Jump to content
bsjkki

Does being a devout Christian make a person unfit for public office

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Calm said:

No, they are not.  There are also journals and letters from that era.  There is a significant record of antimormonism writings.  If it was as well known as you believe, then there should be documentation that can be found.  So please find it.  

It seems to me you are already aware of the problem and are in total denial/acceptance. Which is worse ---- unmarried adultery with a minor or marriage with however many one chooses of whatever age. And is secrecy in hiding sin a virtue or a vice awaiting public discovery. Actually, I see even more reason that a 19th century "preacher" would be driven out of town especially if his congregants upheld such actions. It's only a matter of God's grace he wasn't shot then... Though he obviously didn't heed God's warning and died very young amid further scandal of his own contrivance. Such an individual would be the talk of the town even now. He certainly would never be left around children or printing presses.

Edited by LittleNipper

Share this post


Link to post

If your claim had been Smith would have been left alone if there hadn't been rumors of sexual escapades, I wouldn't have challenged you even though I don't believe that would be true.  The cohesive economic and political structure of Mormons is what made their group not fit into the local communities.  The other stuff was minor compared to the believed threats of losing their homes and livelihoods and political power to the newcomers.  And the Mormons weren't that great at trying to make it work well in Kirtland and Missouri, they seemed to have learned a bit by Nauvoo and thus were there long enough to gain significant power, which made the conflict all the more contentious when it boiled over.

But your claim was polygamy, which was not taught save to a very few and we have only later reports of it , and which there were no reported rumors of in the earlier settlements.

You still have not demonstrated that it was only polygamy that caused any problem for Smith, btw.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post

LittleNipper:

Marriage to 14 year old's was legal in the US until very recently.

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

LittleNipper:

Marriage to 14 year old's was legal in the US until very recently.

Never when one is already married.

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/11/2017 at 9:58 AM, bsjkki said:

This exchange happened during senate confirmation hearings: 

Sanders: Let me get to this issue that has bothered me and bothered many other people. And that is in the piece that I referred to that you wrote for the publication called Resurgent. You wrote, “Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned.” Do you believe that that statement is Islamophobic?

Vought: Absolutely not, Senator. I’m a Christian, and I believe in a Christian set of principles based on my faith. That post, as I stated in the questionnaire to this committee, was to defend my alma mater, Wheaton College, a Christian school that has a statement of faith that includes the centrality of Jesus Christ for salvation, and . . . 

Sanders: I apologize. Forgive me, we just don’t have a lot of time. Do you believe people in the Muslim religion stand condemned? Is that your view?

Vought: Again, Senator, I’m a Christian, and I wrote that piece in accordance with the statement of faith at Wheaton College:

Sanders: I understand that. I don’t know how many Muslims there are in America. Maybe a couple million. Are you suggesting that all those people stand condemned? What about Jews? Do they stand condemned too?

Vought: Senator, I’m a Christian . . . 

Sanders (shouting): I understand you are a Christian, but this country are made of people who are not just — I understand that Christianity is the majority religion, but there are other people of different religions in this country and around the world. In your judgment, do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?

Vought: Thank you for probing on that question. As a Christian, I believe that all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect regardless of their religious beliefs. I believe that as a Christian that’s how I should treat all individuals . . . 

Sanders: You think your statement that you put into that publication, they do not know God because they rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned, do you think that’s respectful of other religions?

Vought: Senator, I wrote a post based on being a Christian and attending a Christian school that has a statement of faith that speaks clearly in regard to the centrality of Jesus Christ in salvation. 

Sanders: I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about. http://www.nationalreview.com/node/448393/print

If denouncing the religious tenets of your faith is required for holding office, would this standard disqualify all faithful Mormons too?

 

I agree that this line of questioning is inappropriate. Fundamentalism may be a spiritual dead end, but there is no religious test for office.

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/11/2017 at 7:50 PM, Glenn101 said:

To me, the question is whether a person's religious views would impact how he or she would perform their duties of office. Senator Sanders was asking th wrong questions. What questions would he have asked a Muslim or a Jew?

