Skip to main content

Everyone knows that the historic animosity towards Mormonism among conservative evangelicals is a political problem for Mitt Romney.  How much of a problem it will be, of course, remains to be seen -- but it looks formidable.  First there is the widespread and profoundly taught view in Southern Baptist and conservative Reformed Presbyterian churches, among others, that Mormons are a dangerous heresy at best, and certainly not Christian. The Mormons are also viewed as competitors in the battle to win souls, which makes electing a Mormon as president, a grave concern. They worry that Mormonism is the fastest growing faith in half of the states.  There is, therefore, an organized effort to "educate" conservative Christians about their Mormon problem.

I sketched out Romney's problem in an article, just published in Conscience, the excellent quarterly published by Catholics for Choice.  (You can read the whole thing, here.)  I talked this over with Rachel Tabachnick, who was raised as a conservative Southern Baptist, and knows the thinking of that world.  (She has since converted to Judaism and is a progressive Democrat.)  She believes that a lot of the kinds of Baptists she knew will not be able to vote for Romney.

She points to books and articles, currently available on the SBC’s website for its LifeWay publishing empire and bookstore chain, suggesting that this mistrust of Mormonism remains unchanged for many. Indeed, a LifeWay Research poll of 1,000 American Protestant pastors last fall found that 75 percent of respondents did not consider Mormons to be Christians. Ed Stetzer, president of LifeWay Research, explained, “A person can respect a religious group and even appreciate their commitment to traditional moral values without equating their beliefs with Christian orthodoxy.” They can, but whether they will is another question.

Tabachnick adds that Christian Right leaders know that they face an uphill
battle. She points to a recent edition of Rev. James Robison’s television show, in
which he and Christian Nationalist advocate David Barton kept reminding viewers
that conservative broadcaster Glenn Beck is a Mormon, as if to help them find the
idea of Mormonism more acceptable. But even Beck may not be able assuage
the concerns of those schooled in conservative Baptist orthodoxy. Divisions on
the matter of Mormonism have been very public in recent years. In 2010,
Richard Land, the political point man in the SBC, stated that Mormonism is the
“fourth Abrahamic faith,” and that he intended to work with Beck on a campaign
of national “renewal.” But in a widely discussed commentary, Al Mohler’s seminary colleague Russell Moore called this rapprochement with the Mormon faith a “scandal.”
For his own part, Mohler tweeted Moore’s commentary, as if to signal agreement.

A more organized effort was launched by You Tube evangelist, Jerry Johnson and some  fifty seminary professors, broadcasters, and pastors, mostly conservative Reformed Presbyterians of various sorts, called For the Sake of the Gospel. They argued that if conservative Christians are going to support Romney they should "clearly and unequivocally distancing yourself and Biblical Christianity from his Mormon beliefs."

They don't want there to be any uncertainty about whether "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), and historic evangelical Christianity are one and the same faith.  This we adamantly deny!"

Right Wing Watch reported in May that

Johnson explained, he personally will not be voting for either President Obama or Mitt Romney because that is like having to choose between "voting for the Beast or the False Prophet."

Of course, if there is some Christian activist out there urging Christian voters not to support Mitt Romney because of his Mormon faith, it is only a matter of time before they are invited to make their case on Steve Deace's radio program ... just as Johnson was last night.

Johnson made the case that Christians are misinformed about the true nature of Mormonism, thanks to people like David Barton who is "hugging and kissing all over Glenn Beck," and asked whether Christians would be willing to vote for a member of the First Church of Satan if the candidate supported the conservative agenda, warning that the "anybody but Obama" mindset was going to drive the nation and the church "into the arms of perdition" and prevent God from blessing America:

It appears that about six hundred people signed onto For the Sake of the Gospel's declaration, and the site does not seem to have been active since May. But this is probably the tip of one of many anti-Mormon icebergs.

Crossposted from Talk to Action

Originally posted to Frederick Clarkson on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 08:59 PM PDT.

