# Some fair questions for Mitt Romney about Mormonism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 17, 2010, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419 "2010-04-17T00:45:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/81 "2010-04-18T21:24:36Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > Because they do not endorse the orthodox definition of the Trinity and their views of the afterlife are utterly deviant. I agree that their views on the afterlife are “deviant.” What exactly are they deviating from? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/82 "2010-04-18T21:42:11Z")
> [@MPB\_in\_Salt\_Lake](#): > > Coming from someone as wise as you, that really must take them down a peg, eh? Well when you trot around in magic underpants and believe that you will become a God and have your own planet someday, you have no response. The bigotry is well known. The suppression of women has been part of the church for generations. So I really don’t see Mormons as starting from a higher point. I see them as a joke and a believer as a person who absorbs teaching without thinking. That is not a characteristic I admire in a political candidate. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/83 "2010-04-18T21:44:28Z")
> [@DWMarch](#): > > There was **some divine cockblock** going on that prevented the All-Knowing, All-Seeing from knowing and seeing? _snerk_ The RCC is a sexist organization peopled with child molesters and molestation abettors and Holocaust deniers. I demand that all RC politicians denounce the RCC. I shall wait right here! ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/84 "2010-04-18T22:18:42Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Nope. He is still mired in the Rev, Wright non-controversy. SHODANs claws don’t retract. It was a lot of desperate noise about nothing. > Perhaps he can blame Obama for the priests abusing altarboys and covering it up. He must be held responsible. Shodan’s mild threadshitting does not entitle you to make personal jabs at him. Knock it off. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/85 "2010-04-18T23:10:58Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > I’ve always heard it was 1 John 5:7: > > _For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one._ This is called the [Johannine Comma](http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html). It’s not really in the Bible. It was inserted into a Latin text (probably from an accidental incorporation of a marginal note by a copyist) in the middle ages. From there it got back-translated into a few Greek manuscript copies, and eventually into English in the KJV, but it’s not original to the text and does not exist in any of the earliest Greek manuscripts, or even most of the manuscripts contemporaneous with the Vulgate. It is no longer even included in more modern and accurate translations (made from earlier and more accurate Greek manuscripts). ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2010, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/86 "2010-04-18T23:28:41Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > I thought John 1:1 is to be taken as a Trinitarian description: No, it’s Philonic Judaism, and it’s not Trinitarian. > [@](#): > > ‘The Word’ is some kind of Logos or godhead or what have you, the ‘with’ is a ghost or something, and then there is the God Itself… obviously I am fuzzy on this and someone will come along and clear it up for all of us. I’m no bible beater, but I thought the Trinity was bible-based 😕 The “with is a ghost?” Are you kidding me? No, that’s not what it means. The Logos (“the Word”) comes from Greek philosophy, and Philo used it to refer to the interaction of God with (or “presence in”) the physical world. He meant it metaphorically. he did not think there was actually a guy called the Word, and he didn’t think there was a ghost involved. The author of the Gospel of John interpreted Jesus as a literal manifestation of the Logos in human form, but still did not think a ghost was involved. After trinitarian theology was invented later, people went back to the New Testament (and still do) to try to find ways to interpret or extropolate a trinity, but they’re working backwards and tendentiously. It isn’t in there. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/87 "2010-04-19T01:06:53Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Scary because you’re setting yourself up as the arbiter of what is correct for religous belief _for others_. So, the question I have for you is _who died and made you God?_ So logically I shouldn’t criticize anyone’s religious belief. For instance you probably wouldn’t mind me condemning Fred Phelps. > [@FriarTed](#): > > The Constitution forbids the government from setting a religious test for public office. Individuals can determine who to vote for by any standard they please. > > Now, if the GOP race had not been settled by the time of the Indiana primary in 2008, I’d have been torn between Romney & Huckabee. I wouldn’t be surprised if I face the same decision in 2012. That said, religiously, I sure as heck am closer to H than R, but I think R has more economic savvy & that’ll be a BIG factor in deciding my vote- moreso than the nature of Deity. No love for John McCain? ☹ > [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > In case anyone is wondering, when Evangelicals and Fundamentalists refer to someone as Christian, they mean in the sense of a Born Again Christian who has experienced an individual conversion and not merely someone who purports to follow Christ. As being born again is not part of Catholic theology, in the minds of many E’s and F’s a Catholic cannot be Christian. Actually Catholics do believe in “born-again” only it happens during baptism (from what I’ve seen in Catholic Answers). > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > It’s not like mainstream Christianity accepts the “best accounts of actual history”. Again; if you want