Internationally renowned Christian apologist and theologian Ravi Zacharias raised a bit of controversy in evangelical circles back in November of 2004 when he accepted an invitation to speak at the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City, UT. He chose for his subject “The Exclusivity and Sufficiency of Jesus Christ.” I asked Dr. Zacharias recently if he were at all concerned about the potential for a Mormon becoming president in the person of Mitt Romney:
What we want is a politician who will understand the basic Judeo-Christian world view, and on the basis of that the moral laws of this nation are framed, and then run this country with the excellence of that which is recognized in a pluralistic society: the freedom to believe or to disbelieve, and the moral framework with which this was conducted: the sanctity of every individual life.
If we are looking for a minister to run this country just look back and see what havoc sometimes has happened when the church got aligned totally with the state. That’s not what we want. We want political leadership that is wise, political leadership that frames itself on the moral framework of God and recognizing that you cannot dictate political ideaology to all of humanity. That’s why Jesus refused to run for office, that was not what his mission was about. His mission was to change hearts.
But as you look back at the book of Kings and Chronicles you see one difference between every king: either they followed the Lord with their whole heart and blessing came; or they turned their backs upon God and then the entailments were there. And that’s what will happen to this country.
Would we rather have someone who is a total secularist? Is that what people are asking for? Are we looking for someone who would run this the way he would run a bishoprick or something? I think we should ask the hard questions of everybody, be it Mitt Romney or anyone else and see if the framework of the value of human life and the moral framework of the Judeo-Christian world view, (which is the only moral framework under which this country could have been framed. It was not framed under a Hindu framework. It was not framed under a Muslim framework, not framed under a Buddhist or a naturalistic framework) that we are all created equal, that liberty and justice and all of those terms that I’ve given only make sense within the Judeo-Christian world view.
Created? Equal? Naturalism does not tell us we are equal. Naturalism does not tell us we are created. Liberty? Islam does not believe in the total liberty of the individual. Equal? Hinduism believes in the caste system. The Judeo-Christian world view is the only world view that could frame this country. And so I think as we elect, we go before God and see out of the candidates who will be the best one to represent the values and at the same time be a good leader for the country whose first responsibility should be to protect its citizens.
This is a great country and the challenges we face are immense to a point where this country could be totally mangled with the onslaught of a rabid atheism ala Christopher Hitchens, Samuel Harris, Richard Dawkins, those kinds of vociferous, acerbic writers in our time who would like to strip the notion of God completely from our culture. For Sam Harris to actually say if he had a magic wand to eradicate religion or eradicate rape, he would eradicate religion tells you the kind of mindset, and his book is in the top ten bestseller list of the New York Times. There’s a rabid atheism out there and there’s a rabid Islamic extremism out there and the secularism combined with that. I’ve responded to Sam Harris in a book which will be released in the early part of next year. I’ve said to him basically his choice is not going to be between religion and secularism. His choice is going to be between Islam and Christianity. Secularism has no staying power and has proven itself in Europe today. Europe is on the decline and on the demise and it’s only a matter of time before Islam would take a foothold there unless the Christian world view reemerges.
To make clear once again:
OT Israel is not synonymous with America. Promises/warnings directed towards OT leaders are not applicable to American politicians.
Instead, we must see the promises/warnings as applicable to CHURCH LEADERS today. The blessings promised to OT Israel are applicable ONLY TO THE CHURCH (and then only filtered through NT teaching)
“If you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” (Galatians 3.29)
Ravi, and others who have commented on this thread, misunderstand and distort the scriptures by somehow believing that the promises delivered to God’s people under the Old Covenant are just as applicable today, despite the fact that we are under a New Covenant.
Stop seeing America as the “nation” that God will bless when he speaks about Israel in the Old Testament!
Keith– Isn’t it a wonderful plan? We will be able to , by our obedience, become like Him and have the joy that He enjoys when involved in this eternal work. This is indeed our Christian hope.
Now, can someone tell me what the rest of Christianity thinks they will be doing for eternity?
This sounds wonderful except for one little problem. Mormonism does not have a Christian world view. If you doubt that, read this explanation of the LDS world view. The material is copied from an official Mormon church manual.
http://www.evidenceministries.org/marriage.php
As a born again believer who believes that Jesus is LORD, I Agree with the one person who stated He would be in prayer, to the God of the Bible, for this decision.
God’s ways are not our ways, and if you study the book of Judges you realize that the history of hundreds of years comes to disaster for people who “Do what seems right in their own eyes” Get as much info as you can and pray for Gods direction in your vote and not simply what seems best to you.
Ravi has completely misinterpreted the OT here. The result is a Jingoistic Eisegesis.
For the record, Israel and the US are not synonymous, which means that the OT examples of godly and ungodly leaders in Judah/Israel, and the subsequent blessing/cursing of God upon these two nations as a result, does not mean that God will specially bless a country that has Christian leaders.
Throw in some Eurobashing and Zack’s entire argument here is essentially written from a “culture warrior” viewpoint rather than a Christian and Biblical one.
