Is New Romney Hire Foreshadowing Dobson Endorsement? / Jim Geraghty

See Original Post on National Review Online at this link:

A Thompson Associate passes on word that one of their former campaign staffers – who had said early on he could never see himself working for Mitt Romney – is expected to sign on with the former Massachusetts governor.

This Thompson Associate is also predicting an endorsement of Mitt Romney by James Dobson in the near future. (Note that could be genuine scuttlebutt, or it could be an effort to create expectations, so that if Dobson doesn’t do it soon, the impression can be created that something went awry.)

Considering Romney’s previous endorsements among evangelical leaders, and Dobson’s earlier dismissals of Thompson, an endorsement of Romney wouldn’t be shocking…

UPDATE: The figure switching to Romney is revealed as Bill Wichterman.

2007: Mitt Romney is a Mormon and I am a Baptist: Get Over It! / Herman Cain

Herman‘s Column Archive

October 29, 2007

The Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Lutherans, Pentecostals, Mormons and a few other faiths have three things in common – they believe in Jesus Christ, that He is the Son of God and that He died and was resurrected for our sins.

So what’s the problem?

The political pundits continue to try and make Mitt Romney’s religious beliefs a big issue as he runs for the Republican presidential nomination. Different denominations of Christianity are just that – different denominations – which means different worship practices of the same fundamental Christian beliefs.

Some people have commented that they cannot support Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon. When they are pressed to explain why that is objectionable, they stutter. Still others are skeptical of Mitt Romney based solely on hearsay or lack of knowledge about Mormons.

Even more puzzling to me is the recent trashing of the Mormon faith by Bob Jones III, of the university that bears his name, while endorsing Mitt for president (USA Today article by DeWayne Wickham, October 23, 2007). Some of us call that a backhanded endorsement.

I am a practicing Bible-reading-and-believing Baptist Christian, and I respect any Christian denomination that shares the same basic beliefs. I cannot respect a religion that trashes other Christian denominations, or one that seeks to destroy other faiths. Muslim extremists want to kill anyone who does not agree with them. I have a problem with that.

This is not an endorsement of Mitt Romney, nor is this intended to defend or explain the Mormon religion. It is a reminder that Christianity has several denominations with different practices. Misperceptions or lack of clarity about someone’s religious beliefs can only distort one’s reasoning in deciding who to vote for.

Media and political prognosticators are constantly trying to put labels and sound-bites on candidates for their reporting convenience, and sometimes, to help create a negative perception of a candidate. Romney is a Mormon, but a “flip-flopper” on social issues. Guiliani is a liberal with a conservative record as mayor of New York City. Huckabee is a conservative Baptist preacher, but he does not have enough money raised to be considered a tier one candidate. Fred Thompson might be a true conservative but his “sizzle” is a let down. And John McCain is strong on national security and “gray” on everything else.

Maybe I am asleep when the media reports on the Democratic presidential candidates, because I do not hear them proclaiming Hillary’s religious affiliation or her socialist tendencies, Barack Obama’s Muslim educational past or John Edwards’s distinctly socialist tendencies.

History has shown that a media sound-bite is not a predictor of how a president will sign legislation when it reaches his desk. President John F. Kennedy reduced taxes for the first time in decades, and he was a Catholic Democrat. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and he was a Texas southerner. And Ronald Reagan was a fiscal conservative after being governor of California, one of the most liberal states in the country. Go figure!

This country needs a president who has a sensible, common sense solution or idea for the tier one issues that we face. National security in our fight against Islamic fascism, sustaining the positive growth of our economy, market-based incentives to make our health care system more affordable and accessible, restructuring a dysfunctional social security system, replacing an outdated and unfair federal tax code, and harnessing the unbridled growth of government and entitlement spending.

Religious affiliation is a good indicator of integrity and character, but it is not the only predictor of presidential performance. And since the First Amendment to the Constitution protects us from a president imposing his religious preference on the rest of us, I would rather have a president with some religion than one whose religion is suspect.

“In God We Trust” was no accident by our Founding Fathers.

Students aim to bridge theological gap / Deseret News

This conference at the Salt Lake Christian Center in Salt Lake City, Utah, included presentations by Craig Hazen, Robert Millet, Greg Johnson, and others involved in the movement to get LDS and Evangelicals talking more deeply. The Deseret News article by Carrie Moore below with the original at this link describes it in some detail.

Thanks much,

Steve St.Clair

========================
Conference in S.L. explores the meaning of Christianity
By Carrie A. MooreDeseret Morning News
Published: October 27, 2007

As Mitt Romney tells people that his religion won’t dictate his political policy decisions and an occasional Christian pastor warns publicly that Romney’s religion is a “cult,” some are looking to bridge the cultural gap that divides evangelical Christians and Latter-day Saints.

More than 300 scholars and students on both sides of the gulf recently spent two days in Salt Lake City talking about the meaning of Christianity — including the definition of grace and injunction by Jesus to “love one another” despite the differences in theology.

The National Student Dialogue Conference at the Salt Lake Christian Center drew university students from Biola, Azusa Pacific, Colorado Christian, Wheaton College, Fuller Theological Seminary, Brigham Young University and BYU-Idaho, as well as a few LDS Institute students from local campuses. Topics included whether the two groups should even be talking to each other at all.

The answer, said acting Salt Lake Theological Seminary President William Heersink, depended on one’s perspective. “I heard many students say ‘this is helpful’ or ‘this is stimulating.’ In part they learned more about the contents of (each others’) beliefs, but more important was the sense of being able to interact and relate in a wholesome way.”

Five plenary sessions explored the history and current practice of interfaith dialogue between evangelicals and Latter-day Saints, with two scholars from opposite sides of the table exploring the topics in paired presentations and in open dialogue. That modeling of how to practice “convicted civility” was probably the most important part of the event, said Heersink, who was among the presenters.

Scholars who participated would likely have “a mixed reaction” to the conference, he said. “There were some who feel there are too many problems with this kind of thing and that misinterpretations that can result, so you really shouldn’t be doing it in a public way. Others feel it’s a real breakthrough and didn’t realize we could talk at this level.”

In fact, several scholars made mention of the fact that their professional colleagues and peers have openly questioned their involvement in such dialogue. Yet students engaged in spirited discussion at informal roundtable events that paired them with peers not of their faith.

Jerry Root, adjunct professor of Christian formation and theology at Wheaton College, told participants that one benefit of the pursuit of truth should be “spiritual maturity,” that considers the beliefs of others and is not afraid to ask deep questions about one’s own or another’s faith.

That pursuit recognizes that “truth is not reality, but truth is what I think about reality” and must be distinguished from opinion, which is “based on probability rather than certainty … I must not be afraid of honest doubt that accompanies debate and discussion.”

Failure to have doubts about faith “may mean I’m on the threshold of delusion,” the former pastor said, adding “spiritual formation is a process of maturity.”

