Yes, indeed Mitt's "religion" is a cult. It is the Joe Smith cult, much like David Koresh had a cult and Jim Jones had a cult. Everything Mormons believe hinges on a fairy tale dreamed up by Joe Smith with five or six people signing affidavits asserting that his fairy tale is the truth. It's positively nutty.

Regardless, I don't oppose Romney because of his religion -- I oppose him because he is a snake -- the Republican equivalent of Slick Willie. God help us all if this man is our nominee.

LOL! And we wonder why religion is at the center of most of the wars man has probably ever fought.

Everybody can throw a firebomb, with no other rational other than they believe something is true.

Frankly I think the majority hardcore religious groups are cult-like. And my rational has nothing to do with what they believe, but how nutty and drone like their members behave.

ahmanrah,

There are a lot of diverse Christian religions that have slightly different beliefs with the exception of their belief in God. Christian religions can be traced back thousands of years and many Christian beliefs can be traced back to verifiable facts. Mormonism, on the other hand is based on the beliefs of ONE guy -- Joe Smith -- and nothing can be verified unless you want to take the word of Joe and five or six of his close buddies that he gave the golden tablets from which the Book of Mormon came back to the "angel" he got them from.

Thus, it means little to admit the simple, demon-recognized fact that Jesus is the Son of God.

You thumb your nose at UFOs and you make flat out references to demons having realizations. You DON'T want anyone to take you seriously, It has just occurred to me.

Title of this thread: Nice Try, But It's Still a Cult

Excerpt from: National Right to Life Endorses Fred Thompson

"I'm not going to get into the cult status of Mormonism..." Posted by Kerry at November 16, 2007 04:55 PM

As far as a belief in God goes, it is absurd NOT to believe in God given the fact that all of this is here. The idea that everything that is simply materialized is ridiculous. Common sense dictates that there has to be a higher power -- pure and simple. Even if you are going to try to say that we all "evolved" from slime that washed up on the shore and grew legs, who created the slime? Again, it didn't just materialize.

Either way, Mormonism or any Christian denomination have the same problems: they all require leaps faith and none of them can actually be proven, to the skeptic, they're all in the same boat (an ever rocking one). Whether it was some dude who started a "cult" in the 1800's or a "cult" around 2000 years ago. no difference, just humanity trying to grasp their meaning and coping with their mortality. Sure, have your faith, Me? No thanks, I'm cool, please just leave it out of politics, okay?

"Again, it didn't just materialize."

But "God" just materialized? (cue Kerry for 400 page post)

You're right Steve, it didn't. It took a very long time, and it is a cop out to use creation myths to explain it.

I don't understand how you can see "gaps" in one place but ENTIRELY miss them in another.

"Common sense dictates that there has to be a higher power -- pure and simple."

Please explain this, you may be confused because this is not "pure and simple"

YES! Common fucking sense dictates that there is an ALL KNOWING, ALL POWERFUL, OMNIPOTENT and OMNISCIENT being who has existed FOREVER and created EVERYTHING we know. Where did you learn about common sense, a crackhead? Common sense would not tell me this and if it did, it's not common sense.

It's only pure and simple because you're able to make it that way, thinking about it less, so your able to live without fearing the unknown. Newsflash: the unknown is part of life even if you have faith you've removed it.

"...It's only pure and simple because you're able to make it that way, thinking about it less, so your able to live without fearing the unknown. Newsflash: the unknown is part of life even if you have faith you've removed it..."

Any one of us could be T-boned at an intersection and killed instantly, and we never saw it coming. Life IS full of unknowns, you're right about that. *golf clap*

But what you fail to realize SSE, is that true Christianity removes the greatest fear of the unknown: death. The fear of dying lost its deathgrip on me when I made peace with the one who has the authority to pardon and issue eternal security to anyone who wants it.(under his terms)

Whatever happens on earth is only temporary. I know where I'll be when it's all said and done, so in the grand scheme of things, for me, there's nothing unknown to fear.

Nothing can change my final destination. That's not to say I welcome a grisly horrific death. I'd rather die in my sleep, because I don't like pain. But any pain I'll ever have is only here for a little while. True Christianity removes the meaningful unknowns, and gives peace to deal with trivial ones. And you, SSE, are a perfect candidate for a touch from the mighty hand of God.

And you, SSE, are a perfect candidate for a touch from the mighty hand of God.

Cute, I don't want to repeat myself, and I won't blame you because you weren't posting on this site at the time but I've explained in a few other posts with Kerry about my transition from strong belief to my current skeptical attitude of atheism. I was a good Orthodox Christian, but learned there is a lot more to this complex world than Christianity teaches.

I don't fear death; I only know I want a PERSONALLY meaningful life until that point; I don't need a religious belief to make my existence meaningful or special.

A cult, eh?

Whatever religion YOU belong to is a "cult" to me.

C2R....I fear no death. The U.S. Army removed that fear from me.

That line I see you like so much is actually the lyrics of a song, not original to me I'm afraid.

I hope you don't think I'm accusing anyone's life of being meaningless without religion. Obvoiusly that's not the life I choose, but that was not at all the point I was making. I was responding to your acknowledgement of unknowns with or without faith.

My point was that my personal faith helps me deal with the mother of unknowns (death), making all other unknowns in between inconsequential. Several people who don't claim Christianity have done marvelous things for humanity. (Ben Franklin) Unfortunately, many people who claim Christianity have done some dispicable things in the name of Christ. (Pope Pius XII)

"Even if you are going to try to say that we all "evolved" from slime that washed up on the shore and grew legs, who created the slime? Again, it didn't just materialize."

By this logic "God" was created. Who created "God"? SuperGod? Why don't you worship SuperGod instead, as the Creator of the Creator?

My guess: A) You'll reply with Oooo, God is eternal, he has always existed, the Bible says it so I believe it, la la la la la. Provide proof for your "Eternal God" and that'll end the discussion.

or B) You'll ignore this and any other challenge to your "logic".

"...C2R....I fear no death. The U.S. Army removed that fear from me..."

That's nice, considering the U.S. Army won't think twice about putting you in harm's way. But I guarantee your heart rate will skyrocket when a daisy chain of IED's explodes and bullets start whizzing.

You need to distinguish between the fear of the PAIN of dying and a fear of not knowing what comes AFTER death. I have a healthy dose of the 1st, but none of the other. That was the point.

I never not once feared that the Army was going to put me in danger.....I joined the infantry, not the band....and when they did put me in danger, I feared no danger that could come my way...I kept my eye out for it and would do things to minimize it...but I never not once feared it.....and when I was shot at....I feared no bullet whizzin' by....I reacted, nothing more.

Your heartrate is controlled by hormones, not emotions...hormones that will make your heartrate go up regardless of your feeeeeeeeelings. I have been shot at...in the military AND in civilian life...and not once did I fear for my life...I reacted as I was trained to do...got out of the situation ASAP and tried to figure out a way to kill the bastard doing the shooting. Adrenaline is not fear, it's a normal and very simple neuro-endocrine reaction to external stimulus. Yes, adrenaline would make my heartrate skyrocket, but I would still fear no death...that's how the infantry works....fear no death or harm for yourself...fear for the safety of your buddies and let THEM fear for you. Run at that entrenched machinegun...jump on that grenade.