Also republished by Street Prophets and Pro Choice.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I think this issue (28+ / 0-)

    is going to have a much larger effect (in depressing Mitts vote total) than has been considered to date. This will take the form of non-votes, under-votes and 3rd party votes. Particularly, now that it appears Virgil Goode will get the 3rd position on the Virginia ballot for the Constitution Party, watch this state in the early evening on election day.

    Good diary.

    Zen and the Art of Penis Truck Maintenance

    by virginislandsguy on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:19:21 PM PDT

  •  I was wondering how this issue... (12+ / 0-)

    … was being addressed.

    Heh heh… couldn't happen to nicer folks, both 'sides.'

  •  T&R'd, thanks. (13+ / 0-)

    I hope you will soon see fit to trace the Ryan/Rand connection to The Church of Satan. In no uncertain terms, because you can and it's real and it needs to be done...

    The Mormon and the Satanist


    The Protestant and the Catholic

    It really is that simple, and many of us need good, succinct data presentations we can offer to our family, friends and neighbors who might be re-thinking their Republican loyalties these days.

    Thanks again, FC.

  •  most interesting! this goes deeper than expected! (20+ / 0-)

    I knew there were "issues," but I had no idea how deep & wide the divisions ran on this.

    Jerry Johnson's quotes are just priceless:  "the Beast or the False Prophet," and (perhaps revealing just a wee bit too much), "hugging and kissing all over Glenn Beck" (all over him? every square inch?!).  

    This is news we can use!

    Get out there on Yahoo and other general public sites that are infested with right-wingers, and quote Johnson et. al.   Say that you're "disappointed" that the GOP didn't choose a "real Christian," and say that you're going to sit this one out altogether because (use your favorite religious rightie quote here).

    Other variations:  "My pastor said this is proof we should stay away from politics and stick to saving souls," and "I'm going to write in Mike Huckabee as a protest vote," etc. etc.

    The key thing is the emotional narrative: disappointment, despair, and then righteous refusal to participate.    

    Every two Republicans you can persuade to stay home, are the equivalent of adding one more Democrat.  

    "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

    by G2geek on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:25:55 PM PDT

    •  Rabble-rouser! nt (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      G2geek, blueoasis, DJ Rix
    •  This is a strategy I fully endorse. (13+ / 0-)

      A few weeks ago, I took a slightly different approach, though mine was not premeditated for effect.

      I've an acquaintance who's a financially successful, ultra-"Conservative", fundamentalist Xtian asshat. He's forever preaching the Prosperity Gospel, holding up his six figure income as proof of God's favor visited upon him.

      On this particular day, he sat uninvited at my table and started (for the umpteenth time) to extoll the Christian values of Romney and Ryan. I'd finally had enough. (He's pulled this shit on me before, which I've commented upon in years past. He still hasn't gotten the message that I'm not a receptive audience for his propaganda.)

      I calmly (and wisely) put down my fork and knife and said to him (in arguably less than diplomatic language), "Shut the fuck up, asshole! I'm sick to death of your hypocrisy. I have many Christian friends. Christians who actually strive to live their lives in accordance with the teachings of Jesus. You, sport, are NOT a Christian. You're a fucking card carrying, dues paying member of the American Christian Party. You're no more a Christian than the National Socialist Party members were socialists." [Yeah, I went Godwin. So sue me.] "The right wing fundy church you attend has been preaching for years that the Mormans are NOT Christian and that their dogma is antithetical to Christian beliefs, but NOW that a Mormon is the Republican candidate to unseat Obama, you go all Emily Litella on us. And you extoll the values of Paul Fucking Ryan? The guy who PRAISES the economic philosophy of an atheist who had nothing but contempt for Christians? Take your mouth-breathing hypocrashit out of here. I'm trying to eat my meal in peace, and you're giving me heartburn."

      Picture an old man with chronic bronchitis and arthritis in his hips, who hasn't been in a fight in 40 years (That would be moi), trading chest bumps and spittle flecks with a younger, stronger (but definitely dumber) antagonist. It was a thing of high comedy.

      "Go ahead, fuckwad, give it your best shot. Then show me in the Bible where Jesus says, 'Throw the first punch.' "

      After an interminable standoff (during which time I (an atheist) was praying, "Dear God, don't let him act as dumb as he is," he backed away, screamed, "FUCK YOU. YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!" and stormed out of the restaurant.