Jacosta- Amen to all you shared with us. I wish I could express myself 1/2 as well as you did here. I am grateful that some LDS members are on these blogs striving to explain the tenants of our faith. They don’t have to be defended by Mitt Romney, you, or I, but it is nice to see you and others take the time to respond to some of the erroneous and in many cases, deliberately misleading remarks.
My name is Jacosta.
Beginning at the age of 17, I went on a search for the “true” Christian religion for me – one that would teach and espouse the principles and doctrines that I believed were in the Old and New Testaments. Prior to this journey, I had read and fervently studied most of the Old Testament, and all of the New Testament. I developed a great appreciation, adoration, love, respect, and servitude to the man I now know as Jehovah in the Old Testament and Jesus Christ of the New Testament – One and the Same.
In the Old Testament, from Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Israel (Jacob) – to Isaiah, Elijah, and Malachi…each of these great leaders and prophets testified in various ways of the birth of Jesus Christ, and tried their best to point the people in their generations towards His first coming.
He was known in the Old Testament as Jehovah, Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace, Messenger of the Covenant, Immanuel…and other divine names to denote His central purpose in God’s plan.
Then we read of the miraculous birth, life, mission, atonement, and cruel agony of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in the New Testament – but with the most glorious event ever recorded in the history of mankind – the triumphant resurrection!
It is He who has invited, asked, and commanded that we follow Him, obey Him, love Him – as would we love our neighbors and ourselves. It is He who has said that if we obey Him, that we may receive and inherit eternal life and exaltation with Him and God – His and our Heavenly Father. What we do in the hereafter, or what God has in store for us who do inherit eternal life with Him is not important to me – just as long as I show reverence, respect, and love towards the Savior by doing what He has asked me to do. If He states that I shall inherit kingdoms and worlds, or that I am to be a joint-heir with Him in all that God has, or that I can be with my wife and children for ever…does not mean as much and is not as important as much as I follow Him! It is not these particular gifts that I have my eye on or that I’m particularly after – although, these are wonderful gifts – it is following Him and receiving His Gift that I’m after. If I am to become a god…it is of the smallest consequence to me, and is of little importance – so long as I follow Him.
It is NOT Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Gordon B. Hinckley, Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Peter, James, or John, through whom I gain any degree of salvation – it is ONLY through Jesus the Christ…Savior of all mankind. This is what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches and has taught.
I believe in Jesus Christ – He is my Savior, my God, my King, my Redeemer, my Advocate with the Father of us all. He is the only One through whom I can receive any degree of salvation and exaltation; He is the only One I can go through to gain access and communion to and with God, my Heavenly Father. He it is that pardons my sins if I rely on Him and repent.
He was born of Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem – how Mary conceived, I do not care! All I know is that it happened through and by God’s own wisdom and doing. It doesn’t matter how it happened – just that I know Christ was born.
There are those not of the faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who will purport to the world that “Mormons believe this is important”, or “Mormons believe that is more important” in referencing some of our doctrines in relation or contrast to Christ. However, in all actuality, their doing is their own demise. They make it seem so relevant of what we believe is important to us…when in almost every instance they miss the mark! Their own ignorance and pride blinds them.
This I believe and know…Jesus is the Christ! And the Holy Bible, containing both the Old and New Testaments, is God’s Holy scripture and Word!
sorry for the double post….
JD,
Simple answer to all Ron Paul, look him up, he is crystal clear on his constutional position that government shouldn’t infringe on our God given rights. He is the only constitutionalist in the race on both sides of the isle. Well I think Kucinich is too, not sure there.
You tube has some great short video clips of him in the debates. The media(including the person that runs this blog) will not cover him but he is an internet phenomanon.
JD,
Simple answer to all Ron Paul, look him up, he is crystal clear on his constutional position that government shouldn’t infringe on our God given rights. He is the only constitutionalist in the race on both sides of the isle. Well I think Kucinich is too, not sure there.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
You tube has some great short video clips of him in the debates. The media(including the person that runs this blog) will not cover him but he is an internet phenomanon.
Don-BEFORE the time to vote comes, all of us need to know in our hearts that we are walking the pathway of justice and righteousness in dealings with our fellowmen. As we come to understand what we individually are called to live, frame your impressions of the way this is being carried out in the lives of the candidates.
There is know better way to judge than by christian character. Tell me what trumps living by christian principles? All of these men are familiar with politics and know how the game has been played for so many years, but Mitt Romney is the one who will honestly strive to bring us back to one nation, under God, and his laws.
How easy will that be? Not very. He still has to win the hearts of many of you who think he is a pagan or worse. One word of caution to you who try to demonize him– not one idle, unsubstantiated, unfounded word uttered against a guiltless man will go unanswered for, when you stand before the judgement bar of God.
God has not left us alone to grope in darkness for truth. He has sent the light of truth and his witness, the Holy Ghost. Seek him with a humble heart drawn out it prayer, as you research all of the information that is available, and he will be your sure guide.
One more thing, Don. You say you reject a church that is a living example of what Christ taught and will only accept the word of God as your final authority. Yet you reject most translations of said word as being completely true. Then you point out a couple of ones that you feel are the safest ones to rely upon. This is not how God meant for us to be led. Revelation still guides the Lord’s church, not ancient texts that are less than pure.
Keep striving and listen to the Spirit.