Bob Millet, who holds the Richard L. Evans Chair of Religious Understanding at Brigham Young University, said he’s spent the past five years talking with evangelicals about their faith and trying to better understand them. He’s now known among his colleagues at BYU as the “resident evangelical,” he said, with some skeptical of his work to dialogue with scholars who have traditionally viewed Latter-day Saints as “non-Christian.”

One of the things he’s learned in those discussions is “it’s a cardinal sin to say ‘I know what you believe far better than you know what you believe.’ The only thing worse than that is ‘he’s a liar and not really telling the truth.’ I know a little about that, too.”‘ He and Pastor Greg Johnson of the local evangelical group, Standing Together, have traveled in many parts of the United States and abroad modeling how Latter-day Saints and evangelicals can talk about faith together without “giving in” on theological differences.

Johnson was one of the conference organizers to get students engaged in such discussion.

“My life has been enriched because I’ve been around great and good men and women and they’ve taught me great and good things. I don’t agree with all of them, but I try to hold them sacred,” Millet said, adding his biggest regret in life is that he didn’t meet Johnson and promote interfaith dialogue a decade earlier.

To maintain his integrity in doing so, “I would never say anything in private that I would not be willing to say in public with my evangelical friends. That’s the only way I can be me. There are not two Bob Millets. I want to stand up and say what I say wherever I am.”

Doug McConnell, dean of Intercultural Studies at Fuller Seminary, said it took 22 years as a missionary in several exotic locales before he began to understand how his worldview had been stereotyped regarding people of other faiths, particularly Muslims with whom he was interacting in Africa.

“The more I spent time with them, the more I realized … there was something about hearing what they believed, rather than me telling them what they believed. That isn’t what Jesus did.”

As he gained understanding, appreciation began to replace anxiety, he said. “I realized that entering another’s world physically was not enough. I had to move toward understanding that was supported by empathy to really enter their world.”

Those who adhere to their religious dogma often carry negative stereotypes about those of other faiths, he said, because there is an underlying assumption that “other people have to be ‘put in their place.’ In forming a cultural identity, we tend to affiliate with others like us and confirm our uniqueness in comparison to others.”

Why? “Because it’s easier to define who you aren’t than who you are. And that fosters a problem.”

To have a productive interfaith discussion, each participant must be affirmed for who they are and what they believe, and disagreement must be accepted as a valid response, he said. “Do we all know that same Jesus? Fundamentally, that’s the question.”

Camille Fronk, a professor of ancient scripture at BYU, acknowledged that the concept of “grace” is uncomfortable for many Latter-day Saints, who are quick to focus on “works” as a means of salvation. Teaching LDS high school students in the 1980s, she found many of them were well-versed in topics like temple marriage — which is unique to Latter-day Saints — but didn’t talk much about Jesus Christ.

About the same time, top LDS leaders added a subtitle to the Book of Mormon as “another testament of Jesus Christ.” Many Latter-day Saints assumed it was to instruct others about the centrality of Christ in the faith, but Fronk said it was just as likely to emphasize it for members.

“Some may worry that a constant public emphasis on (being saved by) grace will lead some church members to leave the crucial ‘after all we can do’ out,” she said.

“I know Jesus Christ is my Savior and Redeemer and there is no other way” to salvation, she said. “Only through the mercy, merits and grace of Jesus Christ are we saved. The more I accept that, the more I desire to serve him, not because I merit any kind of return, but because I love him.”

Romney Garnering Coveted Evangelical Endorsements / Christian Post

By Michelle Vu
Christian Post Reporter
Thu, Oct. 25 2007 03:15 PM ET

(These are excerpts; see the complete original at this link:)

Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney seems to be gaining ground with the much sought-after evangelical community as he adds more Christian leaders to his growing list of supporters.

Bob Jones University Dean, Dr. Robert Taylor, shares his views on the 2008 presidential elections during an interview with The Associated Press at his office in Greenville, S.C., Sunday, Oct. 22, 2007. Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s campaign was embraced in an unlikely place last week, when he was endorsed by both Taylor and Bob Jones III, the top dean and the founder’s grandson of the influential Christian university that teaches that Romney’s Mormon church is a cult.

The former governor of Massachusetts picked up support among evangelicals and social conservatives while campaigning in South Carolina.

Among his new supporters are the heads of Bob Jones University, an influential conservative Christian college that teaches the Mormon Church as a cult. Romney gained the endorsements of Bob Jones III and Robert Taylor, the grandson of the university’s founder and a top dean at the school, respectively, according to The Associated Press.

Megachurch pastor Don Wilton, former president of the South Carolina Baptist Convention, and Dr. John Willke, a founder and past president of the National Right to Life Committee, had also signed onto the Romney bandwagon.

Wilton, however, retracted his endorsement Tuesday, saying it was a “mistake” and a “personal error,” noting he has never endorsed a candidate for any elected office.

“It’s hard to see, but I think that they just realized that he (Romney)’s the best of a bad lot. I hate to say it that way,” said Dave Woodard, a GOP activist and political science professor at Clemson University, according to AP.

Oddly enough, many of these evangelical pro-Romney leaders believe the Mormon Church – which the presidential hopeful is a proud member of – is a cult or at least not part of historic orthodox Christianity. Yet a growing number of evangelicals are putting aside their theological conflict with the Mormon faith and focusing on Romney’s conservative and ultra pro-family stance.

… Romney’s South Carolina gains bolster his evangelical voting base which includes faith-based PR firm founder Mark DeMoss, who sent a letter earlier this month to some 150 top-level conservative Christian leaders urging them to galvanize support around the Republican candidate.

Romney also narrowly won a socially conservative Values Voter straw poll in Washington last week. There were some controversies, however, over the percentage of his votes that came from online compared to those at the Values Voter Summit in Washington. While Romney garnered 0.47 percent more overall votes than runner-up Mike Huckabee, Romney won only about 10 percent of the on-site votes. Former Arkansas governor Huckabee won over 50 percent.

According to data from recent AP-Ipsos polls, 22 percent of born-again Christians said they would vote for former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson, 17 percent for former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and 13 percent for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Huckabee and Romney trailed behind with 9 and 8 percent of the votes, respectively.

What Is Mormonism? A Baptist Answer / Dr. Richard Land

I sense that Dr. Land offers these insights in complete sincerity and with the best of feelings. But my short response to this is “thanks, but no thanks!”

At least two members of the First Presidency and seven Apostles, after hearing all the talk about the next world religion, decided rightfully in my view that our place is to be “Christian, but different”, rather than “different, but Christian.”

Being seen as a new Abrahamic religion does feel more comfortable than being seen as a Cult. It matches well with descriptions of what the Latter-day Saints could be in the process of becoming if they continue in the path of a new World Religion, and that would be very agreeable to some church historians and some theologians and philosophers who would prefer to have the Church emphasize its differences with Christianity.

In my thinking, the problem is that it completely discounts the idea of the church as a restoration of ancient Christianity, which was its first and deepest emphasis.

