Kiss the mountain west goodbye
Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, asks in an upcoming article, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?”
The article, to be published in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, says Huckabee asked the question after saying he believes Mormonism is a religion but doesn’t know much about it. His rival Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, is a member of the Mormon church, which is known officially as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The authoritative Encyclopedia of Mormonism, published in 1992, does not refer to Jesus and Satan as brothers. It speaks of Jesus as the son of God and of Satan as a fallen angel, which is a Biblical account.
A spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said Huckabee’s question is usually raised by those who wish to smear the Mormon faith rather than clarify doctrine.
“We believe, as other Christians believe and as Paul wrote, that God is the father of all,” said the spokeswoman, Kim Farah. “That means that all beings were created by God and are his spirit children. Christ, on the other hand, was the only begotten in the flesh and we worship him as the son of God and the savior of mankind. Satan is the exact opposite of who Christ is and what he stands for.” Link
December 11th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Nice one Jason. I broke this story on Redstate a few minutes ago.
http://redstate.com/blogs/mcon/2007/dec/11/more_of_that_huckabee_taste_in_the_mouth
As a former Baptist minister Huckabee isn’t just being intellectually curious here. This is a Clintonian(or maybe it is an Arkansas thing?) attack at its best.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Man, I yearn for the days when people actually cared about bigotry, and felt passionately enough to rise up against it. But, no doubt Huck’s going to continue to get away with his now not-so underground anti-Mormon campaign. As a minority, I feel ill at this spectacle.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Don’t blame Huck. He’s only blindly repeating stuff he was told at all the anti-mormon conventions he spoke at as Governor.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Huckabee better watch out – this could mean bad press for his right after the Romney speech saying theology is irrelevent.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Honestly, ANYONE who thinks that Huckabee was just asking an innocent question, instead of airing a weird sounding doctrine, has lost all grip on reality. Disgusting.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
If I were a Mormon I’m not sure what I’d do. I’ve never considered having to vote for a guy that would actually talk openly about my religion in a negative light. A president that would publicly misrepresent my religion? That would really piss me off.
I can’t possibly think that a Republican could loose Utah, but this gets me reconsidering. How odd.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
ACT,
Huck has nothing to worry about. Watch for his supporters to show up in about 5 seconds with “what did he say that was inaccurate?” or “he was just asking an innocent question”.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
It is difficult to know what Mormons believe because their doctrines seem to have changed quite a bit.
When I searched this topic
What appeared?
http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-6,00.html
I believe this is an official Mormon website that refers to Satan and Jesus as brothers (along with everyone else). Is it surprising that someone could be confused about Mormonis’s obscure beliefs?
December 11th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Now it’s put up or shut up time for the Christian right. There reaction to this will be telling. Huckabee could only hide his true self for so long.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
I think statements like this make it a fair question to ask if Huckabee is committed to defending all faiths as President.
A respect for the proper role of religion and government IS very important for me. I could have imagined voting for Huckabee if he was the nominee. Then it came out that he parolled hundreds of hardened criminals on the say-so of their pastors. Now he’s going after the religion of 6 million Americans.
It’s very disturbing.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Oh, and piss-off Rett. TLG, I apologize.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
I really, REALLY, didn’t think Huckabee is this stupid. I knew his feelings about Latter Day Saints, but I thought he was savvy enough to keep them to himself. He apparently has no concept of how many Mormons there are in the West, or thinks there is enough short-term gain to off-set the longer term problems this kind of bigotry would inevitably lead to later. I think this could well be a catalyst for the Huck-a-Bust Abe has been prophesying about.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Rudy to Mitt.
“This guy didn’t even support Ronald Reagan.”
OUCH!
THATS
GOTTA
HURT.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/220/
December 11th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
EGS,
You’re better then that. It has nothing to do with misconstruing the doctrine. Huckabee went on national tv, and aired an unflattering Mormon doctrine, and did so with “innocent as a lamb, aw shucks justa wondering” Clintonian style. It’s disgraceful.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
EGStud,
No baptist preacher who spoke at anti-mormon conventions asks this out of innocence. Huckabee is simply stirring the pot in a very un-American way.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
“Rudy to Mitt.
“This guy didn’t even support Ronald Reagan.â€
OUCH!
THATS
GOTTA
HURT.”
and Rudy has serious differences with Reagan. Do we really want another fight over social issues tonight?
December 11th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Why the hell does Huckabee feel compelled to write an article about this for anyone?
December 11th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
As a Conservative, as a Republican, and as a Catholic, I am offended by Huck’s campaign. The less I see him, the less I like him. I think he’s the worst person in the field. He will lose Iowa and his support everywhere else and we can all throw a Huckabee Elimination Party on this site.
Jason, thanks for clearing up that whole brother thing.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Nice thread-jack sampo.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Maybe before the lynch mob gets out of control, we could wait for the whole article.
Not that I’d change my vote, of course, but you may at least want to know for sure if and why you want to lynch the guy……
December 11th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Dave,
He’s not stupid. He’s just anti-Mormon. Actually it’s probably going to be effective, however wrong. This sort of thing is only going to help him in IA and SC. Why should he care about the long term problems? God wants him to win, right? I think you’re exactly wrong in your assertion that this is going to cause a Huck-a-bust. Huck is just angling to win the nomination. It’s a “Hail Mary”. If he wins then he’ll worry about the general election later.
For what it’s worth – I wish I could agree with you and I hope you are right about this causing Huck’s downfall.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
ECG, the point is that obscure beliefs are irrelevant. By bringing them up you are acting like a bigot. And I’m referring to Huckabee, not you. I find you a very respectable Huck supporter, the only one who makes me feel a little guilty of being not so kind to Huckabee.
Some of the obscure beliefs seem to be really old, such that Mormons today haven’t even heard of them. If this is true, how could they ever have an impact on Romney’s decision making as President? It’s irrational to discuss them as legitimate issues, unless your strategy is to play on people’s fears and ignorance.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Has anyone told Drudge yet? This kind of story should effectively saw off the Christian right leg of the stool. Too bad Mitt’s already said seculars have no business determining our nation’s governance. Perhaps he can flip-flop his way back into their hearts to replace the disaffected evangelicals.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
murphy,
That and, why in the world was he asking it in the first place? Did his interviewer say “hey, I’m an expert on Mormonism, ask me about anything if you’d like”? Even if we assume he’s innocent about the full doctrine (DEEPLY unlikely), you only ask that question as a means of airing negative information in a more innocuous way. It’s politics 101, and a big piece of the Clintonian arsenal. Question: “What do you think of Rudy Giuliani’s personal life?” Answer: “Didn’t he marry his cousin? Golly gee, I was just wonderin”.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
so what the mittbots are trying to tell us is that there are some question marks punctuating huckabee’s past because no one knew who he was 12 months ago…….
uh, yeah, what Massachusetts flip flop does that remind us all of?
December 11th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
This is his response to the immigration ad. ATTACK MORMON DOCTRINE.
gee whiz, this guy will command the most powerful military the world has ever known.
Go Hillary go if Huck is elected.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
This is his response to the immigration ad. ATTACK MORMON DOCTRINE.
gee whiz, this guy will command the most powerful military the world has ever known.
Go Hillary go if Huck is nominated.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Can I ask a stupid question?
Is it official doctrine in the Mormon Church that Jesus and Satan were once brothers? Yes or no?
I have heard that Mormons believe they were for almost my whole life.
What I was taught was that Mormons believe that Satan and Jesus were brothers in Heaven. They both had a plan for humanity, but God chose Jesus’ over Satan’s. So Satan, and a bunch of other angels, rebelled over it.
Can a Mormon tell me if this is true or not?
December 11th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
No problems here! Here’s an official LDS Proclamation (from 2007!) decrying racism:
“Perhaps our dark friends in Jesus’s pre-existent army were only doing the best they could with what psychological and emotional traits they had, which may have included a tendency to panic under pressure and an inability to plan for the future; we therefore have no right to judge them ‘unworthy’, any more than we would a handicapped person for not being as capable as a normal, real person. After all, every army needs cooks, janitors, and sanitation workers, even, from what we believe, pre-existent ones of spirit. We must leave the judgment to the Lord!”
Nice! Black people are psychological and emotional cripples! No racism there….
December 11th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
MarkG,
I have been saying for weeks that Mitt would have been better off if he stressed his business experience and his record of accomplishment as governor. Why Mitt went off the beaten path to try to become The Chosen One of the so-con right is beyond me. That’s like a 5’1″ , 96 pound kid trying out for the football team. No matter how much effort he puts forth and how much time he spends practicing on the field he just has no possible way of making the team.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
This guy is a walking gaffe machine!
December 11th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Matthew,
I agree with you 100%. I’ve gotten asked this question by people who really don’t know what to make of it, and it’s not offensive in the least. That Huckabee is spouting this stuff on the campaign trail is insulting on so many different levels.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
the mittbots called huckabee the flavor of the month in november. surly he’s been upgraded since then! surly they were wrong in november!
December 11th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Huck, I am pretty furious at you!!! You better come clean on this! Doesn’t he realize that 25% of Republican activists out West are Mormons????!?!?
When someone brings this up as a smear, I usually say. And you and Khengis Kahn, Pol Pot, and Hitler are brothers too!