 

If he wanted to ask if the person believed Muslim were due equal treatment under the law, that would have been appropriate. The person's views on salvation are irrelevant though.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Never when one is already married.

Quit moving the goal posts.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Quit moving the goal posts.

Quit defending the indefensible and playing a word game. Sin is sin is sin, and most (if not all) "Christian" families at that time would have either considered him an adulterer or a bigamist or a polygamist. All denote a man of less than savory character.

Edited by LittleNipper

Share this post


Link to post

Christianity has a long association with polygamy.

 

This is off topic. Do not continue.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Christianity has a long association with polygamy.

1 Timothy 3:2-12King James Version (KJV)

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

 

Now, find a Verse of the Bible supporting polygamy ---- not just recording its occurrence. New Testament passage would even be better...

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

1 Timothy 3:2-12King James Version (KJV)

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

 

Now, find a Verse of the Bible supporting polygamy ---- not just recording its occurrence. New Testament passage would even be better...

That all Bishops have at least one wife..

As to the Bible you've never read about Abraham to King David to Solomon? Or that Martin Luther recommended polygamy?

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

That all Bishops have at least one wife..

As to the Bible you've never read about Abraham to King David to Solomon? Or that Martin Luther recommended polygamy?

What you may have heard regarding Martin Luther is often taken out of context. Please consider this >http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/03/persepctives-of-luther-luther.html

Regarding Abraham, King David, and Solomon: It must be understood that the Bible often records the facts without condoning anything. But curiously, the Bible also clearly records the contention among the many wives and concubines in every case. In the case of Solomon, the Bible clearly demonstrates that his wives made Solomon less than a Godly role model. In fact while Solomon started out great, his end was greatly influenced by his many pagan wives and concubines --- and his life became "vanity."

What a Christian should always consider is the LORD and not one's personal agenda, sexual appetites, and eternal aggrandizement. 

Edited by LittleNipper

Share this post


Link to post

King David was told by a prophet of God that if he wanted more wives he could have them.

SEE

2 Samuel 12:8-12New International Version (NIV)

I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/20/2017 at 11:55 AM, thesometimesaint said:

That all Bishops have at least one wife..

As to the Bible you've never read about Abraham to King David to Solomon? Or that Martin Luther recommended polygamy?

It says one wife, not at least one wife.

 Abraham to King David to Solomon we not Christians, David and Solomon were Jews, Abraham was the Grandfather of Israel.

Edited by mnn727

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe I can get this discussion a little bit back to the original topic. Tim Farron, the leader of the Liberal Democrat leader resigned recently in the UK. He felt it was impossible to remain a faithful Christian and continue in his role. He was often questioned on if he thought abortion or gay relations was a "sin." It wasn't good enough that he backed gay marriage but he also had to privately believe it was not wrong. Here are two articles about the issue. http://djibnews.com/2017/06/20/tim-farron-showed-religion-could-have-a-place-in-british-politics/  and http://www.businessinsider.com/breaking-liberal-democrat-leader-tim-farron-has-resigned-2017-6

"He was repeatedly questioned about his views on homosexuality, for example, following reports that he had in the past failed to explicitly deny that he considered gay () sinful...

“There are Christians in politics,” Farron argued, “who take the view that they should impose the tenets of faith on society. But I have not taken that approach because I disagree with it – it’s not liberal and it is counterproductive when it comes to advancing the gospel.”

Farron’s political record, including his support for same () marriage legislation, shows that he has generally complied with this vision. His Christianity does not seem to have interfered with his ability to respond to the interests and values of Liberal Democrat voters – among whom there will be gay people, as well as many non-Christians and atheists.

So was it right for Farron’s views to be scrutinised to such an extent that he felt “torn between” politics and religion? If the scrutiny had been directed at his religious views, there would have been nothing wrong with it. In a liberal society, citizens should be free to respectfully challenge others’ views, religious or not.

However, the criticism directed at Farron as a politician and, more specifically, as a partisan leader, seems unfair. Farron’s religion did not prevent him from being loyal both to the general interest and to his voters."

 

 

 

If this posts a million times, I am sorry...computer issues. I guess there is a word that cannot be typed.

