Rod Smith In Usa Today

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Friends,

I no longer follow message board activities, so I'm not sure if this has been brought to people's attention, but my friend Rod Smith has written an outstanding article in the USA Today that I would like to pass along.

Speaking personally, Rod had a significant impact upon my life, when as a rebellious Bob-Dylan obsessed teenager, I was struggling to find my own testimony. Rod is an outstanding individual, and has served as the President of Southern Virginia University now for several years.

Enjoy!

--DB

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2011-10-16/mitt-romney-mormon-christian/50794458/1#uslPageReturn

[volgadon]

Simple, succint, cutting right to the heart of the matter!

[Zakuska]

From the Article-

Jeffress argued that America was founded as "a Christian nation" and then defined Christianity in a very restrictive manner, claiming that the Founders embraced his brand of Christianity. Fischer went a step further, asserting that religious freedom, as conceived by the Founders, does not include "non-Christian religions" (i.e. religions different than his).

Pastor Jeffress "No Time for Tolerance" Sermon (10/2/2011) Last Week

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf5hE_e6iiM

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/fischer-first-amendment-does-not-apply-mormons

And people are afraid of Mormons?!

PS. These guys are making the Constituion hang by a thread!

Edited October 17, 2011 by Zakuska

[Calm]

I wonder if the implications for Native Americans who are nonChristian has occurred to Jeffress or if he is okay with 'might makes right' suppression of freedoms for those who were here first and didn't ask for the Protestants to come over, kick them off their lands, make slaves of them, etc. Etc.....

It is not like all the nonProtestants are immigrants, most are citizens just as he is. How would he feel if he was given the choice of 2nd class citizen or changing his faith? I suspect he gets quite verbal in his protests when Christians in Islamic or atheist countries are deprived of the same rights others have.

The concept that one should bar a significant part of the population from full participation based on different concepts of the divine has never worked out well in history, anyone who claims that our leaders wanted more of the same that has brought such suffering to the world has a twisted view on what Christian society should be IMO and even if our leaders had been short sighted enough to think that, why should we be locked into their foolishness? Does Jeffress believe we should engage in slaverybagain since it was allowed by and even promoted by some founding fathers.

[Calm]

From the Article-

Pastor Jeffress "No Time for Tolerance" Sermon (10/2/2011) Last Week

:

I find it hard to believe that the founders weren't well aware of other religions besides Christianity and were so stupid as to not be explicit that they meant only a subset of religious beliefs. If they had meant Christianity, why didn't they say so since it was common for governments to legally identify the preferred faith at that time. They chose to be generic for a reason. Not only that but the Justice he is quoting is saying that other faiths should not be promoted over Christianity (prostrated means bow down before, inequality), not that Christianity should be promoted.

[Calm]

Excellent rebuttal using Madison to trump a Justice Madison appointed (poor guy was misinterpreted too).

[Zakuska]

I find it hard to believe that the founders weren't well aware of other religions besides Christianity and were so stupid as to not be explicit that they meant only a subset of religious beliefs. If they had meant Christianity, why didn't they say so since it was common for governments to legally identify the preferred faith at that time. They chose to be generic for a reason. Not only that but the Justice he is quoting is saying that other faiths should not be promoted over Christianity (prostrated means bow down before, inequality), not that Christianity should be promoted.

They are bascially trying to do the exact thing the the Church of England did with a slightly bigger umbrella mind you. Which is 180 degrees from what the 1st Ammendment was written for.

[Nomad]

An excellent column!

My favorite part:

The experience in post-revolutionary Virginia is particularly illustrative. As a young man, James Madison, the father of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, was appalled when members of the Anglican Church— claiming to be true Christians —persecuted and imprisoned Baptists and others for preaching without a license. The Anglicans claimed that the Baptist brand of Christianity was heresy. Madison responded by noting that this "diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some; and to their eternal infamy, the clergy can furnish their quota of imps for such business."

Not long thereafter, the Anglicans, who were a majority of the electorate in Virginia sought, with the support of Patrick Henry, to pass legislation that would provide a special assessment (economic benefits) to support Christianity — by which they meant Anglicanism.

This effort understandably troubled Baptists, Presbyterians and others. The Assessment Bill was about to be adopted when Madison rose to oppose it. He obtained a reprieve, suggesting that the legislature first determine the will of the electorate. Petitions opposing the bill were circulated, including Madison's thoughtful Memorial and Remonstrance, which is strong evidence of the prevailing view of the founding generation regarding religious liberty. The people of Virginia, including many Anglicans, signed the petitions, making it clear that they resoundingly opposed the principle of preference for a particular brand of Christianity.