A second problem with this approach is the totally misleading idea that the positions of Jesus and the religion’s most recent prophet are in any way analogous in Mormonism and Islam. For Islam, Jesus was a minor prophet who was completely superceded by Mohammed. For Mormonism, Jesus was, is, and always will be, the final, greatest prophet (as well as Savior, Redeemer, and King), and Joseph Smith was another witness to those truths. So any thought that Mormonism is akin to Islam in that way is a complete misunderstanding.

From a practical point of view, it is obvious to any observer of history that traditional Christians and Latter-day Saint Christians flourish together or dwindle together. By contrast, in any time and any place where the Islamic religion predominates, both traditional Christianity and LDS Christianity are either completely blocked from having a presence or are always persecuted and shrinking.

Finally, I have no interest in looking back in 1400 years and seeing that the relationship between Christianity and Mormonism has resembled in any way the sorry history of the relationship between Christianity and Islam. In the many clashes that appear to most to be caused by Islam’s non-peaceful nature, I want to look back and see that Latter-day Saints have been on the Christian side of the interactions.

Thanks much,

Steve St.Clair

=====================================

See the original article in Time Magazine at this link:

Wednesday, Oct. 24, 2007 By DAVID VAN BIEMA

Richard Land, the head of the gigantic (16.3 million-member) Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and its most influential political operative, has dived headlong into what has become a favorite Baptist parlor game: What exactly is a Mormon? It’s a question that has special significance right now, since it relates to how religious conservatives regard the Mormon candidate Mitt Romney.

On Wednesday, the EthicsDaily.com newswire, which is written by and for Baptists with views more liberal than the SBC’s, reported that Land, expanding on remarks he made last week at a gathering of political conservatives, told Al Hunt on his Bloomberg TV show Political Capital that he considers the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as the Mormons know themselves, as “being the fourth Abrahamic Religion,” in addition to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all of which trace roots of race or belief back to the patriarch Abraham.

The Mormons regard themselves as Christians, and Jesus figures prominently on the covers of LDS publications. They believe that after the death of Christ’s apostles his church became confused, a period that ended only with the restoration of the Gospel by the presentation of another book of scripture by an angel to LDS founder Joseph Smith.

Most Christian theologians, however, disagree, not just because they disbelieve the angel story and the Book of Mormon that resulted, but by pointing to Mormon concepts including the ability of humans to become godlike entities after death. Most perturbed have been conservative Evangelicals like the Southern Baptists, who share many of the Mormons’ conservatiave social values yet have a very strict view of what is and what is not scripture, and find themselves in competition with the LDS for congregants.

Yet the question of what exactly Mormons are, if they aren’t Christian, has taken on increasing urgency as Romney has gained support among values voters (coming in first, for instance, in a straw poll taken by the Family Research Council last Saturday, narrowly edging out Arkansas Govenor Mike Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor). Neither the theological nor the political issue is settled in the Baptist heart. EthicsDaily.com reports that the pastor of the largest Baptist church in Spartanburg, S.C., first endorsed Romney and recently retracted the endorsement, calling it a “personal mistake,” while a prominent colleague in Texas is quoted as saying, “Even though he talks about Jesus as his Lord and Savior, he is not a Christian… Mormonism is a cult.”

EthicsDaily.com implies that the Texan’s position may be out of date, since SBC documents that had previously listed the faith under a “cults and sects” section have moved it to a “newly developed religions” page.

But Land’s comment seems to go a step further. A cult, he said on the Bloomberg show, “is a form of faith which does not comply with the essential teachings of the Christian faith but claims to be within the Christian faith or to be the true expression of the Christian faith, as opposed to being another religion like Judaism.” Land explained that he would look at Mormonism “as another faith in the same sense that I would look upon Islam as another faith.

I think the fairest and most charitable way to define Mormonism would be to call it the fourth Abrahamic religion — Judaism being the first, Christianity being the second, Islam being the third, and Mormonism being the fourth. And Joseph Smith would play the same character in Mormonism that Muhammad plays in Islam.”

This raises all sorts of interesting questions. One, is it a promotion or a demotion? “Abrahamic religion” sounds a lot grander than “cult.” However, Land also seems to suggest that Mormonism is no more Christian than is Islam.

The second is whether it makes it any easier for a Southern Baptist concerned with theological niceties to vote for Romney. A third is whether Land, an extremely well educated and articulate man, is crediting Mormonism with being monotheistic, which is arguably what Abraham was all about. Many evangelicals contend that the LDS are polytheists, believing in plural Gods. Mormons respond that their tenets are no more polytheistic than the Christian belief in the Trinity.

What explains Land’s venture into religious taxonomy? Perhaps the fact that as the Wall Street Journal noted last April, he is “a man waiting to be courted, [who] on behalf of religious conservatives is playing hard to get.” Land has repeatedly hinted that he might be able to vote for Romney, who reportedly came to him and asked for advice on how to handle the religion issue; Land told him, in effect, that he needed to de-fang the issue much as John Fitzgerald Kennedy did with his famous 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. As the columnist E.J. Dionne points out, however, JFK’s speech clearly separated his Catholicism from his politics. It will be much more difficult for any G.O.P. candidate to relegate his religion to the sidelines in the same way.

Until Romney can pull off that trick, Land must walk his own tightrope between his theologically conservative Convention and his pragmatic desire to see an electable socially conservative Republican presidential candidate. The Abrahamic remark can be understood as an impressive act of political equipoise: being less snarky about Romney’s status without letting him totally off the hook. At some future point in time, perhaps Land will come back and work out the theological niceties.

2007: Dr. John Willke Endorses Mitt Romney / Newsmax.com

See the original article at this link:

Thanks much,

Steve St.Clair

===============================

Dr. John Willke Endorses Mitt Romney

The doctor known as the founder of the pro-life movement has endorsed former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination.

Dr. John Wilke, an original member of Senator Sam Brownback’s Exploratory Committee, has thrown his support to Romney in the wake of Senator Brownback’s withdrawal from the race.

“Unlike other candidates who only speak to the importance of confronting the major social issues of the day, Governor Romney has a record of action in defending life,” Dr. Willke said. “Every decision he made as governor was on the side of life. I know he will be the strong pro-life president we need in the White House, Governor Romney is the only candidate who can lead our pro-life and pro-family conservative movement to victory in 2008.”

Dr. Willke’s fervent support should help erase doubts about Romney’s commitment to the pro-life cause, which has been questioned due to his former position in support of abortion when he was governor of Massachusetts.

Said Romney, “I am proud to have the support of a man who has meant so much to the pro-life movement in our country. He knows how important it is to have someone in Washington who will actively promote pro-life policies. Policies that include more than appointing judges who will follow the law but also opposing taxpayer funded abortion and partial birth abortion. I look forward to working with Dr. Willke and welcome him to Romney for President.”

