« Bill Richardson's Blueprint For Victory In Iowa | Main | The Daily Five: Guess Obama Didn't Bring Her Flowers... »

Why Mitt Romney Faces Serious Challenges In Iowa

27 Nov 2007 02:00 pm

(embarrassing typo corrected - thanks JD)

He's ahead in the polls and there's a good chance he will win, but still, but ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney faces serious challenges in Iowa. Here are six.

First, savvy consultants look at two numbers to project whether, if a particular election were held today, their candidate would win. One is the head to head -- and Mitt Romney still leads, narrowly, in Iowa polls. The second is the degree of intensity -- and here, Mike Huckabee's surge breaks over the walls that the Romney Iowa organization has spent so many months carefully building. Every consultant would rather be behind by five points in the head to head match ups and ahead by double digits in terms of the level of intensity.

Second: The national political press corps and conservative political elites, aided by Nachama Soloveichik, are beginning to scrutinize Mike Huckabee, and they finding out some astounding things. Did you know that his administration was regularly censured by state ethics boards? That Huckabee once worked as a director of advertising? He certainly has his work cut out for him in trying to explain away some of the less salutary aspects of his record (in the eyes of conservatives, anyway.) But the Iowa press corps -- print and TV -- and the national TV networks -- have yet to follow. Huckabee is still the darling of the Iowa media now, and, frankly, they'll decide collectively whether to turn on the scrutiny spigot. In Iowa, Huckabee is not getting the scrutiny that leading candidates generally get.

Third: social conservative single-issue voters seem to have decided, en masse, to coalesce around Huckabee and use Iowa to prove to the world that they still matter in the Republican Party and are tired of being taken advantage of. This dynamic, which Republican operatives working for all candidates perceive, is hard to break. And Huckabee can run what would be, in effect, an anti-Mormon campaign solely by legitimately appealing to evangelicals' identity interests.

Fourth: Huckabee, by dint of his natural temperament, his preaching background or his skills as an ad man, is a more compelling, more engaging public personality that Romney. As TV coverage of the race ramps up, this matters. That said, Romney works a crowd better than Huckabee does. Also, the Romney family is beloved by Romney's volunteers in Iowa and is an undeniable asset.

Fifth: Romney's strategy was surely the only correct one for his campaign. But either his strategists did not count on running up the score in Iowa so early or the press did not give Romney due credit for chasing three rivals out of Ames entirely and beating Huckabee (aided by the FairTaxers) by double digits. The result: Romney, for some reason, just absolutely has to win Iowa or else his chances for winning the nomination are finished. Empirically, this is nonsense. Romney has unlimited resources and is the only campaign right now that has the capacity to challenge Giuliani through January and into February.

Sixth: Timing. For all intents and purposes, the race in Iowa ends before Christmas. Probably the week before Christmas. Romney has little time to mount a counter-offensive. And the ramifications of going negative against Huckabee are unclear.

None of the above is to suggest that Romney is going to lose Iowa. But it does suggest that, at a minimum, that victory is not assured. Romney's organizational is real and impressive, and note that Huckabee's rise has not, so far, come at Romney's expense.

Comments (114)

"For all intents and purposes, the race in Iowa ends before Christmas. Probably the week before Christmas."

While I understand where you're coming from here, Marc, I don't think this is correct.

The campaign is certainly going to look strange during the holidays, but there's going to be a huge amount of movement after December 20th.

For Iowans, this is going to be a campaign event holiday season.

What about money? Doesn't Romney have like 5 or 6 times as much money as Huckabee? Couldn't he squash Huckabee with a tsunami of negative ads that Huckabee doesn't have the resources to respond to? Are there any indications that he's planning to do this?

It is amazing to me that Iowans are willing to vote for Huckabee when they clearly don't trust him as president (correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember recent polls showing him scoring really low when respondents were asked about his competence on foreign policy, immigration, the economy, and leadership.) As his recent ad shows, his campaign is running completely on his ability to use Biblical terms. Iowans were mad about the comment they they pick corn not presidents, but this strange scenario only fuels that idea. Iowans out there, please tell me you'll base your vote on more than just religion!