After noting that "it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties," Madison wisely asked, "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?"

Fortunately, not all Baptists are like Jeffress and Fisher. I have numerous Baptist neighbors and work colleagues, and as far as I know, none share the rigid beliefs of those two vocal evangelical leaders.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Nomad

[KevinG]

An excellent column!

My favorite part:

Fortunately, not all Baptists are like Jeffress and Fisher. I have numerous Baptist neighbors and work colleagues, and as far as I know, none share the rigid beliefs of those two vocal evangelical leaders.

My Evangelical cousin put my mind at ease about the anti-mormonism stuff when he told me "we don't believe everything they tell us over the pulpit".

[KevinG]

PS. These guys are making the Constituion hang by a thread!

...if you mean a thread of invective ridden spittle. Dominionists are so charming (not).

[altersteve]

You just have to wonder how people like Jeffress are going to react when they find out in the spirit world that the Church really is true after all.

[Zakuska]

You just have to wonder how people like Jeffress are going to react when they find out in the spirit world that the Church really is true after all.

I suppose it will look something like this...

[ldsfaqs]

I suppose it will look something like this...

Yep, Christ Himself said they would go to hell for that offending part toward other believers whom they think aren't true believers, no matter how good a "Christian" they are otherwise. BIG NO NO in God's eyes to destroy faith. Mark 9 & Luke 9. Not only that, but God further made clear in Matthew 14 the worth of others in His eyes.

The particular ideological construct is not the most important thing to God, it's ones heart and actions.

Not saying it's not important to those whom it is given, there is a duty there. But all good is from God period and is not under any circumstances to be attacked.

The Good Samaritan wasn't attacked by Christ because of whatever false religion/doctrine he belonged to, he was praised.

Paul didn't preach against the Dianistic Faith, he simply taught the Gospel. And ONLY as an aside as it might related did the theology might condemn Dianistic theology. But it was never directly attacked. The only people attacked were fellow Church members/Jews those of the Church (old or new) who had corrupted the faith. They still worshiped in the Temple together, and more. They were the same people. Thus, anti's who think they have a "right" and a "mission" to destroy other Faiths/Believers, are going entirely against what the Bible actually says. Defend the Faith, Mormons do that, Proclaim the Faith, Mormons do that, and Preserve the Faith once Delivered, Mormons also do that. Anti-mormons do MORE than those, the strive to destroy Faith, condemn Faith, etc. Big difference.

Basically, mormons would be in the right if they felt like it to condemn Fundamentalist, COC, etc. mormons if we wanted. But even that likely wouldn't apply. We and they don't worship together, completely separate religions. But, if there were mormons in our own Faith, then we could be critical if appropriate. For example, if some members started selling products in the Temple, then we could go ballistic if necessary. But, far different thing than what anti's do.

Edited October 18, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[Hannah Rebekah]

Here's a great article over at Patheos about the Baptist being persecuted and why there is no test for religion in public office.

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Religious-Test-in-Reverse-Douglas-Baker-10-18-2011?offset=0&max=1

Edited October 19, 2011 by Hannah Rebekah

[Ariarates]

You just have to wonder how people like Jeffress are going to react when they find out in the spirit world that the Church really is true after all.

Along that line, they probably wonder how we shall react when we find out in the spirit world that the church is false after all. Unfortunately, it's a question that won't be answered any time soon.

[LeSellers]

Along that line, they probably wonder how we shall react when we find out in the spirit world that the church is false after all. Unfortunately, it's a question that won't be answered any time soon.

I assume you mean it won't be answered until either we die (the context of the assertion), or at the Second Coming of Christ.

In either case, I wonder if it's appropriate to say "unfortunately, it's a question that won't be answered any time soon." It seems you are, on the one hand wishing that Christ not come soon, or, on the other, that we die quickly.

Lehi

[altersteve]

I assume you mean it won't be answered until either we die (the context of the assertion), or at the Second Coming of Christ.

In either case, I wonder if it's appropriate to say "unfortunately, it's a question that won't be answered any time soon." It seems you are, on the one hand wishing that Christ not come soon, or, on the other, that we die quickly.

Lehi

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I don't have any intention of dying soon. Of course, if God thinks otherwise, then I'd be all for it, and I'm sure heaven is amazing and all, but I'm having fun down here.

Edited October 19, 2011 by altersteve

[stevedallas]

Jeffries is not the guy I would want as a pastor.