Can somebody please show me in the Bible where it states that we are to vote only for people with correct theology?
Voting and choosing leaders as citizens is never mentioned.
Yes, the Lord instructed a prophet to choose a king. But that was choosing one that the Lord specified.
Any propehts in the audience who have been called to annoint kings or presidents?
What we have in the Bible are general statements about church leaders. Note: CHURCH leaders. All that we get on secular leaders is to support the kings etc. and to pray for those in authority so “we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.”
It appears that the Lord doesn’t care that we appoint a person of one particular faith or another. Otherwise, I think he would have said something about it.
What I care about is that the government supports current religious freedoms, reduces its costs, and bombs the freaking terrorists back into oblivion.
“The issue is; What do we do with those we have to choose from?”
This is probably one of the MOST SENSIBLE questions asked in this thread.
What government is about is policy. Lots of people with different ideologies trying to work out policy that improves the public good.
What I want is someone who is going to use his or her influence and power to promote policy that keeps my religious freedoms and promotes the values/public good I hold dear.
Who, of all the candidates (including Thompson), has the EXPERIENCE and RECORD that demonstrates they CAN and WILL:
1) Reduce the cost of government, so we can further reduce taxes?
2) Maintain religious freedoms?
3) Promote a culture of marriage and focus on the family? A culure of life? A culture of honesty and hard work?
4) Improve our economy and ability to compete in the world?
5) Protect us from terrorist threats? Including immigration reform and energy independence?
These are the questions we should be asking. The whole debate about Mormons being Christian is irrelevant. If you have a broad definition of Christian, then the above questions are what matters. If you have a narrow definition of Christian, then the above questions are what matters.
Policy is what it’s about.
Because as has been so clearly pointed out in many posts above–“clean” theology, however you define “clean,” has very little correlation with good policy.
Its now Fri. AM and I have really appreciated this discussion. This is the first time I have ever taken part in anything of this nature and it’s been fun and interesting. My comments come from about 45 yrs of adult life and comparing the results of decisions I’ve made. I know what has worked and what hasn’t. There is one request I want to make of all of you who think you know what I and other Mormons believe. I have only read a couple of your comments that are right on. So here is my request: Find any LDS chapel in your area, pick any Sunday, and between approx. 9:00 AM and 2:30 PM there well be a congregation meeting in what we refer to as a Sacrament Meeting. Just walk in and sit down and observe. Then and only then, can you really know what we represent. Until then, you are only taking the word of others who don’t really know either. Latter Day Saints are “doers” not “talkers” ( see James 1:22) I support Mitt Romney because I know what has shaped him and because he is a “doer” and a winner. He has the energy and enthusiasm, coupled with the moral compass that makes people successful. And besides, he’s a brilliant businessman with the other ability to be a judge of character. Like many of you have noted, if you dismiss him because of his beliefs, which many of your have proven to me you know nothing about, really. then we miss a great opportunity in this nations history. Now go out and do the right thing.
“This, btw, is a totally different arguement than ‘Kennedy was Catholic’. Anti-Catholic bigotry, as it existed in Kennedy’s day, is as dead as Ellis Island style immigration. Evangelican Christians are making a theological distinction, not an evaluation of a person.”
riiiiiight…because Evangelicals have such nice things to say about Catholics, too.
Mormons are not orthodox Christians, nor do they profess to be. In fact, they believe their religion to be a restoration, a restoration to that which preceded the Nicene Creed. I think the problem is that when people start tossing the word “Christian” around, Mormons and Evangelicals are thinking of 2 separate definitions. Mormons believe in Christ, they talk of Christ, they try to comport to His teachings and example. To them, that is “being Christian.” Whereas the Evangelicals use “Christian” to mean one who accepts the fundamental tenets of the creed of Nicea (trinity, etc…). Mormons admittedly do not.
But, to try and pretend that not voting for someone solely because of his religious beliefs is NOT bigotry is naive. Of course it is. Just fess up and say it.
Tim asks some questions:
“1) Which god, in the Mormon pantheon of gods, will Mitt seek for guidance? Joseph Smith? Or has that Mormon doctrine changed as well? ( As we are, he once was; as he is we can become [ with enough works]).”
Mormons do not think of Joseph Smith as a God. He holds a place like the Old Testament prophets – nothing more.
If Mitt does what the church teaches, he’ll pray to our Father in Heaven – God.
“2) Do you really believe we all can become gods?”
Yes, and the Bible backs us up. And so do the writings of the early church fathers. You’ve got a different interpretation of those scriptures – fine with us. But you do the Bible a disservice when you claim your interpretation is the only true one.
“3) Do you believe Joseph Smith is now a god?”
I don’t know, and don’t really care. The timing of his becoming a joint-heir with Christ, inheriting all He has, really means nothing for me. I’ll continue to worship God, and avail myself of the atoning sacrifice of His son, Jesus Christ.
“4) Do you believe as Smith claimed that Mormonism has the only un-corrupted version of the Bible?”
Not sure what you mean here. We use the King James version – and we are not inerrantists.
