to suggest that there is no difference between your reasoning ability and that of someone in a vegetative state.
November 14, 2011 at 10:40 am
Hugh,
“Silly question, but yes,”
It’s not silly at all. When the point of argument involves human responsibility as well as God’s sovereignty.
“We differ greatly over what are the qualifications. That’s our disagreement!”
That may be true, but We shouldn’t disagree, There is one standard by which to judge qualifications.
“Your presidential-candidates’ standards are decidedly higher than mine.”
They are, and it is right that they should be, but they are not my standards. Our founders, and there were more than Jefferson and Madison, believed that putting immoral (those who disobey the oath of office) men in office was an act of a traitor, not punishable, but traitorous none the less.
Eric
November 14, 2011 at 10:55 am
Steve M & LJ: Yes; at least BHO is a putatively Christian Marxist (the friendliest kind, right?)! 😉
That’s my point, Steve M: We’re dealing on the one hand with degrees of evil in our nominees, and on the other with scrupulously pious brethren who cannot find a man righteous enough to vote for the presidency. That’s their privilege, or course.
Brothers: As I’ve said, this is a public service position we’re looking to fill. Or, as one said above, it isn’t a kingship.
So why bicker over whether [y]our guy is spotless when no one is righteous (not one)?
If you can never in good conscience vote for any presidential candidate, why debate gradations of evil? No one is worthy of your vote!
Instead of arguing specifics, why not just decry ANY presidential election voting, and remind us that they’re all crooks, and that we ought not vote for anyone?
November 14, 2011 at 10:55 am
“I am obligated to suggest that there is no difference between your reasoning ability and that of someone in a vegetative state.”
Hmmm….the ‘ad hominem’ excuse.
November 14, 2011 at 11:00 am
Eric,
Who has ever –by your reckoning– not disobeyed or broken their oath of office?
November 14, 2011 at 12:21 pm
Eric
I apologize for my unwarranted smear against those in a vegetative state.
November 14, 2011 at 2:00 pm
In an election where we can write in other candidates we should write in other candidates if neither of the front runners is acceptable. Obviously, the choice of a human is always the choice of one evil individual to fill an office, but I agree with others that we should compare candidates the civil magistracy to the standard for public officers in a similar way that one would compare a candidate for elder to the standard set for an elder.
We are still in the primary, and we should all support Ron Paul at this point. If he loses, we should examine the winner and consider if he is a person for whom one can vote in good conscience. I don’t think Paul is sinless. I think he does meet the minimum standard and is the best declared candidate.
The minimum standard is not sinless perfection. The argument that no standard other than sinlessness is possible would have to be applied to church officers, but obviously their is a standard for church officers other than complete righteousness that they must meet in order to be a church officer. why is it not possible for there to be a similar sort of test for civil magistrates?
November 27, 2011 at 7:12 pm
Steve M.: “I don’t intend to waste my time pointing out all the logical blunders in the linked article.”
No, go ahead, please, if you would, waste your time by explaining to me exactly what is so wrong about the article? I’m serious. Lay it on me. I want to learn. Because apparently I’m just too young and/or stupid to figure this Christianity thing out.
Frankly, Scripturalists (of which I consider myself) really confuse me. On the one hand, they say that the word of God alone is the source of truth, and that it is all one needs for “doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” But then when it comes to very important and practical issues such as how a Christian ought to vote, suddenly anything (pragmatism, tradition, ANYTHING) apart from biblical application is to be considered. When I attempt to introduce a Biblical standard, all I’m met with are fallacious tangents about the Geneva Bible, sarcastic ridicule, and accusations of theonomy.
Fine, whatever. Stick to your pragmatism then. Or vote for the guy your mother and/or father would have voted for. Obviously the Bible has nothing to say on this, at least not anything meaningful. Or, if it does, Scripturalists haven’t yet figured it out.
After all, nobody’s perfect, right? How many times are you going to resort to that tired canard, Mr. McCann?
You know, say what you want about the theonomists and Christian Reconstructionists, but at least they have some damn answers. All I can ever get out of you lot is bunch of hand-wringing, guesswork and sarcasm. I guess the Bible alone is all the Christian needs, except when it comes to voting box. At that point, it’s every man for himself!
December 7, 2011 at 12:24 am
[Great blog, Steve. Here’s what I saw on the surprising net!]
mormonism’s DIRTY little secret
by Aaronita Smith
Non-Mormon scholars as well as Mormon ones are aware of a hard-core pornographic drawing in the “Book of Abraham” which is Mormon-approved scripture.
This Book is part of the “Pearl of Great Price” which, along with the “Book of Mormon” and the “Doctrine and Covenants,” make up the LDS church’s “triple combination” in one volume.
The porn is found in Fig. 7 of Facsimile 2 in the “Book of Abraham” which shows two beings facing each other, which were described by Joseph Smith as representing the “Holy Ghost” and “God sitting upon his throne,” the latter clearly showing an aroused male sex organ.
After Smith published this sketch in his newspaper in 1842, which offended Mormon sensibilities, the phallic portion was whited out for more than a century until the “restored” LDS church decided in 1981 to restore what had long been censored!
Equally shocking was the discovery that the “Book of Abraham” had nothing to do with Abraham or his God but was actually based on ancient Egyptian funeral documents depicting occultic obscene practices – and the original sketches showed an erotic phallus on both beings including the one Smith blasphemously claimed was the Holy Ghost!
For further information see “Book of Abraham” (Wikipedia). Also see Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s “Mormonism – Shadow or Reality?” which on 76 pages reproduces the original Egyptian X-rated drawings and shows how Smith altered them and created one of his many frauds. Highlights in the classic Tanner work can be seen by typing “Facts From Mormons (By a Utah Resident)” and “What LDS Leaders Say” on Yahoo.
(Mitt Romney didn’t approve of this insight of mine into his faith!)
December 7, 2011 at 3:57 pm
Which could explain the whole polygamy thing, or at least inspired it. =8-0
December 7, 2011 at 4:02 pm
What about Hunstman? What about Hunstman?!
Is he “Restored Phallus Latter Day LDS,”
or, “Masked Phallus Old School LDS”?
December 7, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Vision Forum’s Doug Phillips, Esq. weighs in on GOP candidates:
11/09/2011 CNBC/Michigan Republican Party Presidential Debate (Others, too!)
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/news_and_reports/a_constitutional_report_card_f_3.aspx
December 7, 2011 at 4:12 pm
Mr Phillips’ “Biblical Principles for the Ballot Box: ~
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/ballot_box/
Including 2008’s “Maxims of Christ’s Servant Standing Before the Political Parties of America”
And, “Five Things Which Are No Different About This Election from All Other Presidential Elections in Our History”
December 7, 2011 at 4:14 pm
From “5 Things” by Douglas W. Phillips, Esq., November 4, 2008
1. God is still on the throne.
2. The Scriptures are still the only rule of action for Christians.
3. The duty of believers at the ballot box is the same today as it has always been. We may only select leaders who meet the Scriptural requirements for civil magistrate. Leaders need not be perfect, but they must be qualified.
4. The obedient response of the elect of God to the Lord Jesus Christ and His law-word, not partisan politics or the results of presidential elections, is the key to national blessing.
5. The results of the presidential election, regardless of who wins, will work together for the good of the elect of God.
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/ballot_box/five_things_which_are_no_diffe.aspx
December 7, 2011 at 4:23 pm
#s 1 & 5 ~ Amen.
#2 ~ Of course, unless you’re working on your car, then a Chilton’s manual helps.
#3 ~ Where does the Bible say THAT? Oops, they didn’t get to vote for Caesar or Pharaoh or King back then. How silly to confuse the kingdoms!
#4 ~ Where does the Bible promise THAT to New Cov’t believers? Oops, it doesn’t. More kingdom confusion.
All this makes sense as long as you’re Postmillennial and Theonomic. I reject the triumphalism of my zealous and pious brethren, and consider the election of the President little different than choosing the dog catcher: Differing in their respective areas of responsibility, but not in kind. Both are merely our lackeys, and voting for a lesser evil is not evil — it is meant to staunch the greater evil.
December 7, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Steve M: “… Romney is not my cup of tea, but if you are suggesting there is no difference between Romney and Obama, I am obligated to suggest that there is no difference between your reasoning ability and that of someone in a vegetative state.”
Forgetting your agrarian comparisons of my (our) reasoning abilities(s) to vegetative states, electing the first Mormon to the Presidency will lend credibility to the cult, similar to the electing of Kennedy swept away nearly two hundred years of American (Protestant) reluctance to electing a Roman Catholic. I don’t see how you don’t see this!
Next, the question is “where do you draw the line?” If we continue to elect, as Republicans, RINO’s, one after another, then the inevitable result will be no line of demarcation between Dems and Repubs. The line hardly exists even now.
So, for the first time in my life as a Repub I’m not going to simply vote for the nominee, no matter who it is, and I’m going to vote my conscience, which has been chaffing under all the previous Repub nominees I have voted for (McCain, Bushes I & II, Schwarzenegger, etc., etc., etc.).
Let the chips fall where they may. I guess I’ll have one of those bumper stickers that reads “Don’t Blame Me I voted for Ron Paul!
BHO is an abortion of a President, no argument there, he will (again) be simply awful. But the Repubs got us where we are now along with the Dems and the Repubs just keep sliding farther and farther and farther LEFT.
Enough already. I’m out!
LJ
December 7, 2011 at 4:57 pm
The misguided but well-meaning zeal of our Reconstructionist brethren is quaint, but dangerous.
We are not trying to elect a King, nor are we trying to usher in a semi-eschatological Utopia!
We are polishing brass on a sinking ship, trying to perfume the stinking corpse called the world.
We are trying to preserve what order we can so that the Word of life may go out, that we may honor our Lord, and live in safety & peace.
But we are not trying to build a mixed church-state kingdom, nor call down physical blessings by our piety.
Israel was God’s one-and-only legitimate theocracy.
All other Puritanical attempts at national covenant-making with God by harlot church-states have been merely to try to wed the Bride of Christ to the world (a beautiful woman to a rotten corpse), and then present this spiritual/ carnal mish-mash to God, thinking they are doing God service!
December 7, 2011 at 5:18 pm
I have known several Mormons over the past 25 years. I was even in business with one for a short period of time. All were nice people. All were very competent in different areas, e.g., business, finance, law enforcement, politics, etc. But all were, to a man or woman, extremely immature with regard to philosophy or theology. It was extraordinary just how naive, gullible, and wrong-headed they all were regarding spiritual things. You couldn’t have a level-headed discussion with any of them in these areas, their eyes just glazed over, again, TO A MAN!!!!
I am convinced, but obviously cannot prove, that electing a Mormon to the Presidency will cause every Mormon on the planet to secretly if not publicly thump their chests, wink, and point towards Washington with a knowing little smirk “Well, we elected a Mormon for President … didn’t we?”