...nor do I fear whatever is AFTER death because I don't believe in anything after death. "Not knowing" is irrelevant to me and my beliefs or lack thereof...I don't spend a single waking moment worrying about what's after "life". I live my life in the manner I choose, and be good to others because I actually feel good about myself when I am....and I do not feel bad when I am not...without worrying that my behaviors are going to send me to hell.....or that I will go to hell if I don't help someone in need.

Now.....there is one thing I fear and it affects my behaviors such that it will not happen. I fear living and dying.....alone. Conducted a military funeral once of a guy that had not one family member...not one friend....not one "buddy" attend...not one person to assist with the casket. That was fearful enough such that I will never lead my life in a manner that I end up alone in the end, no matter when that is....today or 64 years from now.

....and whatever religion anyone belongs to here.....it's all a cult to me and no ad numeram argument will ever suffice.

"...Adrenaline is not fear, it's a normal and very simple neuro-endocrine reaction to external stimulus..."

With no time to think things through, the natural fear of kissing your a@@ goodbye is the stimulus that triggers adrenaline in a firefight. It's a normal fear that humans are wired to have, nothing wrong with it. As long as it doesn't debilitate someone into uselessness, it's alright to be afraid.

The toughest, grittiest soldier I've ever met was Drill Sergeant Kampmann at Fort Benning, GA. He mentioned his adrenaline rushes in combat all the time. He said that if someone says they're not afraid when bullets fly, you can be sure that they've never been where bullets have flown. So then someone asked him if he was afraid. He stopped, paused, thought and then said that we answer his questions, not the other way around then smoked the platoon. That was his way of saying yes.

Sarge,

There is a specific definition of "cult," and Mormonism fits right into it. My only point here is that the conflation of Mormonism with "all Christianity" is deceptive, and it is a deception being willingly engaged in by Romney.

As to this,

""I'm not going to get into the cult status of Mormonism..." Posted by Kerry at November 16, 2007 04:55 PM"

SSE is engaged in a typical liberal trick. I didn't say I would NEVER get into that, but I wasn't going into it in the POST in which I WROTE that.

This is another conversation, another day, and another situation. Now that Romney has as much as asserted the orthodoxy of Mormonism, I am GOING to "get into it."

The fact is that Mormons believe that Elohim, God the Father, came here from somewhere else among the other gods of the worlds, and shaped this world from existing material (he didn't "create" anything.) Elohim and the Celestial mother, through carnal knowledge, create the "spirit beings" that we are in the "pre-existence," where we grow up and become prepared to be born onto this earth. All humans and angels--including Jesus and Lucifer--are spirit brothers and sisters, though Jesus is the first-born of Elohim.

Moreover, they believe that the Book of Mormon is the testament of Jesus among the peoples of the Americas prior to the discovery of the New World, that the New Jerusalem will be built on the American continent, and that you cannot go to Heaven unless you are baptized in the Mormon church.

After your life in this world, you and your wife (assuming you are sealed in the temple for "time and eternity") proceed on to your own planet, which you get to rule the way Elohim rules us, eventually becoming equal in stature to Jesus and God.

No non-Mormon may enter the temple, and no Mormon may either, except for partaking of the sacraments and ordinances of the church (marriage, baptism for the dead, etc.). And, yes, they wear "sacred undergarments" after marriage.

Finally, and what is most likely to kill any hope Romney has of being elected president, they maintained a theology that claimed until 1978 that black people are descendents of Ham and cursed with the mark of Cain. They could not partake in the Temple rituals or hold the priesthood, with the single exception of descendents of the black elder Elijah Abel, who got in before the 1849 ban.

Tell me how the party is going to explain these things to evangelicals, atheists, and all black people?????????

Kerry, don't you for a second try to tell me that you are not simply acting out on your bigotry against those that have a faith in Jesus Christ your Savior that is different than yours. I've read your bigoted anti-every-other-religion-but-mine bullshit long enough that it's as cheesy as a cheap dime-store novel.

When viewed from the outside, your religion, no matter what it is, is a cult by EVERY definition other than the "it's different than ours" one....I don't give a shi'ite what particular bent of JC worshipping you do.....it's ALL a cult when looking at it from the outside....and all "not a cult" when you're a participating member.

But let's see about tha "specific definition/" shall we? This is the slapping you get when trying to back up your bigotry by pointing to a word's specific definition.

I'll go with Webster's first 2 definitions:

1: formal religious veneration : worship (Your Christianity=cult)

2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents (your Christianity=cult)

Then there's Webster's 3rd designed to denigrate a religion that is "different"...so here's your favorite because then YOU get to define what is the "norm" and call everyone outside of your pathetic bigoted definition as "unorthodox":

3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents (Moromonism is unorthodox compared to your Christianity=cult......except "who" gets to define what "orthodox" is? you got it...the one calling the other a cult)

How about Dictionary.com?

1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

You're completely right, Kerry. "cult" DOES have a "specific definition"......and whatever particular bent of Christianity that you subscribe to fits the definition just as much as every other religion fits the definition.

Oooo....forgot that you use "Kerry's definition":

Any religion that isn't the same as mine because I'm a complete religious bigot and must "save" everyone not like me or they'll all go to hell.

Sarge,

It's not MY definition. It's the sociology of religion definition. The definition under which "cults" are studied.

To begin with, Mormonism is denominationally exclusive. It contends that one is not saved unless one is specifically a Mormon. Protestant denominations do not contend individually that they are the only game in town.

Mormonism was founded by one person, based on the revelations given to one person, and led by one person. Christianity as a religion has developed over time, and was led by many different people, based not only on New Testament writings, but on the pre-existing Scripture, as well.

In the sociology of religion, there is a four-fold typology, composed of ecclesias, denominations, cults, and sects. Under this typology (which, I stress, is what is generally used when studying them, and are therefore the genesis of all the academic information we HAVE about them), Mormonism qualifies as a cult (which we are increasingly terming a "new religious movement," (NRM) due to the sloppy usage of "cult" in the common vernacular). This is based primarily on its development of a novel theology that remains in tension with the surrounding culture and with denominations. It also fits the criteria in origin, in that it does not arise out of an existing ecclesia or denomination, as a sect would have; it in fact explicitly rejected all other contemporary religions and denominations.

It also presents a novel artifact, the Book of Mormon, which marks it as a cult, as does its deference to a single individual or series of "special" individuals (the Prophet, currently Gordon Hinckley).

All of this originates in the work of Max Weber on sociology of religion, moving through the work of Rodney Stark, James Davison Hunter, and others. It is reinforced by theologians of religion, but there are differing definitions and typologies available in the psychology of religion and in the anthropology of religion.

All I'M saying is that Romney's religion is a "cult" or NRM to the evangelical and the sociologist. And, while the sociologists don't much care, the evangelicals do, and he knows it. So he deliberately painted Mormonism in false colors of Christianity and left out significant information that would have had an impact on their assessment of it.

Many evangelical denominations, by the way, including Baptists, send out missionaries to Mormons and have apologetics departments that specifically deal with the claims of Mormonism. How long do you think they think that sort of thing will fly when what they are essentially saying is, "Let me help you escape the spiritual deception you share with the president of the United States?"