The whole bigotry arguement regarding Mitt is a red herring meant to stifle conversation. You will notice that none of the people pushing Mitt the hardest (Hugh Hewitt) will comment on Mormonism orthodoxy. They focus on Mitt’s secular qualifications. I am not yet convinced that Mitt’s faith is irrelevant. I will say, though, that Ravi’s comments do much to ease my mind.
Mormonism is not Christianity. I admit that that is a different issue than whether or not Mitt is qualified to be President. I also acknowledge that, many, if not most, most modern mainline Protestant denominations bear precious little resemblence to Christianity. Of course, I take it for granted that all the Democrats are cold, calculating atheists who use religion as a cloak to impress people without discernment.
So we are left with a series of poor to horrible choices: a pagan Republican who is highly qualified to be President, nominal Christians who are less quallifed to be President (Fred Thompson), liberal republicans who are one issue wonders (Guiliani), think tank theorist republicans (Gingrich), attention starved, self important, mavericks (McCain) or atheistic, socialist (but I repeat myself), demogouing, traitor Democrats.
Mitt is highly qualified to be President in terms of worldly qualifications. But he has invested his eternity in a lie. For a Christian, that has to be taken into account. (I am not saying how the accounting should result, please note.) For non-Christians, if is totally irrelevant.
This, btw, is a totally different arguement than ‘Kennedy was Catholic’. Anti-Catholic bigotry, as it existed in Kennedy’s day, is as dead as Ellis Island style immigration. Evangelican Christians are making a theological distinction, not an evaluation of a person.
Christians shouldn’t reject Romney because he is a Mormon, they should reject him because he has a history of being a flip flopper on issues like homosexual marriage and abortions. We need to look for guys with integrity guys that support the constitution and not lobbying interests. Look up Ron Paul, his integrity is rock solid; he is the only republican candidate that will not vote for a preemptive strike on Iran. We used to believe in the just war theory and we used to be against nation building. This is no longer the case and the result is our country is going into shambles if things don’t change. I want my kids to live in a great country, our founding fathers frame this country with the Constitution, and many of those rights in the constitution have been eroded because of the war on Terror. Do we feel any safer? No, in fact our government is telling us to prepare for another attack. Ron Paul explains that Islam’s don’t hate us because of our way of life, they hate us because we have been occupying there land for years. Wouldn’t we be mad too? This is backed up by CIA documents and the 911 commission report. We need to realize that if we don’t pull out of those countries this are only going to get worse, not better. Romney, Guliani etc are not willing to do that, in fact they want to continue talking about invading Iran preemptively. If we invade Iran there will be a WWIII scenario, both Russia and China will back Iran. Is this what we need? Stop fighting the petty issues like catholic vs protestant vs mormanism vs islam, this country is great because we all can express our love for God in whatever way we want to, try to keep the constitution in place.
Let me go on record here so as there is no confusion as to my position.
I reject the Mormon faith as being Christian.
Secondly, I accept the Word of God as the final authority, the only authority, in matters of Christian faith and practice.
Let me further divide the issue and state that I reject most modern translations of the bible as being attempts to procure a proof of certain doctrine that is not taught in others. Would you like me to refine more? Hebrew Masoretic and Textus Recptus (Received Text), are the safest of all to rely upon.
If we as a Christian community continue in this vein, we may contract a disease worse than the medicine we are debating about.
Mitt is not a conservative Christian as defined in traditional terms. Neither is Rudy, Newt, Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, or any of the Democratic contenders. By the way, neither was Bush 1, Bush 2, or my favorite, Ronald Reagan.
The issue is; What do we do with those we have to choose from? If we stay the coarse we are currently on we will deserve the outcome, whatever it is.
This form of divide is exactly what has taken our crown of leadership from the Congress, and appears will soon take the Oval Office also.
If we insist on applying strict Christian principals as the only measuring stick for our political choices, when there are no better options, what can be the outcome?
You answer it.
Here is what I plan on doing. When the time comes to vote, I will seek God’s face and do my best to align with the best one available at that time. Any other rational suggestions are welcomed fodder for this engagement.
I thank rcarver for comments submitted and I hope all of us participating here can live up to what Don Sivyer has said about the comments offered in this discussion, so far.
I would like to take the time to respond to some of Tim’s questions, but first a comment. Although sometimes I wish people could get beyond the my type of christian vs your type of christian rhetoric, in order to find out what Mitt’s platform will be, I understand the need to explain our beliefs.
The biggest difference, in MY opinion, is the very understanding of the Godhead. We do not believe in the Nicene trinity as taught in the Catholic church and accepted by the Protestant sects, that came from the mother church. We know that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are three SEPERATE beings. The Father and the Son having bodies of flesh and bone and the Holy Ghost is a being in spirit form. We allow all people to believe as they wish and are completely comfortable with our position. Now to Tim’s questions.
1 Mitt- God the Father, Joseph Smith- God the Father and Mormon doctrine is based on eternal truths and is given to us as we are able and prepared to live the principle. Hence- Revelation!
2 No, not all will become gods, but we are his children and many will follow him until they obtain all that he has and are gods.