Don’t think for a minute that electing the first Mormon as President won’t add legitimacy to the cult in minds of, not only, the Mormons themselves, but also the general public.
LJ
December 7, 2011 at 5:42 pm
LJ
In the primary, I intend to vote for Ron Paul. In the general election I will be voting against Obama. You can call what you intend to do any thing you like. I call it voting for Obama.
I have heard a lot about being said for using one’s vote to send a message to someone. I intend to use mine to rid this country of the worst president we have ever had by far.
As for sending a message, I intend to purchase and wear a “Some village in Kenya is missing its idiot” tee shirt.
December 7, 2011 at 6:02 pm
Was this the cant against Geo. W.?
>….electing a Freemason to the Presidency will cause every Mason on the planet to secretly if not publicly thump their chests, wink, and point towards Washington with a knowing little smirk “Well, we elected a Freemason for President … didn’t we?”
>Don’t think for a minute that electing the first Masonic President won’t add legitimacy to the cult in minds of, not only, the Freemasons themselves, but also the general public.<
December 7, 2011 at 6:36 pm
Hugh: Ha! Got me there. I think we’ve likely been electing Freemason’s for a long time.
Steve M: Sad that we agree on so much! 🙂
Please send me one of those T-shirts!!!!!
December 7, 2011 at 6:45 pm
I’m sorry but I simply will not be able to ever look at our President (Romney) and not see the ragged outline of the magic undies showing through his “outer” garment.
Didn’t even know “W” was a Mason. He didn’t advertise it that I’m aware of and I suspect there have some previously elected who broached the credibility gap.
I heard when Kennedy was elected the Pope thumped his chest and bruised his hand on one of his medallions.
December 7, 2011 at 6:48 pm
I have not figured this issue out yet, but I tend to think that some minimal standard of political orthodoxy is necessary to be able to morally vote for a candidate.
Steve M,
It is wrong for you to suggest that a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for Obama. A vote for Obama is a vote for Obama. A vote for a third party guy is a vote for a third party guy. If the two main parties nominated an avowed Marxist and an avowed fascist, then would you think it is moral to vote for either the Marxist or the fascist if they were winning handily in the polls, or would you vote for a third party despite the fact that either the Marxist or the fascist might be the lesser of two evils?
Until you face this question squarely, then you have not dealt with the logical implications of your view. Please explain to me what you think Scripture would have a Christian do in this situation.
Hugh,
I am not ready to accept your conclusion. Would you please answer the question about having to choose between a Marxist, a fascist, and a long-shot good guy? Until I am able to resolve this example in my own mind I cannot join your side of the debate. I am inclined to think that there must be a line past which a Christian cannot go.
The Christian must oppose tyranny in word and legal action to protect the rights of himself and others. The Christian must refuse to obey orders to do evil. The Christian must resist the efforts of tyrants to do criminal evil to others. The Christian lesser magistrate or the Christian greater magistrate must resist the efforts of lesser or greater magistrates in the same jurisdiction to do tyranny.
If these things are true, how can it be ethical for the Christian to vote for a man whom the Christian believes would be a tyrant once in office?
December 7, 2011 at 6:55 pm
@ Jed
Thanks for the info on the X-rated Mormon pics. I’m going to order a copy of the Tanner book you mentioned, but only for the articles 😉
December 7, 2011 at 7:17 pm
Hugh,
For the sake of the dog please don’t vote for a Marxist Dogcatcher. My Yorkie is a Liberterrier and would be greatly offended if you did that!
LJ
December 7, 2011 at 7:33 pm
LJ,
We’ve already SEEN a Marxist dogcatcher; worse than a Masonic Prez: Obama the Marxist Dogcatcher*!
Yorkie can rest peacefully if we all vote for Captain Underpants!
(* Wasn’t that an ’80s synth-pop band, “OMD”?)
December 7, 2011 at 7:55 pm
David
You said, “I have not figured this issue out yet, but I tend to think that some minimal standard of political orthodoxy is necessary to be able to morally vote for a candidate.”
I believe you promised at some point in one of your comments that you would tell us what your minimum standard was. If you have, I have missed it. Would you please let me know the standard, below which, if I vote for a candidate I am immoral?
You have suggested that it may be immoral for me to vote for a candidate who falls below a certain (yet unidentified) standard. Sean, on the other hand, suggested voting for Obama might represent a good strategy.
It seems to me I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t, but I’m OK as long as I don’t vote for any Republican other than Ron Paul.
December 8, 2011 at 6:54 pm
BISHOP MITT; from today’s L.A. Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-romney-faith-20111208,0,4579590.story
….Over the course of two decades, Romney served as spiritual and administrative leader for a Boston-area church and then as the head of a dozen Mormon churches. The work often took up 30 hours a week of his time, or more.
Had he not entered politics, Romney — a sixth-generation member of the Mormon Church whose ancestors were among the earliest members of the faith — might have put himself on a path to be chosen for the church’s governing body in Salt Lake City, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
Faith-based credentials such as Romney’s are normally gold on the campaign trail. Yet Romney does not speak of his time as a church leader in Belmont. His Republican presidential campaign biography doesn’t mention any of his church roles, not even his stint as Sunday school teacher.
“People in his campaign wished he’d never been a Mormon or a Mormon leader,” said Ronald B. Scott, a fellow Mormon and the author of a just-published book about Romney, “Mitt Romney: An Inside Look at the Man and His Politics.” “They haven’t said, ‘How do we turn this sow’s ear into a silk purse?’ And he doesn’t talk about it.”
Romney knows well the political perils of a Mormon background. According to a Gallup poll, nearly 20% of Republican and independent voters say they wouldn’t support a Mormon for president. Others might agree with the Rev. Robert Jeffress, an evangelical Texas preacher who caused a stir in October when he called Mormonism a cult just before introducing Texas Gov. Rick Perry at the Values Voters Summit in Washington.
Romney’s service to the church “is something that most Americans would admire,” said David Campbell, associate professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame, who is Mormon. “But if he begins to talk about his service, then it would open up all the other questions about his religion.”
Romney was the bishop of the Belmont ward from 1981 to 1985, the “shepherd of the flock,” said Kim Clark, president of Brigham Young University-Idaho and a member of the congregation at the time. Romney was not paid for his service in Belmont or Boston; in the Mormon Church, congregation members are responsible for running all pieces of church life as volunteers.
His responsibilities included visiting the sick, meeting with youth groups, counseling married couples and delinquent children, arranging Sunday services, church classes and other events, and using Scriptures and the Book of Mormon to guide his congregation….
December 8, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Thanks for catching that, Hugh. I had no idea Romney was that deep in the LDS church.
December 22, 2011 at 1:47 am
Another victim of PC-ness:
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/13/gingrich-aide-is-out-after-blasting-mormonism/?odyssey=obinsite
EXCERPT: The new political director for Newt Gingrich’s Iowa campaign “agreed to step away” from the job after it came to light that he had said some evangelicals believe God would reject Mitt Romney because of his Mormonism.
Craig Bergman during a focus group last Wednesday with the Iowa Republican and McClatchy newspapers said he thought Romney’s religion eventually would cost him votes.
“A lot of the evangelicals believe God would give us four more years of Obama just for the opportunity to expose the cult of Mormon,” Bergman said during the focus group, according to The Iowa Republican. “There’s [sic] a thousand pastors ready to do that.”
In a statement Tuesday evening, the Gingrich campaign said Bergman had “agreed to step away from his role with Newt 2012.”…..
December 22, 2011 at 1:49 am
Don’t know where else to post this, Sean, but when the Reds and the Red-States agree on domestic terrorism of US citizens by the gubmint, we be in the deepest of weeds.
http://rt.com/usa/news/defense-ron-paul-detention-745/
December 22, 2011 at 9:45 pm
Sounds like Bergman committed the truth. That’s a big no-no.
December 22, 2011 at 10:05 pm
The race to racism? Who’s more un-PC, Libertarians or Mormons?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/the-story-behind-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250338/
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/1222/Racist-newsletters-put-Ron-Paul-on-the-defensive-for-first-time
December 23, 2011 at 9:49 am
The Atlantic I think nailed it. The slurs were orchestrated by Rothbard “Outreach to the Rednecks” strategy which Rockwell bought into and initiated under Paul’s name in those newsletters. Of course, even now if the Rockwell would man up and admit he’s the one directly responsible the question would be why would Paul have any dealings with Rockwell and he’s had many.
December 24, 2011 at 10:29 am
Good grie … I just saw this from Hugh:
“Yorkie can rest peacefully if we all vote for Captain Underpants!”
Captain Underpants? Ha, ha, haaaaaaa
January 5, 2012 at 9:24 am
@Steve. With Santorum’s rise after Iowa you’ll have to revise this as now ersatz-“Evangelicals” will have to explain why they’re backing a devote Roman Catholic. Maybe you can title it “Vatican City Here We Come.” 😉
January 5, 2012 at 9:17 pm
Sean, you must’ve read my mind 🙂
January 6, 2012 at 12:45 pm
Sean: “… With Santorum’s rise after Iowa you’ll have to revise this as now ersatz-”Evangelicals” will have to explain why they’re backing a devote Roman Catholic. Maybe you can title it “Vatican City Here We Come.”
Makes sense. Big top down church government for the Roman Church-State, bit top down federal government with Santorum’s version of RINOism. Fits like a hand in a glove.
Sad testimony for the theological bankruptcy of the Iowans who voted for Santorum and claim to be evangelicals.
Has everyone read what he and his wife did with their little baby that passed away? My wife said that she read they actually brought the baby’s (dead) body home to show their other children and laid in bed with it. I don’t know what you think but that’s downright creepy – very Romish weird stuff.
LJ
January 6, 2012 at 12:51 pm
This just in: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57353736-503544/santorum-calls-for-jesus-candidate/
Santorum calls for “Jesus Candidate.” That should make the ersatz evangelicals day.
LJ
January 6, 2012 at 9:34 pm
@LJ. I don’t know how creepy it is. I knew a couple that knew their child was going to be still born but carried it to term only to give their child a proper burial. I don’t know that I can point fingers at how another person deals with tragedy, especially the lost of a child. I can fault Santorum for a lot of things, but on this one I think I will give him a pass.
January 7, 2012 at 10:55 am
Sean: yes, we should and I do pity the man and his wife losing their child. I also realize people act kooky sometimes at the death of a loved one since i worked in the Funeral business with my father in the 70’s for a sort period of time (my dad was a Mortician and Funeral Director for 50 years). But this seems beyond the pale of even ordinary run-of-the-mill kookiness; besides the fact that it’s likely against the law to not dispose of human remains, and that’s all they are, in a proper manner. Don’t the Scriptures give some guidance about handling dead bodies?
Anyhow, we’re pretty convinced Santorum is certifiable and the WORST OF THE BUNCH of RINO’s.