Dr. Willke, helped found the National Right To Life Committee and served for 10 years as its president. Dr. Willke serves as president of the Life Issues Institute, Inc., and president of the International Right to Life Federation.

Dr. Willke a physician, had a daily radio program that was carried on over 300 radio stations for 20 years. His one-minute radio comments, entitled “Life Jewels,” were carried on over 750 stations in English and 300 more in Spanish. He has written eleven books, and is a lecturer and a frequent television and radio show guest. His works have been published in 32 languages, and he and his wife Barbara have lectured in 76 countries.

Students Discuss (Evangelical & LDS) Religious Beliefs / BYU Newsnet

This article about the student conference at the Salt Lake Christian Center in October 2007 appeared in the BYU Universe newspaper on October 22, 2007.

Thanks much,

Steve St.Clair

=========================
The sanctuary of the Salt Lake Christian Center was filled with students as a film played, marking the beginning of the 2007 National Student Dialogue Conference.

The film showed two LDS missionaries knocking on the door of an evangelical woman’s home. As she opened the door the missionaries introduced themselves and explained that they had a message to share. She said that she was evangelical and that she already had a relationship with Jesus Christ and believed in his saving grace.

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals met in a conference Friday to foster dialogue among the two faiths.

Standing Together Ministries, founded by Rev. Greg Johnson, hosted the conference in conjunction with the Salt Lake Theological Seminary.

“It blows me away we can be candid and build these kinds of relationships,” Johnson said.

Organizers of the conference used dialogue as a way to setup the conference. Participants were encouraged to talk to each other with what organizers called “convicted civility” rather than to talk in “absolutes,” as the missionaries and the woman in the film had.

Six students of various faiths and a moderator sat together and asked religious questions such as the difference in the nature of God and their faith’s definition of trinity.

“I’ve learned the difference between truth and myth,” said Dana Dill, an evangelical attending Biola University in California. It’s a time when both sides can come together without the worry, but with gentleness and humbleness and still stick with our beliefs.”

As students discussed their different faiths they found that while they had a lot in common, the differences were usually more important.

“The hair-splitting isn’t necessarily hair-splitting,” Dill said. “These are deep convictions.”

BYU students Aaron Christensen, 19, and Kelsey Jones, 18 enjoyed the atmosphere of the conference.

“We loved it.” Jones said. “It’s cool to meet people of other religions that are as sincere as we are.”

Christensen stayed longer than she expected to for enjoying it so much.

“We were going to stay for just the first session, but the spirit of friendship was so strong we decided to stay,” Christensen said.

The conference also had five plenary sessions each with a well-known LDS and Evangelical speaker. After the formal lectures, the speakers had a 30-minute conversation, and then students asked questions of the speakers.

“I think one thing this does is it forces you to ask yourself what is it you believe that is unique and is it exclusive,” said speaker Doug McConnell, academic dean of the Fuller Seminary.

Another speaker, Robert Millet from BYU, had a similar comment.

“It’s all based upon the premise, ‘I can learn something from someone that’s not of my faith,’” he said.

Many students found that the conference was a good way to learn the truth about each others religions and would attend again next year.

“I would recommend this to every Christian and Latter-day Saint because there are so many miscommunications and errors,” said Megan Falese, an Evangelical from Pikes Peaks Community College in Colorado.

What Mormons Believe about Jesus Christ / LDS Newsroom

The following excerpts are taken from an address to the Harvard Divinity School in March 2001 by Robert L. Millet, former dean of religious education at Brigham Young University. It was added to the LDS Newsroom as a resource in October 2007. See the original at this link.

Steve St.Clair

==================
What Do We Believe About Jesus Christ?
Latter-day Saints are Christians on the basis of our doctrine, our defined relationship to Christ, our patterns of worship and our way of life.

What Do We Believe About Christ?
We believe Jesus is the Son of God, the Only Begotten Son in the flesh (John 3:16). We accept the prophetic declarations in the Old Testament that refer directly and powerfully to the coming of the Messiah, the Savior of all humankind. We believe that Jesus of Nazareth was and is the fulfillment of those prophecies.

We believe the accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry recorded in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the New Testament to be historical and truthful. For us the Jesus of history is indeed the Christ of faith. While we do not believe the Bible to be inerrant, complete or the final word of God, we accept the essential details of the Gospels and more particularly the divine witness of those men who walked and talked with Him or were mentored by His chosen apostles.

We believe that He was born of a virgin, Mary, in Bethlehem of Judea in what has come to be known as the meridian of time, the central point in salvation history. From His mother, Mary, Jesus inherited mortality, the capacity to feel the frustrations and ills of this world, including the capacity to die. We believe that Jesus was fully human in that He was subject to sickness, to pain and to temptation.

We believe Jesus is the Son of God the Father and as such inherited powers of godhood and divinity from His Father, including immortality, the capacity to live forever. While He walked the dusty road of Palestine as a man, He possessed the powers of a God and ministered as one having authority, including power over the elements and even power over life and death.

We believe Jesus performed miracles, including granting sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, life to some who had died and forgiveness to those steeped in sin. We believe the New Testament accounts of healings and nature miracles and the cleansing of human souls to be authentic and real.

We believe Jesus taught His gospel — the glad tidings or good news that salvation had come to earth through Him — in order that people might more clearly understand both their relationship to God the Father and their responsibility to each other.

We believe Jesus selected leaders, invested them with authority and organized a church. We maintain that the Church of Jesus Christ was established, as the Apostle Paul later wrote, for the perfection and unity of the saints (Ephesians 4:11–14).

We believe that Jesus’ teachings and His own matchless and perfect life provide a pattern for men and women to live by and that we must emulate that pattern as best we can to find true happiness and fulfillment in this life.

We believe Jesus suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane and that He submitted to a cruel death on the cross of Calvary, all as a willing sacrifice, a substitutionary atonement for our sins. That offering is made efficacious as we exercise faith and trust in Him; repent of our sins; are baptized by immersion as a symbol of our acceptance of His death, burial and rise to newness of life; and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:37–38; 3 Nephi 27:19–20).

While no one of us can comprehend how and in what manner one person can take upon himself the effects of the sins of another — or, even more mysteriously, the sins of all men and women — we accept and glory in the transcendent reality that Christ remits our sins through His suffering. We know it is true because we have experienced it personally. Further, we believe that He died, was buried and rose from the dead and that His resurrection was a physical reality. We believe that the effects of His rise from the tomb pass upon all men and women. “As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (Corinthians 15:22).

We do not believe that we can either overcome the flesh or gain eternal reward through our own unaided efforts. We must work to our limit and then rely upon the merits, mercy and grace of the Holy One of Israel to see us through the struggles of life and into life eternal (2 Nephi 31:19; Moroni 6:4). We believe that while human works are necessary— including exercising faith in Christ, repenting of our sins, receiving the sacraments or ordinances of salvation and rendering Christian service to our neighbors — they are not sufficient for salvation (2 Nephi 25:23; Moroni 10:32). We believe that our discipleship ought to be evident in the way we live our lives.