3 No, I believe that Joseph is well along the path towards that goal.
4 I don’t know if Joseph completed his work in correcting the errors found in our beloved Bible, but anyone can read the scriptures with the corrections he made. You tell me if they are right. We don’t test by the scriptures that have been retranslated in so many various
versions. We test by the spirit of truth given by the Holy Ghost. You worship a book. It is a wonderful book, but it has become your God if that is where all your ability to trust is found. Learn to discern by the spirit of truth. He has already given you and others many witnesses but you reject them out of fear and also pride. [example]
Your evaluation of Mitt’s decision making and job performance.
Yes, Mitt is doctrinely a Mormon. True blue thru and thru dyed in the wool Latter Day Saint.
As far as the rest of your concerns. Dig a little and learn to trust more. Book of Abraham, book of Moses, book of Mormon, doctrine and covenants and the Holy Bible are all scriptures given to help us find our way back to God.
Meanwhile back on the road to Damascus (oops) Washington. Come on folks! Saul had his awakening, you can too. I have faith in you!!
The Evangelicals’ prejudice against Mormonism’s tenants – and by extension – Romney’s possible nomination, is truly amazing. Would that such bias existed against the Methodists for their 1999 TV commercial claiming God was a woman, without even a shred of Old or New Testament support for such a claim. Yet how many Methodist presidents have we had in our nation’s history? I applaud all those postings above that suggest we keep our minds on staying united on the overall goal of nominating a God-fearing candidate who best portends policies and management principles for the good of the nation, as opposed to settling for a secular candidate just because we allowed ourselves to become divided due to theological wars (sounds more like shiia, wahibi and suni’s anyway).
Tim
Many of your comments re Mormonism are rebutted at http://www.ldsfair.org. I have some questions I’d like you to answer about the Book of Mormon:
1. How did a 22 year old farm worker with a 2nd grade education produce a 590 page book in the 67 days all the witnesses of the translation said Joseph Smith spent on the BOM?
2. Why are ancient Hebrew writing styles such as chiasmus found in the BOM when they were not identified as a distinctive Hebrew style in the western world until the 1850’s (BOM was published in 1829 and Smith died in 1844)?
3. Why does the BOM demonstrate such stunning geographical accuracy concerning Lehi’s journey from Jerusalem to ‘Bountiful’ and the various unique features found there when the only books on Arabia available to Joseph Smith in 1829 described the southern Arabia coast as nothing more than a barren desert?
4. Why are the writing styles of Joseph Smith and the various different BOM authors so different from each other when compared using modern computer wordprint analysis?
5. Why has Ishmael’s burial place of Nahum mentioned in 1 Nephi 16 has been found in modern day Yemen when this place was too small to be on any maps Joseph Smith had access to?
6. Why are so many ancient American poetic styles found in the BOM?
7. Why does the BOM prophet/king Mosiah bear an ancient Hebrew name/title?
8. Why are the 20 key elements in Old Testament farewell speech patterns faithfully replicated in the BOM?
9. Why are ancient American warfare practices (research on which was published over a century after Joseph Smith’s death) found in the BOM?
10. Why does the BOM detail battle sizes now proven to have been common amongst the Aztec – again research not available in 1829?
11. Why have their been recent finds of a series of unique BOM names amongst ancient Hebrew writings?
12. Why are ancient American timekeeping units found in the BOM?
What worries people is the same thing that worried some people when Kenedy was elected. In Kenedy’s case, because he was Catholic, would the Pope have undo influence on the Presedency. In Romney’s case, would the LDS church put pressure on him. I havn’t seen that it affected his role as a Governor, so it is not likely to be an issue. There will always be a worry in the back of some people’s mind of, what if the living prophet has a word from God that the Presedent of the United States must address. Who would have more say, his cabinet and the senate, or does his faith require him to take “God” word over all else?
ravi zacharias makes complete sense. there are questions with just about all the big GOP candidates when it comes to a christian worldview. tough questions concerning romney, IMHO, has more to do with actually having a polytheist in office – i think for the first time. today’s mormonism was scientology about 150 years ago – so it’s hard to imagine today that one day in the future a scientologist would become president (hard to take anyway).
however, modern day mormonism culturally speaking is more inline with the judeo-christian framework (even very much inline with it) than i have seen from the recent southern baptists who have been in office – and i am a southern baptist.
a political alligence isn’t the same as an endorsement of everything about the candidate – it’s not a marriage nor the appointment of a king for life. “poltics makes strange bed fellows” – as we proceed in this contest – the more true that old saying rings.
peac4d.
amos
Pingback: Top Posts « WordPress.com
To say the Mormons believe in the same Jesus that Christians do is totally erroneous. Bible believing Christians believe that Jesus was virgin born, Mormons believe that a “god” (Elohim or Adam) had physical relations with the virgin Mary. The Bible believing Christians also believe that Jesus is God, second Person of the Trinity, coequal with the Father and the Spirit, while Mormons believe that Jesus is the god of this universe and that there are other gods and goddesses in other universes (this is part of the eternal plan of progression vis a vis, the Mormon gospel).
No thanks! I would never consider a cult member as a leader of my country. What’s next bigamy!
For all who have contributed today, this is one of the best thought out discussions we have engaged in on this blog in some time. Much stimulating thinking. My thanks to all for treating my mind to something more than tripe.