Such a nonsensical smear! This makes me FURIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
December 11th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Richard I’m not comfortable with Huckabee mentioning Mormon beliefs. I’d rather if he didn’t mention them because they’re irrelevant. Not just irrelevant in regards to Romney but irrelevant to politics in general.
However Romney supporters need to gain a thicker skin. A lot of honest well meaning Americans will hear snippets of obscure Mormon beliefs and will be asking “Do you really believe that?”. You guys need to be prepared to not label everyone who is concerned a bigot just because they hear something about Romney’s religion that makes them wonder.
I have no hesitation in supporting Romney if Huckabee is out of the running when I vote in the primary. Still Romney will face much worse than a “Gee Shucks, do Mormons believe X?”.
If I were a Romney supporter I’d not posture as a victim but instead ask “Does Huckabee seem to have a bit of the loose lips?”
December 11th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Huck makes me sick.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Nicholas Cottinger,
The final paragraph of Jason’s quote answers your question in full. I take it you missed that?
December 11th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
Here’s the thing to chew on…
By now, a lot of people have heard a lot of things that should be enough to derail Huckabee. That he hasn’t been derailed speaks volumes about what the Republican Party has become. And Karl Rove and George W. Bush both ought to be bitch-slapped for inviting these Evangelicals to seats at the Big Kids’ Table.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
When the religious war is over, to the innocent and intelligent bystanders, Giuliani is going to look better and better.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
#29 Do you have a link or something – that is incredibly racist.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:36 pm
here’s a good passage for you:
Matthew 5:39
December 11th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
EGStud,
You don’t actually think that Huckabee is asking this question in good faith, do you?
December 11th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
41 is for post 36.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Clean up on aile 5! K dub, You sound like your buddy Rett with his website.
Nicholas,
Perhaps you should read what the church spokeperson had to say.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
I’ve already said I’ll vote for Hillary over Huckabee, but I’m rapidly approaching the point where I’d vote for Obama as well. If Huck drops below Edwards on my list, he’ll be duking it out with Dennis Kucinich for the prize of “worst presidential candidate in recent memory”.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Mitt’s intent – Even though faiths may be different in belief or doctrine, we can respect each other and combine our truths. Faith is a strong component of American governance and it should not be ignored or eliminated.
MarkG’s understanding – “Too bad Mitt’s already said seculars have no business determining our nation’s governance. Perhaps he can flip-flop his way back into their hearts to replace the disaffected evangelicals.”
December 11th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Feltcher,
You’re getting had by #29. Please don’t believe everything you hear.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
#29
K Dub
You can’t just spout that crap off without a link. Post some supporting
link before you post lies.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Look at all the comments on this post. This is ridiculous. Why are we discussing religions beliefs in the first place? Romney is a Mormon end of story. If you want to trash those beliefs or agree with them go to a religious forum and do it.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
“I have been saying for weeks that Mitt would have been better off if he stressed his business experience and his record of accomplishment as governor. Why Mitt went off the beaten path to try to become The Chosen One of the so-con right is beyond me. That’s like a 5?1? , 96 pound kid trying out for the football team. No matter how much effort he puts forth and how much time he spends practicing on the field he just has no possible way of making the team.”
I don’t know, wife of 38 years, five sons, ten grandchildren, a layperson in his church, has it even occured to you that maybe, when Romney says “we need strong families”, he actually believes it?
–
As for the Mormon thing, I have no idea about the theology, but Christianity also teaches that we are brothers of Christ, so why wouldn’t Satan also be?
–
About this being a responce to the immigration ad, no. The answer to that was Huck calling Romney a third-grade tattle-tale – which, it seems, would make Huck the one doing something wrong and getting caught.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
“I have been saying for weeks that Mitt would have been better off if he stressed his business experience and his record of accomplishment as governor. Why Mitt went off the beaten path to try to become The Chosen One of the so-con right is beyond me. That’s like a 5?1? , 96 pound kid trying out for the football team. No matter how much effort he puts forth and how much time he spends practicing on the field he just has no possible way of making the team.”
I don’t know, wife of 38 years, five sons, ten grandchildren, a layperson in his church, has it even occured to you that maybe, when Romney says “we need strong families”, he actually believes it?
–
As for the Mormon thing, I have no idea about the theology, but Christianity also teaches that we are brothers of Christ, so why wouldn’t Satan also be?
–
About this being a responce to the immigration ad, no. The answer to that was Huck calling Romney a third-grade tattle-tale – which, it seems, would make Huck the one doing something wrong and getting caught.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
You don’t actually think that Huckabee is asking this question in good faith, do you?
Wow. Evidence of indoctrinated Mormon bigotry against Baptists…
December 11th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
“And Karl Rove and George W. Bush both ought to be bitch-slapped for inviting these Evangelicals to seats at the Big Kids’ Table.”
you would prefer we were another party of liberal abortionists?
December 11th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Matt I’ve gotten to the point where I’ll vote for Obama over Huck but not Hillary. But to be honest I haven’t paid enough attention to the democratic canidates to know their stances on issues so my decision could change. I just know I hate clintonian politicians–so I can’t vote for Hillary or Huck
December 11th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
EGS, I wish I were a Mormon so I could explain their beliefs accurately. But I’m not, so this is really frustrating for me.
And I agree, a few cool head simple answers would be nice. But only between average Americans and the Mormons. This is not something to be exploited by candidates.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
All I am saying, Huck is toast in a General. He just lost the entire mountain west. I will personally see to it.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Tarheel,
I wont vote for the Dem over Huck, I will just skip that part of the ballot.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Murphy, I’m not sure.
Given that this was done when Huckabee assumed the interview was over it would be surprising if he intended to put that out there. How would that benefit him?
December 11th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
If anyone that is curious reads the entire post you will see that a spokesperson has already answered the question.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
this just keeps getting better and better:
3:32 PM (2 hours ago)
Rudy Giuliani: “He’s (Romney) the one who said that he would be to the left of Teddy Kennedy on gay rights.”
from Politifact.com statements
The Truth-o-Meter says: Mostly true | He didn’t say that, but he did shift to the left
No wonder mittbot in cheif said he’d vote for Giuliani if mitt keeps falling in the polls.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
K Dub,
Can you put a link to that so-called proclamation? Because I think you are full of crap!
December 11th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
I agree I would never vote for Billary over Huck, but I would just skip the presidential ballot voting.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
MarkG, I expect that sort of thing from you.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
#29 – I call absolute nonsense on that quote. Give the citation and the person, supposed Mormon leader, who said or wrote something like that, in 2007. I can tell you it’s not an “official proclamation” from the LDS faith or their leaders, that’s for sure. Only a moron would believe that, or post it. Go ahead, tell us where you got that supposed “official” statement. Waiting . . .
December 11th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Well, I have to admit that I am starting to pay closer attention to the dems, especially Obama. I think its a good chance congenital liar Clinton is going down.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Sampo, either provide discussion relevent to the topic at hand, or go jump in a lake.
Romney has not shrunk from his support for equality in the workplace, and you full well know it. He has been asked about that statement in at least one debate.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Murphy,
I am looking for clarification. I have heard that story for most of my life. It seems strange that it would have been made up out of whole cloth.
Is that the case? Or is it an old teaching that is no longer applicable? I am not trying to be a jerk. I just want to understand this point.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
#29 is a blatant lie people. But it should stay on the site to remind people of the tactics they are using.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
MarkG,
WOW to you. The point is that he is already versed in the lines of attack on the Mormon faith. HE spoke at an anti-mormon convention in the heart of Mormondem. HE KNOWS. And yet in this instance he is clearly doing his innocent “i don’t know much about them…but”. This is utterly dishonest and would be dishonest if McCain, Mitt, Rudy, or Jesus said it.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Sampo,
Keep trying, you can vere the conversation if you will it.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
#67
Are we not all brothers and sisters? Is Jesus not our brother if he is the Son of God?
December 11th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Richard P.
Ask your Mormon questions at http://mydryfly.wordpress.com/mormon-qa/
This is a Mormon Q&A Page. Ask away.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
66 Just ignore Sampo. I’ve said several times I think all the canidates except Huck are great. I hate reading Sampo’s posts and remember that he’s a McCain supporter.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
I’ve got to ask. You Romney supporters are assuming Huckabee is running a stealth anti-Mormon campaign.
Why do you think he would do something like that?
December 11th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Wow the acting governor during the romney administration cant seem to stand mitt. We all know the libs in MA hate romney, but i guess the conservative republicans do too.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Jane+Swift%3A+If+Republicans+nominate+flip-flip+Romney%2C+they‘ll+lose&articleId=57d312b8-d0e1-4bf7-a529-970bbb5e6499
More troubling to me, though, is Mitt Romney’s denunciation of key political beliefs he professed during his campaigns for public office in Massachusetts. Flash back to 1994 and 2002, and you’ll see a very different candidate. Then, he was a typical Massachusetts Republican — conservative on fiscal issues, progressive on social issues. He pledged to be more effective than Ted Kennedy on gay rights. He backed the Brady Bill Assault Weapons Ban. He even supported the so-called “morning after” pill. Invoking his trailblazing mother, Romney made an ironclad commitment to Roe v. Wade.But a funny thing has happened on the way to the White House. Today, Mitt Romney is campaigning on his record as governor; yet he has become unrecognizable to the citizens who voted him into office.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
mike huckabee has no balls. if you want to use anti mormonism to help your campaign that is perfectly legal, and he has a right to do it. but man up and grow a pair and say what you’re doing. as a Mormon, I’m a little ashamed to admit that I’m not sure exactly what the doctrine of Jesus and Satan being brothers is. I’m assuming that yes, they were, as we were all God’s children, and that makes us all brothers and sisters. It never struck me as odd as the alternative viewpoint (that God created Satan himself after making the heavens and the earth.)