In essence, we declare that Jesus Christ is the head of the Church and the central figure in our theology.

How Are We Different?
Latter-day Saints do not accept the Christ that emerges from centuries of debates and councils and creeds. Over the years that followed the death and resurrection of the Lord, Christians sought to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3). We believe that the epistles of Paul, Peter, Jude and John suggest that the apostasy or falling away of the first-century Christian church was well underway by the close of the first century. With the deaths of the apostles and the loss of the priesthood, the institutional power to perform and oversee saving sacrament or ordinances, learn the mind of God and interpret scripture was no longer on earth. To be sure, there were noble men and women throughout the earth during the centuries that followed, religious persons of good will, learned men who sought to hold the church together and to preserve holy writ. But we believe that these acted without prophet authority.

In an effort to satisfy the accusations of Jews who denounced the notion of three Gods (Father, Son and Holy Ghost) as polytheistic, and at the same time incorporate ancient but appealing Greek philosophical concepts of an all-powerful moving force in the universe, the Christian church began to redefine the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. One classic work describes the intersection of Christian theology and Greek philosophy: “It is impossible for any one, whether he be a student of history or no, to fail to notice a difference of both form and content between the sermons on the Mount and the Nicene Creed. … The one belongs to a world of Syrian peasants, the other to a world of Greek philosophers. … The religion which our Lord preached … took the Jewish conception of a Father in heaven, and gave it a new meaning.” In short, “Greek Christianity of the fourth century was rooted in Hellenism. The Greek minds which had been ripening for Christianity had absorbed new ideas and new motives.”[i]

What is the result? Such Platonic concepts as the immutability, impassibility and timelessness of God made their way into Christian theology. As one group of Evangelical scholars has stated: “Many Christians experience an inconsistency between their beliefs about the nature of God and their religious practice. For example, people who believe that God cannot change his mind sometimes pray in ways that would require God to do exactly that. And Christians who make use of the free will defense for the problem of evil sometimes ask God to get them a job or a spouse, or keep them from being harmed, implying that God should override the free will of others in order to achieve these ends. …

“These inharmonious elements are the result of the coupling of biblical ideas about God with notions of the divine nature drawn from Greek thought. The inevitable encounter between biblical and classical thought in the early church generated many significant insights and helped Christianity evangelize pagan thought and culture. Along with the good, however, came a certain theological virus that infected the Christian doctrine of God, making it ill and creating the sorts of problems mentioned above. The virus so permeates Christina theology that some have come to take the illness for granted, attributing it to divine mystery, while others remain unaware of the infection altogether.”[ii]

Latter-day Saints believe that the simplest reading of the New Testament text produces the simplest conclusion — that the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are separate and distinct personages, that They are one in purpose. We feel that the sheer preponderance of references in the Bible would lead an uninformed reader to the understanding that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are separate beings. That is, one must look to the third- and fourth-century Christian church, not to the New Testament itself, to make a strong case for the Trinity.

Some Distinctive Contributions
What, then, can the Latter-day Saints contribute to the world’s understanding of Jesus Christ? What can we say that will make a difference in how men and women view and relate to the Savior?

The First Vision. Joseph Smith’s First Vision represents the beginning of the revelation of God in our day. President Gordon B. Hinckley has observed: “To me it is a significant and marvelous thing that in establishing and opening this dispensation our Father did so with a revelation of himself and of his Son Jesus Christ, as if to say to all the world that he was weary of the attempts of men, earnest through these attempts might have been, to define and describe him. … The experience of Joseph Smith in a few moments in the grove on a spring day in 1820, brought more light and knowledge and understanding of the personality and reality and substance of God and his Beloved Son than men had arrived at during centuries of speculation.”[iii] By revelation Joseph Smith came to know that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost constitute the Godhead. From the beginning Joseph Smith taught that the members of the Godhead are one in purpose, one in mind, one in glory, one in attributes and powers, but separate persons.[iv]

There was reaffirmed in the First Vision the fundamental Christian teaching — that Jesus of Nazareth lived, died, was buried and rose from the tomb in glorious immortality. In the midst of that light that shone above the brightness of the sun stood the resurrected Lord Jesus in company with His Father. Joseph Smith knew from the time of the First Vision that death was not the end, that life continues after one’s physical demise, that another realm of existence — a postmortal sphere — does in fact exist.

The Book of Mormon. Through the Book of Mormon, translated by Joseph Smith, came additional insights concerning the person and powers of Jesus the Christ. We learn that He is the Holy One of Israel, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (1 Nephi 19:10) and that through an act of infinite condescension He left His throne divine and took a mortal body (1 Nephi 11; Mosiah 3:5). We learn from the teachings of the Book of Mormon prophets that He was a man but much more than man (Mosiah 3:7–9; Alma 34:11), that He had within Him the powers of the Father, the powers of the Spirit (2 Nephi 2:8; Helaman 5:11), the power to lay down His life and the power to take it back up again.

Another prophet, Alma, contributed the unfathomable doctrine that the Redeemer would not only suffer for our sins, but that His descent below all things would include His suffering for our pains, our sicknesses and our infirmities, thus allowing Him perfect empathy — “that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities” (Alma 7:11–12). Truly, the Book of Mormon prophets bear repeated witness that the atonement of Christ is infinite and eternal in scope (2 Nephi 9:7; 25:16; Alma 34:11–12)

One could come away from a careful reading of the second half of the New Testament somewhat confused on the matter of grace and works, finding those places where Paul seems almost to defy any notion of works as a means of salvation (Romans 4:1–5; 10:1–4; Ephesians 2:8–10) but also those places where good works are clearly mentioned as imperative (Romans 2:6; James 2:14–20; Revelation 20:12–13). It is to the Book of Mormon that we turn to receive the balanced perspective on the mercy and grace of an infinite Savior on the one hand, and the labors and works of finite man on the other.

In the Book of Mormon, the sobering realization that no one of us can make it alone is balanced by a consistent statement that the works of men and women, including the receipt of the ordinances of salvation, the performance of duty and Christian acts of service — in short, being true to our part of the gospel covenant — though insufficient for salvation, are necessary. The prophets declared over and over that the day would come when people would be judged of their works, the works done “in their days of probation” (1 Nephi 15:32; 2 Nephi 9:44). That is, “all men shall reap a reward of their works, according to that which they have been — if they have been righteous they shall reap the salvation of their souls, according to the power and deliverance of Jesus Christ; and if they have been evil they shall reap the damnation of their souls, according to the power and captivation of the devil” (Alma 9:28). In summary, the undergirding doctrine of the Book of Mormon is that we are saved by the grace of Christ “after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23), meaning above and beyond all we can do. As we come unto Christ by covenant, deny ourselves of ungodliness and love God with all our souls, His grace—His divine enabling power, not only to be saved in the ultimate sense but also to face the challenges of each day — is sufficient for us (Moroni 10:32).