I’m hangin’ with big Ron for the duration even though I’m not 100% with him on all his policy views.
January 7, 2012 at 1:36 pm
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/01/was-santorum-weird-for-bringing-home-his-stillborn-baby-updated/250957/
Jeff Godlberg writes: “There is much I don’t like about Rick Santorum’s ideas, but the story of how he and his wife dealt with the tragic death of their baby is not something that bothers me. Pete Wehner has an appropriately indignant post, quoted below, about the attacks on Santorum over this issue (and he summarizes the sad story as well), but it strikes me as indecent to criticize the loving, if discomfiting, behavior of people who have just suffered the worst possible tragedy known to humankind…..”
January 7, 2012 at 1:36 pm
Goldberg
January 17, 2012 at 11:19 am
Catholic or Mormon 4 Prez?
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/01/12/v-print/135748/evangelicals-have-big-voice-in.html
excerpts:
January 17, 2012 at 10:30 pm
Lord help us, the Republic is done. The term “Evangelical” has devolved into a meaningless word floating around in the minds of the American electorate.
January 17, 2012 at 10:34 pm
@ Hugh. Interesting article. Apparently Brad Adkins has doubts about Moromonism being Christianity but embraces Romanists as brothers in Christ. It never ceases to amaze me how blind people can be to the evils of that Babylonian harlot.
January 17, 2012 at 11:09 pm
Voddie Baucham endorses Ron Paul.
http://www.gracefamilybaptist.net/voddie-baucham-ministries/blog/why-ron-paul-2012-01/
January 18, 2012 at 1:46 am
Steve Matthews
Is it your position that one is saved by “accepting Christ” as ones “personal savior”?
January 18, 2012 at 6:50 pm
If by “accepting Christ as ones personal savior” you mean “believe the Gospel,” then, yes.
January 19, 2012 at 10:33 pm
Steve
Do you consider these two phrases synonymous?
January 19, 2012 at 10:52 pm
I do. Why do you ask?
January 21, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Incl. more from Powdersville Baptist Pastor Brad Adkins: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16663273
January 21, 2012 at 8:50 pm
Thanks for the link, Hugh. Once again you’re guilty of finding something interesting 😉
One thing that caught my attention was that all the churches they showed in the clip were hard core Arminian. SC has a significant Reformed heritage, but you’d never know it from that story. And that Jesus statue…pretty freaky if you ask me.
I thought the pastor had some good remarks about Romney’s Momonism. I wonder what he thinks about Santorum’s and Gingrich’s Catholicism? That’s just as big a problem. Actually, it’s an even a bigger problem inasmuch as the Roman Catholic Church is a bigger and more dangerous enemy of the Gospel than the LDS church, but I guess JFK put an end to such discussions in polite society.
We’re now faced with a situation where we’re likely going to see a Mormon or Romanist Republican nominee being championed by Evangelical conservatives who want to oust Obama, because -among other reasons – they don’t believe Obama is a Christian. That’s what I call irony. I’ve got news for those folks: Barak Obama has a better chance of being a Christian than Romney, Santorum and Gingrich put together.
At the same time, these Evangelicals largely ignore the one man in the race who has given substantial evidence that he is a Christian. But the problem with Dr. Paul, it seems, is that he doesn’t want to bomb enough countries for their satisfaction. Particularily if those countries happen to be located in the middle east and are perceived as threats to Israel.
January 21, 2012 at 10:23 pm
Thanks, Matthew. And amen, amen, amen, & amen.
January 21, 2012 at 10:24 pm
Oops. STEVE MATTHEWS….
January 21, 2012 at 11:12 pm
No problem, Hugh. I get that a lot. Maybe I should start posting under then name Matthew Stevens 🙂
January 24, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Romney: Middle-of-the-Road Mormon?
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/romney-crist-rubio-gingrich/2012/01/23/id/425195?PROMO_CODE=DFD0-1
January 25, 2012 at 12:24 pm
Poor Romney. Don’t you think as we approach the convention more and more of the wacky Mormonism’s will get press coverage? I mean the MSM is always looking to make Repubs look bad and Mormonism is a fertile field of really, really weird stuff. So I look for the MSM to have a field day if Mitt looks like the nominee. Of course they won’t go into Santorum’s Opus Dei (Jesuit) ties or Gingrich’s infidelities and flip-flopping liberalism. Those two are for now pretty much getting a pass.
Santorum the “evangelical” candidate.” Give me a break.
But Ron Paul is of course UNELECTABLE.
BTW, did I see Mitt hitching up his undies during the last debate or was that something else?
Call 911 … Captain Underpants to the rescue!!!!
LJ
April 3, 2012 at 8:25 pm
Mormonism & glam rock?
By Rolling Stone
April 3, 2012 11:50 AM ET
Appearing on the staunchly conservative talk show Fox and Friends this morning, KISS frontman Gene Simmons argued that America’s next president should be Mitt Romney.
“Hindsight is 20/20. I have some real issues with the economy and how it’s being done. America should be in business and it should be run by a businessman,” said the musician, who voted for Barack Obama in 2008. “Americans, smartly, and I applaud them for doing so, vote on the issues and not the party,” he said.
“America is a business. If you can’t afford to do something, no matter how much bellyaching everybody does – I’m so sorry, if you can’t afford it, you shouldn’t do it.”
Simmons also plugged his new chain of restaurants, Rock and Brews, which launches internationally today. The franchise, he said, hires military veterans.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com
gene-simmons-endorses-mitt-romney-on-fox-and-friends
April 3, 2012 at 11:17 pm
Thanks, Hugh. I wonder what makes Simmons think Romney will do any better with the budget than BHO. In the debates, Mitt couldn’t thump the tub hard enough for more military spending. And then there’s that whole Romney care thing…
April 4, 2012 at 12:57 am
Simmons is said to have financially counseled his son years ago, saying, “One day, my money will be yours.”
“But,” said the youngster, misquoting the Book, “Money is the root of all evil.”
“No, son,” replied the stage-blood-spewing bassist, “the LACK of money is the root of all evil.”
April 4, 2012 at 12:58 am
Will “Rock & Roll ALl Night” or “Love Gun” be the Romney theme song @ the GOP convention?
April 4, 2012 at 9:05 am
@ Hugh, way back in the thread: “We are polishing brass on a sinking ship, trying to perfume the stinking corpse called the world.”
So funny at church we are now studying and comparing the various eschatological views. Hugh’s slogan quoted above is the premillenial dispensational mantra. Now, I’m positive brother Hugh’s no dispie, I suspect but don’t know if he’s amill, but is it so farfetched and unbiblical that Christ and the gospel will be victorious in time? Hugh, bro, it is a wheat field after all and NOT a tare field
Reformed Amillenialism has rendered the church impotent to fill the earth, in time in history, with Christ’s victory at the cross through the preaching of the gospel.
Onward Christian soldiers … Ron Paul 2012 for the Republic!
LJ
April 4, 2012 at 11:25 am
Bro LJ,
As an Amill* (striking that perfect biblical balance!), I can see both kingdoms growing apace.
The devil’s tares threaten; hence, the dire Titanic analogy. BUT, the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever.
Both grow. Christ’s is spiritual, not of this world, while the devil’s is carnal, he being the ‘god’ of this age. Both postmills and premies err: The first hope for straight-up carnal victory, the others look for first a temporal defeat, and then carnal victory. Christ on an earthly throne and all that.
The gospel is/ will be victorious not in some physical, temporal-glory kind of way, but is even now doing its work of turning many tares into wheat, goats into sheep.
We are NOT pre-consummationist (looking for carnal, millennial glory of either the pre- or post- variety), but post-consummationist: Looking for a new heavens and new earth, etc. after his 2nd coming.
* Described by Greg Beale as “inaugurated eschatology.”
April 4, 2012 at 12:28 pm
What is interesting is that there is SO MUCH that is common to both the Amill and Postmil positions, e.g., the “millennium” began at the ascension of Christ, etc. But I’m sure you’re aware that there are several versions of the Postie position? For instance, Charles Hodge, a Postie of some note, had a different view of the millennium considering it to be a literal 1,000 years some time in the future. I see the Rev 20 reference as a figurative “long period of time” like the cattle on a thousand hills, etc.
If both Kingdoms are growing apace, why is it necessary for Satan to be released “for a short time” before the end? If the carnal Kingdom with Satan as the “god” of that age is growing equal to the Spiritual Kingdom of Christ, why does God release our adversary at the end? I always took the release as a final demonstration of just how desperately, even during the Golden Age, we need God in Christ; and then the end.
I agree that Christ’s Kingdom is “not of this world” in the sense that the weapons, etc., of our warfare are not carnal and that our primary weapon is the preaching of the gospel. But the Kingdom grows and fills the earth and becomes a great tree, etc., in time and in history. Why must it not occur until after the consummation? It appears from my reading that the historic Protestant and Reformed view until fairly recently (I think) has been Postmil. Additionally, if there’s not an uplift in the world as men are regenerated and become new creatures in Christ is it not a sorry testimony to our sanctification; goats into sheep that remain indistinguishable from goats, tares that are indistinguishable from wheat doesn’t seem logical. If a 2nd century Christian were teleported to the 20th century do you think he would think the gospel had had success or not? From that tiny little band of brothers at Christ’s ascension to every nation, tribe, and tongue having been penetrated by the gospel. What would happen to the earth if the church of Jesus Christ actually believed the gospel, took the great commission seriously, and went out in the power of the Spirit and men were truly converted? Would there possibly be a little improvement? 😉
Anyhow, thanks for the response.
LJ
April 4, 2012 at 12:57 pm
Hugh,
I guess my view is simply that Christ is King of heaven and earth, the gospel will be victorious in time and history with Christ’s enemies even now being put under His feet, that with this victorious reign of Christ will come a necessary and non-stoppable improvement and uplift in all the earth, that the promises in the O.T. of the “golden age” are meant pre-consummation as Christ even now subdues his enemies, and that when the Lord returns He will come to take a Bride that is prepared and ready for Him.
It all seems so very positive and, uh, Biblical :-)!!!!!!
Cheers,
LJ
April 4, 2012 at 2:14 pm
I see the Rev 20 reference as a figurative “long period of time” like the cattle on a thousand hills, etc.
> Thou art not far… 🙂
If both Kingdoms are growing apace, why is it necessary for Satan to be released “for a short time” before the end? If the carnal Kingdom with Satan as the “god” of that age is growing equal to the Spiritual Kingdom of Christ, why does God release our adversary at the end?
> Dunno they’re quite EQUAL, but the advance of Christ’s kingdom is due to the chaining of Satan, which is to be undone for a season.
I always took the release as a final demonstration of just how desperately, even during the Golden Age, we need God in Christ; and then the end.
> AMEN!