December 11th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
EGStud,
Here’s why I don’t think it was in good faith.
If you’ve ever visited an anti-mormon website, picked up some of their literature, etc, the “satan question” comes up. It’s extremely popular. It’s an excellent attack on mormonism because the simplest answer is “yes” with an asterisk. The asterisk, of course, is the answer in the last paragraph of Jason’s quote.
Huckabee was a baptist minister. He spoke at one of the largest coordinated efforts at converting mormons in recent years. I can say without a doubt he has heard this “satan question” often.
I sincerely doubt his question was anything but rhetorical. That he’s preaching in this manner to his future constituency is disgusting.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
EGS,
I think it is pretty obvious. Huckabee wants voters to eliminate Romney from their list based on his religion. Huckabee believes that if he does that successfully he will put a low ceiling on Romney in Iowa and he will be able to get a huge amount of their support for himself.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
I think #29 comes from here: a story attributed to the AP.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Maybe I am a bad former catholic, but it would not offend me if someone said satan and Christ were brothers. But I would probably disagree on logic grounds because satan was never human but a fallen angel.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Nicholas Cottinger,
As with many things you hear about mormon doctrine, there is often a nugget of truth. The clarification you’re looking for is in the last paragraph of Jason’s quote.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
EGS,
Because it’ll help him in Iowa? Because 40% of Republican Primary voters are evangelicals, compared to about 5% that are Mormons (and those 5% are concentrated in unimportant regions for the primaries)? Because it’s easy to beat up on a minority? This is the “Southern Strategy” all over again, except in a primary and against a new minority.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Is Huckabee benefitting from a GOP desire to nominate someone closer to Clinton than Bush? Given there’s no Reagan candidate, Clinton seems to be the chosen model. Hence a governor from Arkansas with no foreign policy experience but with charisma & an easy manner is suddenly in pole position to win the nomination…
December 11th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
MarkG,
Let me introduce you to a little rhetorical device, it’s called the rhetorical question. This question is used by someone who knows the answer, yet asks the question so that he can appear to be genuinely unaware of the answer. Huck obviously has no problem being unaware (NIE, INS, etc).
December 11th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Feltcher,
As is indicated in the last paragraph of Jason’s quote, the familial relationship is not meant in physical “earthly” terms.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Re #79 I feel sick, and sad
December 11th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
WOW, this comes out of left field. It blows me away to find out that self-righteous mike is a bigot. No, that was too tame. mike is a BIGOT! This is as close to the race card as religious bigots can come.
So desparate. So stupid. So pathetic.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
God I love these religious wars. We seculars have been warning about the undue influence of religion in the GOP, and this proves it.
It’s also tainting the GOP in the media, and you’ll see the Dem voteshare increase in polls.
Reasonable voters in states after Iowa will reject both the Baptist and the Mormon due to the religious war storyline, knowing it would render Huck or Mitt dead meat in the general.
Rudy’s the likely beneficiary, although McCain stands a chance. And maybe even Fred.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Matthew I’ve got to ask something else then.
If Mitt is so vulnerable to an underfunded governor’s attempts to religion bait how could he survive the Clinton machine’s smears?
It’s even worse than Clinton though. If Mitt is the nominee we’ll face exposes on Mormonism and the few Mormons who still practice polygamy.
If you think whispers from a weak organization can hurt Romney what do you think a well-funded campaign like Hillary’s will do?
Personally I think you guys ought to stop playing the victims here. We’ll face much worse if Mitt is the nominee.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Huckabee + Dick Morris = campaign sleeze. The same sleeze we had during the Clinton years. Huckabee is just another style over subtance, tax and spender from Hope Arkansas – only this is the bible thumping, RINO version.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Jack #49: Refer to Mitt’s speech and his defense of it since. He has essentially claimed a “religious test” is unconstitutional. The subliminal message is that voters can’t choose on the basis of trusting members of one faith more than those of other faiths. That’s simply dumb con artistry. The Constitution circumscribes the passage of any law, executive order, regulation, or judgment that would eliminate a specific candidate by force of law for membership in a certain religion.
He then went on to insist that the only acceptable candidates would be people of faith — thereby violating the rule he “misunderestimated” from the Constitution.
The man’s either a con artist or a total moron.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
#79 MarkG,
That link is not a link to an AP story. That link is to an anti-mormon website. You bigot. If you are going to spread anti-mormon propoganda at least man up and say it. Don’t be a wuss and pretend like that link was from the AP!
December 11th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Richard P.,
Mormon Doctrine is that we all existed in the pre-existence long, long before living on the earth. We were all spirit children of God, and are currently in the process of growing up to be like our parents. Since we are talking billions of years here, the fact that Jesus and Satan were probably born long before any of us means that we are literally their younger brothers. The war in Heaven, alluded to in the Book of Revelation (the last book in the New Testament) saw a falling out between brothers (and sisters), resulting in the casting out of Satan and 1/3 of the Heavenly host. Since Huckabee has a divinity degree, he would know this. The statement that Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan were brothers is something that all of us Mormons have heard hundreds of times, but without any elaboration. Since it is a slur taken totally out of context and used to distort instead of explain, we find it very offensive. It smacks of the propaganda reiterated over and over again by professional anti-Mormons. It’s worse than the tired meme about Mitt’s supposed flip-flopping….a mantra devoid of intrinsic meaning or correlation with fact.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
econ grad stud,
Just a small clarification. NO Mormon practices polygamy. Any member of the LDS church cho claims to is immediately excommunicated. What you suggest would be the same as suggesting that there are Catholics who practice priestly marrige. It just doesn’t exist.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Econ Grad,
You are dumber than I thought. ” If Mitt is the nominee we’ll face exposes on Mormonism and the few Mormons who still practice polygamy.” Mormons don’t practice polygamy, any Mormons. If a member of the church is currently practicing polygamy, they are ex-communicated and are no longer members of the church.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Sampo’s posts are utterly hilarious in their irrelevance to the original post.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
#79 – I clicked on the link. Aaahh, got it, a totally made-up quote from an anti-Mormon website, which from reading for five minutes, appears it would take some serious study to sort out the complete bull and axe-grinding from the few real facts. God awful.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
EGS,
First, I genuinely believe the Democratic Party is more tolerant of this sort of stuff; or at least they’re perceived to be. I believe Hil will tread lightly in the general election on this issue, and as a minority, Obama wouldn’t tread at all. They also don’t have such an enormous vested interest in attacking Mormonism. Sure, they’ll peel off some votes in the South, but realistically both candidates have real hang-ups in that region as it is. And the Mountain-midwest is pretty comfortable with Mormonism, and likely to react harshly to bigotry towards it. The Dems are targeting states like Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado more then most Southern states. As for polygamy, Mormons do not practice it. The FLDS church does, and undoubtedly there will be under the radar campaigns to confuse the two, from third party groups. But, I’m skeptical about the effect it’ll have. Huckabee has an interest in going after Mormonism; he’s courting an audience that’s uncomfortable with the religion, and who might be sympathetic to Romney otherwise. If Pastor/Governor Mike tells them anti-Mormonism is ok, I don’t they’re going to be lining up to back Romney now.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
This is dispicable, and for you guys who are defending it, I have lost all respect.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Murphy #63 and Mcon #69:
I’ve seen some rather vicious flames here blasted at Huckabee and other Christians in retaliation for even the merest hint of a slight against the LDS Church. So you apparently believe the whole thing should be a one-way street where you folks condemn the others and everyone else shuts up to await your superior celestial judgment.
But then, I guess if one sees himself as a god, there’s every reason to feel superior, entitled, and holier than thou…
December 11th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Irish I had read that some fundamentalist Mormons in southern Utah and northern Colorado still practiced polygamy. In fact I’m certain that’s true.
Do you think the media won’t bring up those clowns to hurt Romney?
December 11th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
86,
The article is complete balderdash. The Mormon church would never use the word ‘negro’ to begin with. MarkG is just as bigoted as his Rett and their fearless Pastor Huck.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
I have to agree with some of EGS’s comments. There would be no misquoting or questions about what Mormons believe if it were out there in the open. It seems that there is a bit of mystery attached to Mormonism because of doctrines that appear to be “secret.” When someone makes a comment about Mormon doctrine, there is an immeadiate cry of “foul.” Usually there is a short response that attempts to align it as close as possible to traditional “Christianity.” All information that I have ever seen on in depth Mormon doctrine has been developed by those who have left the Mormon faith.
I ask this question respectfully. Why is Mormon doctrine “secret” or at least unaccessable to most?
December 11th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Matthew, you might be right although I’m never surprised by what Hillary gets away with.
Do you think Romney could get away with having planted questions at the Democratic debate?
