Mike Huckabee apologized to Mitt Romney on Wednesday for raising questions about the Mormon faith, again pushing religion to the fore of an increasingly bitter fight for the Republican presidential nomination.
The controversy, which overshadowed a GOP debate here, came less than a week after Romney, who had been leading in Iowa polls, delivered a speech aimed at overcoming any political impediment posed by his membership in the Mormon church.
And it was the latest instance of the newly ascendant Huckabee having to explain his statements now that he is facing closer scrutiny.
The fracas stemmed from comments Huckabee made in an interview with the New York Times Magazine, set to appear this weekend. The former Arkansas governor — an ordained Southern Baptist minister — was asked if he considered Mormonism to be a “cult or religion.”
“I think it’s a religion. I really don’t know much about it,” Huckabee replied. Then he posed a question of his own: “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”
A church spokesman refuted the notion, as did Romney.
Here is a section from the official LDS site, explaining Mormon theology on the question:
On first hearing, the doctrine that Lucifer and our Lord, Jesus Christ, are brothers may seem surprising to some—especially to those unacquainted with latter-day revelations. But both the scriptures and the prophets affirm that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are indeed offspring of our Heavenly Father and, therefore, spirit brothers. Jesus Christ was with the Father from the beginning. Lucifer, too, was an angel “who was in authority in the presence of God,†a “son of the morning.†(See Isa. 14:12; D&C;76:25–27.) Both Jesus and Lucifer were strong leaders with great knowledge and influence. But as the Firstborn of the Father, Jesus was Lucifer’s older brother. (See Col. 1:15; D&C;93:21.)
How could two such great spirits become so totally opposite? The answer lies in the principle of agency, which has existed from all eternity. (See D&C;93:30–31.) Of Lucifer, the scripture says that because of rebellion “he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies.†(Moses 4:4.) Note that he was not created evil, but became Satan by his own choice.
When our Father in Heaven presented his plan of salvation, Jesus sustained the plan and his part in it, giving the glory to God, to whom it properly belonged. Lucifer, on the other hand, sought power, honor, and glory only for himself. (See Isa. 14:13–14; Moses 4:1–2.) When his modification of the Father’s plan was rejected, he rebelled against God and was subsequently cast out of heaven with those who had sided with him. (See Rev. 12:7–9; D&C;29:36–37.)
Both Romeny and Huckabe are being less than honest. Romney is understandably trying to keep people form fucussing on how differently his religion view Jesus that Huckabee’s “question” highlighted. Huckabee is trying to pretend that that is not exactly what he intended to do.
On another note: I used to be a big Alan Keyes supporter. That changed a bity after his senatorial run and I began to see a shifting of principles to justify his carbetbag campaign. Last night I was uncomfortably embarassed whenever he spoke. I wanted him to go away. He made Ron Paul seem measured and presidential by comparison. Yikes!
A couple of good discussions on this over at Get Religion
[url=http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2943#comments]Get Religion 1[/url]
[url=http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2948#comments]Get Religion 2[/url]
Perhaps they are both being “less than honest”. But I would venture to guess that Huckabee is a little more honest here. Romney is flat out denying a Mormon doctrine that is (or at least should be) well known to all LDS. Huckabee should not have to apologize for asking about Romney’s faith. Gee, wouldn’t ya think that Romney would welcome the inquiry as an opportunity to share his faith and maybe lead a few people into the “Truth Restored” the Mormons are always going on about? Demanding an apology or acting all hurt and offended is ridiculous and a smoke screen. Romney’s religion was not attacked, anymore than Huckabee’s would be attacked if someone asked “Don’t Christians believe that Jesus died for their sins?” or maybe, “Don’t Baptists believe in baptizing only believers and not infants?”
slanehill
Romney is wrong. It’s part of official Mormon teaching. Again (as I said on a previous thread), he may wish to nuance the answer, but the answer is ‘yes.’
And I think your point is well taken slanehill.
slanehill, the details of Romney’s religion is most appropriate in a religious context. How are the appropriate in a political context? Personally, I find Huckabee’s dishonesty more dispicable, for he is making religion a part of his campaign while pretending not to. What he does on the campaign become political acts. Thus, he is lying to us about his political actions. Romney is “lying” (presuming he really knows that much about his faith) about things he should not be expected to discuss. There is a huge difference and I think everyone who isn’t predisposed to vote against Romeny because of his twisted religion can see that.