I agree that Christ’s Kingdom is “not of this world” in the sense that the weapons, etc., of our warfare are not carnal and that our primary weapon is the preaching of the gospel.
> Our ONLY weapon – The sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
But the Kingdom grows and fills the earth and becomes a great tree, etc., in time and in history.
> Not necessarily visibly.
Why must it not occur until after the consummation? It appears from my reading that the historic Protestant and Reformed view until fairly recently (I think) has been Postmil. Additionally, if there’s not an uplift in the world…
…Would there possibly be a little improvement? 😉
> Sure, the gospel advance does generally help society as folks are converted, but not in the utopian vision of der Posties. Amills see a decidedly less triumphalist ‘uplift’ than do Postmill Puritans. I sympathize with your grief over the state of society and the church, but the Postmill myth is not our hope.
I guess my view is simply that Christ is King of heaven and earth, the gospel will be victorious in time and history with Christ’s enemies even now being put under His feet, that with this victorious reign of Christ will come a necessary and non-stoppable improvement and uplift in all the earth, that the promises in the O.T. of the “golden age” are meant pre-consummation as Christ even now subdues his enemies, and that when the Lord returns He will come to take a Bride that is prepared and ready for Him.
> Amen. Except for the bit about a “necessary and non-stoppable improvement and uplift in all the earth.” The golden age is RIGHT NOW! Christ is reigning, and we be seated with him. But both his & Satan’s kingdoms grow until the end. Then, Christ will completely destroy death and the devil once and for all.
April 4, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Thanks for the response.
You wrote: But the Kingdom grows and fills the earth and becomes a great tree, etc., in time and in history.
> Not necessarily visibly.
Then since we are still alive and in the world, what does regeneration and a sanctified life “look” like? If the world is made up of Christ’s enemies (it certainly is) and they (I being formerly one myself) are subdued, what does that “look” like, i.e., how does it flesh out? Would I feel safer strolling down the street at night in Calvin’s Geneva or a Los Angeles neighborhood in Watts? Puritan New England or the South-side of Chicago? Iraq or Tulsa Oklahoma? In other words, there is a REAL concomitant to regeneration that works itself out in our lives and the world in which we live. What does it look like in the Amill vision (note I did NOT say hallucination, tee hee)?
Utopian? I don’t hold that view. THERE WILL BE TARES until the end, just fewer and fewer as Christ achieves His victory. And He will be victorious since (even) the gates of Hell shall not prevail against Christ the King, the Warrior par excellence.
Would a gospel believing England, POST King Henry during the time of the Puritans, be a Postmill myth or a reality? Or the Roman Empire POST the Milan edict? Was Germany, Luther’s Germany, better before or after the Reformation? Another Postmil myth? Yes I know Germany is now without the gospel and so is England; but that’s the whole point isn’t it?
You wrote: The golden age is RIGHT NOW! Christ is reigning, and we be seated with him. But both his & Satan’s kingdoms grow until the end. Then, Christ will completely destroy death and the devil once and for all.
Well, amen, and we agree on so much it’s hard to fuss, but I want to know what the Amill vision of the world looks like? We don’t live in a vacuum and our regeneration and sanctified lives mean something, therefore we should glorify the Lord with our bodies. What does that look like or how does that work out in this life? If Christ is reigning, and He most certainly is, then how do his subjects behave? Are you saying it has NO AFFECT on our lives, the lives of our communities, the nation?
I think the gospel preached and believed has a DRAMATIC affect on men individually. And nations are made up of individual men, and the world is made up of individual nations, and Christ is subduing all of it to the glory of God, and Postmillenial Eschatology is a Biblical reality rather than a myth.
I just want to know what effect saved men living sanctified lives has on … the world?
LJ
April 4, 2012 at 3:41 pm
So sorry but I have to bow out now. I’m going home to get ready to go to the UCLA Youth for Ron Paul rally tonight. We’re registering voters and participating in the rally – which SHOULD BE HUGE! We’re expecting possibly over 5,000 souls!!!! We’re winning the YOUTH and that’s where a movement begins; the Paul campaign is as much a movement as it is a Presidential campaign.
I love the eschatology discussion and when I’m back at the computer I’ll re-engage my good Amill friends, deceived as they may be, and help them put some legs to their over-spiritualized eschatology 🙂
By the way, I will be one of the few blue-hairs at this rally, but I must confess the youthful exuberance over Dr. Paul is thrilling and, contrary to what my wife may think, I DO STILL LOVE A THRILL!!!!!
LJ
April 4, 2012 at 3:56 pm
Ha ha! 🙂 Great!
Go get ’em RP & LJ!
April 4, 2012 at 4:14 pm
Then since we are still alive and in the world, what does regeneration and a sanctified life “look” like? If the world is made up of Christ’s enemies (it certainly is) and they (I being formerly one myself) are subdued, what does that “look” like, i.e., how does it flesh out? Would I feel safer strolling down the street at night in Calvin’s Geneva or a Los Angeles neighborhood in Watts? Puritan New England or the South-side of Chicago? Iraq or Tulsa Oklahoma? In other words, there is a REAL concomitant to regeneration that works itself out in our lives and the world in which we live. What does it look like in the Amill vision (note I did NOT say hallucination, tee hee)?
> Better than it would without the saints, but not as nifty as millennialists would have it… NOT like Rome, Geneva, or Puritan ANYWHERE! There is and never will be the Kingdom of heaven in triumph here on [this old] earth, just the new one!
> BTW: Chicago, LA, Iraq, & (even) Tulsa prove our point that both kingdoms are alive & well & growing.
Would a gospel believing England, POST King Henry during the time of the Puritans, be a Postmill myth or a reality? Or the Roman Empire POST the Milan edict? Was Germany, Luther’s Germany, better before or after the Reformation? Another Postmil myth? Yes I know Germany is now without the gospel and so is England; but that’s the whole point isn’t it?
> These short-lived ‘utopias’ prove our point of the kingdom of Satan being bound/ hindered/ plunderable, but not extirpated. England, Germany, Switzerland, Iraq, and even the USA have failed to [yet] be the Postmill payoff Posties are looking for. Maybe later?
You wrote: “The golden age is RIGHT NOW! Christ is reigning, and we be seated with him. But both his & Satan’s kingdoms grow until the end. Then, Christ will completely destroy death and the devil once and for all.” Well, amen, and we agree on so much it’s hard to fuss, but I want to know what the Amill vision of the world looks like? We don’t live in a vacuum and our regeneration and sanctified lives mean something, therefore we should glorify the Lord with our bodies. What does that look like or how does that work out in this life? If Christ is reigning, and He most certainly is, then how do his subjects behave? Are you saying it has NO AFFECT on our lives, the lives of our communities, the nation?
> No, just that it’s much less dramatic, drastic, and world-changing than the optimistic vision forecast by the deluded Puritans. (And more optimistic than the dire pessimism of the dispies. Both Post & Pre Millers see a future golden age of universal, physical, geopolitical peace. Hooey, in short. You all over-carnalize the whole deal. We are charged with over-spiritualization. Guess we’ll see who’s right.
I think the gospel preached and believed has a DRAMATIC affect on men individually. And nations are made up of individual men, and the world is made up of individual nations, and Christ is subduing all of it to the glory of God, and Postmillenial Eschatology is a Biblical reality rather than a myth.
> We wait in vain for that Postmill-topia.
I just want to know what effect saved men living sanctified lives has on … the world?
> Really good; life-changing, even! Just not world-changing.
April 5, 2012 at 9:56 am
LJ
“I think the gospel preached and believed has a DRAMATIC affect on men individually. And nations are made up of individual men, and the world is made up of individual nations, and Christ is subduing all of it to the glory of God, and Postmillenial Eschatology is a Biblical reality rather than a myth.”
While I agree that the Gospel, properly preached and believed, will not only change individuals, but nations too as I think was the case with the Reformation, nevertheless, neither Christ nor any of his apostles taught of a transformed world, but rather individuals brought to right relationship with God through faith in the atoning death of his Son Jesus Christ, and awaiting his second coming as judge and to be glorified in his saints. Postmellenial Eschatology has more in common with the lost world of Atlantis and the Bermuda triangle than with Biblical eschatology.
“I just want to know what ffect saved men living sanctified lives has on … the world?”
Read Hebrews 11.
Have a nice long weekend.
April 5, 2012 at 11:37 am
It’s a nice theory, but like the millennial madness of the Dipsie, the Postie looks in vain to see ANY historical indication of such trajectory into a golden age.
God is not redeeming nations, nor convenanting with them. (That was then, this is now.)
Rome has apostasized. Germany & Geneva, Scotland & England, & even the American experiment have all shone briefly; all have faded.
“My kingdom is not of this world.” & “The god of this world [aiwnos]” indicate trouble ahead. Oh, and, “In the world ye shall have tribulation…” He has overcome the world, but the physical is not until the consummation.
There is no pre-consummational physical glory but in the minds of men.
April 5, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Long night, but I’ll attempt to focus on a few things, like myths that are often repeated against the Postmill view:
Myth one: Post Millennial theology does not teach that Christians will convert the world. Only God converts and his primary means is the preaching of the gospel. Sometimes there is widespread belief and sometimes the land appears very arid and uncultivated. But God is always, without exception, conquering according to his good pleasure and his good timetable. It is an Amill fantasy that God is done with the earth. As the gospel is faithfully preached and believed there is an irresistible increase in obedience to his Word.
Myth two: as I wrote before Postmillenialism does not teach that Christians will root out all evil in the world but that an increasing obedience to God’s Law will become the norm rather than the exception. It does teach that obedience to God’s Law will eventually be the norm. There will be tares in the field until the end, but it’s a wheat field not a tare field.
Myth three: Post Millennial theology does not teach that Christians will eliminate wicked rulers. This ties in with Myth’s one and two above. But it is true that as individuals, which make up whole countries, are regenerated they will hold wicked rulers to account in this life and consequently the existence of wicked rulers will diminish.
Myth four: 1,000 years is not literal but, instead, a figurative long period of time.
Finally Myth five (there are more but I don’t have time right now to address them): Post Millennial theology does not teach that Christians will bring about the Kingdom of God on earth through their own efforts. That is contrary to ANY Postie I’ve ever read. Instead, Postmillennialism teaches that Christ will triumph over His enemies by the Power of His Word and His Spirit before coming to judge the world. Even now his enemies are being made as footstools for his feet.
Again, the simple Postmill presupposition is that Christ is King and will conquer his enemies in time and in history; before the consumation. The gates of hell will not prevail, as Amills and Premills suppose while attempting to exegete Scripture with a newspaper in one hand and their Bible in the other. Instead, Christ will prevail as His kingdom comes and his will is done both in heaven and on earth.
It seems to me one must have a particular ox to gore in order to make the Scriptures teach a pessimistic outcome for earth under the reign of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. While Postmillenialism does not answer ALL the questions, it makes more sense from the Scriptures than the other views.