GO ROMNEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I mentioned this elsewhere ... won't the Club for Growth detonate Huckabee's campaign, even if it gets out of Iowa?

Anyone knows that Huckabee has no chance of winning the nomination. He traction in Iowa is clear evidence for anti-Mormon sentiments as stated in the above article. If evangelicals want to shoot themselves in the foot and allow Rudy to get the nomination because of religious bigotry than this country is going backwards and not forward.

Huckabee will almost certainly win Iowa, it appears at this point. It will be a big blow to Romney, but the dye is already cast. Romney is behind, if you look at the polling carefully. There is no way for him to catch up now.

Go MITT ROMNEY!!!! ROMNEY for PRESIDENT 2008!!!

I could see Huck pulling off an upset or strong second in Iowa, but the Club for growth hates his guts and Romney will soon have to stop ignoring him and go on the attack, or, ideally, maneuver one of the other candidates, maybe the incredibly shrinking Fred, to slam Huck on his Arkansas record.

With these obstacles, and Romney's firewall in NH, it's hard to see how Huck will have the money and unblemished aw-shucks appeal to carry on.

Of course, as a Democrat, I'm happy to see all this strife on the other side and I hope the fighting is utterly acrimonious and convinces as many GOP voters a possible to stay hom in disgust.

And hey, Romney spammers, you got anything to say beyond "WOOOOOOOO!!!"?

>>> But either his strategists did not count on running up the score in Iowa

I think this is important to note. Outside of message (where I think he and his team have been much less than sure-footed) his campaign has been strategically textbook. Problem is they didn't count on McCain's early implosion, and the fact that it took 6 months before any of his competitors followed him on to Iowa television. I don't really consider it their fault that they've suddenly got competition -- I think all along they expected the caucus race to be tight. It just took longer than expected to emerge and it's coming from a somewhat unexpected source. They know what they have to do (stop Huckabee's momentum), the challenge is to execute well.

Petey's correct: there will be a lot of poll movement in the last week. Not much reason to think that things will be "over" by Xmas, although, I think that decisions made in media outlet conference rooms may have more influence on the electorate in that last week than decisions made in campaign offices.

I agree with mike. With the compressed schedule, even if Huckabee wins, he won't have time to raise the needed funds to compete with Rudy G. A vote for Mike H is just a vote for Rudy G. There are even rumors that maxed out Rudy donors are now donating to Mike H because it helps knock down Romney. If this happens, then I predict the Dems winning the White House. Rudy would be a disaster for the conservative movement. And the Repubs will have to learn the hard way that Rudy has a LOT of skeletons in his closet.

>>> Doesn't Romney have like 5 or 6 times as much money as Huckabee? Couldn't he squash Huckabee with a tsunami of negative ads that Huckabee doesn't have the resources to respond to?

Yes, and that's why I have a hard time seeing Huckabee winning the caucuses outright, at this point in time. Still the intensity of his support is such that a strong second (behind by only 3 or 4 points) is very likely.

Huckabaee is a liberal ankle grabber. If he got elected hee would sell the GOP out on taxes,immigration and global warming to name a few. Romney has a much broader based campaign than Ric Flair and Chuck Norris.

Huckabaee is a liberal ankle grabber. If he got elected hee would sell the GOP out on taxes,immigration and global warming to name a few. Romney has a much broader based campaign than Ric Flair and Chuck Norris.

Maybe someone can explain something for me.

Generally speaking voters are expected to cast their votes based on the candidates' beliefs, including religious beliefs, but if you don't want to vote for Romney because of his Mormon beliefs, you are a bigot.

Why is this?

Huck has moved into 2nd in Florida in the latest poll. Just from personal interactions, I know a few pragmatists that will reluctantly support the two pretenders, Romney and Giuliani. But, there is real excitement, from real people, for Mike Huckabee.

Watch for a surprise! The name is Ron Paul.