It amazes me as I read the various reactions to Mitt Romneys candidicy that everyday persons who have met and live next to Mormons and refer to them continuously as “some of the finest people we’ve ever known” think that somehow we are not Christians. They say they have never met a group of people who are more family oriented, who serve others more, who observe the Sabbath any better and who definitely worship Jesus Crist as the Savior and Redeemer of this world and in God, his, and our Eternal Father in Heaven. How and where do you think these lifestyles come from? “By their fruits, ye shall know(and judge) them. Just sit back and watch Mitt and realize that he knows beyond any doubt that not only will the people of this great nation judge him but his Father in Heaven and Jesus Crist will judge him and those judgements which will be either rewards and blessings, or condemnations, will be eternal. I for one am tired of electing lawyers / politicians to be President. Lawers by their nature cater to the first person in their door with the money, and look for holes in the law to take advantage of. Why don”t we, for a change, elect a successful businessman who will lead the largeest economy in the world. This man is successful because he has the ability to put the right persons in the right places to get the job done right. Take your personal religious bias out of the equation and try some common sense that you have been given.
Nice try Daniel, however at some point all must seek His council. Franklin’s appeal at the end of July 1787, to a dead locked convention is a case in point.
A few of my questions are:
1) Which god, in the Mormon pantheon of gods, will Mitt seek for guidance? Joseph Smith? Or has that Mormon doctrine changed as well? ( As we are, he once was; as he is we can become [ with enough works]).
2) Do you really believe we all can become gods?
3) Do you believe Joseph Smith is now a god?
4) Do you believe as Smith claimed that Mormonism has the only un-corrupted version of the Bible? What historical evidence do you have to prove it? You have a very powerful adversary making that claim in Islam.
You see when you make an appeal based on your theology, you step from the realm of rhetoric to history. If we base our evaluation of Mitt on his performance, then he is clearly qualified. He does have a solid history of good decissions.
But I ask again, is Mitt doctrinely a Mormormon? If he is, then he must ‘give a defence’ for it. If he isn’t, then he’s just playing the religion card. That puts him with Hillary, Obama etc. I don’t think Mitt is playing that game though.
I as a Born again Christian must defend my faith based on the scriptures. My testimony is the massive change in my life on all levels. As the scriptures are now how I ‘ test the spirits ‘, I use the Biblical definition of a prophet. In the NT, no prophecy is of man. In the OT God defined a prophet of His as being 100% correct all the time. With the death of Peter new revelation stopped. Mormon prophecy is full of contradictions and failed prophecies. Mormonism may be correct on the possibility scale, but not likely on the probability scale. I’ll stick with the Bible as it is. No book has ever been scrutinized over such an extended period of time as it has. It stands the test every time. Mormonism is very recent in the historical time line. There is just to much original source documentation that refutes Smith’s claims. There are huge gaps just in Smith’s chronologies for his visions to start with, the problems just mount from there. Of course you can try and explain the historical facts that contradict your claims as, ‘ their just distorting the facts’, but that only works so long when the facts keep mounting. The recent Egyptan funerary finds from which Smith claims to have gotten the book of Abraham is a recent case in point. Of course the Egyptologists didn’t use Smith’s seer stone or Smith’s hat to ‘translate’ the papyri. There goes those historical facts again. As far as I ‘m aware, those who found the papyri and validated it as among Smith’s belongings and translated it, don’t have a dog in the theology hunt.
Look folks, we are dealing with eternity here. If Mormonism is right, then Mitt is going to be way up there among the gods, but if the Bible is right, then he will suffer God’s cusre eternally. Both the Bible and the book of Mormon and Mormon history can’t be right. Christianity cannot be reconciled with any other ‘version’ of Jesus the Christ. Jesus’ staement in John 14:6 precludes that. He either is or isn’t what He claims in John 14:6. If He is the only ‘way,truth and life’, and is God, not a god, then Mormons are relying on Jesus “not being”, what He says He is. We as Bible based Christians depend on Him being exactly what He says He is. The interesting fact is that either way it depends on Jesus, no other person in history has established themselves in so convincing a manner. Jesus made that statement in the 1st century A.D. Two other men made that claim in the 1st century A.D. Nero and Domician. Nero died a raving lunatic and Domician was assassinated by his own people. Nero and Domician had the entire power of the Roman Empire to make their claim stick.
Who is it that is changing peoples lives though? The Jesus of the Bible.
On this Rock I will put my trust, not Moroni or someone elses’ ‘vision’ for my eternity. If Jesus is who He says He is in John 14:6, then Artbytruth is absolutely correct in pointing out the danger Mitt and his family and all other Mormons are in.
In response to artbyruth and tellingitlikeitis’s comments. It seems so strange to me that folks like you cannot see who you are really following when you start making your absolutely absurd comments.
You are the same hypocrites that the Lord spoke to when he addressed the priestly groups of Sadducees and Pharisees.
You are void of understanding the workings of God. You have no eyes to see any good in a man who practices a religion that brings him closer to the moral and upright expectations that God requires of his followers. You have no ears to hear the good news of the gospel, in its fullness.