LJ
April 5, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Hugh,
You wrote: I just want to know what effect saved men living sanctified lives has on … the world?
> Really good; life-changing, even! Just not world-changing.
We agree here. So how does individual salvation on a level, say, as broad as the Reformation NOT lift a nation? And if the gospel were preached and believed by one nation after another would not the earth be filled with His righteousness? The Apostle wrote in the first century that the WORLD was turned upside-down. Only twelve started were sufficient then; what could 12,000 or 12 million do now? Would that not be a greater work? What holds us back? I hope it’s not an imbedded pessimism in the power of Christ to rule the earth.
LJ
April 5, 2012 at 7:10 pm
I guess even if I’m wrong I’m in pretty good company:
Charles Hodge explains his optimistic eschatology:
As therefore the Scriptures teach that the kingdom of Christ is to extend over all the earth; that all nations are to serve Him; and that all people shall call Him blessed; it is to be inferred that these predictions refer to a state of things which is to exist before the second coming of Christ. This state is described as one of spiritual prosperity; God will pour out His Spirit upon all flesh; knowledge shall everywhere abound; wars shall cease to the ends of the earth, and there shall be nothing to hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord. This does not imply that there is to be neither sin nor sorrow in the world during this long period, or that all men are to be true Christians. The tares are to grow together with the wheat until the harvest. The means of grace will still be needed; conversion and sanctification will be then what they ever have been. It is only a higher measure of the good which the church has experienced in the past that we are taught to anticipate in the future. This however is not the end, After this and after the great apostasy which is to follow, comes the consummation.
I’m still not convinced what “the great apostasy” is exactly. But with the rest I am in agreement. Clearly the postmill view is not some weird theological fantasy (as some here have implied), but is a well-established Reformed eschatology.
LJ
April 7, 2012 at 3:40 pm
LJ Says: April 5, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Long night, but I’ll attempt to focus on a few things, like myths that are often repeated against the Postmill view:
Myth one: Post Millennial theology does not teach that Christians will convert the world. Only God converts and his primary means is the preaching of the gospel. Sometimes there is widespread belief and sometimes the land appears very arid and uncultivated. But God is always, without exception, conquering according to his good pleasure and his good timetable. It is an Amill fantasy that God is done with the earth. As the gospel is faithfully preached and believed there is an irresistible increase in obedience to his Word.
Agreed, except that you misread us, speaking of myths. We never say he’s done with the earth. For the 3rd and final time: Both Christ’s & Satan’s kingdoms grow until the end. You see a more stunning visible victory of the church militant than do we.
Myths 2-5 ~ Of course Christ conquers. The debate is how triumphantly does he do so before consummation. I highlight above the overly bold, optimistic remarks (echoed below by Hodge).
Again, the simple Postmill presupposition is that Christ is King and will conquer his enemies in time and in history; before the consumation. The gates of hell will not prevail, as Amills and Premills suppose while attempting to exegete Scripture with a newspaper in one hand and their Bible in the other. Instead, Christ will prevail as His kingdom comes and his will is done both in heaven and on earth. It seems to me one must have a particular ox to gore in order to make the Scriptures teach a pessimistic outcome for earth under the reign of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. While Postmillenialism does not answer ALL the questions, it makes more sense from the Scriptures than the other views.
LJ Says: April 5, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Hugh, You wrote: I just want to know what effect saved men living sanctified lives has on … the world?
> Really good; life-changing, even! Just not world-changing.
We agree here. So how does individual salvation on a level, say, as broad as the Reformation NOT lift a nation? And if the gospel were preached and believed by one nation after another would not the earth be filled with His righteousness? The Apostle wrote in the first century that the WORLD was [THEN!*]turned upside-down. Only twelve started were sufficient then; what could 12,000 or 12 million do now? Would that not be a greater work? What holds us back? I hope it’s not an imbedded pessimism in the power of Christ to rule the earth.
* Proves too much!
What if, if, if, if…
LJ Says: April 5, 2012 at 7:10 pm
I guess even if I’m wrong I’m in pretty good company:
Charles Hodge explains his optimistic eschatology: “As therefore the Scriptures teach that the kingdom of Christ is to extend over all the earth [and it does!]; that all nations are to serve Him [that, it doesn’t]; and that all people shall call Him blessed [all kinds, not everyone ~ this too would porve too much, for you’ve already admitted that not all men will be converted]; it is to be inferred that these predictions refer to a state of things which is to exist before the second coming of Christ.
“This state is described as one of spiritual prosperity;
God will pour out His Spirit upon all flesh;
knowledge shall everywhere abound;
wars shall cease to the ends of the earth, and
there shall be nothing to hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord.
— B U T —
This does not imply that there is to be neither sin nor sorrow in the world during this long period, or that all men are to be true Christians. The tares are to grow together with the wheat until the harvest. The means of grace will still be needed; conversion and sanctification will be then what they ever have been. It is only a higher measure of the good which the church has experienced in the past that we are taught to anticipate in the future. This however is not the end, After this and after the great apostasy which is to follow, comes the consummation.”
Oh.
I’m still not convinced what “the great apostasy” is exactly. But with the rest I am in agreement. Clearly the postmill view is not some weird theological fantasy (as some here have implied), but is a well-established Reformed eschatology.
It’s both: a well-established Reformed fantasy! 🙂
April 7, 2012 at 4:08 pm
Fantasy shmantasy
April 7, 2012 at 8:35 pm
Just as in the upcoming elections, we will see.
April 23, 2012 at 12:10 pm
http://apprising.org/2011/10/10/mormonism-is-a-non-christian-cult/
‘Nuff said….
May 1, 2012 at 10:18 am
[…] a Mormon takes the White House, what does it mean for evangelicals? A while back I commented on this very issue, and one of my points was that should Mormon Mitt Romney – or John Huntsman who was in the race […]
June 15, 2012 at 12:18 am
I didn’t realize his family history. Interesting!
Full article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18422949
June 25, 2012 at 2:48 pm
Ravi Zacharias on Mormonism ~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWLzHt8ImyE&feature=related
@ 2:50 – 5:00 ~ What about the talks in Utah in 2004?
@ 5:00 – 7:00 ~ Voting for Mitt?
@ 7:00 – end ~ Ravi’s footnote on when to use the term “cult”
You make the call ~ Is this weaselly?
August 30, 2012 at 1:48 pm
Dear Hammer-friends,
If you skip to #3 below it is particularly appropriate for this blog story by Mr. Matthews. He needs to repent too!
I’ve been thinking, and rethinking, just how to say this. How do you say, well, I’m wrong on everything? It’s really hard. But I’m at my best when I’ve been humbled, again, so I’ll try:
1. I was dead wrong about the Stock Market and overall economics in general. Everybody knows the stock market fluctuates but always rallies and always eventually goes up and up. Of course there will always be some minor glitches, boom and bust cycles, but nowadays is no different than any other period in our history. Why did I think otherwise? I’m sure I wasted my hard earned money on, thankfully, only a little precious metals. From now on I’m in for dollar denominated stuff – whatever it is. The dollar is the World’s reserve currency and always will be. I’m also bullish on Europe since they’re obviously too big to fail and America will never let that happen.
2. Safety and security are guaranteed by our government agencies, God bless them one and all, and they’re there to help us. There is no need for an armed citizenry when we’ve got the TSA, FBI, CIA, local police and the Pentagon, this is a small list and there are many more thank Heavenly Father! These agencies are all made up of Americans sworn to protect us even from ourselves (Lord knows we need that). Where I got my infantile notions about the 2nd Amendment I don’t know; I guess I’m just prone to such things – overreacting as usual. With that in mind I’m getting rid of all my guns (after all I don’t hunt) since I don’t and won’t need them. And to demonstrate my sincere sincerity, even faith, I won’t sell them since it wouldn’t be right to make a profit on something like that. So I’ll just turn them in to the police and let them grind them down to the base metal and dust from which they came; good riddance to another silly notion!
3. I repent of my unfounded bigotry about Mormonism. After that speech at the coronation,er, Convention by Mrs. Romney I’m just really sorry for my thoughts about not supporting Mitt. I mean if all Mormon moms are like her, well, what’s not to like? I’m surprised it’s still a minority religion and I bet Mitt can help us move toward a more tolerant attitude, Heavenly Father permitting, toward the really fine Mormon people like Mr. and Mrs. Romney, their children, and all the other Mormons that share our Christian values.
4. Speaking of Mitt Romney. He’s obviously the best choice for President. He’s the complete package and I was wrong, wrong, wrong, to accuse him of being a liberal; he’s not. Why I wandered from the establishment Republican positions I don’t know. It’s likely my immaturity and emotionalism and, let’s face it, I got sucked in by that grouchy old Libertarian malcontent with his silly notions clearly demanding way too much liberty; guns, drugs, food, privacy, private property, personal responsibility, sound money – hooey!
5. I didn’t mess up too much here, thank Heavenly Father, since it’s OK to store some food and water. We are, after all, in an earthquake zone (California). But any fear of a general societal breakdown and loss of law and order is OVER-REACTING, again, and I’m going to start eating some of those MRE’s right now to show my confidence in our government.
6. Thankfully nobody listens to me about our military. We might as well cut our throats as cut our military. Who would make the world safe for democracy if we did? I understand that the moral obligation of America is to go anywhere, fight any battle, win any war to secure a peaceful world. And anybody that won’t fight and die for the Holy Land is unchristian.
7. The Fed is doing just fine thank you and doesn’t need or deserve my uneducated criticisms. I’ve burned my copy of The Creature from Jekyll Island. No more Fed bashing from me and I’m sure President Romney will make the right decisions to protect Wall Street and the Banks.
8. Finally, thank Heavenly Father that the GOP has removed those terrible rules that allowed the dirty grassroots Libertarian fake Republicans to gain momentum. That will never happen again and good riddance. I’m re-registering as a Republican and won’t break my 41-year Republican voting record, yee haaa!
Writing this has been really hard for me and I appreciate your forgiveness if at any time I managed to lead anyone astray. I’m gosh darned happy to be back on the Reservation and glad I’m no longer running around with half-cocked notions keeping me up at night! Sweet dreams.
LJ
August 30, 2012 at 6:07 pm
August 30, 2012 at 6:21 pm
Get the skinny on the LDS [written by 2 Mormons]: http://www.amazon.com/Mormonism-For-Dummies-Jana-Riess/dp/0764571958
August 30, 2012 at 7:19 pm
I guess my “humor” is either NOT humorous or too subtle for my own good. I’ve now had two relatives write back expressing how happy they are that I wrote something sooooo … humble, LOL!
Me, humble? Well there’ll be pork in the trees by morn!
LJ
August 30, 2012 at 10:43 pm
I’m glad to see you’ve come to your senses, LJ. We’ve always been at war with eastasia.