The particular "bent" of Christianity that I belong to is known as Pentecostalism, within which I am Assemblies of God, which is a sect of third-wave Protestantism. While we have our differences with our Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, and Presbyterian (etc) brethren, we in no way claim that they are unsaved because of the church they belong to. (However, I will stipulate that there are some particular churches within pentecostalism that do practice exclusivity; being an "Assembly," or association of churches, we don't exercise downward control. In that, we are very similar to Baptist governance.)

However, Mormons have no such "associational" defense, in that they have a centralized form of governance, and a dogmatic set of beliefs. "What Mormons believe" is not a matter of individual choice, and the belief system is enforced by a universalized teaching curriculum. For Romney to pretend that he thinks Mormonism is just another form of ordinary Christianity is simply not credible. And, whether you are a Christian or not, the fact that he is being deceptive on this issue--or any issue, for that matter--should be disturbing.

Steve,

You make me chuckle. How is Joseph Smith's journey into the forest to find golden plates any different than Moses journey up Mount Sinai to get two stone tablets from God. Who was around to verify Moses encounter? Besides perhaps his friends and family. Verifiable facts? What a bunch of horse pucky.

If anything what invalidates Joseph's Smith little jaunt into the woods is his lack of originality from wannabe holy men of 2000 years ago.

Steve,

And the fact that Christianity has been around for thousands of years doesn't provide one ounce of evidence of its truthfulness...if that were the case Hinduism would be more true because its been around twice as long.

When the faithful start "hatin" their fellow faithful, it makes the skeptic chuckle, seeing how meaningless it truly is. This atheist is going to sit back and watch as the religious fight over what is they can validate/invalidate with their own "teachings" and "feeeeeeeeeelings" (Sarge, I see you use this all the time, even in threads that we disagree; I laugh every time, I think it's great and I'm borrowing it).

from above: "what is they" -is please.

I hate when I do that.

It also presents a novel artifact, the Book of Mormon, which marks it as a cult, as does its deference to a single individual or series of "special" individuals (the Prophet, currently Gordon Hinckley).

And Catholicism has two books and has deference to the Pope, so I guess its a cult to...ah?

"Christian religions can be traced back thousands of years and many Christian beliefs can be traced back to verifiable facts."

History cannot even prove Jesus existed. Historians generally assume, based on predominantly religious evidence, that Jesus existed however not much concensus is held beyond that.

"Mormonism, on the other hand is based on the beliefs of ONE guy -- Joe Smith -- and nothing can be verified unless you want to take the word of Joe and five or six of his close buddies that he gave the golden tablets from which the Book of Mormon came back to the "angel" he got them from."

lol. How is that much different than Christian doctrine? One guy with a handful of disciples? The golden tablets are mysteriously lost... the ten commandments are mysteriously lost. The only real difference is that we know an aweful lot more about Smith which gives us more cause to be skeptical.

Now, don't get me wrong. I've read Under the Banner of Heaven which is an account of the history of Mormonism. I think Smith was a charlatan who created this "religion" out of self interest. Smith's womanizing and indulgences are well known. It's said that God works in mysterious ways, but I have doubts that He would choose someone like Smith to spread his Word.

I do believe that most followers of Mormonism honestly believe in Jesus and the like. Forget the minutia though..., if followers of Mormonism truly devote their lives to Jesus... if they believe in their soul that Jesus is their salvation..., what does it matter? Kerry has no idea what is in Mitt Romney's heart or what he believes. My question is, religion aside, would he make a good President? Would he do what needs to be done for America? That is what is important. He isn't going to be preaching religion from the oval office. He isn't a demon in disguise sent here to lead you astray. He's a candidate for President of the United States. Can he do that job? That's what is important.

"Mormonism was founded by one person, based on the revelations given to one person, and led by one person."

So was Christianity. You just don't recognize it because you have 2000 years of history to look back on.

"Christianity as a religion has developed over time, and was led by many different people, based not only on New Testament writings, but on the pre-existing Scripture, as well."

Again, Christianity has had 2000 years of history to build upon. Mormonism has had less than 200 years. This is rather misleading though since, in the Mormon religion, the Book of Mormon exists as a companion to the Holy Bible. Therefore, one could say that Mormonism actually has MORE history to build upon than traditional Christian religions. It should also be noted that Judaism views Christianity in much the same way mainstream Chrstianity views Mormonism.

"... it in fact explicity rejected all other contemporary religions and denominations."

Yet, Mormons consider themselves Christians? If they rejected contemporary religions, as you say, why would they use a descriptor commonly associated with contemporary religions?

"To begin with, Mormonism is denominationally exclusive. It contends that one is not saved unless one is specifically a Mormon. Protestant denominations do not contend individually that they are the only game in town."

Wrong, as you frequently remind us. Unless you're a Christian and accept Christ as your savior... you're going to burn in Hell. Call it what you will, but you're telling everyone that Christianity is the only game in town.

"It also presents a novel artifact, the Book of Mormon, which marks it as a cult...,"

Christianity is full of novel artifacts, many supposedly lost. Where are those Ten Commandments?

"...as does its deference to a single individual or series of "special" individuals (the Prophet, currently Gordon Hinckley)."

The Pope is what now? Does this mark Catholics as cultists? It's interesting though that one of the basic teachings of Mormonism is that any and everyone can commune with God. Such teaching is hardly a deference to a single individual. Mormonism is actually full of individual revelations. You might say these revelations are kind of like our Bill of Rights.

Mormons have not had the easiest time in the United States. They've been driven from one area to the next, which is why they settled on Utah... a relatively remote region at the time. I suspect much of their "community structure" can be associated with their rather nomadic history.

"...The golden tablets are mysteriously lost... the ten commandments are mysteriously lost..."

The tablets with the 10 commandments were placed in the ark of the covenant. That's clearly stated in the Bible, but you'd have to read it to know that. And while the ark's location has been the topic of fierce debate in archaeological circles for centuries, I assume you believe the ark doesn't exist, either. Having never seen Jesus, or the ark, your advanced logic cannot accept the existence of either. *head nod with patronizing smile*

On the flip side, I agree with everything you said about mormonism. To answer your question why a "good mormon" can't get saved: to get "saved" or "born again", the recipient must be in full agreement with Christ on issues such as Christ's diety, sin payment, and the work of salvation. The truths contained in the Bible are in sharp disagreement with mormon teachings on these issues. So to get saved, they'd need to lose thier mormonism to get anywhere in the first place.

"History cannot even prove Jesus existed. Historians generally assume, based on predominantly religious evidence, that Jesus existed however not much concensus is held beyond that."

This is factually untrue. Do you really believe it? Such a degree of ignorance in the twenty-first century is truly amazing.

""Mormonism, on the other hand is based on the beliefs of ONE guy -- Joe Smith -- and nothing can be verified unless you want to take the word of Joe and five or six of his close buddies that he gave the golden tablets from which the Book of Mormon came back to the "angel" he got them from.""

"lol. How is that much different than Christian doctrine?"

It is very different.

"One guy with a handful of disciples?"

5000 followers do not a "handful of disciples" make. The followers of Jesus were many in number, and their efforts after the resurrection touched several continents, spreading the Gospel eventually to every corner of the world.