The Book or Mormon has a high Christology; that is, the doctrine of Christ is thick and heavy on the pages of this scriptural record, and the testimony of the divinity of the Lord and Savior is powerful and direct. One cannot read the Book of Mormon and honestly come away wondering what the Latter-day Saints believe about the Divine Sonship. The Book of Mormon establishes clearly that “Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself to all nations” (Book of Mormon title page; 2 Nephi 26:12).

At the heart of the doctrine restored through Joseph Smith is the doctrine of the Christ. “The fundamental principles of our religion,” he observed, “are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that he died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”[v] The glorious news, the glad tidings is that Christ our Lord has come to earth, offered Himself as a ransom from sin and made available deliverance from death and hell. We rejoice in the message of redemption that fell from the lips of Old and New Testament prophets. More especially we exult in the realization that knowledge and truth and light and understanding concerning Jesus Christ — who He was, who He is and what marvels have come to pass through Him — have been delivered through additional scriptural records and modern prophetic utterances.

“Him Declare I Unto You”
One of the main reasons Latter-day Saints are often relegated to the category of cult of non-Christian is because we believe in scripture beyond the Bible. To be sure, we love the Bible. We cherish its sacred teachings and delight in reading and teaching it. We seek to conform our lives to its marvelous precepts. But we do not believe that the Bible contains all that God has spoken or will yet speak in the future.

Occasionally we hear certain Latter-day Saint teachings — like some of those concerning the Savior that I have detailed earlier — described as “unbiblical” or of a particular doctrine being “contradictory” to the Bible. Let’s be clear on this matter. The Bible is one of the books within our standard works, our scriptural canon, and thus our doctrines and practices are in harmony with the Bible. There are times, of course, when latter-day revelation provides clarification of additional information to the Bible. But addition to the canon is hardly the same as rejection of the canon. Supplementation is not the same as contradiction. All of the prophets, including the Savior Himself, brought new light and knowledge to the world; in many cases, new scripture came as a result of their ministry. That new scripture did not invalidate what went before nor did it close the door on subsequent revelation.

Most New Testament scholars believe that Mark was the first Gospel written and that Matthew and Luke drew upon Mark in the preparation of their Gospels. One tradition is that John the Beloved, aware of the teaching of the synoptics, prepared his Gospel in an effort to “fill in the gaps” and thus deal more with the great spiritual verities that his evangelistic colleagues chose not to include. How many people in the Christian tradition today would suggest that what Matthew or Luke did in adding to what Mark had written was illegal or inappropriate or irreverent? Do we suppose that anyone in the first century would have so felt?

Would anyone accuse Matthew or Luke or John of writing about or even worshipping a “different Jesus” because they were bold enough to add to what had been recorded already? Surely not. Why? Because Matthew and Luke and John were inspired for God, perhaps even divinely commissioned by the church to pen their testimonies.

If Luke (in the Gospel, as well as in Acts) or John chose to write of subsequent appearance of the Lord Jesus after His ascension into heaven, appearances not found in Mark or Matthew, are we prone to criticize, to cry foul? No, because these accounts are contained in the Christian canon, that collection of books that serves as the rule of faith and practice in the Christian world.

The authority of scripture is tied to its source. From our perspective, the living, breathing, ever-relevant nature of the word of God is linked not to written words, not even to the writing of Moses or Isaiah or Malachi, not to the four Gospels or the epistles of Paul, but rather to the spirit of prophecy and revelation that illuminated and empowered those who recorded them in the first place. The Bible does in fact contain much that can and should guide our walk and talk; it contains the word and will of the Lord to men and women in earlier ages, and its timeless truths have tremendous normative value for our day. But we do not derive authority to speak or act in the name of Deity on the basis of what God gave to His people in an earlier day.

Just how bold is the Latter-day Saint claim? In a letter to his uncle Silas, Joseph Smith wrote the following:

“Why should it be thought a thing incredible that the Lord should be pleased to speak again in these last days for their salvation? Perhaps you may be surprised at this assertion that I should say ‘for the salvation of his creatures in these last days’ since we have already in our possession a vast volume of his word [the Bible] which he has previously given. But you will admit that the word spoken to Noah was not sufficient or Abraham. … Isaac, the promised seed, was not required to rest his hope upon the promises made to his father Abraham, but was privileged with the assurance of [God’s] approbation in the sight of heaven by the direct voice of the Lord to him. … I have no doubt but that the holy prophets and apostles and saints in the ancient days were saved in the kingdom of God. … I may believe that Enoch walked with God. I may believe that Abraham communed with God and conversed with angels. … And have I not an equal privilege with the ancient saints? And will not the Lord hear my prayers, and listen to my cries as soon [as] he ever did to theirs, if I come to him in the manner they did? Or is he a respecter of persons?”[vi]

Latter-day Saints feel a deep allegiance to the Bible. It seems odd to us, however, to be accused of being irreverent or disloyal to the Bible when we suggest to the religious world that the God of heaven has chosen to speak again. Our challenge is hauntingly reminiscent of that faced by Peter, James, John or Paul when they declared to the religious establishment of their day that God had sent new truths and new revelations into the world, truths that supplemented and even clarified the Hebrew scripture. And what was the response of the Jews of the day? “Who do you think you are?” they essentially asked. “We have the Law and the Prophets. They are sufficient.” Any effort to add to or to take away from that collection of sacred writings was suspect and subject to scorn and ridicule. And so it is today.

A Willingness to Listen and Learn
A number of years ago a colleague and I traveled with two Evangelical Christian friends to another part of the country to meet with a well-known theologian, author and pastor/teacher in that area. We had read several of his books and had enjoyed his preaching over the years. As a part of an outreach effort to better understand those of other faiths (and to assist them to understand us a little better), we have visited such institutions as Notre Dame, Catholic University, Baylor, Wheaton College and various religious colleges and seminaries. We met this particular pastor and then attended his church services on both Sunday morning and Sunday evening and in both meetings were impressed with the depth and inspiration of his preaching.

The next day we met for lunch and had a wonderful two-hour doctrinal discussion. I explained that we had no set agenda, except that we had admired his writings and wanted to meet him. We added that we had several questions we wanted to pose in order to better understand Evangelical theology. I mentioned that as the dean of religious education (at that time), I oversaw the teaching of religion to some 30,000 young people at Brigham Young University and that I felt it would be wise for me to be able to articulate properly the beliefs of our brothers and sisters of other faiths. I hoped, as well, that they might make the effort to understand our beliefs so as to represent accurately what we teach.

Early in our conversation the minister said something like: “Look, anyone knows there are big difference between us. But I don’t want to focus on those differences. Let’s talk about Christ.” We then discussed the person of Jesus, justification by faith, baptism, sanctification, salvation, heaven, hell, agency and predestination, premortal existence and a number of other fascinating topics. We compared and contrasted, we asked questions and we answered questions. In thinking back on what proved to be one of the most stimulating and worthwhile learning experiences of our lives, the one thing that characterized our discussion, and the one thing that made the biggest difference, was the mood that existed there — a mood of openness, candor and a general lack of defensiveness. We knew what we believed, and we were all committed to our own religious tradition. But we were eager to learn where the other person was coming from.