December 11th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
EGS,
I’m not playing the victim here. I’m not a Mormon, and I don’t think that Romney will benefit much from getting this story out there. It possibly scruffs Mike up a bit with a certain crowd, but it’s not going to hurt him with his flock. And it’ll promulgate a doctrinal smear that’s bound to make alot of people uncomfortable; and possibly open the floodgates for a host of other doctrinal questions. No, I don’t think it’s possible for Romney supporters to benefit by “playing the victim”. I’m outraged at this, not because I think my rage will help Romney (it won’t), but because I always sort of like to think we’re a pretty fair country, and a pretty fair party, and things like this put lie to that idea.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
If we nominate someone whose only conservative strength is his religion and he bashes another’s religion (notice not morals, that’s fair game regardless of religion), then I would feel happy to wholeheartedly support Obama. We’ve had abortion for this long, another 4 or 8 years won’t destroy the nation. And Huckabee might. His government more than doubled in budget, he stupidly released a thousand criminals, he has NO foreign policy experience, no business experience. Arkansas was 48/50 in per-capita income when he came in a 49/50 when he left. And people seriously think he would make a good president? At least Jimmy Carter did good things for his state before he screwed up our country, Huckabee doesn’t even have that.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Michael #103,
Mormon doctrines like this one are not secret. Go to http://www.mormon.org if you’re curious.
The idea that there would be no misquoting mormon theology if only it were open can be easily refuted by links to anti-mormon websites in this very thread, which are fabricating quotes and attributing them to the LDS church.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
And, EGS, it has nothing to do with playing the victim. I am genuinely outraged that someone who claims to be a legitimate candidate for President of the United States would use a religious smear argument to advance his candidacy. How on earth can I accept that he will be my president, if elected.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
I want to emphasize that if Huckabee does much more of this it will be obvious he’s running an anti-Mormon campaign. If I see that I’ll have to withdraw my support of him. I’m not convinced this was intentional yet.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Michael,
Very good question. It isin’t “secret” or unaccessable if you know where to look. Unfortunatly, most people are more interested in reading what the anti-mormons are saying, instead of learning what we actually believe. If you really want to know what we believe in and what our beliefs really are you can start by going to http://www.mormon.org. If you still have other questions that aren’t answered on that site, let me know and I will direct you to a direct source where you can find the answer.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
EGS,
FLDS (Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints) aren’t Mormons; Big Love should have taught you that. Most people are aware of that.
I’m not sure that Hillary really planted that General.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
100,
Use your head MarkG. This has nothing to do with disagreeing with the Mormon church. I wouldn’t care either way. This is about Huckabee using Clintonian tactics to attack Romney in an underhanded and dishonest way. Either you are too blind to see that or you just don’t care.
ECS,
Pay attention big guy. Perhaps you should listen to Irish, Brett and Matt. Me thinks they know what they are talking about.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
#107, I have been there. I am speaking about more in depth.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Dell #106 is spot on: Many of us Republicans will vote against the GOP if the nominee is someone who emerged from a religious war. And millions more independents.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Vicious flames? So Mormons should just take it lying down when people smear their faith with lie after lie, smear after smear, misrepresentation after misrepresentation? Would any of us be comfortable with that if it’s our own religion getting that kind of treatment? Methodists? Pentecostals? Lutherans? Ba’hai? Adventists? Catholics? Witnesses? Muslims?
We should just be glad that Mormons seem to be so damn calm about it, after all, radical Muslims scream for the blood of anyone who gives any supposed slight to their faith. Must be the fact that they are used to it, know that the people so tied into religious intolerance and bigotry are basically well-intentioned morons or poorly-intentioned bigots, and it’s like a fly trying to bug an elephant.
Just because “this happens all the time” doesn’t mean a civilized person or society should endorse it or even put up with it. I think that it’s gutter politics for Huckabee or anyone else to promote this kind of smear, by direct statement or indirect insinuation. It has no place. Romney can’t say anything against it because he knows it would just be seen as acting like a victim. Kudos to Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, Tom Tancredo, John McCain and others I’ve heard who have called this for the crap it is and rebuked it.
There’s a clear difference between honest questions about a religious faith and the gutter nonsense that is being promoted in this kind of exchange. Religious differences, fine. Religious smears, knock it off.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
I agree with EGS. He stated something that is widesread. He didn’t make it up.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
EGS,
That is admirable. But you wouldn’t surprise me in that category.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
109 EGS,
What will it take for you to be convinced that it was intentional? Will viewing it on a rerun of Hardball or reading it it the NYT Mag do it for you?
December 11th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Michael: All information that I have ever seen on in depth Mormon doctrine has been developed by those who have left the Mormon faith.
If you want more in depth, go here: http://www.fairlds.org/
December 11th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
MarkG #91
The “religious test” simply says that an elected official cannot be required to belong to certain religion to be president. I don’t see the con-artistry with that statement and what Romney is saying.
Romney’s statement “…want a person of faith to lead them…” is simply indicative that roughly 80% (probably higher) of Americans believe in some higher power or deity. The key word is “WANT” he didn’t say “REQUIRE”.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
What’s wrong with asking a question that most Christians have about Mormonism anyways? Did not Huckabee answer many questions about his faith already? Any aspect of any candidate is fair game for questioning.
If anything, it opens a door to Mormons to explain their beliefs to a listening audience.
And by the way, the answer to Huck’s question is technically yes.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Matthew, I watch television less than 2 hours of TV a week. Until I googled “Big Love” I had no idea what it was.
I read an article about the polygamists in Southern Utah and I assumed they weren’t mainstream Mormons but I know the media will blur that line.
I think Romney supporters need to be ready for much worse than an offhand question about Mormon beliefs. If Mitt is the nominee we’ll face some real dirty stuff from the media. I still remember who’s side they’re on.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Michael,
You know better. Who cares if it is widespread or not. Who cares if it is an actual belief or not. The point isn’t the belief! The point is that Huckabee put out this oh sooo innocent question when he already had an answer in his head. This was right after he said he didn’t know much about them. And of course, this was several years after his speech at an anti-mormon convention.
This isn’t about the belief. IT is about the TACTICS used by Huckabee to smear another candidate.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Well, I guess nobody is waiting to read the article.
I hope nobody here ready to lynch Huckabee was calling for “context” when Romney declared there aren’t enough Muslims to justify a cabinet post, but that they could probably work at lower tier jobs.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Dems are already bringing up Mormonism. It started happenning today. About an hour ago Mark Levin played comments by some Senators and Congressman.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
This should be the time that Mike Huckabee’s supporters should be cringing and lowering their heads to avoid the hits. That they are actually defending him is beyond the pale.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Maybe instead of going postal, one of the many Mormons here could use this as a teaching moment, as Wiseguy suggests.
What is the answer to the question?
December 11th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
MWS – show me a transcript, and we can talk. Don’t you find it a little funny that that story never took off with the MSM?
December 11th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
#123, Honestly I do not think your being fair with the “anti-Mormon convention.” That event was an evangelistic event.
If you were going into an area to evangelize, would you tell them to believe what ever they want?
December 11th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
As evidence of my theory that Baptist vs Mormon wars = Secular nominee, Rudy’s gaining a couple points on Intrade, while Huck and Mitt are both shedding points. Currently:
Rudy 41.5
Mitt 18.8
Huck 17.8
JMac 9.0
Fred 5.0
Religious candidates total 36.6. Secular candidates total 55.5.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
“What is the answer to the question?”
about Jesus and Satan, I believe the answer is yes?
December 11th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
I also believe that the answer is yes.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Michael,
The SBC held it’s event in Utah with the specific design of converting one religous group: mormons. They even handed out anti-mormon literature to the press during the conferance. I lived there at the time. In church we had letters read from the pulpit telling us not to argue, but welcome our visitors with kindness and respect.
Huck new what he was at when he spoke at it.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
per Mormon beliefs that is.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Metro, that is because many believe that Romney and Mike will split the vote and allow Rudy to race up the center. It has nothing to do with faith.
So please, stop spewing your anti-religious hate message. We know you would love nothing better than for religion in this country to be completely destroyed – you don’t need to remind us every other post.
–
on #131, remove the question mark.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
I understand, and I still cannot see the issue.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
BTW, if religion isn’t supposed to matter, how come there are so many Mormons on this site who support Romney, and why is he polling so well in Utah?
Seems to me that if you guys are sincere about all the righteous and pious calls for religious indifference, you ought to be horse whipping a bunch of folks who support Romney BECAUSE he’s Mormon.
Or maybe Utah is so supportive of Mitt! because of how he ran the Olympics. THAT must be it. The Olympics are a big issue this year, after all.
Anybody who wants to claim that Romney’s faith shouldn’t matter, and doesn’t condemn those who support him because of his faith is a hypocrite.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Michael,
Your post in 129 is so laughable it is barely worth a response. Anybody who knows about the relationship the SBC has with Mormon church knows why the Baptists would go to Salt Lake City to preach instead of New York or San Francisco, etc. As the multipart series on the Mormons shows, a wonderful addition! to the SouthernBaptistCon. site, the event wasn’t simple evangelizing.
You conveniently failed to respond to the premise of my post.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Would you have rejected if it were Catholics or Jews?
December 11th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
“BTW, if religion isn’t supposed to matter, how come there are so many Mormons on this site who support Romney, and why is he polling so well in Utah?”