It’s been said elsewhere that though it was in poor taste, but technically Huckabee was correct. Huckabee’s larger point, that LDS is not the same as Christianity has merit and really is worth discussing, especially considering that Romney himself has made the pitch that he is the man for the Christian right. What I find interesting is that Romney chose to be insulted. The LDS is trying to go mainstream, and one of the ways they are choosing to do that at this moment is by torpedoing all attempts to differentiate Mormon and Christian theology. As my Grandmother’s favorite song put it, they’re trying to “accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, latch on to the affirmative, don’t mess with Mr. In-Between”. And frankly that last bit sums up my feeling about flip-flopping Gov. Romney. Don’t go with Mr. In-Between. I don’t fault Gov. Huckabee for trying to expose the truth, but it was awfully clumsy.
though it was in poor taste, but technically Huckabee was correct.
The point is that Huckabee deliberately sought to make the doctrinal points of mormonism an issue in the campaign, bad enough, but then he tries to play the “oh I didn’t mean to attack his religion, I had no idea the reproter would print that”. Bullcrap. Romney may be hiding the truth of his religion but Huckabee is lying about his deeds and motivations on the campaign. What kind of politician will he be if he thinks sneaky tricks worthy of the Clintons and lying about them are acceptable?
Huckabee’s larger point, that LDS is not the same as Christianity has merit and really is worth discussing
Not in a political campaign in a nation that values nonsectarian politics.
especially considering that Romney himself has made the pitch that he is the man for the Christian right.
He has done this based not upon the specifics of his religious beliefs but upon his moral principles.
Romney is not my favorite candidate both because I don’t like some of the things he advocates politically and because I’m not sure I trust him where he advocates the same thing as I. His mormonism is a bit down there on the list.
At first, I found Huckabee’s comment in bad taste, to put it charitably. Many religious ideas can be formulated in way that destroys the larger context in which those ideas properly operate. Whether Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are brothers depends upon how Mormons approach the theological meaning of “brother” and how inclusive or exclusive is the term “brother” in the Mormon theological universe. (For comparison, look at common Muslim critiques of the Trinity.)
But Huckabee’s apology ([url=http://blog.beliefnet.com/godometer/2007/12/video-huckabees-apologies.html]see here[/url]) suggests that his comment was really directed to the reporter, not to the larger public: he wasn’t trying to make a political point, but was merely asking the reporter (who seemed to know more about Mormonism than Huckabee did) a question of Mormon belief. Of course, Huckabee could be spinning his story after the fact, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
Sad, Sad, Sad–As Yogi Berra said “It’s Deja Vu all over again!” Either that or people that don’t like Romney’s Mormon faith are too stupid or ignorant to be able to ask questions or make comments about Romney’s stands on public issues without dragging in specific doctrines and theology of various sorts.
The language is oh-so-polite as somehow half the Constitution trashing commenters here debate some sort of arcane theology about Christ and Satan being brothers and whether Romney has a duty to discuss this question.
I suppose JFK should have stopped his campaign to explain the Catholic doctrine of the “True Presence” in the Eucharist and Transubstantiation. Ignorance or bigotry Deja Vu all over again. (I am old enough to vividly remember the Kennedy campaign in 1960 and the “cute” games Kennedy-Catholic haters played —so very much like the sneaky swill being politely thrown around by Romney-Mormon haters.
If I recall correctly, there was some Catholic bating about Brownback when he was in the race. Three guesses on where in originated.
Romney is not a Christian. He would not be the first non-Christian president. Huckabee stumbled a bit in this interview. He messed up. He has apologized. We all sin every day. Thus, there will always, on every candidate, be something someone can dig up to try to discredit him/her. Obama used drugs as a teenager. He inhaled. So what? Romney has messed up, they all have. If we insist on perfection, we would vote for noone.