This experience says something to me about what can happen when men and women of good will come together in an attitude of openness and in a sincere effort to better understand and be understood. Given the challenges we face in our society — fatherless homes, child and spouse abuse, divorce, poverty, spreading crime and delinquency — it seems so foolish for men and women who believe in God, whose hearts and lives have been surrendered to that God, to allow doctrinal differences to prevent them from working together. Okay, you believe in a triune God, that the Almighty is a spirit and that He created all things ex nihilo. I believe that God is an exalted man, that He is a separate and distinct personage from the Son and the Holy Ghost. He believes in heaven, while she believes in nirvana. She believes that the Sabbath should be observed on Saturday, while her neighbor feels that the day of corporate worship should be on Friday. This one speaks in tongues, that one spends much of his time leading marches against social injustice, while a third believes that little children should be baptized. One good Baptist is a strict Calvinist, while another tends to take freedom of the will quite seriously. And so on, and so on.

Latter-day Saints do not believe that the answer to the world’s problems is ultimately to be found in more extravagant social programs or stronger legislation. Most or[S1] all of these ills have moral or spiritual roots. In the spirit of the brotherhood and sisterhood of humankind, is it not possible to lay aside theological differences long enough to address the staggering social issues in our troubled world? My recent interactions with men and women of various faiths have had a profound impact on me; they have broadened my horizons dramatically and reminded me — a sobering reminder we all need once in a while — that we are all sons and daughters of the same Eternal Father. We may never resolve our differences on the Godhead or the Trinity, on the spiritual or corporeal nature of Deity or on the sufficiency or inerrancy of the Bible, but we can agree that there is a God; that the ultimate transformation of society will come only through the application of moral and religious solutions to pressing issues; and that the regeneration of individual hearts and souls is foundational to the restoration of virtue in our communities and nations. One need not surrender cherished religious values or doctrines in order to be a better neighbor, a more caring citizen, a more involved municipal.

In addition, we can have lively and provocative discussion on our differences, and such interactions need not be threatening, offensive or damaging to our relationships. What we cannot afford to do, if we are to communicate and cooperate, is to misrepresent one another or ascribe ulterior motives. Such measures are divisive and do not partake of that Spirit that strengthens, binds and reinforces. President Gordon B. Hinckley said of the Latter-day Saints: “We want to be good neighbors; we want to be good friends. We feel we can differ theologically with people without being disagreeable in any sense. We hope they feel the same way toward us. We have many friends and many associations with people who are not of our faith, with whom we deal constantly, and we have a wonderful relationship. It disturbs me when I hear about any antagonisms. … I don’t think they are necessary. I hope that we can overcome them.”[vii]
There is, to be sure, a risk associated with learning something new about someone else. New insights always affect old perspectives, and thus some rethinking, rearranging and restructuring of our worldview are inevitable. When we look beyond a man or a woman’s color or ethnic group or social circle or church or synagogue or mosque or creed or statement of belief, when we try our best to see them for who and what they are, children of the same God, something good and worthwhile happens to us, and we are thereby drawn into a closer union with the God of us all.

Conclusion
Jesus Christ is the central figure in the doctrine and practice of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He is the Redeemer.[viii] He is the prototype of all saved beings, the standard of salvation.[ix] Jesus explained that “no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). We acknowledge Jesus Christ as the source of truth and redemption, as the light and life of the world, as the way to the Father (John 14:6; 2 Nephi 25:29; 3 Nephi 11:11). We worship Him in that we look to Him for deliverance and redemption and seek to emulate His matchless life (D&C 93:12–20). Truly, as one Book of Mormon prophet proclaimed, “We talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, … that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins” (2 Nephi 25:26).

As to whether we worship a “different Jesus,” we say again: We accept and endorse the testimony of the New Testament writers. Jesus is the promised Messiah, the resurrection and the life (John 11:25), literally the light of the world (John 8:12). Everything that testifies of His divine birth, His goodness, His transforming power and His godhood, we embrace enthusiastically. But we also rejoice in the additional knowledge latter-day prophets have provided about our Lord and Savior. President Brigham Young thus declared that “we, the Latter-day Saints, take the liberty of believing more than our Christian brethren: we not only believe … the Bible, but … the whole of the plan of salvation that Jesus has given to us. Do we differ from others who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ? No, only in believing more.”[x]

It is the “more” that makes many in the Christian world very nervous and usually suspicious of us. But it is the “more” that allows us to make a significant contribution in the religious world. Elder Boyd K. Packer observed: “We do not claim that others have no truth. … Converts to the Church may bring with them all the truth they possess and have it added upon.”[xi]

Knowing what I know, feeling what I feel and having experienced what I have in regard to the person and power of the Savior, it is difficult for me to be patient and loving toward those who denounce me as a non-Christian. But I am constrained to do so in the spirit of Him who also was misunderstood and misrepresented. While it would be a wonderful thing to have others acknowledge our Christianity, we do not court favor nor will we compromise our distinctiveness.

We acknowledge and value the good that is done by so many to bring the message of Jesus from the New Testament to a world that desperately needs it.

The First Presidency of the Church in 1907 made the following declaration: “Our motives are not selfish; our purposes not petty and earth-bound; we contemplate the human race, past, present and yet to come, as immortal beings, for whose salvation it is our mission to labor; and to this work, broad as eternity and deep as the love of God, we devote ourselves, now, and forever.”[xii]

NOTES
[i] Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas on Christianity (Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith Publishers, 1970), 1, 4–5.
[ii] Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice, John Sanders, William Hasker and David Basinger, The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downer Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1994), 9–10.
[iii] Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1997), 236.
[iv] Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1976), 370.
[v] Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121.
[vi] Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, comp. Dean C. Jessee (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1984), 297–301; spelling and punctuation corrected.
[vii] Quoted in Sheri L. Dew, Go Forward With Faith: The Biography of Gordon B. Hinckley (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1996), 576.
[viii] Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 190.
[ix] Lectures on Faith, 7:9.
[x] Journal of Discourses, 26 vols. (Liverpool: F.D. Richards & Sons, 1851–86), 13:56; emphasis added.
[xi] Conference Report, October 1985, 104, 107.
[xii] Conference Report, April 1907, appendix, 16; cited in Howard W. Hunter, That We Might Have Joy (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1994), 59.

Values Voters: Three Reasons to Vote Romney / John Mark Reynolds, Torrey Honors Institute

John Mark Reynolds is the Founding Director of the Torrey Honors Institute at Biola University. A member of the Antiochian Orthodox Church, he is one of the smartest Evangelicals around.