to condemn a politician for following an irrational religion, then you need to condemn all religious politicians, because all religions are irrational. There’s little to choose from between them in terms of rationality. What about Unitarian Universalists or Deists? > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Would the OP ask a Catholic why he associates with a church that still to this day considers women inferior-- ie, incapable of being priests? Because that’s what the Bible says. > [@raindog](#): > > I agree that their views on the afterlife are “deviant.” > > What exactly are they deviating from? From the Bible which speaks of the “flames of Hell (or Hades)” ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/88 "2010-04-19T01:31:00Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > So logically I shouldn’t criticize anyone’s religious belief. For instance you probably wouldn’t mind me condemning Fred Phelps. Actually, I think you’re exactly like Phelps in your pronouncements on others’ religious beliefs. Criticize them all you want but it really would make you less like Phelps, IMHO, if you were to identify your theological criticisms as your opinion, not as absolute fact. See how I identified both sentences as my opinion? ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/89 "2010-04-19T01:39:03Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No, it’s Philonic Judaism, and it’s not Trinitarian. > > The Logos (“the Word”) comes from Greek philosophy, and Philo used it to refer to the interaction of God with (or “presence in”) the physical world. He meant it metaphorically. he did not think there was actually a guy called the Word, and he didn’t think there was a ghost involved. > > The author of the Gospel of John interpreted Jesus as a literal manifestation of the Logos in human form, but still did not think a ghost was involved. After trinitarian theology was invented later, people went back to the New Testament (and still do) to try to find ways to interpret or extropolate a trinity, but they’re working backwards and tendentiously. It isn’t in there. I did not know that. Thanks for the explanation. Mitt Romney is a _fool_ to tamper with these ideas! ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/90 "2010-04-19T02:43:46Z")
A foray into Trinitarian and various other Christian views of Deity- I think the idea of “The Word was with God and the Word was God” being Trinitarian with reference to the Holy Spirit in the “was with” may have been explained using Augustine’s (? I’ve heard it attributed to him) explanation that the Trinity is necessary from God’s Eternal Nature as Love- the Father eternally loves, the Son is eternally beloved and returns that love, and the Love generated between Father and Son is the Holy Spirit. Now, there are lots of other references to Father, Son & Holy Spirit besides the very questionable I John 5:7- the first being Jesus’s baptismal formula given in Matthew 28:19. And one can find references supporting the Deity of the Son and both the Deity & personhood of the Spirit. Henceforth, the Trinity. On the other hand, it is possible, I will admit, to take the New Testament & interpret it as presenting the Father, the Son & the Spirit as three modes or manifestations of God. That really raises DWMark’s question “Who was Jesus praying to? Was he just talking to himself?” That was why the Church Fathers accepted Trinitarianism instead of Modalism- it maintains a real distinction between Father & Son while retaining the Son’s Deity. The modern group teaching Modalism is the Oneness Pentecostal (also United or Apostolic Pentecostal) churches) Next is Arianism- in which Bishop Arius of Alexander taught that the Son (and presumably the Spirit) are the Primary Creations of Father God- with & through Whom, the Father created everything else. The main modern group which teaches that is the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the various Bible Students groups which originated with Charles Taze Russell. I will agree that the NT can be interpreted this way except that I believe the NT very clearly shows in the Gospels that Jesus accepts worship from other humans & in The Revelation the heavenly beings giving Jesus the same worship they give the Father. In Russell’s view, btw, the Spirit is not a personage but the Divine Energy flowing from the Eternal Father thru the First-Created Son (whose Angelic name is Michael). Then there is Binitarianism- the Father & the Son are two distinct Eternal Divine Persons with the Spirit as Their non-personal Divine Energy. This is taught by the various Armstrongist groups EXCEPT the original Worldwide Church of God which is NOW Trinitarian. Again- I can see how they read the NT to get this, except that I see too many personal attributes of the Holy Spirit in the NT. So while I believe that Trinitarianism is the most accurate view to derive from the NT, I can see how Modalism, Arianism & Binitarianism can be read from the NT. HOWEVER, to get that Eternal Intelligence created the Universe & the individualized into personages who became masters of space, time & energy- i.e.- Gods, and that one of these beings became our Father God and that Jesus is literally His Firstborn by Our Mother God. And the Holy Spirit emerged as a Divine Personage also. You have to get that from somewhere else besides just The Bible- OT or NT. And that is why many Christians do not accept the LDS- because their definition of God the Father & the Son is seen as inconsistent with the Bible and based in another source of authority- namely the prophethood of Joseph Smith. This view is not even in the Book of Mormom- that is basically Trinitarian tho I think a couple of passages sound Modalist. If I represented LDS theology in the above paragraph, I welcome any corrections. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 11:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/91 "2010-04-19T11:41:38Z")
