[In the 18th century James]…Madison led the effort to enshrine the right of religious conscience in the First Amendment. To Madison, this was the most sacred of all rights. For him, the First Amendment included the most significant principle claimed by the founding generation.
Surely, Fischer and Jeffress believe deeply in their brand of Christianity. They also, no doubt, believe that they should be free to urge their followers to eschew a candidate who does not follow their brand of Christianity. They have, however, failed to grasp the crowning principle of our Constitution ”” the freedom of conscience. They also seem to have forgotten how tenuous religious liberty is.
Before religious leaders in the 21st century declare a religious test for political purposes, they should remember Madison’s caution that their own brand of Christianity could, under such a principle, one day be disfavored in diabolical ways that will lead to persecution.
Smith ignores a fact that doesn’t fit his narrative : Dr. Jeffress expressly states that, if it comes to it, he’ll urge people to vote for Romney over Obama, who he names a Christian.
From the always-authoritative Wikipedia: “The word cult in current popular usage usually refers to a group whose beliefs or practices are considered abnormal or bizarre.”
It’s hard to evaluate LDS because some of their doctrine only gets revealed to persons who have achieved a certain high level within that group. They have penalties for disclosure of secrets.
As an Episcopalian, I cannot enter an LDS temple. That seems strange to me. Special underwear with religious symbols? Well…
Proxy baptisms and weddings of deceased relatives. (Bizarre.)
The temple endowment, and its unorthodox description of heaven. Elohim and Jehovah are different, umm, beings. Preachers of the branches of Christianity mocked as agents of the devil. (Possibly, they’ve got that part right.)
Jesus and the devil are brothers, sons of Elohim…who is a space alien.
Certainly, no trace of being a cult. Nice music, though.
Although Jon Krakauer’s book, [i][url=http://www.amazon.com/Under-Banner-Heaven-Story-Violent/dp/0385509510]Under the Banner of Heaven[/url][/i] concerns itself primarily with the Fundamentalist LDS church, it does contain a history of Joseph Smith and the events leading up to his founding of the LDS church. Very interesting reading.
This article is so subtly inaccurate in both theological and historical senses as to be frightening. For example, Congregationalism and Anglicanism actually are not ‘vastly different’ brands of Christianity. At least the author refers to Jefferson’s Deism as ‘Christianity’ with quotes, but he is [i]reframing the debate[/i] when he goes on to suggest explicitly that Mormonism is simply a different brand of Christianity. It is no such thing – Ralph’s list above of the traits of a cult is a good start on showing that – and anyone who does some early American genealogy, let alone makes a careful theological evaluation, will find abundant evidence that distinguishes the recently developed and unaccountable set of Mormon beliefs from any orthodox strain of Christianity, be it Protestant or Catholic or (Byzantine) Orthodox.
This reframing of the discussion on ‘Mormonism as a variant of Christian belief’ is accelerating as Campaign 2012 develops, and it needs accurate and wide refutation by those with the knowledge to do so.
I would also point out the comparison of apples and oranges. A religious test and the 1st Amendment only apply to governments. And no government is saying that Romney can’t be president or governor or what ever.
It is perfectly appropriate and proper for an orthodox Christian to say that Mormonism is not orthodox Christianity (which is true) and on that basis not vote for the candidate. It is also perfectly proper and appropriate for the orthodox Christian to either vote for him or against him for any other reason the voter deems appropriate.
re the last Para. of No. 4, I submit that, whether or not one regards Mormonism as “Christian” (although it seems irrefutable that Mormons themselves do think they are Christians), that issue is irrelevant as part of Campaign 2012 unless one thinks Romney’s (or Huntsman’s) being LDS will have some negative impact on his capability to do the job. Is anyone seriously contending that? Are there compulsory tenets of Mormonism that lead to different public behavior by government officials than one finds in more mainstream Christian office-holders? That would seem to me to be the relevant discussion. I find the historiography and rituals of Mormonism to be extremely bizarre, but I have met a great many Mormons who strike me as excellent citizens who have done an extremely competent job of serving the Nation in military and civilian capacities. Should I stop my inquiry there, or is there something more I need to know about them to inform my political choices?
Re: the first sentence of #6, I can think of two ways to answer that question – but it was not the topic of the post. The topic is rather that Rodney Smith has written a USA Today article purporting that Mormonism is a brand of Christian beliefs (it is not) and would have thus been tolerated as a valid religious system by the 18th century men who wrote the founding documents guaranteeing freedom of conscience. Of course it was not invented until the early 19th century when the USA was a young nation of vast opportunities, including that for inventing religious systems. It is a made-up story, and could qualify by some descriptions as a cult.
Your question is about whether a person who believes such stuff could serve well as President (which is not merely ‘doing the job’ since it includes representing a whole people), and that is certainly a different topic, as is the question whether either of the Mormon candidates actually believes the stuff.
I didn’t read Professor Smith’s abbreviated exposition (it is USA Today, after all – how detailed can one get) to say that Mormonism as a variety of Christianity is what would have inspired the Founders’ protection. He seems to say that the Founders (or at least Madison) would not have found it relevant whether Mormonism was a variety of Christianity or some quite distinct religion. And I do not hear you disputing that Mormons believe themselves to be Christians.
I was reacting primarily to the comment (No. 4) that called for “accurate and wide refutation” of the concept of Mormonism as a Christian religion in the context of the 2012 presidential campaign. My query was whether there was anything about espousing LDS beliefs that could act as an impediment to executing the laws of the United States or performing the constitutional functions of the Presidency. I am not aware of any, but I grant that that would be a politically relevant issue and solicited information on the point.
8, Mormons can believe themselves to be cats. Their belief does not make them so. Neither are they Christians as defined by the Creeds.
The Founders may not have have “targeted” the Mormons, but I think some would have laughed at them. The irony is that several also belonged to a cult called “Masonry”
I point out that several friends who are most certainly not Christians but rather more importantly, linguists find the Mormon writings to be rather obviously a poor attempt to imitate King James type language. It is, in a word, fraudulent and patently so. It does not speak well of someone who would have faith in something as easily disproved as Smith’s tale.
As I was thinking how to formulate a considerate, concise response to the question raised by the post and in the first part of #8 (the second part of #8 being off-track) – behold, idly surfing I came across this screen which dropped like, why, almost like golden tablets from on high 😉 :
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100111255/does-mitt-romney-believe-the-mormon-myths/
Made me glad I said it before reading it on that blog.