You have received enough and will not accept that God still works among those who will hear his words. Those words are still given to his servants the prophets and yes, Joseph Smith was indeed the first prophet of the last dispensation.
These facts may be very disturbing to many of the people who read this post. It may cause anger in some, but it may awaken a thirst to know and understand more of this restored theology in others. In the end, I don’t think it will hurt Mitt’s chances for the nomination. Most people who are open to truth will continue to watch his campaign and come to their own decision. The rest of you, who will not see or hear are already in your chosen camp.
It has been and will continue to be a uphill struggle for Mitt, but most Latter Day Saints are proud of him and will be very pleased if he is successful.
Well stated Dan.
The question Ravi is answering is not whether Mormonism is in alignment with Christianity, but whether a Mormon could be a good president. He is saying that a Mormon who believes in a god and who accepts bacically Christian moral principles is far better than a secularist who is accountable to no god and whose morality is based on the polls. A mormon would be preferrable to a Muslim whose commitment to his god’s absolute authority completely trumps human freedom, or the Hindu Caste system. He is not saying Mormonism is equal to Christianity. He is saying the moral framework that a Mormon would work from may be better than other moral frameworks. I’d rather have Jefferson, with his bent toward deism, than Stalin, Saddam, or Jim Jones. So I’d rather have Romney than Clinton or Obama, because neither seem committed to the notion that moral laws are written into the fabric of God’s universe and that human rights are not granted by the state. What we need to understand – government is not religion, but where it overlaps religion, we want to have leaders who believe in something higher than government and who respect both higher laws and human rights.
In response to artbyruth, yes, Mormons do worship Jesus Christ. He is at the head of our church, being called; “The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints. We worship the same Jesus Christ who was/is Jehovah of the Old Testiment. The King James version of the Bible is one of our standard works of scripture that we use. We proclam that the Book of Mormon is a second witness of the divinity of Jesus Christ. To say that we don’t worship Jesus Christ is not true and shows a lack of understanding of our religion.
This divide is exactly why we may end up with a President who not only is void of any values as we recognize them, but who is actually a supporter of those principles that will attack us and our Christian principles. One does not have to be a Mormon sympathizer to see the difference between the two sides available. When we rule out all those who do not meet the correct theology criteria, who is left?
Please allow cooler thinking to take control in this debate. We very well could end up with a Democratic Congress and White House.
I think Mr Zacharias appropriately has the larger perspective in view – what helpful relevance does Mormonism’s Judeo-Christian foundation have upon Mitt Romney’s potential approach as president? How did it affect his approach as governor of Mass., or in managing the 2002 SLC Games? If we get hung-up on whether Mormons are or are not ‘just like’ the rest of us Christians, we may miss-out on someone whose policy positions actually best align with ours, and instead nominate someone else just to satisfy our religious pride. Jesus actually warned against just such attitudes amongst the Sadducees and Pharisees.
@6. Artbyruth – July 26, 2007
“Would I rather a secularist over a Mormon?? According to the Bible, both are accursed.”
Guess the sons of Zebedee never knew that you’d been appointed to Christ’s right hand to help separate the goats from the sheep. Sheesh… They’re accursed according to the Bible… or they’re accursed to the way that *you* interpret the Bible.
@13. tellingitlikeitis – July 26, 2007
“they believe no more in the Jesus Christ of the Bible than do Islamists…”
The Constitution does not mandate this as prerequisite for someone to be President.
But as you look back at the book of Kings and Chronicles you see one difference between every king: either they followed the Lord with their whole heart and blessing came; or they turned their backs upon God and then the entailments were there. And that’s what will happen to this country.
I’ve got a huge problem with this line of reasoning. While I agree that God will likely honor a ruler who governs morally and justly, God NEVER entered into a covenant with the USA as he did with the nation of Israel. Israel was to follow God with their whole heart in order to remain in the land. The same does not apply to the United States. The founding fathers never gathered at Mount Sinai with God condescending to us with the tablets of the Law and sanctions for disobeying it.
It’s pretty questionable that a ‘Reformed’ minister would make such a mistake. Sounds like a theonomic argument
I have tremendous respect for Ravi Zacharias but I am very disappointed his comments did not include a renunciation of Mormonism.
Mormons may live by the “moral framework” of God, but as Artbyruth noted, they believe no more in the Jesus Christ of the Bible than do Islamists, Hindus, and secularists. If they did, the writings of Joseph Smith wouldn’t be the focal point of their religion.
Mormonism does support this nation, its military, its history. Mormons are patriotic people, in my limited experience, and know and value our history.
P.S.
If you doubt my position about the Roman Empire of Paul’s time and the America’s of washington’s time and now? Read Romans 1: 19-32. Does anyone remeber Barney Frank’s boy friend running a homosexual prostitution ring from his D.C. apartment? Just look at our state and federal legislative houses. I ask you, are we in Nero’s court, or Washington’s America?
As an Evangelical Christian , I completely agree with Zacharias’ assessment of Romney and cannot understand some of my Christian friends’ prima facie rejection of Romney based on his Mormonism.