"The golden tablets are mysteriously lost... the ten commandments are mysteriously lost. The only real difference is that we know an aweful lot more about Smith which gives us more cause to be skeptical."

In what way do we know "more" about Smith than about Moses or Jesus?

"I do believe that most followers of Mormonism honestly believe in Jesus and the like."

The Jesus of Mormonism, in origin and in eschatology, is nothing like the Jesus of the Bible. And it's the "like" part that bothers evangelicals.

"Forget the minutia though..., if followers of Mormonism truly devote their lives to Jesus... if they believe in their soul that Jesus is their salvation..., what does it matter?"

It matters because it is "another gospel," and that's flat-out not allowed.

"Kerry has no idea what is in Mitt Romney's heart or what he believes."

If he believes in Mormonism, I DO know "what he believes," and it's available to anyone who wants to do the research. If he doesn't believe those things, then he isn't a Mormon, and he shouldn't claim to be.

"My question is, religion aside, would he make a good President? Would he do what needs to be done for America? That is what is important. He isn't going to be preaching religion from the oval office. He isn't a demon in disguise sent here to lead you astray. He's a candidate for President of the United States. Can he do that job? That's what is important."

The reason his religion is important is that the people he is trying to reach with this speech are the people that the Moral Majority and Ronald Reagan brought into politics between 1978 and 1992, who came into politics SPECIFICALLY as a duty before God. They did not come into politics to vote for economic benefit, or national security, or any of those things. They re-entered the world of politics after a fifty-year absence solely because they saw it as a duty to revive America, no matter how distasteful a chore it seemed to them to be.

Now, many of them fell in love with--or at least became comfortable with--politics after that, and remained in the fray. But there are still a number--and I'm not saying this is a knowable number, but every evangelical quite a few people who fall into this camp--that never really got used to it, and would just as soon skip it. Go to any conservative evangelical church and talk to some folks about politics. You'll soon see what I mean. Politics is a nasty business. They don't like it; they don't want to engage in it. They don't like to watch television, and the local paper is probably a little too leftist for them. They'll be out there on election day, but they want to put the decision off as far as possible.

For those people, whether the President believes in spirit children, sealed-in-the-Temple marriages, the destiny of the New Jerusalem on the American continent, and other weird things matters. It matters a lot.

His presentation was deceptive, and deliberately so. He is, as people have observed before, too slick.

Would he make a good president? I don't know. I don't see any basis on which to assume he would be better than the other candidates, and since there are other candidates at the moment, I prefer not to have to consider that unless and until I have no choice.

Again, whether I liked him or not before (and I rather did), bringing this up in this way was manipulative, and I am not comfortable with it.

Finally, and what is most likely to kill any hope Romney has of being elected president, they maintained a theology that claimed until 1978 that black people are descendents of Ham and cursed with the mark of Cain.

You so easily use this against Mormons, but the several times I've mentioned the persecution Christianity has inflicted on Millions of people, (Inquisitions, Crusades, Witch burnings etc.) it "ain't no thang." How again do you justify that?

""Finally, and what is most likely to kill any hope Romney has of being elected president, they maintained a theology that claimed until 1978 that black people are descendents of Ham and cursed with the mark of Cain.""

"You so easily use this against Mormons, but the several times I've mentioned the persecution Christianity has inflicted on Millions of people, (Inquisitions, Crusades, Witch burnings etc.) it "ain't no thang." How again do you justify that?"

This point isn't about the general nastiness of various religions. It's about the electability of someone who follows the teachings of Mormonism in a country of people who don't believe them, and who--if told what they were--would be LESS likely to vote for the REPUBLICAN candidate.

The specific point I am making here is undisturbed by the crusades and so forth. The fact is that black American Christians hold VERY orthodox views, and take them very seriously. And black Americans, Christian and non-, are not likely to take kindly adherence to a faith system that appears on its face to have practiced a SERIOUS form of racism until NINETEEN SEVENTY-EIGHT. That's a LOT longer than the rest of the country held on to its racist roots. A lot.

I want an electable candidate. At the very least, I don't want to get one that is likely to get sandbagged in the middle of the campaign with something forseeable. The image of Romney trying to address this with Obama is a nightmare. And I prefer to avoid it.

"The tablets with the 10 commandments were placed in the ark of the covenant. That's clearly stated in the Bible, but you'd have to read it to know that. And while the ark's location has been the topic of fierce debate in archaeological circles for centuries, I assume you believe the ark doesn't exist, either. Having never seen Jesus, or the ark, your advanced logic cannot accept the existence of either. *head nod with patronizing smile*"

On the contrary, I find the search for the Ark to be fascinating. Actually, I find Christian history to be fascinating. I've traveled all of Israel. I've been to the Church of Annunciation. I've been to the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan River. But, when you call one religion a cult because of lost artifacts, yet ignore the artifacts of your own religion... that's rather like the pot calling the kettle black. My biggest problem with Mormonism has nothing to do with anything Kerry mentioned. My biggest problem was to do with who Joseph Smith was.

"This is factually untrue. Do you really believe it? Such a degree of ignorance in the twenty-first century is truly amazing."

Show me any generally accepted evidence of Jesus' existance that doesn't have anything to do with religion. Please.

Kerry, it's funny that you discount the fact the the Holy Bible is as important to Mormonism as the Book of Mormon is. You speak as if they've burned the Bible and accept only the Book of Mormon.

"5000 followers do not a "handful of disciples" make. The followers of Jesus were many in number, and their efforts after the resurrection touched several continents, spreading the Gospel eventually to every corner of the world."

5000 followers didn't provide the testimony that made it into the Bible. Mormonism spread a lot faster than Christianity did. Do you want to include all of them as followers? Only a handful of testimonies made it into the Bible.

"In what way do we know "more" about Smith than about Moses or Jesus?"

Public record. Personal accounts. Much more varied documentation than we have of Jesus and Moses.

The other things we know about Mormonism is all its dirty laundry (ie the ideas and events reported by them as true) that we know are pure BS. But Christianity has the future of being 2000 years old and all the wonderful obscurity and glossing over it that time brings with it.

"Show me any generally accepted evidence of Jesus' existance that doesn't have anything to do with religion. Please."

Sigh.

Josephus:

http://members.aol.com/fljosephus/quotes.htm

Tacitus:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html

Section (5) of this document nicely summarizes a number of available ancient sources:

http://www.intermirifica.org/lent/passion1.htm

You're welcome.

"Kerry, it's funny that you discount the fact the the Holy Bible is as important to Mormonism as the Book of Mormon is. You speak as if they've burned the Bible and accept only the Book of Mormon."

If they accept the Book of Mormon, they have rejected the Bible, because the Book of Mormon makes fundamentally contradictory claims about God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit than those of the Bible.

"5000 followers didn't provide the testimony that made it into the Bible. Mormonism spread a lot faster than Christianity did. Do you want to include all of them as followers? Only a handful of testimonies made it into the Bible."

You miss my point. The 5000 I am referring to are those who physically saw the resurrected Christ. While they did not all write accounts, there was nothing controversial in the contemporaneous accounts. In other words, it was well known that there was a man Jesus, that he was worshipped as God by some sect of Judaism, that eventually his followers became known as "Christians." There was no credible claim--then or now--that there was no such person as Jesus--the controversy was over His nature, not His existence.