      The moral of the story is there's more than one way to exploit the Christian/Morman divide.

      WisePiper - changing hearts and minds, one voter at a time.

      Don't ask if I'm better off now than four years ago. Ask if I'm better off than I would have been under four years of McCain.

      by WisePiper on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 01:30:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  lions & tigers & bears, oh my! (6+ / 0-)

        I daresay you didn't change his vote, but it would not surprise me if his final screamy outburst changed a few.  

        Something else you can use on the Prosperity Gospel types:
        Call them Mammon-worshipers.  (Mammon, the god of worldly wealth and power.)

        Embellish in various ways, for example, by asking if Mammon gave them holy dispensation to vote for a ticket in which the VP candidate subscribes to a philosophy that has nothing but contempt for Christianity.  

        "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

        by G2geek on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 01:42:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I like that. (5+ / 0-)

          Next time he walks into the restaurant, I think I'll salute him with, "All hail the Mammonite!"

          Of course, one of these days he's liable to suppress his fear of a civil suit and actually punch me out. I hope the ACA addresses affordable dental coverage.

          Don't ask if I'm better off now than four years ago. Ask if I'm better off than I would have been under four years of McCain.

          by WisePiper on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 01:46:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  if he does, press charges. (5+ / 0-)

            Assault & battery.  And then file a civil suit.  We'll see how long he sings the Prosperity Gospel Theme Song after a jury cleans out his bank account and gives a big chunk to you.

            However!  Be careful the language you use, so it can't be taken as "fighting words."  You'll lose on both counts if he and his lawyers can convince criminal and civil juries that you provoked him.  "All hail..." sounds too much like "Seig Heil."  


            First, if he walks in and sits down and apologizes, don't be rude in return.  That's throwing away a teachable moment.  

            The goal isn't to get him to punch you so you can sue him and put him in jail.  The goal is to get him to change his mind.

            And the way to do that is by quietly and thoughtfully accepting his apology and then saying something along the lines of, "You know, all that Prosperity Gospel stuff is really Mammon worship.  It's the kind of thing that was anathema to Jesus.  If you're really serious about your faith, you'll turn over a new leaf."   And leave it there.  Let the words do their work quietly.

            The goal of war isn't to maximize the enemy body count, or even to take the most prisoners.  The goal is to get the enemy to concede.  So whatever you think & feel about this guy, what you need to think is strategy, toward the goal of getting him to concede the point and change his behavior.

            Whether that translates to a vote or anything else remains to be seen.  But changing hearts and minds is ultimately what we have to do in order to move this country forward.

            "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

            by G2geek on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 02:56:09 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well said, Geek. Thank you for endorsing politics. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              G2geek, wasatch, Paul Rogers

              Democratic, every citizen gets a vote and ought to use it wisely, politics.

              Courage is contagious. - Daniel Ellsberg

              by semiot on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 05:16:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  what did you think I was going to endorse? ;-) (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                semiot, Paul Rogers, quarkstomper

                Letting the other guy throw the first punch and then decking him in return?  Nah, that solves nothing.  Nobody wins those things.

                The way I think these things through goes like this:

                1)  Once we have a clear means to exercise definitive power over an adversary, we're morally obligated to back down from the exercise of that power except as a last resort.  (Parallel to: when we have military superiority over an enemy, we're obligated to seek diplomatic solutions and only use military force as a last resort.)

                2)  This enables us to shift gears from "war mode" to "diplomacy mode," because we have already determined that if it comes to war, we have a clear route to victory.  

                3)  At that point the key question is, what's the goal to be served by diplomacy?  Here, we're morally obligated to parse out the means & goals in such a manner as to favor the general public interest over self-interest.  

                4)  In an election, we want to shift votes.  However, in the situation at hand, we take one further step back from that, to a position where the goal in this case is not to get the other guy to concede his vote: only to concede that he had behaved in an un-Christian manner due to his commitment to a "gospel of greed" ("prosperity gospel").   In other words, look to change the root values that are involved.