August 30, 2012 at 11:43 pm
LJ ~
I too am glad you’re back on track with the program!
1. Good points all! We love America, and darn it, so does everyone else! We have the winningest smiles and danged nicest economics around!
2. Nice insight, this: “Safety and security are guaranteed by our government agencies, God bless them one and all, and they’re there to help us.” Truer words we never spoken! And you’ll get some nifty food stamps for your firearms of yours, and you’ll FEEL GOOD about getting those dangerous things off the streets!
3. Darn it – YES! Joe S. will one day be vindicated about polygamy, and Brig’s inspired bit about Cain’s progeny! Bring back the old school!
4. AMEN! Preach it, brother! Can we impeach that nefarious gnome from Texas?! Mitt & His Sacred Undergarments make an unstoppable team!
5. Yes, our HF rocks, but he’s not responsible for earthquake-type rockin’!
6. Glad you’re on board here. Let’s grow our beards in solidarity with Major Hasad (a true American hero, visionary, and revolutionary)!
7. Yup – another Paul myth rightly bites the dust. See #1.
8. Freedom is just another word for nuthin’ left to lose, brother. We need it like we need a HOLE in the head! Bring on the regulations that keep us streamlined and safe! See #1, above.
Never question authority, Winston! You can ALWAYS trust the goverment – that’s what it’s here for!
August 30, 2012 at 11:47 pm
Truer words were never spoken… 😉
and that shoulda been Hasan’s chinny chin chin.
Obama Akbar, baby!
August 31, 2012 at 12:08 am
I think I’m gonna cry 😦
August 31, 2012 at 10:06 am
LJ,
Your post reminded me of this dialog:
Agent Smith: [He and Cypher are eating at a fancy restaurant] Do we have a deal, Mr. Reagan?
Cypher: [Cuts a piece of steak and holds it in front of him] I know this steak doesn’t exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After 9 years, you know what I have learned? [Eats the piece of steak and sighs contently] Ignorance is bliss.
Agent Smith: Then we have a deal?
Cypher: I don’t wanna remember nothing. Nothing, you understand? And I want to be rich. You know, someone important … like an actor.
Agent Smith: Whatever you want, Mr. Reagan.
Cypher: Alright, then. Put my body back into the power plant, reinsert me back into the Matrix, I’ll get you what you want.
Agent Smith: The access codes to the Zion mainframe.
Cypher: Look, I don’t know them. I’ll give you the man who does.
Agent Smith: Morpheus.
Eric
August 31, 2012 at 10:35 am
“That, Mr Anderson, is the sound of inevitability.”
August 31, 2012 at 11:11 am
“Washington is Hollywood for ugly people.”
–?
or
“If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.”
–?
August 31, 2012 at 3:24 pm
Speaking of dawgs …
Mittens transports dawg to Washington tied to roof of car:
When Mitt Romney tied the family dog on the roof of his car in an airtight container then drove for 12 hours to Canada, he had no idea it would come back 20 years later to p**s off animal lovers around the country.
But p**s them off it has. In an interview with Fox News Romney, the front runner for the Republican nomination for President, admitted that he did it, and even more claimed that the dog really liked it.
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/176518/mitt-romney-admits-he-tied-family-dog-to-the-roof-of-his-car-video/#jowH1XQ9G6878z4i.99
Mittens said if it worked for Canada it’ll work for Washington!
August 31, 2012 at 4:17 pm
Don’t Roof Rack Me, Bro!
August 31, 2012 at 7:24 pm
He obviously should have eaten the dog instead. That would not have ticked off any “animal lovers”.
September 2, 2012 at 12:52 am
“He obviously should have eaten the dog instead.”
Yeah, a dog is a fine meal.
http://www.moviesoundclips.net/download.php?id=132&ft=wav
September 2, 2012 at 6:56 pm
How about Mr. Goode for POTUS?
http://www.goodeforpresident2012.com/
LJ
September 3, 2012 at 2:21 am
LJ,
I looked at their site and am surprised that a candidate who professes to support the constitution can support the following on taxes:
“Tax Reductions and Fairness: I support the elimination of the Death Tax. Death should not mean the end of the family farm or the family business. A death tax often precludes families from having the homestead or family business. I support and have voted to terminate the current IRS Code at a date determined in the future so it can be replaced with something simpler and fairer. There are several alternatives to the current Code and include the Fair Tax, the Flat Tax, the Transaction Tax, and others. Between the current IRS code and the Fair Tax, I would support the Fair Tax with certain modifications. For example, the Fair Tax, which is basically a national sales tax, has a prebate of $180 per month per person, which should be limited to United States citizens, who are adults and who reside in the United States. I would support a Fair Tax only if certain other taxes, such as the Death Tax and Income Tax were eliminated. If the Income Tax were to be retained, then I would oppose a national sales tax and have a simple flat rate income tax and scrap the current code with its inequities.”
I agree with these gentlemen that the IRS code should be abolished and most of the other issues they touched on, however, the IRS code should be replaced not with the Fair Tax, Flat Tax, or the Transaction Tax but with a constitutional tax.
The Constitution authorizes the Federal Government to lay and collect either direct or indirect taxes. Direct taxes must be apportioned among the states and the indirect tax must be uniform.
If these terms, Direct and Indirect taxes, are not understood then the abuses of government will only continue.
I suggest that anybody who wants to broach this issue get ,and read, Phil Hart’s (http://hart4legislature.com/) book (sometimes tedious) ‘Constitutional Income: Do You Have Any?’ He does a great job explaining the 16th Amendment–how it gave congress no new taxing power–which is best understood in revealing the debates in the legislature that preceded its becoming an amendment–something Jefferson recommends–and the correct supreme court decisions that ensued. This, Mr. Hart does.
Hart explains why the Flat Tax will only bring us back to where we are today as it can be increased at whim by the G’men.
And, this is the ploy of government, much like the election process. People grow weary of one candidate only to embrace another, equally evil, only this time posing as a conservative–like Reagan. In the same way, people are tired of the unconstitutional (illegal) taxes we live under, let’s not, while we run from one form of tyranny, embrace another form of tyranny.
I’m not saying these are bad men, but I have a deep seeded distrust of FratMan–Phi Beta Kappa (PBK)–of all flavors. Have you seen other PBK’s here:
http://www.pbk.org/infoview/PBK_InfoView.aspx?t=&id=59
It just doesn’t sit well with me.
By the way, I’m done voting. I can no longer in good conscience participate in this false paradigm we’ve been coaxed into embracing, and I don’t think voting will change a thing. The only thing that will change this will have to be…
Anyway, just sayin.
Eric
September 3, 2012 at 9:41 am
Eric,
Good points. I guess I’m just not ready to quit voting fruitless exercise though it may be. I can still write in Dr. Paul which may be my only choice since Romney’s out of the question.
Sent from my iPhone
LJ
September 3, 2012 at 9:54 am
Obama eats dog in Indonesia…
http://www.inquisitr.com/221796/mitt-romney-campaign-president-obama-ate-dog-meat/
A dog is a fine meal.
September 3, 2012 at 10:05 am
Well it just wouldn’t be right to insult the culinary traditions of your pagan brethren. I think either man would do anything, say anything, to get elected and get the power.
Sent from my iPhone
LJ
September 3, 2012 at 10:42 am
MORMONS PRAISE ROMNEY FOR SPOTLIGHTING THE FAITH
By KASIE HUNT
— Sep. 2 4:30 PM EDT
You are here
Home » Mitt Romney » Mormons praise Romney for spotlighting the faith
Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and his wife Ann, leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after services on Sunday, Sept. 2, 2012 in Wofeboro, N.H. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and his wife Ann, leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after services on Sunday, Sept. 2, 2012 in Wofeboro, N.H. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, center, his wife Ann, left, and Nancy Marriott arrive at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on Sunday, Sept. 2, 2012 in Wofeboro, N.H. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Ann Romney, center, wife of Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, left, is handed an umbrella by Nancy Marriott as they arrive at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for services on Sunday, Sept. 2, 2012, in Wofeboro, N.H. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Secret Service agents stand guard as Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney walks to his car after services at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on Sunday, Sept. 2, 2012 in Wofeboro, N.H. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
Prev 1 of 5 Next
WOLFEBORO, N.H. (AP) — Republican Mitt Romney, the first Mormon presidential nominee of a major political party, sat in the Wolfeboro Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on Sunday as, one by one, members of his congregation credited him for bringing the faith more into the public eye.
“There has never been as much positive publicity about the church…thanks to the wonderful campaign of Mitt Romney and his family,” J.W. “Bill” Marriott, the chairman of Marriott International, said. Marriott was the first in the congregation to take the podium to offer testimony — examples of his own life experience and how it’s affected his faith, a tradition on the first Sunday of every month in the Mormon church.
“Everybody is looking at us and saying, ‘Are you as good as the Romneys?'” Marriott said. “Today we see the church coming out of obscurity, and we see that 90 percent of what has been written and said … 90 percent of it has been favorable,” he said. “And that’s a great tribute to Mitt and Ann.”
Many Americans have long viewed Mormonism skeptically, and the Salt Lake City-based church has fought for decades for recognition and acceptance as a faith.
In the eyes of Mormons gathered here Sunday, Romney winning the nomination has been overwhelmingly positive for their church.
“He’s a marvelous ambassador of who we are,” said a member of the Archibald family, another large Mormon clan that, like the Marriotts and the Romneys, vacations in Wolfeboro.
The Marriotts and Romneys are close friends; the hotel magnate is a major campaign donor and the candidate used to serve on the board of Marriott International.
Although Romney has long shied away from talking about a faith that has shaped his life, from his childhood to his college years as well as his marriage and business career. He occasionally has recounted his time counseling families who were struggling members of his Boston congregation. He usually doesn’t touch on his two years serving as a missionary in France for the church. And he typically doesn’t mention that he at one point rose to a rank equivalent to a bishop and presided over a group of congregations.
In recent weeks, Romney has started to open up about his faith and directly mentioned it during his Thursday night acceptance speech after members of his congregation took the convention stage to praise his work in the church. Said Romney that night: “We were Mormons and growing up in Michigan, that might have seemed unusual or out of place, but I really don’t remember it that way. My friends cared more about what sports teams we followed than what church we went to.”
Mormonism began in the mid-1800s when, according to believers, an angel presented another book of scripture to Joseph Smith, the church’s founder, called the Book of Mormon. With 14.4 million members, the church is among the fastest growing in the world, supported by a full-time missionary force of about 55,000 young people.
At church Sunday, Marriott talked about the church’s efforts over the years to explain its mission to Americans who don’t understand the faith.
He recounted serving on a committee based in Salt Lake City with Romney’s father, George Romney, and then later being featured in a “60 Minutes” piece on the Mormon Church. During the interview, Marriott said he was asked about the specific undergarments, which he described as a t-shirt and boxer shorts, that Mormons are encouraged to wear. He said he told interviewer Mike Wallace that he wore the garments, and about a time when he caught fire in a boating accident. His polyester pants burned, though his undershorts were untouched.