Edited by bsjkki

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, mnn727 said:

It says one wife, not at least one wife.

 Abraham to King David to Solomon we not Christians, David and Solomon were Jews, Abraham was the Grandfather of Israel.

Bishops have one wife, each is an individual wife. The Church no longer practices polygamy in this life, but is open to its practice in the next.

So? Is not the Old Testament part of Christian canon? BTW  Christians have been polygamous throughout history. They still are in some countries.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

Maybe I can get this discussion a little bit back to the original topic. Tim Farron, the leader of the Liberal Democrat leader resigned recently in the UK. He felt it was impossible to remain a faithful Christian and continue in his role. He was often questioned on if he thought abortion or gay relations was a "sin." It wasn't good enough that he backed gay marriage but he also had to privately believe it was not wrong. Here are two articles about the issue. http://djibnews.com/2017/06/20/tim-farron-showed-religion-could-have-a-place-in-british-politics/  and http://www.businessinsider.com/breaking-liberal-democrat-leader-tim-farron-has-resigned-2017-6

"He was repeatedly questioned about his views on homosexuality, for example, following reports that he had in the past failed to explicitly deny that he considered gay () sinful...

“There are Christians in politics,” Farron argued, “who take the view that they should impose the tenets of faith on society. But I have not taken that approach because I disagree with it – it’s not liberal and it is counterproductive when it comes to advancing the gospel.”

Farron’s political record, including his support for same () marriage legislation, shows that he has generally complied with this vision. His Christianity does not seem to have interfered with his ability to respond to the interests and values of Liberal Democrat voters – among whom there will be gay people, as well as many non-Christians and atheists.

So was it right for Farron’s views to be scrutinised to such an extent that he felt “torn between” politics and religion? If the scrutiny had been directed at his religious views, there would have been nothing wrong with it. In a liberal society, citizens should be free to respectfully challenge others’ views, religious or not.

However, the criticism directed at Farron as a politician and, more specifically, as a partisan leader, seems unfair. Farron’s religion did not prevent him from being loyal both to the general interest and to his voters."

If this posts a million times, I am sorry...computer issues. I guess there is a word that cannot be typed.

The US has laws against that sort of thing. I don't know about the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

The US has laws against that sort of thing. I don't know about the UK.

I don't know of these laws...

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I don't know of these laws...

Article VI, Section 3 of US Constitution ...; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Article VI, Section 3 of US Constitution ...; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Yes...but that doesn't stop reporters from asking probing religious questions or Bernie Sanders. If the majority believes personal religious beliefs are not desirable, being a Christian could cause the problems that this U.K. Leader faced.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

Bishops have one wife, each is an individual wife. The Church no longer practices polygamy in this life, but is open to its practice in the next.

So? Is not the Old Testament part of Christian canon? BTW  Christians have been polygamous throughout history. They still are in some countries.

Matthew 23:24  Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Yes...but that doesn't stop reporters from asking probing religious questions or Bernie Sanders. If the majority believes personal religious beliefs are not desirable, being a Christian could cause the problems that this U.K. Leader faced.

Asking probing questions is the job of reporters. No one is required to answer them. The simplest answer to such questions is "None of your business".

Edited by thesometimesaint

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Matthew 23:24  Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Yet Christians throughout history to this very day practice polygamy.

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Asking probing questions is the job of reporters. No one is required to answer them. The simplest answer to such questions is "None of your business".

And yet his initial non-answer/evasive answer was unacceptable....which led to him eventually stepping down. His private religious based thoughts were unacceptable to his party. The Democrats this year stated they did not pro-life candidates. That is their right as a private organization.http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_58fa5fade4b018a9ce5b351d?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000016&section=politics

Edited by bsjkki

Share this post


Link to post

I have no problem with telling people when something is none of their business, and no law requires me to answer (miss)leading questions. If I choose to answer the onus is on me to explain what I mean, but am under no legal requirement to do so. Whether anyone else likes my answers or not Too Darn Bad. In so many words my religion is between me and my God. (miss)leading questions by critics about my religion deserve no response, or a polite "None of your business".

Share this post


Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...