                5)  Deliberately avoid seeking a concrete concession in the form of a pledge to change his vote.  This is part of declining to exercise direct power over another person when you're in the position to do so.  

                (And if it happens that this shifts someone's vote, that's a good thing, but we can't go into it seeking to impose that outcome.)


                The relevant principles and methods work in other situations as well, for example in doing business ethically.  

                If I had to generalize this, it comes down to: when your position is secure, you're obligated to behave according to ethics that are grounded in general principles.  This is the Kantian categorical imperative on two levels: a) treat other people as ends-in-themselves rather than means to other ends, and b) act according to principles that you would hold to be applicable to everyone.  

                "Minus two votes for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                by G2geek on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 06:12:29 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  G2geek:given Ur comment... (0+ / 0-)

      "how deep & wide the divisions RUN on this I can easily see that a Jew would have a tough time even getting to the POTUS starting gate even if a member of "Jews for Jesus".  

    •  The great success of the Moral Majority (0+ / 0-)

      movement was that it animated to political action a variety of conservative churches & Christians  historically &  traditionally averse to active political  engagement, considering it too "worldly." The Federal denial of aid to all  white Christian private schools is what really pissed off guys like Falwell, who as we know had great ambitions in the educational field.  I don't know what Fred thinks, but my impression was that they grabbed abortion as kind of an afterthought, & then discovered it was the key to proclaiming that  sexual "sins" were turning God's favor away from America. What flat root beer sipping Southern Baptist could resist that lurid appeal?

      "There ain't no sanity clause." Chico Marx

      by DJ Rix on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 09:30:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I wish (10+ / 0-)

    people would pay less attention to the ultra-wacky "beliefs" of the smithian church and more attention to the laughable history of its grifter inventors and the slaughter of non-believers as the cult made its way unto the new Zion. Of course if they did that they would have to examine their own baseless beliefs in mythical sky-deities, virgin births and holy sperm, and we know how much the truth hurts.

  •  Backslider ... better than a cult member (6+ / 0-)

    I'm a backslider nowadays. But having been raised a Methodist, no way can I say that the Mormon cult is just another branch of Christianity. It's less bad than Scientology and the Moonies, but only slightly less bad.

  •  Romney is Slowly Getting Their Support (7+ / 0-)

    I have an ultra-rightwing brother who is a fundamentalist Christian.  He vowed during the primaries that he would not vote for Romney is Romney were the nominee.  But of course he hates Obama with a passion - and I mean he REALLY HATES Obama.

    Slowly but surely, it seems that he is inching closer and closer to actually voting for Romney in the General Election.  I cannot imagine anyone more committed to his brand of Christianity and if he can do it almost anyone can.

    IF a committed conservative Christain were to hate Obama a little less, then perhaps they would choose to not vote at all, and I think that is the key.  If OfA and everyone can work on the conservative Christians that we encounter and convince them that Obama isn't quite as bad as they have been led to believe, then we can get their anti-Mormon sentimate to kick in and stay home on election day.

    The Republicans are begging for more rope. Give it to them!!!

    by nuketeacher on Wed Sep 05, 2012 at 09:57:18 PM PDT

  •  Cults of yesterday are the religions of today. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jon Says, sfbob, wasatch

    The cults of yesterday are often the religions of today.  I expect in 200 years, our descendants will probably see scientology treated as a respectable religion.  At least similarly to how mormonism is treated today.

    Despite the genesis of such groups, it's the people themselves who matter, not whatever religious teachings they decide they want to be a part of.

    Romney's religion is pretty much a non-issue for me.  It matters far more what he wants to do, and has done with his power in the real world.  Sure, belief does inform action, but it's pretty stupid to argue against him on the basis of his religion.

    •  His religion is a big concern to me and Ryans (11+ / 0-)

      Normally it wouldn't be that way, but for the past 12 years, religion has increasingly been used as an excuse to deprive other Americans of their rights.

      The use of dog whistle politics, "family values" is a clear indication that they are not just indifferent to women's issues, but openly hostile to our freedom and to our full citizenship, as they are to homosexuals as well.

      Not to mention their all out attack on Science.