And Mormonism did NOT "spread a lot faster than Christianity did." Mormonism went from Illinois to Utah. Christianity, before the principals of the New Testament had died, had spread to another continent.

"It should also be noted that Judaism views Christianity in much the same way mainstream Chrstianity views Mormonism."

Indeed. But Christians aren't running for President claiming to be Jews.

"... it in fact explicity rejected all other contemporary religions and denominations."

"Yet, Mormons consider themselves Christians? If they rejected contemporary religions, as you say, why would they use a descriptor commonly associated with contemporary religions?"

Because Joseph Smith claimed to have been given his direction by a direct physical manifestation of God and Jesus, who told him to call the church the "Church of Christ." This stayed the name until 1834, when it was changed to "The Church of the Latter-day Saints," completely omitting the name of Christ (one notes, in complete violation of orders of Jesus in the Book of Mormon itself, which in 3 Nephi 27:8 says, "And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses' name then it be Moses' church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel."

Finally, after several years of persecution and innuendo from the surrounding communities which accused the "saints" of being non-Christians, the leadership decided to call it "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints."

""To begin with, Mormonism is denominationally exclusive. It contends that one is not saved unless one is specifically a Mormon. Protestant denominations do not contend individually that they are the only game in town.""

"Wrong, as you frequently remind us. Unless you're a Christian and accept Christ as your savior... you're going to burn in Hell. Call it what you will, but you're telling everyone that Christianity is the only game in town."

In the church/sect typology, "Christianity" is an ecclesia (even a meta-ecclesia, if you will). The diversity within it is what I am referring to. There are many groups within it that accept one another as saved, despite having differing dogma, practice, and doctrine. Mormonism has one way, and non-Mormons don't get to run their own planets in the afterlife.

""It also presents a novel artifact, the Book of Mormon, which marks it as a cult...,""

"Christianity is full of novel artifacts, many supposedly lost. Where are those Ten Commandments?"

That's not the meaning of "novel artifact."

""...as does its deference to a single individual or series of "special" individuals (the Prophet, currently Gordon Hinckley).""

"The Pope is what now? Does this mark Catholics as cultists? It's interesting though that one of the basic teachings of Mormonism is that any and everyone can commune with God."

Where does it say that?

"Such teaching is hardly a deference to a single individual."

The Prophet is the representative of God on Earth.

"Mormonism is actually full of individual revelations. You might say these revelations are kind of like our Bill of Rights."

Like what?

"Mormons have not had the easiest time in the United States. They've been driven from one area to the next, which is why they settled on Utah... a relatively remote region at the time. I suspect much of their "community structure" can be associated with their rather nomadic history."

No, it comes from its teachings, not the reactions to them.

Sigh.

Sigh what? you didn't even do what was asked. Those links you provided are oozing with "religion" I do not think these are close to credible examples of evidence. I have heard about a lot of these examples before and read much about how they are both questionable. Even one of the links has "earlychristianwritings" in the web address. The last one is by far the best, not only does it use the shroud of Turin as one of its "sources" but it directly recommends the bible for detailed accounts. Come on, if you're doing that, obviously you're not looking at the elements outside of that "religious book" the way you should be. None of these links show credible evidence to even take them seriously. the last link isn't easy to read its organized so horribly; what the hell is with those stupid columns?!

Look, SSE, I don't know what "non-religious" means to you, but to me Josephus and Tacitus and Seutonius and Lucian of Somosata qualify. I can't help it if they don't for you.

And I really don't care what you have to say about this, anyway. I want to talk to the Republicans now, because this is OUR primary and OUR candidate we are talking about.

People, please. I WANT to be a loyal Republican. I really, really do. But I for one don't want to be trying to push this guy into the White House when some smart reporter finally decides to ask Mitt Romney what his Mormon name is and the exact location of Kolob.

C2R,

I don't know your exact theology, but, as SSE admits here:

"Cute, I don't want to repeat myself, and I won't blame you because you weren't posting on this site at the time but I've explained in a few other posts with Kerry about my transition from strong belief to my current skeptical attitude of atheism. I was a good Orthodox Christian, but learned there is a lot more to this complex world than Christianity teaches."

he is an apostate. Now, some teach that such a one has no chance to be recovered. Others believe that it is never too late. I will leave you to deal with him as you will.

Speaking of people following another gospel, The Golden Compass is tanking big-time in the US. It might not even make back its budget:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=goldencompass.htm

Hopefully, that means no second and third episodes.

Meanwhile, Prince Caspian will be along in mid-May.

Merry CHRISTmas!

Kerry, you should read "Under the Banner of Heaven" by Jon Krakauer. The book takes an extremely critical look at Mormonism and it's origins. I agree with your dislike of the Mormon religion, but for different reasons. I do think there are a lot of things you don't understand about Mormonism, such as the fact that Mormonism teaches that anyone can recieve revelations from God.

"We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things" Ninth Article of Mormon Faith

The Mormon leadership keeps an official book, the Scriptural Canon, in which continuing revelations are recorded and referenced.

And I really don't care what you have to say about this, anyway. I want to talk to the Republicans now, because this is OUR primary and OUR candidate we are talking about.

Kerry,

How do you know SSE isn't a Republican. It may come as a news flash but Republican doesn't equal Christians only club. And with Romney to your horror you are discovering that yet again you have to listened to someone you don't want to, and this time they are in YOUR party. Better go form your own Christians for America party if you don't want to have a diverse candidate basis or view points for that matter.

Kerry, in the span of 250 years, Mormonism has reached 6 continents and has probably close to 10 million followers, that is faster on both measures (global reach and follower count) than Christianity of the second century AD.

Speaking of people following another gospel, The Golden Compass is tanking big-time in the US. It might not even make back its budget:

This is fantastic. I can almost guarantee you haven't yet read the book, which means you're regurgitating information that you yourself know nothing about. Read the book. Make an informed decision. At least then you can formulate a meaningful response.

Kerry,

The Golden Compass has made over $85 million dollars, what the hell crack pipe are you smoking? Another $70 million and its broken even.

Sure it ain't a blockbuster, most movies aren't. But what it isn't doing is crashing and burning...sorry to burst your naive bubble.

I will leave you to deal with him as you will.

This sounds like something the cardinal would say to the inqusitioner, "Get.....the comfy chair!!!"

And I really don't care what you have to say about this, anyway. I want to talk to the Republicans now, because this is OUR primary and OUR candidate we are talking about.

You never care what I say, and from what I can see, all the "republicans" mainly disagree with you about your stance in this thread, that is, of course, except for Steve.

If anything the Golden Compass'numbers have far more to do with it being relatively unknown compared to other things that have reached "blockbuster status", than anything to do with its religious content. Or your guys little boycott.

So I guess what I am saying is that you give both yourselves and the expectations for this movie way to much credit to begin with.

As history has clearly demonstrated, if your little religious tirades about movies does anything, it generally makes a movie more popular than it ever should have been.

The Golden Compass grossed $25.8 Million dollars in its first weekend, passing a few films that have been out already for a FEW weekends. I'm not sure what you are getting excited about, it's made about 80m worldwide and it's budget was 180m I'm fairly certain it will surpass that number after a few weeks.

The Golden Compass is tanking big-time in the US.

Your definition of "tanking" needs some tweaking.