Because people trust the person they can best identify with, and because many Mormons can understand and relate to Romney’s values more easily than other people can.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
#138, In all seriousness what is laughable? That he would want to evangelize a group of people he believes do not know God.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Michael,
you are being disingenuous by half. The issue is not whether the answer to the question is yes or no. That is a matter of theology and interpretation. The issue is whether this sort of Clintonian attack has any place in either a political race in general or this race specifically. I would be outraged if this sort of thing came from any candidate’s supporters. The fact that it is coming from the candidate himself is, under normal circumstances despicable. That it came from someone who claims the ability to teach the Word of God is beyond despicable.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Didn’t a fmr. leader of the Southern Baptist Convention endorse Mitt?
December 11th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Do Mormons attempt to convert people to Mormonism? Obviously so.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Jason Bonham,
“The SBC held it’s event in Utah with the specific design of converting one religous group: mormons. ”
So what? Why are Mormons supposed to serve as missionaries for what, two years? Do they walk door to door just to affirm people in their current beliefs? One sign of a vibrant faith is the desire to seek converts. I respect Mormons for that. So why do you guys get so bent out of shape when evangelicals try to convert people? Of ALLLLLL groups, you guys ought to understand the proselytizing.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
#142, It was an evangelistic event.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
139
from my 69:
“MarkG,
WOW to you. The point is that he is already versed in the lines of attack on the Mormon faith. HE spoke at an anti-mormon convention in the heart of Mormondem. HE KNOWS. And yet in this instance he is clearly doing his innocent “i don’t know much about them…butâ€. This is utterly dishonest and would be dishonest if McCain, Mitt, Rudy, or Jesus said it.
”
It has nothing to do with the specific religion or person. This was a Clintonian attack on another candidate. If he disagrees with the Mormon faith let him say so. If people think muslims(ex.) shouldn’t be president let them say so. Doing it in this underhanded way is simply dishonest and dirty.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
I can’t decide if I’m disgusted or delighted by this.
I’m telling you, the fallout from this Baptist vs. Mormon war will be huge.
Either the party will reject both candidates for a secular candidate, or the GOP will go the way of the Whigs in 2008.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
The religious right has doubled down with this Baptist vs Mormon war, and there is no recovery.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Michael,
#141-Once again you fail to address the issue.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
“Either the party will reject both candidates for a secular candidate”
Great, so we will become just another party that lacks morals. PERFECT – because that is exactly what America needs.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
#147, You think that he has to know everything about the Mormon faith to speak at an event like that?
You keep asking if Huck agrees with the Mormon faith. The answer is no.
Does Mitt agree with the Baptist faith or any traditional Christian religion?
December 11th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
ACT, as if there are no morals outside of fundamentalist religion.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Act,
“Because people trust the person they can best identify with, and because many Mormons can understand and relate to Romney’s values more easily than other people can.”
Thanks for the candor. So do you call your brethren out when they cry bigotry every time a Christian favors Huckabee? Seems to me a lot of folks on your side of this campaign have to right off anyone preference for another candidate as some kind of character flaw. Can we accept then, that evangelicals and Catholics might support Huckabee “because people trust the person they can best identify with, and because many (Christians) can understand and relate to Huckabee’s values more easily than other people can.” “
December 11th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Tick tock, HuckaRomneybots, Tick tock…..
December 11th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
“ACT, as if there are no morals outside of fundamentalist religion.”
You aren’t talking about fendamentalist religion – you are talking about religion in general.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
#153, There isn’t.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:41 pm
ACT, no, I am not. I’m talking about those who bring religion into politics, vs those who do not.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
“So do you call your brethren out when they cry bigotry every time a Christian favors Huckabee?”
I’m against people attacking Romney on his religion, I have no problem with Christians favoring Huckabee because they believe he will be a better President.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
#153, Who defines it if not God? Can an individual decide?
December 11th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Michael,
Perhaps you can point me to where I asked if Huckabee agreed with the Mormon faith.
I DON’T CARE. Once again you fail to address the issue. It has nothing to do with the belief or the religion. It has to with the underhanded attack on another candidate. Perhaps you should learn a little reading comprehension.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Michael, Google “morality” and read for an hour or so. You’d be shocked. And maybe a little educated, finally!
December 11th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
“ACT, no, I am not. I’m talking about those who bring religion into politics, vs those who do not.
Define “bring religion into politics” – is it wrong for a man to consider his [religion-based] personal convictions when deciding how to run the country?
December 11th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
ACT, bringing religion into politics is frequently referencing the tenets of a specific religion. A secular approach references widely-held moral principles, irrespective of how devout the candidate is.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
My father (A Mormon who has never voted dem in his life) sent this email to me about the comments Huckabee made.
“Fundamentalists in majority prove themselves to be among the worst bigots there are, and they don’t feel the least guilt about showing it, for they have no guilt. Huckabee has shown his true spots. Such men should never be allowed in the presidency, or any other public office for that matter. They cannot be trusted to be even handed. Huckabee would send us all to hell and swear God told him to do it.
Huckabee knows that he is throwing mud and he knows that his accusations are the same tired, scurrilous attacks the fundamentalists love. and that he no doubt taught from his pulpit. I hope that his candidacy will be dead because of his bigotry. I can’t imagine how he would ever be elected, even if he does as Nixon advised and runs to the center during the presidential election. I wouldn’t vote for him even if he were the last Republican standing.”
December 11th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Matthew,
I’ve really been sticking up for Mitt lately, but it is naive for anybody here, Mitt supporter or not, to think the Dems, especially if they are in trouble, will not go after his religion. Don’t forget, they are not as tolerant as they claim, the left/moveon .org don’t like religion, and they would love nothing more than to split evangelicals even further.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
I searched on K Dub’s quote, and found this site:
http://www.phawker.com/2007/12/06/the-tao-of-mitt-the-book-of-mormon/
Having been exposed to many anti-Catholic sites of former Catholics, I’m always skeptical as to the accuracy of these things. It may be that the former elder who made this site has a serious ax to grind and is being dishonest. For the sake of clarity, does Mormonism teach that black people are the “seed of Cain?” If not did it use to teach that?
Also, is this considered prophetic teaching or even accurate?:
“You see some classes of the human family that are BLACK, UNCOUTH, UNCOMELY, DISAGREEABLE and LOW in their habits, WILD, and seemingly DEPRIVED OF NEARLY ALL THE BLESSINGS OF THE INTELLIGENCE that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been KILLED, and THAT WOULD HAVE PUT A TERMINATION TO THAT LINE OF HUMAN BEINGS. This was not to be, and the Lord put A MARK upon him, which is THE FLAT NOSE AND BLACK SKIN. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race — that they should be the “servants of servants;†and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree.â€
– LDS “Prophet†Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 290, 1859, emphasis added.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Did we ever find out who was behind the Mitt push polls?
December 11th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Mcon, would you father mind me using his comments on my blog?
December 11th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
I feel like a fool coming out strongly for Huckabee. The guy professes to be a Christian but he ain’t acting like one.
Maybe it is a mistake or false report or he will dismiss it? I hope he does otherwise I can’t in good conscience support this guy.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
On #151, 157. Morality does exist outside of religion. There’s a whole field called moral philosophy that makes no mention of God whatsoever.
Additionally, many secular people are moral human beings: they have healthy marriages, donate to charities, tell the truth, basically satisfy every criteria of morality imaginable. Some people might say, how can you be moral without believing in God? Where does your guidance come from? How can you make moral decisions without a guide?
To that I say, many of us secular folks first learned from our parents what was right or wrong and over time have decided for oursleves what is right and what is wrong. it’s called independent thinking and it’s what makes America great.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Act,
“I’m against people attacking Romney on his religion, I have no problem with Christians favoring Huckabee because they believe he will be a better President.”
To be more specific are you okay with Christians favoring a Chrisitan over Romney “because people trust the person they can best identify with, and because many (Christians) can understand and relate to (a Christian’s) values more easily than other people can.â€
December 11th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
ACT,
By all means. I think it is representative what the vast majority of Mormons would feel about it. My father is deeply patriotic and somewhat warm to Ron Paul because of his support of the constitution but he as always voted R in the elections. This could be a first.
December 11th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Since I really dont know much about this, and one hears all kinds of things, maybe I could ask some of the experts here. What is the official LDS Church position on the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
December 11th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
“To be more specific are you okay with Christians favoring a Chrisitan over Romney “because people trust the person they can best identify with, and because many (Christians) can understand and relate to (a Christian’s) values more easily than other people can.—
Not really. My problem is with people who won’t support Romney BECAUSE he is Mormon.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Are Jesus Christ and Satan brothers? NO!
As you could imagine, Satan has long been disowned and shunned by God and Christ.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Tano,
Thats the first comment of yours that I’ve found amusing.
(who’d duthunkit? being amused by Tano and Michael on the same day)
December 11th, 2007 at 10:04 pm
As someone that gets angry at the bigotry of the SoCon movement I find this attack on itself kind of fitting. Mmmm bigotry, it’s not just for gays/blacks/mexicans/women anymore.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
“As someone that gets angry at the bigotry of the SoCon movement I find this attack on itself kind of fitting. Mmmm bigotry, it’s not just for gays/blacks/mexicans/women anymore.”
You’re generalizing.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
nowandlater, I am heartened. You are finally beginning to see what some of us have seen all along.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Tano,
Depends on the size of the pin.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Is the Brigham Young quote I pasted on the anti-Mormon site in #167 accurate?