One scriptural basis for a righteous political leader was Melchizedek:
Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, 2and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name means “king of righteousness”; then also, “king of Salem” means “king of peace.” (Hebrews 7:1,2) NIV
We’re voting to elect a President and Commander-in-Chief, not a Pastor-in-Chief or Pope. Our Founding Fathers took great pains to avoid laying the foundations for a Theocracy.
Artbyruth brings up a valid point. In response to Soxblog linked at Hugh’s site I asked about the wisdom of Hugh calling his book, A Mormon in the White House. If Mitt’s Mormon theology wasn’t to be scrutinized, then Mormon should have been left out of the title. In defense of Ravi’s position though, we need to understand that everyone has a ‘theology’, even the Clintons. We are centered on and by our theology/ies. In think we can assume where Bill Clintons is centered. We were told that Clinton could, ‘ compartmentalize’, thefore I assume he and those like him are what? Compartmentalists?
His sexual ‘escapades’ we were told wouldn’t affect his performance as President; somebody should have told Monica. I ask you now, who would have made a better president, Bill or Mitt?
Ravi is correct though. Our founders didn’t create a theocracy. They were asstute observers of history. In fact the founding of Rhode Island was the direct result of ‘religious persecution’, not from Europe, but from religionists from an existing colony. Article VI forbids official religious tests for national office, but cannot apply that test to the individual citizens’ scrutiny of the candidates. That by the way is why hate crimes legislation fails the test. Liberals are tying to impose their theology on us.
The bottom line here is that the America our founders created welcomes you to bring your theology to the table,…however…….., don’t expect that it won’t be scrutinized, or expect me/us to think that you don’t have a theology and that it doesn’t shape the way one makes decissions. Mitt’s Mormonism has a distinct and very troubling history, but so did Jack Kennedy’s, and Jefferson’s, etc. etc. God’s will is going to be worked no matter what. Jesus said, ” I wish you were either hot or cold……”. If we want born again Christians as our elected officials, then we had better get hot and pray for salvation for those who are running and those already in office! Paul’s mission was to take the Gospel to the gentiles and ‘their rulers’. Does the America of today resemble the time of our founders, or Paul’s time? My position is that it more closely resembles Paul’s pagan Roman Empire than Washington’s America in the late 1700s early 1800s. Romans 13 requires us to pray for and obey the authorities, for they are ” God’s ministers”. Regardless of how bad Mitt’s theology is, if elected, he will be ‘God’s minister’ and I will support him as such. In the mean time, Fred!, get off your butt and run if you’re going to run so we have a viable alternative to Mitt Romney.
Artbyruth,
As Cal Thomas would say, “The kingdom of God is not going to arrive on Air Force One.” You also might be interested to know that if Mitt Romney gets elected it will be because God willed it. Its in the bible you know.
Sorry, but Mormons do not believe in the Jesus of the Bible. They believe in a god created by Joseph Smith. They worship a false god and spread a false gospel.
According to the Bible, those who spread a false gospel are accursed (damned to hell).
So, Ravi, although you brought up some interesting points, you forgot to mention the above facts. Mormons and Muslims both worship another god…not the God of the Bible: Yaweh, Jehovah, Al Adonai, etc.
Jesus and God are one in the same. And if Mitt Romney claims to be a Mormon, then he does not worship Jesus as God, nor does be worship the Jesus of the Bible.
Would I rather a secularist over a Mormon?? According to the Bible, both are accursed.
So, the answer is no.
As a Roman Catholic, I really appreciate my brother in Christ, Ravi Zacharias’ thinking and his writings. I appreciate the clarity that he brings to unabashedly standing up for Christianity, and I look forward to his book that answers Mr. Harris.
Pingback: Ravi Zacharias on Electing the Next President at Ray Fowler .org
I fully concur! Masterful! I only wish after seeing the latest Rassmussen poll that the greater population of this great nation would understand what’s at stake the way Dr Zacharias understands. This poll states that on 10 key factors more people out there think the democrats would do a far better job than Republicans, this includes National Security! Over the past 40 years the public school system (as it became more and more infiltrated by agenda driven liberals) have been doing a poorer and poorer job at instilling in children a strong basic foundation of knowledge which entails among other things the subject of history. Now we have a few generations of folks where the majority are woefully lacking any historical perspective and who are easily swayed given the most frivilous and transparent of propaganda transmitted by the print and electronic news agencies. Despite six years free of any terrorist incident on our shores the majority out there prefer the democrats ability to uphold our national security. The party that is responsible for not one piece of legislation during all this time in the spirit of positing any democrat solution to the ongoing challenge of protecting ourselves and our children. The party so obsessed with tearing down this administration that when they were in the minority in the senate they did all they could to gum up the works and slow down the process of bills being passed that directly affected the war on terror. The party who now in the majority have multiple sub-commitees all in coordination to mount a witch hunt of this administration to the ever lasting deteriment of our effort to once more preserve and promote our national security.
This be the stuff of the socalled democrat party whom the prevailing voices out there apparently prefer to ensure the safety of their children.
If we’re not careful we’ll end up a nation of history-illiterate, ignorant dupes; easy marks for any insidious stalinist (see the Clinton machine)/radical islamic infection that would prove fatal to this once great nation.
Excellent! We can only pray that responses like this will cause some of the our secularist friends to rethink their position.
Brilliant!