"...You so easily use this against Mormons, but the several times I've mentioned the persecution Christianity has inflicted on Millions of people, (Inquisitions, Crusades, Witch burnings etc.) it "ain't no thang." How again do you justify that?..."

SSE,

I'll never protect the vatican from being punched in face. And since I'm not Catholic, (or even Protestant), I am happy to be right behind you in your condemnation of catholicism. For centuries thier blatant acts of terrorism, plunder, and murder all in the "God's name" went unchecked, and freedom of religion in America is thier much deserved ball bat to the teeth. From thier support of nazi Germany, to thier failure to defrock child molesters, recent history has given us enough to draw reasonable conclusions of what catholicism is all about.

While I agree that mormons are cultists, and Smitty's a charlatan, I don't find it to be that big of a deal. Romney was deceptive and he's a politician, no surprise. The GOP can, must, and more than likely will do a lot better. It makes no difference to me if I'm called a cultist, Christ was called a deceiver by Judaism's religious leaders. I could care less if mormons come or go, but nothing would make me happier than seeing the vatican burned to the ground.

Kerry,

I'm an independent landmark Baptist. Several in our church have even thought about changing the name of our church back to Ana-baptist, because of the mess Baptists today have made of the name. As you mentioned, we have a very firm interpretation of the word, ekklesia, and believe in a local, not universal invisible church. Ironically, we bought our building from the local Assemblies of God here in town. BTW, know of any good religious blogs to scrap on?

I tend to think that SSE has seen through the horse pucky of a "mainstream Orthodox Christian religion" (legitimately) and has swung to the far opposite end of the religious spectrum. This is similar to what my parents did when questioning catholicism, the difference being that they became Baptist. I'm not trying to make any converts here. I just enjoy the debate, drama, and irreverence.

C2R:

I tend to think I'm no longer part of the religious spectrum, but sure. What's with everyone using this term "Horse Pucky"?

Also, I don't have it out for Catholics; I consider those horrible things that happened are the product of Christianity in general, not specifically the Catholics. I'd like to also point out, (although perhaps it's sometimes misconstrued) I don't have it out for the faithful, I think it's great that people can believe what they want, however they want. I just don't like to see those beliefs interfere with our government. I can get really angry at times, especially at a religious person when they're forceful with their beliefs but when the debate is over; I still think that freedom is very important.

You can think Mormonism is a cult, either way it doesn’t matter; look at Mr. Romney as a candidate and try to understand him, rather than his beliefs.

I'm not out to scalp catholics either. Parishoners, in many cases were raised that way and don't do well with change. 80%+ of my extended family and extended family is catholic. My great uncle is the pastor/priest of the wealthiest parish in town. My problem is with catholicism's hierarchy from parish priest upward, from the lowest clergy to the pope.

Every priest I've talked to was extremely pleasant. When asked about the grisly atrocities of the Inquisition, thier demeanor changes, and they blame "growing pains". As soon as I bring scripture into the conversation, it abruptly ends. They have no desire to explain what they believe to better help someone understand, or defend thier catachism as coherent. So I have to assume they're hiding something. People who hide things strike me as shady. When enough people (priests) give that impression, I assume catholicism is even more shady higher up the food chain. Read a little history, and the vicious bloodshed says it all.

And most mainstream "Christianity", which is not biblical "Christianity" is no different. It's all about dolla'billz, yo. No wonder the media landblasts idiots like Oral Roberts, Swagart, the Bakers, right down the list. They earned thier scam artist reputations by being, well, scam artists. The haven't helped anyone, and it's horse pucky.

"Kerry, you should read "Under the Banner of Heaven" by Jon Krakauer. The book takes an extremely critical look at Mormonism and it's origins. I agree with your dislike of the Mormon religion, but for different reasons. I do think there are a lot of things you don't understand about Mormonism, such as the fact that Mormonism teaches that anyone can recieve revelations from God."

No, it doesn't. The only people who are "special" seers are the Prophet and the Apostles.

""We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things" Ninth Article of Mormon Faith"

That doesn't refer to "anyone."

"The Mormon leadership keeps an official book, the Scriptural Canon, in which continuing revelations are recorded and referenced."

Yes, and they don't come from outsiders, do they?

""And I really don't care what you have to say about this, anyway. I want to talk to the Republicans now, because this is OUR primary and OUR candidate we are talking about.""

"Kerry,

How do you know SSE isn't a Republican."

Because I've talked to him before. Are you, SSE? I will stand corrected if you say you are. If you claim to be a conservative, however, I will find it hard to believe.

"It may come as a news flash but Republican doesn't equal Christians only club."

I know. That's why the church is in the political dilemma it's in now. We made a grave error in letting ourselves be led by ungodly people just because they happened to be political conservatives or to claim the status of "Christian." It broke open with the Harriet Meiers episode, and the elevation of Romney makes it more clear. The interests of the Republican party and the interests of the church are not the same thing, and evangelicals need to stop acting like slaves of the unchristian faction of the right.

"And with Romney to your horror you are discovering that yet again you have to listened to someone you don't want to, and this time they are in YOUR party."

I'm sorry. I don't understand what this means. Could you be more specific?

""Speaking of people following another gospel, The Golden Compass is tanking big-time in the US. It might not even make back its budget:""

"This is fantastic."

Yes, it is. It makes me very happy.

"I can almost guarantee you haven't yet read the book, which means you're regurgitating information that you yourself know nothing about. Read the book. Make an informed decision. At least then you can formulate a meaningful response."

You lose. I read all three of them last week. They are horrible, as well as evil. I found the nun who gave up God for a one-night stand particularly odius, especially in a book allegedly for children.

"The Golden Compass has made over $85 million dollars, what the hell crack pipe are you smoking? Another $70 million and its broken even."

Number one, no it hasn't. As of December 11, it has made 80 million worldwide, and only 29 of it in the US (which is why I explicitly stated "in the US"). Number two, in comparison with both Passion and Narnia, this is going down the sewer. Compass brought in 8.7 million its first day; Passion did 25.5 million in its first day, and Narnia made 65 million domestic by the end of its first weekend. Compass cost 180 million to make (or 250, depending on who you talk to) and will have to make it up internationally, probably in Europe where there are far fewer Christians. Narnia cost 180 mil as well, but made 290 domestic and 450 international, a more than comfortable margin. Passion, of course, cost 30 million to make, and had it back within days, eventually making 370 domestic and 240 international.

"Sure it ain't a blockbuster, most movies aren't. But what it isn't doing is crashing and burning...sorry to burst your naive bubble."

No, I'm sorry, but that is not a good return for that movie. They were expecting to do far better.

"I'm an independent landmark Baptist. Several in our church have even thought about changing the name of our church back to Ana-baptist, because of the mess Baptists today have made of the name. As you mentioned, we have a very firm interpretation of the word, ekklesia, and believe in a local, not universal invisible church. Ironically, we bought our building from the local Assemblies of God here in town. BTW, know of any good religious blogs to scrap on?"

Unfortunately not. I used to spend a lot of time (and I mean a LOT--as in whole days) on a usenet list for Christian discussion, but I don't even know if that exists anymore.