The first time I heard him was at an Apologetics event at Biola. I was completely entranced by his knowledge and his complete originality of thought. I had at the same time a fear that he might have only one presentation which he would give on whatever subject he was assigned. Three or four apologetics presentations later, I knew that he had the same knowledge, and the same originality of thought, about everything. Scary!

Dr. Reynolds is an expert on western Christian civilization and the crucial role it has played in the history of humankind and in the success of the Christian religion. He thus takes more seriously than anyone else the importance of the culture wars, the danger of Post-Modernism, the dangers of radical Islam, and the dire danger we face right now. Europe is to all intents and purposes lost, and will be permanently secular in this generation and Islamic in a few generations. The United States is at the point, perhaps in this election cycle, of determining whether it will follow the path of Europe and have western civilization disappear, or returns to its Christian roots and has a resurgence.

My most recent interaction with Dr. Reynolds was hearing his presentation at “GodBlogCon 2007 in Las Vegas in November 2007, to which Dr. Craig Hazen had invited me as the first Latter-day Saint attendee. Dr. Reynolds’s thoughts there, and his part in the Interview from there on Hugh Hewitt’s radio program, were outstanding.

In the political realm, those who have read Hugh Hewitt’s book “A Mormon in the White House? 10 Things Every American Should Know about Mitt Romney” will recognize him as one of the two participants (along with Craig Hazen) in the “Interview” which forms the appendix of the book. Excerpts from that interview are at this link. Since that interview, both Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Craig Hazen have determined that they are indeed in support of Mitt Romney’s compaign, and are making their thoughts known in various presentations, blogs posts, letters to the editors, and other forums (Dr. Reynolds would correct me and say the word is “fora).”

Below are excerpts from a blog post on the Torrey Honors Institute’s blog, The Scriptorium Daily. on October 21, 2007. See the full text of this post at this link.

Thanks much,

Steve St.Clair

=======================================

The serious primary season is here.

Just as the pretenders in the NFL are playing for next year, so the political equivalents of the Dolphins, such as Sam Brownback, are dropping out of the race and sending their campaign’s talent elsewhere. Now the silly season, when even Tom Tancredo could hear “Hail to the Chief” as he groomed, is over and the real game has begun.

Values voters have to decide where to send their support.

The Democrats have once again eliminated themselves from consideration by embracing a culture of death, libertine views of culture, defeat in the War on Terror, and statist views of the economy. It is hard to enjoy your socialized medicine if you have been aborted, hard to enjoy hedonism in Vegas if ruled by the Taliban, and even harder to be charitable if the government has taken all your money to give it to the bureaucrats.

There are three well-funded candidates and one long-shot in the Republican primaries. Values voters will not choose Rudy in the primaries. He supports the culture of death . . . though perhaps less enthusiastically than Clinton. If the general election is between Rudy and Hilary, that will be the time to decide if there are enough weasel words to convince us to vote the lesser of two evils.

Ignore the commentators who do nothing but watch debates and opine that Rudy “wins” them. You cannot win a debate when you alienate a few more potential voters every time they hear your views. The commentators know the candidates and are jaded with Rudy’s liberalism. Most of the folks are just finding out what Rudy believes. Debate winners rarely make their base angry, but Rudy on marriage did it again tonight.

We don’t have to worry about Rudy yet, since we still have the chance to vote for Mitt Romney.

The most powerful reason to vote for Mitt is Mitt. Romney is the best qualified, smartest, and most telegenic Republican in the race. He has been a successful business leader, saved an Olympics, and been an excellent governor of a liberal state. He knows how to communicate our values to people who do not agree with us. Romney is the only candidate who will not give up IQ points to Hilary and who can press her on her scanty resume that depends on the dubious notion that being married to the boss makes you qualified to run the business.

Mitt lives family values and has the money to win.

Only Romney can save the Party. Any other candidates will split the GOP, but if Romney is the nominee then the race will be about Hilary’s demerits and his merits. Rudy cannot move the people in the pews to the voting booth. Huckabee does not appeal to moderates and he will drive economic conservatives out. Fred will be worth a look when he wakes up and decides to run. He is a platitude chasing a nap. Finally McCain is Bob Dole and we already know the outcome of nominating a tired, heroic, senior senator.

Finally, Romney can be trusted. The notion that he will change his mind for political gain is absurd. How do you know this beyond a reasonable doubt? Romney has stuck with his childhood faith at great personal cost. Imagine his chances if he had “converted” to Catholicism in Massachusetts a decade ago.

Romney will change his mind, like any smart guy, but he will not change his values merely to gain votes. He has walked a long road of trying to get along with his blue-state friends . . . trusting that if he gave them “choice” they would stop their assault on life. There was no stopping the death dealers who define humanity based on the whims of the moment or on the personal torments of a special interest group.

It is time to get serious about voting values . . . and Romney is the serious value voters candidate.

LDS, Evangelical Students Unite at National Conference / BYU Newsnet

I’m looking forward excitedly to hearing from participants at this important conference. Thanks, BYU and Standing Together, for setting it up and encouraging LDS participation.

Steve St.Clair

See original article at the BYU Website at this link:

———————————

Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals are teaming up for the National Student Dialogue Conference roundtable discussion on Oct. 19 and 20 at the Salt Lake Christian Center.

The Salt Lake Theological Seminary and Standing Together, a catalyst for uniting the Utah Christian community, will sponsor this conference.

“Our purpose is to address the question, how should young people who have different religious views relate and interact with one another,” said Robert L. Millet, professor of ancient scripture. “But at the same time hold very carefully your own religious beliefs.”

A person doesn’t have to be a theologian or a scriptures scholar in order to be an effective conservationist, Millet said.

“The things that are needed most for this case is one, a good dose of curiosity,” Millet said. “And two, a heart that wants to make friends and wants to reach out.”

Paul White, director of operations for Standing Together, hopes to promote healthy dialogue between Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals.

“The ultimate goal is seeking truth together in a healthy and loving manner,” White said.

This conference is comprised of five keynote plenary sessions, special seminars, field trips and student roundtable discussions.

Speakers of the conference are religious scholars from BYU, other colleges and seminaries.

Jacob Farnsworth, a senior majoring in psychology, said he had an unforgettable experience in the hosting program last year.

“I remember one guy [an Evangelical student] who [was] very skeptical,” Farnsworth said. “By the end of the day, he left with a change of heart and now we are friends and have respect for each other.”

The conference and the hosting program will help people of two faiths overcome their differences, said David Golding, a senior from Murrieta, Calif. majoring in European studies.

“The conference provides an opportunity to get pass of that nasty history between the groups,” said Golding said. “There’s a genuine goal for both sides to move forward with our differences.”

The conference begins Friday from 10 a.m. to 7:30 p.m., and continues Saturday from 9 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. The Salt Lake Christian Center is located at 4300 S. 700 E. in Salt Lake City.All BYU students can register for free at http://www.standingtogether.org or talk to professor Robert Millet at (801) 422- 7042.