Marriott said he told Wallace: “These holy undergarments saved my life.”
Later, another church member rose to offer an example of Romney’s influence in publicizing the faith.
She recalled a time when she visited a sick church member in the hospital and a non-Mormon nurse asked her why they had come to visit a woman who wasn’t a relative.
The woman said she told the nurse she was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
And the nurse, clearly recognizing the faith, responded: “Oh, Mitt! Oh, Mormon!”
Sitting in the pews, Ann Romney laughed.
_m
Follow Kasie Hunt on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/kasie.
September 3, 2012 at 10:43 am
Sorry for the lousy cut n paste above. iPad problems.
September 3, 2012 at 11:03 am
The Mormon Heavenly Father must be very pleased with the GOP.
The lovely Romulens leave “Church” yesterday to wonder and acclaim from their brethren.
“There has never been as much positive publicity about the church…thanks to the wonderful campaign of Mitt Romney and his family,” J.W. “Bill” Marriott, the chairman of Marriott International, said. Marriott was the first in the congregation to take the podium to offer testimony — examples of his own life experience and how it’s affected his faith, a tradition on the first Sunday of every month in the Mormon church.
“Everybody is looking at us and saying, ‘Are you as good as the Romneys?'” Marriott said. “Today we see the church coming out of obscurity, and we see that 90 percent of what has been written and said … 90 percent of it has been favorable,” he said. “And that’s a great tribute to Mitt and Ann.”
Many Americans have long viewed Mormonism skeptically, and the Salt Lake City-based church has fought for decades for recognition and acceptance as a faith.
In the eyes of Mormons gathered here Sunday, Romney winning the nomination has been overwhelmingly positive for their church.
“He’s a marvelous ambassador of who we are,” said a member of the Archibald family, another large Mormon clan that, like the Marriotts and the Romneys, vacations in Wolfeboro.
Sent from my iPhone
LJ
September 3, 2012 at 11:28 am
Hail President Captain Underpants!
I wonder if there’ll be a Presidential Executive Order issuing “the garment” to our men in battle to keep them safe?
September 3, 2012 at 11:42 am
Such choices: Roof-Rack Romney or Rack-of-Dog Barry O!
September 3, 2012 at 10:51 pm
@Hugh
Awesome, Hugh!
@LJ
“I can still write in Dr. Paul which may be my only choice…”
I really could not fault you for that, maybe I’ll vote one more time just as you do.
September 4, 2012 at 12:47 am
@LJ
“I can still write in Dr. Paul which may be my only choice…”
Obama would heartily agree with that choice. He applauds your suggestion. I think all of you that would like to see another four years of Obama should use your vote to send a message to someone, what ever that means. Obama is overjoyed with your position.
September 4, 2012 at 1:28 am
“Obama would heartily agree with that choice.”
Yes, but his motives are only wicked, LJ’s, may not be and aren’t if he’s obeying his conscience. Obama’s philosophy as a Marxist is that the ends justify the means, this is why he will not censure himself and drop out of the race. Obama chooses to be dishonest so that he can perpetrate his agenda in the Oval Office. The same is true with Romney.
I recently bought a car and had to show I.D. and endure a background check even though I paid cash because of the Patriot Act passed under Shrubya. This is only one absurd manifestation of the Patriot Act. Obama is merely continuing age-old policies that were ramped up under Shrubya. With Romney it will be the same-ole, same-ole continuation of endless war in the name of fighting terrorism.
If it can be established that Romney equals Obama then it is insane to vote for either. There is enough information available to establish that fact.
Voting for Ron Paul is sending a message: We will not accept establishment candidates any longer.
Not voting is sending a message: We will no longer participate in your false paradigm until such time as enough Americans are awake that we punish you for your violations of the Constitution and your crimes against humanity.
Eric
September 4, 2012 at 1:43 am
We listened to a sermon the other day about John The Baptist as the forerunner who prepared the way for the Messiah, Jesus Christ. In this sermon an analogy was drawn about how in earthly terms messengers would prepare the way for human royalty’s coming to town–repairing roads, blocking traffic, and etc…
A couple weeks ago Romney came to visit the town where I currently reside. The same procedures mentioned above–a preparing of the way for royalty–happened in Romney’s case.
Here’s the point, though some have already drawn the conclusion: We no longer have a government of, by and for the people. If we did, these huckster running for office would not expect to be treated like royalty, but they do.
Romney’s visit to this area was primarily to raise money. I dinner was hosted which cost $25,000 a plate and $2,500 for cocktails.
These are hardly the actions of a candidate who is of the people, by the people, or for the people.
Just sayin.
Eric
September 4, 2012 at 8:13 am
Eric
I got your message. You want four more years of Obama.
September 4, 2012 at 8:40 am
Steve,
That is an illogical conclusion since, we (me, maybe), are writing in Ron Paul. If one writes-in Ron Paul, one wants Ron Paul. If one votes for Romney, one wants Romney. If one votes for Obama, one wants Obama.
What? Do my words and actions no longer have any meaning? Or, must they be interpreted to mean anything you want them to mean?
It seems much of this blog opposes such philosophy.
Eric
September 4, 2012 at 11:26 am
This should tear it for the most adamant Paulicians…
Nicki Minaj has now shared:
I’m a Republican voting for Mitt Romney;
you lazy bitches is ___ing up the economy.
Truer words were never rapped.
Powerful poetry @ work here!
VOTE 4 MITT’S UNDERGARMENTS!
September 4, 2012 at 10:35 pm
“Do my words and actions no longer have any meaning?”
Your action of writing in Ron Paul certainly does have a meaning. It means the rest of us are one vote closer to four more years of Obama. You can feel good about yourself because you have sent someone a message. The message you are sending is music to Obama’s rather large ears.
If you really want to send a message, write in John Robbins. His chances of winning the election are the same as Ron Paul’s and the message would be be just as clear.
September 4, 2012 at 11:14 pm
Steve: If you really want to send a message, write in John Robbins.
John, thank the Lord, is now ABOVE politics. But if he were here with us today I doubt he would agree with you.
What if, seriously, what if EVERY Republican refused to vote for lousy liberal candidates like Mittens? Would we then be more or less likely to field a stronger candidate next time around? What if EVERY Republican had started drawing the line 50-60 or 100 years ago? Would the GOP be throwing up the likes of Dole, W, McCain, or (the worst yet) Romney? I think a compromising pragmatic attitude among Repubs has gotten us in the mess we are in. The next POTUS is probably going to reap the whirlwind anyway. Maybe the Lord is protecting Dr. Paul from historical ignominy.
LJ
September 4, 2012 at 11:21 pm
Steve,
“His chances of winning the election are the same as Ron Paul’s”
Your error is four fold.
First, this is not about probability, it’s about conscience and truth.
“If you really want to send a message…”
Second, I’m not much concerned with what people think, so sending a message to ‘man’ isn’t my highest priority, my first duty is towards God, and not violating my conscience is how He is best served by me in this case.
It is your option to love the world and the things in it, so, knock yourself out, vote for evil.
Third, you accuse us of wanting Obama in office as if our words meant nothing. You are almost as bad as a Van Tillian, but at least you’re not calling God a liar, like they do, only us. But, then again, John Gersner always said peoples hatred of God will cause them to attack us, since they cannot get their hands on Him.
Fourth, you don’t realize that your vote for Romney is symptomatic of the problem that has been occurring for many years, the vote for the (seeming) lesser of two evils is what has brought us to this point. You’re a victim of the dialectic, spiraling us toward total evil.
Eric
September 5, 2012 at 1:20 am
“You are almost as bad as a Van Tillian”
Ow!! You really know how to hurt a guy.
September 5, 2012 at 2:23 am
“What if, seriously, what if EVERY Republican refused to vote for lousy liberal candidates like Mittens?”
I am guessing he would not win the nomination.
What if everything was different from what it is? What if only people that agreed with me were allowed to vote? Would we field a better slate of candidates? I say we would. Unfortunately, everything is the way it is. I am not allowed to personally pick the candidates ( the world would be a better place if I could). I am left to choose between candidates others have chosen. If one of those candidates is considerably worse for the country than the other (and that is clearly the case here), I believe it is my duty to try to stop that candidate from being elected. My vote serves that purpose.
September 5, 2012 at 8:49 am
If you sit in a pile of manure long enough you get used to it. People walk by and hold their noses and you wonder why?
I sat in the GOP for 41 years. I suspected it stank but couldn’t move. I reasoned, Didn’t the GOP have the only viable candidates? You can’t let Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, or Obama get elected! That would be too horrible to contemplate. On it goes getting worse each election till you reach Romney and Obama. Are they the bottom? The dregs? See the downward spiral?
Now I wonder why I sat there so long.
Obama is not the issue. He’s a Red Herring.
Vote for a good man. It’s the right thing to do and, who knows, maybe it’ll catch on and become an upward spiral?
September 5, 2012 at 8:58 am
Next year could it be Rick Santorum (R) versus Maxine Waters (D)!
Here’s a fun game. Let’s see how low we can go!
September 5, 2012 at 10:03 am
LJ,
“f you sit in a pile of manure long enough you get used to it. People walk by and hold their noses and you wonder why?”
You do, indeed, have a way with words. Nicely put!
Eric
September 5, 2012 at 10:29 am
“Next year could it be Rick Santorum (R) versus Maxine Waters (D)!”
Next year either Mitt Romney or Barack Obama will be President. If you believe that it will make no difference which one, then I am wasting my breath.
I believe it does make a difference. I don’t believe that makes me immoral and responsible for the downward spiral this country is in. l don’t believe throwing one’s vote away makes one morally superior.
September 5, 2012 at 10:39 am
“I believe it does make a difference. I don’t believe that makes me immoral and responsible for the downward spiral this country is in.”
It doesn’t matter what you believe.
September 5, 2012 at 11:56 am
Steve,
I would not be comfortable asserting my moral superiority over you not having a righteousness that is my own.
I think BOTH Romney and Obama are corrupt and ungodly politicians, both capable of continuing to ruin our country. I think Ron Paul is a better man than both of them. I suspect you do too since I believe you voted for Dr. Paul in the Primary?
The stand I’m taking is a difficult one and I hope it doesn’t appear I take your view lightly. You’re not the only one I haven’t been able to convince to shun Romney. My wife is an intelligent and godly woman and she cannot bring herself to abstain from voting for Romney and write in Dr. Paul. She thinks Obama is so much worse and believes, as bad as Romney is, his election will help the economy some. She really fears the further harm Obama can do in a second term. I agree if the Dems keep the Senate and take back the House; otherwise the Obamination is a very lame duck.
I still working on my wife … and you!!!!