"I tend to think that SSE has seen through the horse pucky of a "mainstream Orthodox Christian religion" (legitimately) and has swung to the far opposite end of the religious spectrum. This is similar to what my parents did when questioning catholicism, the difference being that they became Baptist. I'm not trying to make any converts here. I just enjoy the debate, drama, and irreverence."

I enjoy drama and debate. I deplore irreverence.

"Also, I don't have it out for Catholics; I consider those horrible things that happened are the product of Christianity in general, not specifically the Catholics. I'd like to also point out, (although perhaps it's sometimes misconstrued) I don't have it out for the faithful, I think it's great that people can believe what they want, however they want. I just don't like to see those beliefs interfere with our government. I can get really angry at times, especially at a religious person when they're forceful with their beliefs but when the debate is over; I still think that freedom is very important."

I disagree with both of you. Corruption is neither a Catholic nor a Christian disctinctive. It is a function of the church being led by men. Because the only game in town is fallible human beings, they will, from time to time, inevitably fall to temptation and sin. Take your eyes off Jesus, and this is bound to happen.

"You can think Mormonism is a cult, either way it doesn’t matter; look at Mr. Romney as a candidate and try to understand him, rather than his beliefs."

As a candidate, I find his presentation of his religion to be deceptive. That tells me I can't trust him at all. As a candidate, he carries a grave danger to the party, should our opponents choose to go very deeply into the depths of the weirdness that is Mormonism.

As a candidate, I find his presentation of his religion to be deceptive. That tells me I can't trust him at all. As a candidate, he carries a grave danger to the party, should our opponents choose to go very deeply into the depths of the weirdness that is Mormonism.

As you showed in the paragraphs above this one, you are unable to separate the conservative movement from your religious one. I don't think that is a productive attitude at all, and know that many conservatives would agree. There are a few that even post on here that aren't religious (I won't speak for Sarge, but from what I've gathered from his posts, he's quite the conservative but not religious). Maybe the conservatism you want should split off from the party, rather than the other way around.

That doesn't refer to "anyone."

Are you dense? It doesn't matter what it MEANS to YOU. It matters how the Mormon church interprets it. One of the reasons many scholars believe Mormonism has spread so fast is because of this individual connection with God... the fact that, according to Mormonism, it doesn't require a prophet to recieve revelations from God. Each individual person has that privilege. Please, stop disagreeing with something that is fact. This is what they teach and you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

"Sure it ain't a blockbuster, most movies aren't. But what it isn't doing is crashing and burning...sorry to burst your naive bubble."

Movies that made more on day 1 than Golden Compass:

American Gangster Bee Movie Saw IV Beowulf Enchanted Bourne Ultimatum Transformers Ratatouille Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry Hairspray The Simpsons Movie Rush Hour 3 Superbad Halloween 2007 Resident Evil: Extinction

That's just since July.

"You lose. I read all three of them last week. They are horrible, as well as evil. I found the nun who gave up God for a one-night stand particularly odius, especially in a book allegedly for children."

Well good. My apologies. I'm glad, at least, you read them. I can accept your opinion a little easier now. I thought they were good books with absolutely no relevence to reality. But that's just me.

"Maybe the conservatism you want should split off from the party, rather than the other way around."

Maybe. I'm not ruling that out. The evangelical in me thinks that might not be a bad idea, for the conscience. But the Republican in me deplores the idea of crippling the Republican party by removing 40% of its heavy-lifters. Without the conservatives I'm talking about, there would have been no Reagan victory, no Bush 43, part one or part 2. I would much prefer a candidate that did not ask us to make a choice between pragmatism and conscience.

"Are you dense? It doesn't matter what it MEANS to YOU. It matters how the Mormon church interprets it. One of the reasons many scholars believe Mormonism has spread so fast is because of this individual connection with God... the fact that, according to Mormonism, it doesn't require a prophet to recieve revelations from God. Each individual person has that privilege. Please, stop disagreeing with something that is fact. This is what they teach and you clearly don't know what you're talking about."

That is NOT what they practice. If you are right, who are the Prophet and the Apostles, and what do they exist for? What is the purpose of Temple Recommends?

Please think about this. What is he going to do if someone asks him what Signs, Tokens, and Words are? Lie? Or try to explain the wacko aspects of his "mainstream" beliefs? What will the party do when some bottom-dwelling slug from the Clinton campaign or moveon gets a picture of Romney's magic underwear?

Don't you get it? This stuff is INEXPLICABLE to the average non-Mormon voter, and given the choice between a weirdo and a friend of either Oprah or the sainted president Clinton, most people will gag and pick Hillary or Barack.

Sorry. When I typed in that movie list, it was a vertical list. The system re-formatted it for me (gee, thanks.) But I'm going to assume you all can figure out where the commas should be.

"Well good. My apologies. I'm glad, at least, you read them. I can accept your opinion a little easier now. I thought they were good books with absolutely no relevence to reality. But that's just me."

Well, I also generally don't like fantasy books that feel the need to make up new words for ordinary objects. Too much necessary exposition. And I found the whole "separating children from their souls" (daemons) to be ham-handed and unsubtle. Not, in my opinion, the mark of an original writer.

I think that should happen on the Democrat side as well, I've mentioned before on here, on various threads, with only two (legitimate) parties, the country ends up with fighting between the sides because of this polarizing nonsense. Obviously, there would still be disagreements but at least you won't always have one side constantly against the other with this partisan nonsense.

"I think that should happen on the Democrat side as well, I've mentioned before on here, on various threads, with only two (legitimate) parties, the country ends up with fighting between the sides because of this polarizing nonsense. Obviously, there would still be disagreements but at least you won't always have one side constantly against the other with this partisan nonsense."

I'm sorry. I think I missed something. What is the "that" that should happen?

well, there were a few posts in between what I was responding to, I didn't quote it when I should have, you quoted my:

"Maybe the conservatism you want should split off from the party, rather than the other way around."

and responded:

"Maybe. I'm not ruling that out. The evangelical in me thinks that might not be a bad idea, for the conscience."

1: formal religious veneration : worship 2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents

Your Christianity is a cult.......and you are a bigot.

Kerry,

It is what they practice and if you don't believe, and refuse to read the book, there here..., read this:

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/prayer/revelation_eom.htm

Straight from a Mormon operated website. In addition, I was a little confused by how contradictory revelations might be handled, but the book explains this. Most of what goes in the Scriptural Canon is from the Church Authority, however there have been times when personal revelation has been included. Krakauer uses this information in a critical manner, demonstrating how the church can be manipulated through continuing revelation. I respect your opinion on a lot of things Kerry, but you have to learn when to concede an issue. Stubborness in the face of fact weakens every other argument you make.

JNE:

I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Lots of denominations have continuing revelation. In fact, Protestantism is based on the "priesthood of the believer," which democratizes revelation in its essence.

But the fact remains that the top-down governance of Mormonism is non-democratic and controlled. What is it you are trying to claim they teach, and why is it important?

Sarge,

Fine. You want to use the common dictionary definition instead of the definition developed by sociologists of religion. Christianity is a cult. So is all religion. So where does that lead us?

Nowhere.

And under your definition, what is the opposite of "cult?"

Nothing?