[Zakuska]

Here's a great article over at Patheos about the Baptist being persecuted and why there is no test for religion in public office.

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Religious-Test-in-Reverse-Douglas-Baker-10-18-2011?offset=0&max=1

"Baptists were once among the most persecuted victims of government tyranny. Now they risk becoming the persecuting majority their forefathers feared."

Huh? Did Baptists ever have an extermination order issued against them?

Edited October 19, 2011 by Zakuska

[frankenstein]

PS. These guys are making the Constituion hang by a thread!

...if you mean a thread of invective ridden spittle. Dominionists are so charming (not).

how many of you here have taken the time to read "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States".

§ 1871. The real object of the [1st] amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age.

(as for the Constitution hanging by a thread...It has always hung by a thread; and many people since its inception have made ever so slight nicks, these people include the BYU Law school graduate who authored the "torture memos" for Bush.)

Edited October 19, 2011 by frankenstein

[california boy]

Do you think the anti-Mormon rhetoric is more than last time Romney ran for president? I kinda feel it is worse. I think the closer he gets to having a good chance of being the Republican candidate, the more viscous the attacks agains the church will be.

This is all just another example of prejudice against another group who feel God has told them what He wants them to believe. They feel they are protecting the gospel of Christ. It is a very powerful and emotional feeling for the anti-Mormons to draw upon. They know that this is an opportunity to justify the suppression of the Mormon church. Certainly lying for God is not a new trick that religion has used in the past. Distortions and half truths are the core of all of these kinds of arguments. I always find it ironic that those claiming to speak for God are willing to distort and twist the truth to explain their point of view. I would not be surprised to see this escalate where teachers are calling out Mormon students telling them they are going to hell because of their choice to be Mormon. As long as the public allows them to spew their intolerance, it will increase.

So maybe the question is, how does the church deal with this intolerance. How do you as members respond to attacks on your right as an American to choose to be a Mormon. Do you sit quietly by and let it happen, or do you take an active role in combating this suppression of your beliefs.

[Zakuska]

how many of you here have taken the time to read "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States".

§ 1871. The real object of the [1st] amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age.

(as for the Constitution hanging by a thread...It has always hung by a thread; and many people since its inception have made ever so slight nicks, these people include the BYU Law school graduate who authored the "torture memos" for Bush.)

I have highlighted, the key portion that Jeffress and Fischer glossed over. They interpret it to mean a promotion/preference/favoratism of Christianity over these other religions, the Red portion precludes their interpretation.

Government is to show no favoratism based on Religion. It's to stop all rivalry of various sects of Christiandom seeking favor from the Government. (The exact thing Jeffress is advocating) But it is also including these other so-called "false" religions (according to Jeffress) as Hierarchies that should not be favored by Government. In otherwords Government is to remain completely Neutral toward religion wether its Christian/Mormon/Athiest or Scientologist. The exact opposite of Jeffress and Fischer.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Zakuska

[cdowis]

T

"Baptists were once among the most persecuted victims of government tyranny. Now they risk becoming the persecuting majority their forefathers feared."

Huh? Did Baptists ever have an extermination order issued against them?

Anabaptists were fined, drowned, burned at the stake, tortured, and persecuted in all the manners of the day for such crimes as refusal to pay tithes, re-fusal to attend church, refusal to refrain from Bible study groups in private homes, refusal to refrain from preaching, and other offences against the church-state. Thousands of Anabaptists were put to death.

http://www.thirdmill...old.rmt.10.html

The Anabaptists, because of their doctrine of separation of Church and State, stood for liberty of religion and for a “free church.” They opposed the establishment of any faith by law, asserting freedom of religion, and believing that there should be no basis for persecution whatsoever. They taught that a man was free to believe according to the dictates of his conscience, even though he may be wrong. A person was free under the Reformers in their different domains only as long as he agreed with them. Simply put, there was little or no religious liberty under the Reformers.

(same link)

These were my ancestors who fled Europe and came to South Carolina about 1770. Jeffries should look at the history of his own church. I believe it will be the words of his own ancestors that will bear witness against him.

Edited October 19, 2011 by cdowis

[Zakuska]

These were my ancestors who fled Europe and came to South Carolina about 1770. Jeffries should look at the history of his own church. I believe it will be the words of his own ancestors that will bear witness against him.

Excellent point. I realize that the Baptists in Europe had all of that. I was mostly refering to those in the Americas. I would advise Jeffress to study the sordid history of his beloved SBC.