Cheers,
LJ
September 5, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Shun Romney? We needn’t embrace or shun him. We aren’t voting for pope – this is a glorified dogcatcher position. Even lesser than dogcatcher, b/c an official elected by the people (ostensibly), not an appointee.
To the extent we worry that we are exalting Romeny or validating Romney’s wacky religion by voting for him, we miss what we’re really doing. We are fighting one evil with a lesser evil. Not the least evil available*, but the most electable of the lesser evils.
Every vote we cast, we do for the perceived lesser of the “evils” presented us. Paul may be the least offensive to us, but apart from huge, swift changes in the machinery, he is not a factor. Our choices are a LDS & a socialist.
This is politics. Politics is usually pragmatic. High principles are nice, but were are trying to staunch a bloody flow. Paul is the better physician, granted. [Pun intended.]
But if we believe that R.P. cannot win, are we sinning by voting for the Mitt, who at least believes a whole lot more of our principles than does his nefarious opponent?
Remember: Think dogcatcher, not pope.
Undergarments for President!
* But why stop @ Ron Paul? Why not write in an even better candidate than he?
September 5, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Before you shoot, let me just say that it’s been nice knowing you all.
Aim.
Fire.
September 5, 2012 at 12:47 pm
Hugh: * But why stop @ Ron Paul? Why not write in an even better candidate than he?
Because he’s actually a candidate?
I don’t think the dog catcher holds up to scrutiny. Dog catcher’s don’t issue executive orders that affect an entire nation, they don’t order Americans assassinated, they can’t veto legislation from the Congress, etc., etc.
See my post above. Where does it stop? With Nero running against Maxine Waters? If we Republicans, especially Christian Republicans (even though I’m switching to Independent), don’t stop this insane downward spiral, voting time and again for the “lesser of two evils” until the lesser each times becomes more evil than the one before, WE WILL BE COMPLICIT IN THE ELECTION OF MORE AND MORE EVIL FURTHER PLUNGING OUR COUNTRY INTO RUIN.
LJ
September 5, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Howard Phillips got us all excited years ago with his analogy of the trains heading for a cliff. The GOP train running a bit slower, but still headed in the same fatal direction.
He wanted the US Constitution Party to turn the train around.
Cute illustration, but yes, we can only try to slow the train before it crashes. Such is the reality.
Or, to use your analogy, LJ, we are trying to slow the spiral.
Nero or Maxine? Yikes! Could I write in Barbara Lee? 😉
September 5, 2012 at 1:01 pm
JBB: “It doesn’t matter what you believe.”
Can I quote you on that?
September 5, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Steve M,
I think Eric means it doesn’t matter what YOU, Steve, believe.
September 5, 2012 at 4:26 pm
Hugh: Or, to use your analogy, LJ, we are trying to slow the spiral.
Well I’m flushing Romney and Obama and watching the spiral down the tube …
Try slowing that spiral 🙂
I’ll never vote for another sorry a** Repub as long as I live as long as they keep throwing up the same bile over and over and over and over …. again.
If all we can do is slow it down, ultimately to no avail, why no speed ‘er up a bit, eh? What’s the diff?
September 5, 2012 at 4:26 pm
People will believe ANYTHING. That doesn’t make it true. There were people, maybe there still are, who used to say, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.” To this, I responded, “God said it, that settles it.” One’s belief of God’s Word does not MAKE it true or add one iota to God, it is already true and stands on its own merits. Obviously it is good that one believes the truth and disbelieves the lie, but our response–belief or disbelief–doesn’t change real states of affairs–what is.
September 5, 2012 at 4:37 pm
@Hugh,
“Before you shoot, let me just say that it’s been nice knowing you all.
Aim.
Fire.”
You are entitled to your own conscientious decision. I sincerely wish you would vote for Paul but I will not bury you 😉 because you vote for ‘that-other-one,’ what’s his Romney.
To my knowledge you have not made the assertion that, “a vote for Paul is a vote for Obama.” This is what raised my ire. Perhaps Steve is a provocateur, of sorts. 🙂
Eric
September 5, 2012 at 5:30 pm
So, LJ, are you speeding up the flushing spriral by voting R.P.?
IAre you saying that a vote for Paul is a vote for Obama?
Great post, BTW – LOL!
Also,
We don’t know what the future holds. It may be to no avail, it may not be. Just tryin’ to slow the flush…!
September 5, 2012 at 6:47 pm
did you know that the swirl, vortex, in a flushing toilet in the Western hemisphere rotates opposite one flushing in the East?
This fascinates me. Say, you’re on a Princess Cruise and you’re heading west towards Australia and your standing over the toilet flushing, flushing, flushing, just watching the swirly, vortex, go round ‘n round?
At what point exactly does it reverse? What if it’s in mid-stream? How’s that work?
These things really bother me and keep me up at night.
LJ
September 5, 2012 at 6:56 pm
I just went on Google and apparently the swirl doesn’t change; it’s an urban legend.
Whew! That just saved me a whole prescription of Ambien 😉
September 5, 2012 at 8:01 pm
“These things really bother me and keep me up at night.”
Don’t be trouble LJ, and be of good cheer, the Lord knows, and we know, that no matter which way the swirl goes–left, or right– gravity takes it down. Always! The same is true for evil–left, or right, It ALWAYS spirals down.
Eric
September 5, 2012 at 8:13 pm
JBB: “People will believe ANYTHING. That doesn’t make it true.”
I don’t recall putting forth the idea that my believing something makes it true, so your comments are irrelevant and certainly not responsive.
You said “it does matter what you believe”, which I thought was strange coming from some whose moniker is justbybelief. I think it is very important what one believes.
Do you believe anything? Does that make it true? I think it does matter to me what you believe even if it doesn’t matter to you what I believe.
September 5, 2012 at 8:37 pm
Steve,
@Me
“Obviously it is good that one believes the truth and disbelieves the lie, but our response–belief or disbelief–doesn’t change real states of affairs–what is.”
September 5, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Reiterating:
Steve: “I believe it does make a difference. I don’t believe that makes me immoral and responsible for the downward spiral this country is in.”
Eric: “It doesn’t matter what you believe.”
Meaning: What you believe does not necessarily settle the matter. God is the ultimate judge and all of our deeds will not escape His omniscient eye. If you have acted on an error in judgment, Jesus’ Blood will cover it. If I have acted on an error in judgment, Jesus’ Blood will cover my error.
September 5, 2012 at 9:20 pm
Steve,
I might add that the moniker ‘Just By Belief’ refers to the truthfulness of God’s Word not to me directly, though I do, by God’s grace, believe the gospel.
It is a play on words and means 1) just (righteous) by belief, and 2) just (only) by belief.
Eric
September 5, 2012 at 9:40 pm
“Meaning: What you believe does not necessarily settle the matter.”
So I guess I’ve been set straight on something I never asserted.
September 5, 2012 at 11:31 pm
Steve,
I’m simply taking you at your word…
“I believe it does make a difference.”
And then again, it may not make a difference, in which case, what you believe is irrelevant.
“I don’t believe that makes me immoral…”
And, then again, though you may not be generally immoral, it is certainly true that moral people (you) sometimes do immoral things. So, the question is then, if you vote for an oath violator, is this immoral? Do you want an oath violator in office? Is that moral?
“…and responsible for the downward spiral this country is in.”
If it is immoral to want an oath violator in office then you are directly responsible for the downward spiral in this country. You may believe otherwise, but that is irrelevant when weighed against the truth. I believe it is immoral to want an oath violator in office, but it doesn’t matter what I believe if the Word of God doesn’t support it.
Mitt Romney is known for his evil. Obama is known for his evil. Paul is known not for his evil, but his integrity. Why would any Christian vote for a Globalist whether he be a Marxist or a Mormon, when he or she could vote for a Christian who has integrity and has kept his word by obeying his oath.
Eric
September 6, 2012 at 12:36 am
JBB: “You may believe otherwise, but that is irrelevant when weighed against the truth.”
No comment necessary.
September 6, 2012 at 1:00 am
Steve,
Of course no comment is necessary. You’ve made it clear that the substance of your belief, even though it be a lie, is more important than what is true.
Eric
September 6, 2012 at 2:18 am
I get it. The difference between you and me is not that I am claiming that something is true because I believe it as you opined before. The difference is that what you believe is true and what I believe is false.
How can I argue with such deep thought? It is so deep it requires a shovel.
September 6, 2012 at 11:44 am
LJ
Listen to your wife!
September 19, 2012 at 4:40 pm
Jeffress, 2012 ~ Romney and the disappearing evangelical dilemma:
Nearly one year ago I ignited a national discussion about Mitt Romney’s religious faith by labeling Mormonism as a “cult.” Although I readily acknowledged that Romney’s Mormonism did not disqualify him from the presidency (and that I would prefer him to President Obama), I did predict that if Romney became the Republican nominee, President Obama would win a second term. I’m now willing to admit my prognostication may have been premature for several reasons.
I had based my prediction of Romney’s defeat on the belief that enough evangelicals would stay at home in November due to a lack of enthusiasm for a Romney presidency. Some evangelical Christians have been troubled by Romney’s Mormonism, while others are disturbed by his lack of a consistent, conservative record on social issues…
I don’t pretend to know whether Mitt Romney will win on November 6. However, I am certain that President Obama’s hard turn to the left and Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan have made Mitt Romney much more palatable to evangelical Christians—like me.
Dr. Robert Jeffress is pastor of the 11,000-member First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas and hosts a daily radio program heard on 722 stations nationwide.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/19/mitt-romney-and-disappearing-evangelical-dilemma/#ixzz26wyATF1X
September 19, 2012 at 5:46 pm
Jeffress: ” I am certain that President Obama’s hard turn to the left and Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan have made Mitt Romney much more palatable to evangelical Christians—like me. ”
What a load of c**p. Since when has the Obamination made a hard turn to the left? He never veered off his hard left course in the first place. Turned Left? Give me a break.
What’s palatable to Jeffress and other “even-jelly-cals” is that they would accept virtually ANYTHING, Mittens or Rick (I really belong in a sanitarium) Santorum, the Grinch, ANYTHING but Obama.
Except of course Ron Paul who the “even-jelly-cals” think is unworthy of their vote.
Paul Ryan is an establishment Repub who voted for the bailouts and is only a smidgin to the right of the Romulen; his budget plan is a farce.
But I get it, I understand what’s up. Jeffress apparently thinks his reasoning like this will be swallowed whole by those of his ilk within the Repub party. Funny that he’s imitating the Romulen and doing the ole flip-flopper-oo for his own part and thinks nobody will notice and he can help get out the vote for the cultist he once renounced. Somebody please slap me and wake up cause this has got to be a bad dream.
There’s nothing palatable about Mitt the Mormon and Ryan the NEOCON to this former Republican.
I’ll write in Ron Paul. Then …
I think I’ll go eat worms.
LJ