December 11th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
My problem is with people who won’t support Romney BECAUSE he is Mormon.
Even if Romney were Southern Baptist it still wouldn’t change the fact that he has been terribly inconsistent on abortion and a whole host of other issues.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
the anti mormon crap on this website needs to stop. The church NEVER made the statement posted by MarkG. There isnt anti Christian bigottry by me or most Romney fans. We consider ourselves Christian and try to live our lives as such. I dont care what the faith of others are, nor should they care about what faith I am. Save your “its a two way street” crap. Huck needs to leave his anti mormon bigottry at home in Arkansas and do as Romney discussed and not make this campaign just about religion. His lead are impressive but are NOT divine providence from God.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Act,
If it is okay for Christians to support a Christian “because people trust the person they can best identify with, and because many (Christians) can understand and relate to (a Christian’s) values more easily than other people can” then can a candidate point out where other candidates might not share values that Christians identify with?
December 11th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
WiseGuy,
Everybody here knows that if Romney were SB he would already have the nomination wrapped up. It isn’t a coincidence that many of the Iowans, when asked why they support Huckabee over Mitt, mention Mitt’s religion.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
Husky,
“I dont care what the faith of others are”
I do, to some extent. And I certainly care about the relationship between someone’s beliefs and the quote attributed to Brigham Young in #167.
Again, is it accurate? Is it reflective of what Mormon belief is or was? If it is, then I’d say it is terribly relevant. If it is not, then say so.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
I say, be up front and show what the teachings of the Mormon faith are. That will dispell any rumors.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
MWS,
Your question, unfortunately is not complete enough. If, by accurate, you mean Is it Doctrine?, the answer is no. If you simply mean is the quate accurate, the answer is yes.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
MWS:
Yes It’s accurate. I looked that quote up when I was 16 to see if it was accurate.
No on both counts. Mormons don’t currently hold that belief, and it was never considered Mormon Doctrine.
You can find a lot of interesting quotes from a lot of people back in the 1850s. Guess what, the Southern Baptist Convention was created in the attempt to be a PRO-SLAVERY church breaking off from the Northern Baptists. Christians were the ones that brought all those slaves to America. It was Christians who killed off the Mayans and Aztecs through conquest.
Your point?
December 11th, 2007 at 10:19 pm
MWS, I am speaking specifically of your quote of Brigham Young from the Journal of Discourses.
As to the first part, that is discredited hogwash.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Michael,
You continue to try take us into a discussion of religion and yet you still ignore the entire premise of this discussion.
How about a little intellectual honesty?
December 11th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
MWS #182,
The quote comes from the Journal of Discourses. Anything from the JD has to be taken with a grain of salt. It is not considered in anyway, shape, or form authoritative. It wasn’t considered so when it was given. It isn’t now. Don’t get me wrong. There is certainly a lot of good stuff in it, but it’s best to consider them “off the cuff” remarks.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Ok Michael, you first, why did Huckabee’s Southern Baptist church endorse Slavery as a true Christian Doctrine based in the Bible?
To be honest, it is irrelevant! You are just using UGLY UGLY identity politics to divide and conquer. You are no better than your slimy candidate who isn’t above stooping down to the ground to pick up power (to quote Dostoevsky). The Atheist are having a field day with your shinanigans. You guys are the ones destroying religion, causing prayer to be expunged from school, and people to leave Christian Churches in droves because of sectarian nonsense.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
Michael, you are asking the Mormons to teach you about their religion. As an Evangelical, why are you so interested? As a Republican, so what if they believe Christ and the devil are/were brothers. Will this impact Romney as president? If so, please enlighten because I can’t see the relevance.
Do you really want the Mormons to start teaching you about their beliefs? Is this a trap? They take you up on the offer and you go off claiming they are using Romney to further their religion. It’s a no win for them. If you want info, go to the link I was provided above.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
#190, Most of what you said is true, but there are some errors. The Southern Baptist Convention is not a church. All Baptist churches are autonomous and no authority is exercised over one another. The SBC is a missionary organization designed to fund Home and foreign missions.
There were three reasons for the split. Slavery was one of them. The other two which are downplayed by some was the orginizational structure and disputes over where home missionaries and money was sent. Northern missionaries did not want to go to the south, neither did they want their money there.
Slavery was becoming unpoular in the North at the same time as it was becoming economically viable in the South.
The SBC was created in 1845 at about the same time and due to some of the same reasons as the rest of the political and economic split in this country.(North vs South)
December 11th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
#167 and #193, that was written at a time when the Southern Baptists were buying and selling slaves. Should Huchabee be held accountable for that?
December 11th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
BTW, EGS,
Google Huckabee “Jesus and the Devil are brothers” and you will have your evidence. Everything from Time to the Huffington Post.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Not only is this outrageous, it is also stupid, from the stand point of being nominated or elected. Does he not know that out west, not only is Utah 70% Mormon, but in 9 other states, the LDS church is the 2nd largest denomination with only the Roman Catholics having more. He has just cost himself a whole lot of votes in the primary and in the general.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
#194, Why are you angry? When someone asks me what I believe I would be happy to tell them. I do not understand why it is bigotry or why it should cause anger to ask about the truth.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
#197, no, he shouldn’t be. Neither should Mitt Romney be held accountable for a practice that ended nearly 200 years ago.
That is the point.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
#194, I can certainly agree that there were some who attempted to justify Slavery. Most did not agree with them then and I do not believe that they were correct.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Irish, Joseph, Mark, et al.
Thanks for the clarification.
As for the Southern Baptists and slavery, that is a horrid blot on their history. Although I am not Baptist, I know that they do not hold this to be true, and do not consider those who held those positions to be prophets. I do not know as much about Mormonism, and so I ask.
Follow up, does Mormonism teach, or did it teach, that blacks are the “seed of Cain?”
December 11th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Joseph,
I did not bring up anything about race in the Mormon faith.
But, I would be glad to share any position, former or current, in the Baptist faith. I will be candid and completely honest.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
Also, people of every faith had slaves during the same timeframe. I have Catholic family in Louisiana who still have paper records issued by the U.S. government on the ownership of slaves.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
follow up to #205, It still didn’t justify it.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
#203, wiki is a wonderful thing. Yes, past Mormon leaders taught this. The fact is, many Mormons today are not even aware of it. Which means they don’t believe it today.
Dude, go to the appropriate forum to discuss this. Pretty soon the Mormons are going to start telling you about their current doctrines and you’ll cry foul that they’re using Romney’s candidacy to convert you.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Many thanks to the True Believers here who heralded me with the “bigot” epithet for exercising my Google bar in attempt to find the source of the quote way back in #129. I’ve since had some interruptions and it took a while for me to catch up on all the comments.
As someone who grew up suspicious of the church I grew up in (the very moderate member of the so-called Seven Sisters, “The Disciples of Christ”), I at least learned to turn the other cheek and not to cast the first stone. Perhaps modern popular Christian belief takes a different tack, and I’m just an old heretical fart. Whatever.
And another thing — in full anticipation of the type of automatic denunciation this will bring — all this use of epithets to keep others from questioning your doctrine (which happens to be truth because you and your religious leaders happen to insist it is) that appears amongst the LDSers here is really nothing short of psychobullying and mind control. As someone who wasted too many years under the thumb of a controlling, manipulative narcissist father, I’m now fully attuned to that stuff.
Call me whatever you want in order to support your beliefs (while defecating on your purported values) and your sense of sanctimonious self-righteousness. I can see through it. And that’s enough for me.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
No one trys harder to teach what they believe than the LDS church. That’s why they have 70,000 missionaries out paying their own way to eat, live, and do laundry, etc with absolutely no monetary compensation. They leave their education, their girl friends and a lot of their freedom behind because they are TRYING TO TEACH what you accuse them of trying to hide. GRRRRRR The web sites referred to above are fantastic for gleaning information, and if you want to know more you can read for probably 100 years all that they provide for you on there. So, don’t accuse us of trying to hide our beliefs.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Howard Dean’s undoing was the “Scream”.
Huckabee’s undoing, if doesn’t backpedal quickly, will be the “Slur”. And I hope he does distance himself from this because my heart was set on him because the Fairtax.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
MWS
Here is a decent link if you are interested in pursuing the issue
http://www.romneyexperience.com/2007/12/11/are-mormons-racists/
December 11th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Ok, I am willing to be honest.
Before this election I did not know much about mormonism or evangelical beliefs. I was baptized catholic, which has quite a few beliefs I am not comfortable with. On my library shelf I have a koran and a bible and I used to have a book of mormon (but I don’t know where it is right now).
In all my years of going to mass I have never heard anyone utter a single word against another set of beliefs
During this campaign I have heard that there are various groups that do not consider catholics, mormons, baptists and others to be christian. But only mormons, as far as I have learned, have beings (angels for example) and beliefs that no one else shares. And while one can say that about jews, hindus and muslims as well, mormonism is American and of relatively recent vintage. Something about that troubles me, but as to everyday life it has no significance.
The presidency, however, is different. And this is why Romney made his speech, because he knew it made a difference. But his speech was not directed at me and so I remain troubled. I think there are other Americans who feel as I do.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
I wouldn’t say I am angry, just annoyed at some of your insensitivity, continual ignorance, and ambivalence about all of this. You are ‘happy to tell them’ about your religion? I’m sure you would be annoyed to if somebody repeatedly asked you the same exact questions over and over again with the intent to mischaracterize and demean that person.