      Their "Religious Beliefs" or at least what they pretend to adhere to, are so extreme, that in this case, their religion makes them ineligible for my vote into an office.

      They are either a} faking it for votes or b} off their damn rockers.

      Either way--I don't want them to be elected as a dog catcher, much less as leaders of the free world.

      •  Religion is not necessarily a public display. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        In the cases you mention, those things are real policies, not just a matter of religion.  The bad policies themselves matter more than what the person believes.

        The fissure between conservative mormons and christians shouldn't really exist.  They both basically want the same things.

        The 'Family Values' crowd just like to use religious conviction as a cudgel to bully, harass, lie and intimidate others with bad public policy.

        Using religion as an excuse to justify harming other people is a different matter entirely.  At that point, they're advocating in favor of harm.  At that point, when religion is used to justify it, they're promoting religion as public policy.

        But it's important to keep in mind that above all else, they're arguing in support of harm.

        •  I guess when it's you that they are personally (7+ / 0-)

          harming, with their religion, perhaps you would feel differently.

          Anyone who takes religion and turns it into an extremist ideology makes the case against themselves as a candidate. When they have followers that support them, that drives the point home that it's a mob of people willing to use religion --Just as you said--to bully and disenfranchise.

          Religion can be a facet of someone's life, but if it consumes everything within their life including their ethics, and sanity, then clearly their "religion" makes them ineligible, because they have abandoned reason.

          •  Let me put it this way: I would no sooner (4+ / 0-)

            put someone like Romney or Ryan into office, than I would put Jim Jones or David Koresh into office.

            Would you put the head of the World Church of the Creator into office?

            I never cared for Bush, but when he went all Gog and Maggog while talking to the leader of France--gosh that was his Jim Jones moment right there.

            When it became clear that his religion, especially the quarky-er aspects of it were used to make life and death policy decisions--LIKE WAR, it should have been clear that what passed for judgement had been clouded to a point of dysfunction. His authority should have been heavily doubted.

            In that moment religion became a prerequisite for impeachment. The fact that he had generals who backed him and a Corporate puppet master VP, should have driven the point home, that the man was not capable of functioning without strings.

            •  Religion should be a political non-sequitor. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I understand.  What I mean to say is that I'd rather see him being criticized over what he wants to do, rather than see him criticized for what he says he believes.

              I consider all religion silly, and while I generally don't have much qualms with pointing out how silly such beliefs are, it is not very important that politicians say they believe such things.

              After all, there are some christians, mormons, muslims, buddhists, etc...  That want the same things politically that I do.  Pointing out how silly their religion is would only really be a distraction.  I'd probably rather have Harry Reid in office than an atheist Republican that may be his political opponent.  (I don't know who his political opponent is, but given the purity of the Republican party, I can't imagine I could support an atheist Republican among them, let alone one which would support policies I would like.)

              Interpretation of religious doctrine is a matter for the religious to argue amongst their own groups, and that's a completely different forum.  It also shouldn't be a political one, even if it often is used to justify cruelty by Republicans.

              •  If belief is used to justify what a person wants (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Paul Rogers

                to do, especially when it involves acts of war, violence, or policy that negatively affects citizens in the extreme, then it leaves the realm of neutrality and becomes very relevant to a person's qualifications to lead.

                There is a big difference between meditating on a subject, and finding stillness to gain a direction, as opposed to claiming to hear "divine"  voices or fulfill prophecies that just happen to fill your backer's coffers, or deprive your opponents of the vote.

                There is a line and these people stepped over it, trying to hide their intent and their evil behind the robe and crown. It is inexcusable for them, it is unacceptable to me as a nonbeliever, and it should be to those who identify with the faith in question based purely on ethical considerations.

                If you want to become a Cybil and sniff poisonous hallucingenic gases from cracks in the earth, to prophecy--then by all means do so. Just don't expect to be elected President.

    •  It's kind of silly tho, don't you think, that as (3+ / 0-)

      the human race evolves and gains scientific knowledge, as we become better able to let go of ancient mythology, how silly is it that we would take on new mytholodgies that are no more grounded in science than any mythology that came before? That's moving backwards. Rather frightening.

      Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

      by JTinDC on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 05:40:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  People are pretty silly. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Some people probably do need the comfort of fables to make life tolerable.  I doubt that religion is something that will go away on its own.

        As time goes on, religions will just evolve and take on different forms.  Religious people these days tend to have a divine force tiny enough to fit into the cracks their own knowledge.  It should be our goal as doubters to make those cracks as tiny as possible.  But they will still exist.

        People are silly.

    •  In 200 years (0+ / 0-)

      each of the religions will have 200 adherents.

      As for the fundies collapsing and voting for Romney, it's our long experience as a Party that in the end the reactionaries always collaborate against liberals.  Grand metaphysical truths are never so grand that they become greater than the truth that the future will see the liberal view prevail.

  •  Their religious objections to Mormonism (9+ / 0-)

    make complete sense to me. It would be both strange & doctrinally wrong-headed if they didn't view it as, at best, a heresy. Mormonism doesn't even abut conservative  "orthodoxy." It isn't Billy Graham winning converts for Christ in a stadium  & sending them off to the local church of their choice.  Karen Armstrong considers LDS the "fourth great Abrahamic religion."  I happen to agree with her. Mormons, of course, do not. Nor do Southern Baptists.

    But I'd still vote for Harry Reid.

    The question is,  do they hate President Obama enough  to get off their butts on Election Day? He is, after all, a Muslim at worst, possibly an atheist, at best  an adherent of Black Liberation Theology.

    It's going to matter in North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado  & Ohio. In those states, a few thousand votes will likely make all the difference.

    "There ain't no sanity clause." Chico Marx

    by DJ Rix on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 12:34:18 AM PDT

  •  Hey Fred. I see you fleshed the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paul Rogers, luckylizard

    For the Sake of the Gospel part out a bit more from what was initially posted last night. Thanks for that and for providing the link.

    I know there hasn't been much recent activity latel, but I aim to help them generate new interest and I invite all Kossacks with fundaloon family, friends, etc to send them a link to the For the Sake of the Gospel web site. Let's give them our support. It's the christian thing to do. bwahahaha

    Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

    by JTinDC on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 05:30:40 AM PDT

  •  There is a reason for this... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paul Rogers, luckylizard

    "The Mormons are also viewed as competitors in the battle to win souls, which makes electing a Mormon as president, a grave concern."

    The Mormons have a neat system that the Christians haven't thought of in the race for souls... afterlife conversions!  The Mormons have been busy post death converting tons of Jews. In fact, Ann and Mitt Romney and their families post-converted her father months after his death because he was a confirmed atheist!

    Everytime I look at that woman, I think about this and realize that she is completely delusional, and nasty to boot. Poor Dad!

    I'm sure that any day now, the Christians will come up with their own revelation that they too need to get busy with the after death soul business.  After all, the religion with the most souls in its camp wins!

    •  That reminds me of something. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      A friend told me once that some ancient catholic theologian came up with the idea that one of the non-heaven afterlives is where a soul goes to for a limited time to 'burn off' the sin staining the soul.  Once the sin burns off of the soul, the individual is sent up to the higher planes, and eventually to heaven.

      I have no idea if this is true, but it seems to be along those lines.  Of course, it could have been a part of their theology and have been taken back by a later theologian, but there's no reason it can't return in mainstream catholicism.

      •  Sure- that would be fun! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Paul Rogers

        An afterlife battle for souls between the Mormons and the Catholics!  Might as well go all the way into crazyland! Think I'll just skip the afterlife too...

        It's just this kind of stuff that drove me away from religion. The problem with that is now, when I look at mankind, I realize all religious ideas are nonsense and I fear we'll never grow out of it.  Just look at how much religion has co-opted our abilities to have rational conversations about governing!

  •  This might explain why (0+ / 0-)

    Rmoney is still focusing on the base & hasn't moved to the middle for the general elections, as is the conventional wisdom

    Our president has his failings, but compared to Mitt Romney he is a paradigm of considered and compassionate thought.

    by OMwordTHRUdaFOG on Thu Sep 06, 2012 at 04:02:45 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site