[QUOTE=Curtis LeMay] From the Bible which speaks of the “flames of Hell (or Hades)” [/QUOTE] If you had said that the JWs “deviated” from [your, or common] Christian _theology_ I would have considered your views indirectly heretical, but since you are [almost] citing the _bible_ as your source, then I’d have to say that your views are directly heretical. The fact is, you’ve almost certainly been misled, and it is _you_ (et al) who is the deviant. With due regard to your parent, or pastor (both of which may have been misled also) the bible’s use of the [translated from the source languages] word “hell” does not indicate a fiery place of torment. If you do the research you’ll find theres essentially 2 kinds of hell; one that is a common grave (which appears at Hades/Sheol and a couple spelling variants) and the other which represents total, permanent destruction (Gehenna). IOW, in the former you have the chance to get out of hell (via resurrection) and the other from which there is no exit. In any event, in either there is no enduring suffering in either. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/92 "2010-04-19T11:47:58Z")
I have never seen a comprehensive discussion here on the Trinity, and I’d like to see one. Unfortunately this is the busiest 8 weeks of my year, so it will have to wait a bit (if I’m to participate anyway) For that to be truly comprehensive I would think that it might take the form of a a few companion threads: The Holy Trinity, the Bible and the OT Jews. The Holy Trinity, the Bible and the Gospels. The Holy Trinity, the Bible and the Paulian NT. The Holy Trinity, the Bible and Pagan Influences on Christian Theology. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/93 "2010-04-19T11:54:07Z")
I’ve a question for both **ITR champion** and **Curtis LeMay** : What religious groups do you consider to be acceptable faiths for presidential candidates to hold? Maybe you can even inform us of the religious affiliations of the candidates you last voted for in any election. I’m pretty certain I can come up with some “fair” questions for each and every one of those groups. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/94 "2010-04-19T12:34:59Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > I’ve a question for both **ITR champion** and **Curtis LeMay** : What religious groups do you consider to be acceptable faiths for presidential candidates to hold? Maybe you can even inform us of the religious affiliations of the candidates you last voted for in any election. I’m pretty certain I can come up with some “fair” questions for each and every one of those groups. I already noted my tentative support for Romney, but I will say that if the Latter-day Saints still held to the pre-1978 view excluding the Priesthood to blacks, that would diminish greatly. Can we all agree that Scientologists & Raelians would probably not get our political support? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/95 "2010-04-19T13:29:43Z")
Scientology isn’t really a religion, it’s a racket. Raelians I wouldn’t care about. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/96 "2010-04-19T14:23:37Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > Can we all agree that Scientologists & Raelians would probably not get our political support? I was living just up the coast when Clint Eastwood was mayor of Carmel. I thought he did a good job of it. His religious beliefs did not seem to affect his performance in office in any way whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/97 "2010-04-19T14:33:28Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > I was living just up the coast when Clint Eastwood was mayor of Carmel. I thought he did a good job of it. His religious beliefs did not seem to affect his performance in office in any way whatsoever. Was Clint Raelian? 😃 I have never heard that he was a Scientologist–it seems that I saw an interview in which he had claimed that he shed his Protestant upbringing for agnosticism, but I would not claim my memory was accurate. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/98 "2010-04-19T14:34:08Z")
Clint Eastwood is a scientologist?! :eek: This discussion could count as a reason why I might be disinclined to vote for a Mormon, or anybody whose religion is too front-and-center. Can you imagine 4 years of this conversation? ‘Teaching the controversy’ about the Trinity, or weird arguments about obscure Mormon ideas? On and on, instead of health care and energy policy. Ugh! Here’s another one, Revelation 22:18 _I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book_ I always took that to mean that the Bible is completed and can’t be amended any longer. So… how can Mormons justify the extraneous text that is the Book of Mormon? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/99 "2010-04-19T14:47:21Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Here’s another one, Revelation 22:18 > _I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book_ > > I always took that to mean that the Bible is completed and can’t be amended any longer. So… how can Mormons justify the extraneous text that is the Book of Mormon? “This book” only refers to the book of Revelation itself – the only book the author was aware he was writing. He didn’t know he was writing anything that would be incorporated into a canonized “Bible.” He just didn’t want anybody to alter his own book. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/100 "2010-04-19T14:48:41Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Here’s another one, Revelation 22:18 > _I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book_ > > I always took that to mean that the Bible is completed and can’t be amended any longer. So… how can Mormons justify the extraneous text that is the Book of Mormon? Surely the author of Revelations was referring to his book, and not the entire Bible, right? The Bible as we know it did not exist when Revelations was written. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419.md?page=6)