Tell me why you wanted to know what our stance on Brigham Young’s quote? Was it because you, like those on Mar’s Hill were interested in the philosophical ramifications, or were you simply spreading anti-Mormon propaganda like everything else that includes that quote. Where did you get that quote? Was if from Mormon Missionaries or from people who would like to see Mormonism wiped off the face of the earth? Your honest answer to those questions will give you a tiny window into my life as a Latter-day Saint.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Joseph,
I will say again, I did not ask about or post any quote from Brigam Young. Your energy is misdirected.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
#213, I would also say again, What is insensitive about asking about your beliefs or church doctrine?
I answered a question about slavery to you because you mentioned it in a post. My answers were in: 196, 200, 202, 205, and 206
December 11th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
No you didn’t, did you? But you imply Mormons are overreacting for some strange reason? Do you not see the subtle attacks? Are you defending Mormons who are being accused of being racists?
I haven’t seen that, but like Saul you stand by holding the coats while your opponent’s campaign get’s stonned. Why do you do that? Is it political expediency? The defense of unjust attacks on others too inconvenient for your push to gain worldly power for you’re candidate?
December 11th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
You know what Michael? Don’t ask me about my religion. I’m not commenting here to explain every single little tenet of my faith. I am here to discuss politics.
If you really want to know more about it call the missionaries and they’ll tell you what you need to know.
December 11th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
I have a hunch that I could dredge up some quotes from christian leaders in the mid 1800s that were much, much, much more racist than what Brigham said. I think the number and vitriol of those quotes would pale in comparison to what Brigham had to say. Oh, by the way, did you know that Joseph Smith in his short-lived run for president (he ran mainly because he felt that the other candidates did not care about the Mormons – kind of like Huck’s latest comments) had as part of his platform freeing all the slaves (by selling frontier land and buying all their freedom)? Yep, racist to the core.
December 11th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Hey…it seems there are plenty of Mormon theologians who also think Lucifer (satan) was Jesus’ brother!
An example (easy to find…all you gotta do is google):
“The importance of not accommodating temptation in the least degree is underlined by the Savior’s example. Did not he recognize the danger when he was on the mountain with his fallen brother, Lucifer, being sorely tempted by that master tempter? He could have opened the door and flirted with danger by Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Pg.67, AUTHOR OF SALVATION”
December 11th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
I think that Murphy is right. Maybe we should wait to see the article in its full version before we go calling Huckabee a bigot and all of that. Fact of the matter is that I doubt he was trying to launch an anti-mormon campaign. It does him no good and he is leading right now so he doesn’t need to do it, not that I think he would anyway.
I still ask the question, where is the fuss over BOB JONES III’s comments. He comes right out and calls mormonism a cult and catholics as well. Is this just ignored because he supports Romney? How come no one is calling on him to repent and for Romney to have him removed from his campaign? How come there is not the same public outcry. I think it is a sad day when there is such a one-way street when it comes to this. If you support Romney you can say whatever you want about his religion or any other for that matter, but if you are for someone else, you are a bigot. Kind of sad.
December 11th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
Joseph,
Again, why are you angry?
I think the claims that Mormons today are racist are untrue, that is what I implied by talking about how other faiths were doing the same thing at the same time.
I have also defended Mormons on this blog who have been attacked by Christians who were making ridiculous statements on this site.
I have said it before and I will say it again, I believe in the same religous liberty that Mitt Romney proclaimed in his speech, and I would willingly die trying to protect it.
In any regard, I do not appreciate the way you speak to me. It seems you would like me to always be on the defensive.
Regards
December 11th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Jason, I hope you will post this response as an update to your original post. Here is the link if you
need it to verify. http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Newsroom.PressRelease&ID=425
News Release: Huckabee Campaign Responds to AP/New York Times Report
December 11, 2007
LITTLE ROCK, AR – A report released tonight cites an upcoming article in the Sunday edition of The New York Times Magazine which quotes former Arkansas Governor and Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee asking a question about the content of the Mormon faith. In fact, the full context of the exchange makes it clear that Governor Huckabee was illustrating his unwillingness to answer questions about Mormonism and to avoid addressing theological questions during this campaign.
“Governor Huckabee has said consistently that he believes this campaign should center on a discussion of the important issues confronting our nation,†said Senior Advisor, Dr. Charmaine Yoest, “and not focus on questions of religious belief. He wants to assure persons of all faith traditions of his firm commitment to religious tolerance and freedom of worship. Governor Huckabee believes that one of the great strengths of our nation lies in its diversity of thought, opinion and faith.â€
December 11th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
For the record, Bob Jones is bigoted. At least he is a friendly bigot, that’s the difference. He’s also not trying to destroy a man’s record or reputation with prejudicial motives.
On the other hand, no matter what a Mormon does (be tolerant of facial attacks, or respond) we can’t seem to do right by your book-
You know what, I’m tired of the same old arguments. I’m quitting for the night! There’s only so much attacking of my deepest held beliefs I can stand in one day.
December 11th, 2007 at 11:29 pm
222 – that clarifies nothing.
December 11th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
#222 -
If indeed he wanted to clear it up, instead of waiting until it is published, he should release the complete text now, if (as he says) that will clear it up.
December 11th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
This is all so ridiculous. Politics ain’t beanbag. The Democrat party will throw everything including the kitchen sink at our nominee. People getting all upset and finding their feelings hurt should probably avoid the messy sport of politics.
Seriously. Get a grip, people.
December 11th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
I have lost all respect for Huck. I used to think and post that he seemed like a nice enough guy. This guy is as scummy, sleazy, and half-witted as they come. Was a slime ball!! I hope he wins the nomination and gets DESTROYED in the general election, and goes down in history as the absolute worst nominee EVER!!! Good riddance Huckabee, and you just stuck a broomstick in a hornets nest with this type of bigoted crap. Good luck there moron! (as I shake my head in disgust)
December 11th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
Don’t you think that the full text is with the NYTIMES guy not the one being interviewed? This is the kind of sutpidity we are dealing with from those of you making accusations. Just read the article.
December 12th, 2007 at 12:04 am
Michael,
If you really want to know what we believe, I’ll be happy to answer, but it would make more sense for you to go through what’s available on the Church’s websites first, and have me clarify things or answer questions that occur as a result of the exercise. There is more power and beauty in LDS doctrine than you could possibly imagine at this stage of your investigation, and the problem with this thread is that virtually none of it was even touched on. I’ve spent a lot of years teaching Mormon Doctrine and virtually every other class in the church and I pick up new insights every week. If I, having read literally hundreds of books on the subject, still have huge gaps in my understanding of Mormonism, what chance would you have at this point. An obvious place to start is the Book of Mormon. Read that, and if it doesn’t pique your interest, there wouldn’t be much sense in reading any of the thousands of other books about our religion.
December 12th, 2007 at 12:41 am
More nonsense that you post, Jared. You have clearly been opposed to anyone other than Mitt.
Dave, the Church’s website is of interest only to TBMs. Anyone who speaks up is a heretic spreading heresy, or whatever current fashion dictates the act to be called.
Smith was a historical figure — unlike the other biblical figures — who was a con artist selling nonsense to the spiritually labile. His direct instructions from God were so poor that the official church has had to backtrack numerous times to survive. The rest of the posited physical evidence of the church is contradicted by real scientifically established fact. There’s simply no verifiable truth to the tenets of Mormon belief, no more than there is for L. Ron Hubbard’s Scientology. Mormonism is the Scientology of the 19th Century.
Get used to it. That is what people will talk about if Mitt gets the nomination — and, I would argue, deservedly so!
December 12th, 2007 at 12:41 am
It would be interesting to see the Democratic party do a full assault on Mormon beliefs. I wonder how Harry Reid would feel about that?
December 12th, 2007 at 2:05 am
Look, if you want to somehow defend Huckabee on this, go ahead, but it’s indefensible. It’s not an “innocent” question. I have seen Huckabee do this kind of thing in response to Romney’s faith 4 times now. I will admit that he is a slick, slick political operator. He learned from the best – the Clintons. This kind of character attack is classic negative politics – the politician or a surrogate puts the “question” out there subtly, then backtracks and asks wounded when asked about it, trying to be the victim in the process. Again, Clinton is the master of all time at this.
Once, maybe . . . but 4 times in a row? In a week? Maybe some of you aren’t familiar with how this kind of thing works, or don’t care, but it’s a way to send subtle messages to certain groups that will support you based on wedge issues (race, class, religion, etc.). If you wanted to send a message to white people to vote for you because of race as a wedge issue, you might say, “I don’t know that interracial dating is a problem in our society. People will all think differently . . . oh, do you remember that story about Kobe Bryant and the rape case in Colorado? That was tragic.” What’s the suggestion? Well, I’m not going to make this an issue . . . but if you are one of those people who thinks black men prey on white women, I am your guy.
Huckabee is doing the same thing on evangelical Christians versus Mormons, and he’s using anti-Mormon insinuations to do it. Anybody who knows much about the traditional anti-Mormon arguments can see that Huckabee knows them well and is using them masterfully. Three examples:
(1) On Glenn Beck’s program – asked if he could vote for a Mormon. Refused to answer that it was possible to vote for a Mormon in public office, instead lets it hang for a while and then shifts the subject. Result: If you want to not vote for a Mormon because you don’t trust them, I’m your guy.