Christopher, I just respectfully have to disagree. Romney is essentially saying he’s a Christian like the rest of us. I think that is a lie at worst, and foolishness at best. I don’t want a liar or a fool for president. The discussion of whether or not LDS is Christian bears on Romney’s trustworthiness. And so, yes, I do find that worth discussing in a political context.
But there is also a larger point here that I’m struggling with. Theocracy is certainly to be opposed. But many seem to want there to be an internal separation of church and state within each of us, where we compartmentalize our faith from our political and moral commitments. I for one find that problematic.
You seem to not like Huckabee for other reasons, and are thus inclined to impute malicious intentions to him. As Bishop Lamb told us in his final convention address, he had a sign over his desk “Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.” I fault Huckabee for the gaffe, not for a trick. But then, maybe I’m falling for his “awe shucks” Southern charm.
Deaconjohn, as I and others have said before, the Constitution prohibits a religious test, but the voters are free to base their votes on any d*** fool idea they want to. And as I said above, to the extent the controversy reflects on Romney’s truthfulness it is germaine and not arcane.
Romney is essentially saying he’s a Christian like the rest of us. I hate having to defend this hereitc, but he did not essentially do this. He claimed to be a Christian, which is what he believed, but he acknowledged that there were differences but he tried to avoid details about how different his “Christianity” is form that of the majority of Americans, which is politically prudent.
You may call this lying about an important matter. It is not important, and no politician has a duty to tell you everything you may want to know. I liked Huckabee, until my credulity at his innocence started to get strained. He is not forthrigfht about his immigration policy, playing the typical politician’s game of spin, thus I can hardly gredit him with being innocent when it comes to other political mauevers.
If you’re going to play the “Christian leaderr” card you are going to be held to a higher standard. But I see in him the typical populist politician who is playing with the fire of religious passion and predjudice. People can use “base their votes on any d*** fool idea they want to” but it is the dangerous politician who runs a campaign encouraging that.
There is absolutley no way that an inteligent politician running against a Mormon would not have figured how to articulte beforehand how he would speak about his opponent’s religion. Huckabee is either lying or really, really unprepared. Given the joke that is his foreign policy it could be either, but he has shown such a penchant for speaking on religion that I can’t imagine he hasn’t formulted thoughts on Mormonism yet.
Either way, he’s starting to look like a Republican Carter.
Re: Huckabee. I really like the man. His heart is in the right place. He is not my first choice because I sense that he has alot of utopian ideas/plans without alot of sense of what is and is not workable. Then again, on occasion it might be good to think outside the box…
RE: Honesty.
I have never met an honest politician.
Unfortunately, I must include myself. When I ran for and won a political office, I was careful to slant my discourse so that it was always favorable to me and disfavorable to my opponent, most notably in my walking campaign when I rang 3,000 doorbells with no one around to tape-record me.
I submit that this is the nature of the beast, and its name is politics. Expecting honesty from a politician is a forlorn hope.
…glad I’m in the Briar Patch,
The “39 Articles” were introduced in an attempt to purge the Church of the pagan and other practices that had been incorporated into the Faith by Rome and even the Eastern Orthodox Churches, and as near as I can tell, it hasn’t worked. Speaking in “tongues” without an interpreter present is forbidden in the Scriptures, yet it continues to happen in Pentecostal churches. Practically every denomination began as a result of some difference of opinion or some revelation it’s leader claimed to have received.I don’t know much about the Mormon understanding of Christianity, but if we are to believe the Scriptures when it is stated the “by their fruits, they will be known”, it would appear that they have been mightily blessed.
I am reminded of the Lord’s admonition to “let those without sin caste the first stone”, and Paul’s instruction to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling”. I don’t believe any serious person is afraid of having a person of the Mormon faith as president. What I do believe is that I am witnessing bigotry and political chicanery in their basest forms.
Sometimes, when I read these comments I think that some of you must surely be on the Lord’s “short list” of those who will be appointed to judge the nations. You know so much about so many things, and you’re always right.
I’m not afraid to have a Mormon as president, although I don’t support this particular Mormon (go, McCain!).
However, Mormonism is very well-dressed polytheism. It’s “blessedness” comes from an firm adherence to clear doctrine and morals, plus a clear authority for promulgating them. Possibly a bit of minority group exceptionalism adds to it’s appeal, as well.