Maybe. I'm not ruling that out. The evangelical in me thinks that might not be a bad idea, for the conscience. But the Republican in me deplores the idea of crippling the Republican party by removing 40% of its heavy-lifters. Without the conservatives I'm talking about, there would have been no Reagan victory, no Bush 43, part one or part 2. I would much prefer a candidate that did not ask us to make a choice between pragmatism and conscience.

Kerry,

Don't try and overstate your importance. Without the other 60% of the Republican party you wouldn't have had any of this either. I hope you all split off. Not only will it soothe your conscience, it will soothe mine, because you will never be able to get another president elected without forming a coalition with the very same party you just split off with, especially one as horrible as Bush.

"Please think about this. What is he going to do if someone asks him what Signs, Tokens, and Words are? Lie? Or try to explain the wacko aspects of his "mainstream" beliefs? What will the party do when some bottom-dwelling slug from the Clinton campaign or moveon gets a picture of Romney's magic underwear?"

I guess it would be how he dealt with it that would help define his ability as President. Ultimately, any such attack would be an act of desperation. If you can't attack the message, then attack the person. I think the vast majority of people would view such an attack negatively.

By the way, Huck is getting a lot of heat for asking "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers?"

From your own site, here is the supposed Mormon explanation of why this is not heresy:

"The above statement is often used by anti-Mormon detractors in an effort to make the LDS Church appear to be a non-Christian sect or cult. But it serves to highlight a significant difference between Bible doctrine and the views of "orthodox Christians." The Bible clearly indicates that God the Father is the father of the spirits of all mankind, and that both Jesus and Lucifer are also among his sons. "Orthodox Christians" do not accept this Biblical doctrine.

In contrast, Latter-day Saints believe Jesus, Lucifer and all mankind have a common Heavenly Father. The Bible clearly teaches that all men and women who have ever lived in heaven and on earth are the spirit offspring of our eternal Heavenly Father. Paul taught, "For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device" (Acts 17:28,29). "

Does that not say JESUS AND SATAN ARE BROTHERS?

But the fact remains that the top-down governance of Mormonism is non-democratic and controlled. What is it you are trying to claim they teach, and why is it important?

Radical Mormonism is controlled and abusive. Romney is not radical, and mainstream Mormons do not recognize radical Mormonism. I think you'll find it's not as "controlled" as you think... at least no more so than the Catholic Church. Mormonism teaches that individuals play an active part in receiving God's word. This makes the individual as important as the Church Authority... at least in the way Mormon's view themselves. I think, for one, you have to seperate fundamentalism from the mainstream. The fundamentalist church is as corrupt as they come. They are an example of extreme control. I would be ok with your definition of "cult" when referring to fundamentalist Mormonism, but not mainstream Mormonism. They are different, certainly, than traditional Christians, but I have seen few church-goers as devout as Mormons. My instinct tells me that Mitt Romney is absolutely sincere in professing his devotion to God, whereas McCain and some of the other candidates are sincere in using religion to get elected... whether they believe in God or not.

When you say "Orthodox Christians" are you referring to the Eastern Orthodox church or people who strictly adhere to Christian doctrine? (Whatever that may be)

Kerry, it also says that you and I are brother and sister. It says that you are sister to Jesus as I am brother to Jesus. "Our Father who art in Heaven...." It's a logical conclusion... if a bit strange. The question really is, are Angels also the children of God. If so, then you can see the obvious line being drawn.

Having said that, I'm not sure what conclusions are meant to be drawn from the association.

I would expect Huck to get a lot of heat from attacking one's faith. That doesn't suprise me. I wonder how Romney handled the question.

JNE,

I think Kerry is discovering the ick factor. Satan is the creation of God, just like Jesus, and Mormon's are forcing her to think in terms of how everything God has created is related...and both the good and the evil. What a revelation...ick.

JNE,

Here's another thought on your connection between fundamentalism and cultism, that I think is a good litmus test of whether you are part of a cult, or exhibit cult behavior. If you can't do the simplest things in life without consulting God, the Bible or your pastor first, you are in a cult, or heading in that direction.

"...Here's another thought on your connection between fundamentalism and cultism, that I think is a good litmus test of whether you are part of a cult, or exhibit cult behavior. If you can't do the simplest things in life without consulting God, the Bible or your pastor first, you are in a cult, or heading in that direction..."

Maybe not a cultist, but possibly a fanatic. Cults are based on the origin of beliefs, not eccentricities. Sometimes I suppose the 2 would overlap, but I am curious what you consider, "simplest things in life". If you mean which job to take, who to marry, which house to buy, and life-shaping decisions like that, I'm definitely fanatical, because I care a lot about what God has to say about those issues.

If on the other hand by "simplest things in life" you mean anxiety from not knowing how full to have someone fill your glass of milk, or hysterics related to clipping your fingernails just the right length, there are padded rooms and large male orderlies looming in this person's future. (unless you're a classical guitarist)

C2R,

I am basically talking about those people who stop thinking for themselves, and get so deep into religion that god is everywhere and doing everything for them. God in my opinion frankly doesn't have the time, or the inclination to be involved like a safety blanket in every second of someone's life...but I think there are a lot of religious nuts who think that, and want that because they nave lost their self reliance, and inability to care for themselves...or at least they have fooled themselves into thinking that.

Umm, no I'm sorry I am not a member of a cult, are you people crazy? Mormonism is the cult silly people, not a religion. There are no other holy books other than the bible, don't even start with me you stupid atheists and nonbelievers, I'm not in the mood to hear your excuses. Mitt should be done (hopefully) by the end of January. I'm with Kerry on Thompson but shifting toward "Huck" I love his comment toward Cultist Romney.

There will be no attacking Christmas, Jesus wouldn't have it, keep the battle for true reason for the season going. I'll reply with a "MERRY CHRISTMAS" to every "happy holidays" silliness. God Bless Everyone! Merry Christmas, Christ is born!!!

"I am basically talking about those people who stop thinking for themselves, and get so deep into religion that god is everywhere and doing everything for them. God in my opinion frankly doesn't have the time, or the inclination to be involved like a safety blanket in every second of someone's life...but I think there are a lot of religious nuts who think that, and want that because they nave lost their self reliance, and inability to care for themselves...or at least they have fooled themselves into thinking that."

Actually, God does care about and have the time for every second of your life. That does not mean He did not equip us with enough information to use our free will within His boundaries to make decisions on a day-to-day basis. He cares about every hair on your head, and He can and will use any moment or circumstance in your life to bring about His ultimate will, if you are willing and available.

There is a wide gulf between refusing to get out of bed until He tells you what color shirt to wear and listening to the prompting of the Holy Spirit to carry a gun to church last week.

There is such a thing as "spiritual abuse." If your pastor is more important than the plain Word of God, you are being spiritually abused. God set our shepherds over us to care for us, and to equip the saints for the work of ministry--not to control our lives, take our property, or dissolve our marriages.

ahmanrah, I am curious. Why do you think that when people accept Christ and follow His Word, they have stopped "thinking for themselves?" I don't KNOW a people more involved in homework, study, debate, and discussion than Pentecostals and Baptists. (Some of my friends find it amusing that, after 17 years of college, only I could then go to a church that has HOMEWORK.) Rightly dividing the Word of God is keenly important to these two groups on different sides of the charismatic divide. Applying it to real life means a lot of time researching and studying "real life."

This year, 45% of the American people w