(2) In a question on the Bible in a news interview this week – says he doesn’t want to opine on religious things, then unsolicited and voluntarily offers that he doesn’t think there are any other religious books of scripture than those now canonized, they were approved in a careful process, I really don’t know that there’s any others that could be legitimate, etc. – a clear reference to the Book of Mormon. Result: If you agree that Mormons are heretical for believing in the Book of Mormon in addition to the Bible, I’m your guy.
(3) In a question about Romney’s Mormon faith, he avers, says he doesn’t know much, then unsolicited and voluntarily he brings up a question, “Don’t Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers?” This question is a commonly used doctrinal charge, among a dozen or so, that the whole anti-Mormon or “Mormons are not Christian” crowd uses to level the “cult” charge at Mormons. Result: If you agree that Mormons or their candidates might be suspect because of their “non-Christian” docrines, I’m your guy.
Look, you can’t blame the guy for wanting to win, and he’s obviously a good pol – just down in the gutter right now.
Three times in a week? Using classic anti-Mormon arguments to divide them from evangelical Christians? I’m sorry, but this is not innocent and it is not accidental. It the use of calculated religiously bigoted soft-sell statements to boost his own candidacy and downgrade Romney’s based on Romney’s faith identity versus his own. It’s gutter. Mormons see it so clearly because they have dealt with it for 175 years – sorry, folks, but they damn well know it when they see it.
It’s not a mistake and it’s not an accident.
December 12th, 2007 at 3:45 am
Not to pile on, but I’m gonna throw in my own reaction. I was trying to catch up a bit, reading Jason’s NR reax thread, and Sean said Huck made the comment on camera on MSNBC. I was floored. I was already disgusted with his previous wink-and-a-nod approach to his supporters, but for him to actually pull out the standard, routine, anti-Mormon talking points was beyond the pale. I’m incapable of voting for him now. I really think he could lose Utah if this is publicized enough. This is different than Bob Jones – he says we’re a cult, but it doesn’t matter to the Presidency, and he supports Mitt on policy, and we agree to disagree on theology. Huck has instead done the next worst thing to saying “you should not vote for Mitt because he is a Mormon.” It’s almost impossible to get more explicit. Imagine if Chris Dodd said “I’ve heard women are biologically less logical thinkers than men. Don’t have an opinion myself, but I’ve heard it.” or something comparable about African Americans. It doesn’t even matter if it’s, strictly speaking, true or not, it’s simply raising the question as a Presidential candidate that makes it bigotry.
In the early speculations on Mitt’s candidacy one line I read that I thought would be unlikely to come to pass was the theory that Mormons could be pushed out of the GOP coalition if it was perceived that Mitt lost because of his religion. I didn’t think any of the campaigns that mattered would stoop to that level. Clearly I was wrong, and if Huck wins the nomination, that is a distinct possibility. Say good-bye to a red Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, maybe Wyoming. Push Oregon, Washington, and California well beyond any GOP reach. See Idaho and Utah become battleground states. If the GOP becomes the anti-Mormon, nanny-state party, that’s not so different from the anti-religion-in-general, nanny-state party. The reasons to regularly vote GOP dry up pretty quick when we’re disinvited from the club.
December 12th, 2007 at 8:45 am
First of all, I don’t think the Democrats would attack anyone on religion. Many of them are religious but have a “everyone to their own choice” kind of attitude. You won’t get that kind of finger pointing except for the overtly bigoted parts of his comments (women subservent to men).
As far as the rest, if this is how Huckabee actually feels I would rather he come out with it now than later. If a religion can be viewed as bigoted, fine, that’s what those people believe. No sense trying to pretend they don’t. Instead he would be smarter to stand up and say that he isn’t changing his belief’s for anyone, not even to win the presidency.
Do I agree with his attitude? Nope, that’s why I belong to a much more liberal church.
December 12th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Democrats will attack Mike as being a weirg religious guy because democrats believe that most religious people are weird. The problem with Mike is that there is so much material out there to use to show he is weird.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:00 am
#228, James Boulder
OK, here is the “full context”:
“I asked Huckabee, who describes himself as the only Republican candidate with a degree in theology, if he considered Mormonism a cult or a religion. ‘‘I think it’s a religion,’’ he said. ‘‘I really don’t know much about it.’’
I was about to jot down this piece of boilerplate when Huckabee surprised me with a question of his own: ‘‘Don’t Mormons,’’ he asked in an innocent voice, ‘‘believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?’’”
There is nothing different about this than was originally reported. Huckabee is a Clintonian sleaze. Nothing more, nothing less. Anyone who stood up during the Clinton presidency and decried his methods owes it to themselves to do the same with Huckabee. To do any less would be to welcome the same cries of hypocrites that we have leveled at the Democrats.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:12 am
I also just read the relevant part of Huck’s comment, and this is much ado about nothing. The context:
1. This was before The Speech, when everyone was buzzing about what Romney should or should not address. I’m sure Huckabee knew the answer to this question, but may have offered it as the sort of question that Romney might want or need to address.
2. This was part of many conversations between this reporter and Huck, who was traveling with him to write this story. There would be a lot of off the cuff, throw away banter. There would be no way for Huck to know if this question would make the story.
3. Most importantly, if Huck meant this to be a wedge issue, he would not simply casually mention it to a newspaper reporter with whom he had hours of conversation. There would be no way to insure that the question got out there. If he TRULY MEANT TO USE THIS AS A WEDGE, HE WOULD HAVE GIVEN THIS “SHOUT OUT” TO HIS EVANGELICAL BRETHREN ON LIVE NATIONAL TV WERE HE WOULD BE ASSURED THAT IT WOULD HAVE AN IMPACT, LIKE DURING A DEBATE, A SUNDAY NEWS PROGRAM, OR ON A CABLE NEWS SHOW.
Clearly, this was a casual remark that was one snippet of lengthy conversations Huck and this reporter had. It was within the context of what Mitt should or should not address regarding his faith, pre-Speech, and there is no reason to suppose that Huck meant for this question to make national news. If he did, he would have asked it in front of live TV cameras in front of a national audience.
This is much ado about nothing.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:28 am
MWS, your loyalty to your candidate, while interesting, is undeserved. Your apologetics for him have the same false ring as his “innocent” question. There is no reference to “The Speech” to give it the context you try to. It was not a simple “off the cuff, throw away banter” comment as you attempt to describe. It was a calculate rhetorical question which, if he didn’t know it would make it to the article would mean that Huckabee is a fool. While he is certainly a sleaze, he’s no fool.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:52 am
#235, you know it’s really a disservice to say that about Democrats. Many, many, many of them are regular attendees at church, with a strong belief system. If they tend to be more Luthern/Methodist/Eposcipalian than Baptist it doesn’t mean that they are some kind of godless heretic. The problems with Evangicals is that they, like the LDS and Catholics, think that they have the only answer and want to shove their “lifestyles” down everyone else’s throat. This is what turns off those in the Democratic Party.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Irish,
” It was a calculate rhetorical question which, if he didn’t know it would make it to the article would mean that Huckabee is a fool. ”
If was intention was as you describe, then why didn’t he throw that out before a national audience on live TV for maximum impact? Then there would be no question of the quote getting lost, forgotten, or not used.
December 12th, 2007 at 10:26 am
MWS, the fact that he didn’t throw it out on national TV doesn’t prove or disprove whether he thought his comment would make it into a story. This argument is nonsense.
Irish is right that if Huck did not realize that it would end up in the story he is a fool. If he did realize it (the more likely scenario to me since I would think any candidate that makes disparaging remarks about another’s religion to a REPORTER probably knows it will be published), then he was intentionally trying to bash the church and/or Romney.
December 12th, 2007 at 10:32 am
dblagent,
There is nothing disparaging about the question in and of itself. The question is what was Huckabee’s intention and motivation. I don’t think you can prove he went it as a wedge. I think if he did, he would certainly have used a more effective format. It’s not like he isn’t before a live national TV audience almost every day.
December 12th, 2007 at 10:51 am
There is nothing disparaging about the question in and of itself. The question is what was Huckabee’s intention and motivation. I don’t think you can prove he went it as a wedge. I think if he did, he would certainly have used a more effective format. It’s not like he isn’t before a live national TV audience almost every day.
Obviously it’s a big issue MWS. Do you want a guy who sits in the White House and ignores the influence his words have on Iran, Russia, China? If you really think Nice Huckabee didn’t want to smear the Mormons then it’s worse than I though. The guy would be a horrible diplomat to the world because he says things that cause effects that he’s not even willing to acknowledge.
But, I know it won’t do any good talking to you. You’re just another Kool-aid drinking Anti-mormon Huckabee supporter.
December 12th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
It would be one thing to apologize for Huckabee if he had done this thing once. I cited three specific examples in the last 10 days that he’s done something like this, and exactly how and why this plays in a political process. He’s done it repetitively, and then he denies any association with it. Stick your head in the sand, but the guy is simply and straightforwardly, and smartly for him, using religious identity politics as a wedge issue. It’s disgusting, but that’s what he’s doing.