The only reason there is excitement behind Huckabee is because no one has spent any time focusing on him. He has so many potential negatives that have gone unsaid because he just doesn't matter. His success in Iowa helps Rudy and hurts Romney, but in the end it will not matter. Romney and Rudy are the only ones that can go the di$tance. And when R's have to choose between Rudy and Romney, they won't choose Rudy. As soon as Huckabee faces any scrutiny he is done. That might be before Iowa and will surely be after Iowa. But NH is not going to flock to a tax hiking fake conservative creationist with bad teeth.

great points. i agree. why is the media not pressing the scrutiny button? they either want giuliani to win the nod or they are just in need of ratings by shaking up the race.

if most iowans had a clue fo his past record, his support would not be close to what it is. people think ehi s everything romney is but more 'authentic' that is not true.

Ron Paul is the people's choice because he will restore our republic instead of selling it to special interests. He dominates in straw polls, debate polls, fund raising, web traffic and grass roots networking. I have created a website to support this statement.

Please visit www.thecaseforronpaul.com and judge for yourself.

The critics have been asking Huckabee about those ethics charges and other issues since January when he entered the race. They've been disproven every time. That's why Romney hasn't put up the attack ads yet: what would he say that Huckabee couldn't answer?
That and it would come back and smack him in the back of the head like a boomerang. Considering the kind of campaign Huckabee has run (mostly positive as far as the other candidates until the recent confrontation with Fred Thompson on abortion and a few comments on Romney flip-flopping), any negative attack ads will make Romney look like a bully.

Quote: ". . .if you don't want to vote for Romney because of his Mormon beliefs, you are a bigot.
Why is this?"

There are plenty Southerner Bible Preachers who preach at the pulpit to never vote for a Mormon. Period. Not even considering the man. Not considering his political stance. They will vote for an abortionist, pro gay marriage, liberal before they would vote for a Mormon.

Confused: What part of bigotry do you not understand?

Not voting for Romney based on his religion alone is a mistake the Religious Right that will come to haunt them, when the pro-life movement is put back thirty years, and gay marriages are the rage in America.

How many consultants would want their candidate to so throughly own Iowa that it's considered a hollow victory if their candidate won the caucuses? Not many considering IA's momentum is needed heading into NH.

Huckabee has re-created a race for 1st in IA, which didn't exist once Romney's poll numbers rose and the other top-tier candidates started playing for 2nd or 3rd. Romney's expectations rose as a result and Huckabee is bringing them down. This all means the nat'l press now have a reason to watch the GOP result and broadcast it to GOPers in NH and elsewhere -- instead of just focusing on the titanic Clinton-Obama fight.

A narrow Romney victory over Huckabee would be more valuable to him than a rout over Rudy McThompson. Like high-stakes betting, there's more to gain and more to lose.

Huckabee will win the nomination. Romney has spent more time and much more money in Iowa, but now Huckabee is tied with him. Why should lack of money stop Huckabee elsewhere? Romney's 5,000 TV spots have not worked. What about Florida, where Huckabee is now running 2nd? It's a huge market and he hasn't run a single ad.

What amuses me is that even though the better-financed candidates have largely succeeded in painting Huckabee as a fiscal liberal (which is a lie), he is still gaining momentum. That is because you can't fake sincerity and optimism. The same establishment folks who are digging in their heels against Huckabee now will be lamenting the GOP field in 16 years or so and looking in vain for the "next Huckabee."

Howard, you're a poor excuse for a political pundit.

Romney, Huckabee, Rudy- they all are pretenders to the Reagan throne. The closer you examine their records, the more you realize that they are trying to court a constituency that is opposed to the great number of policy positions they took over the course of their respective political careers.

Fred Thompson is running a campaign that closest resembles a Reaganite-inspired platform, and he has the credibility to boot- he doesn't have to run away from his record.

As such, his campaign will show late momentum and be the surprise performer in the Iowa and beyond- Mark it.

Confused asked: if you don't want to vote for Romney because of his Mormon beliefs, you are a bigot. Why is this?

Because guilt is often a very effective motivator. We are told, "If you don't vote for Romney you are a bigot." So to avoid having anyone call us a bigot, and to prove to others and to ourselves that we are not, we may just vote for Romney.

Romney tells us that Mormons are Christians, very much like most other Americans. Why then would we, vote against Romney who says that his Mormon "Christian" beliefs are very little different than our own, unless we are a bigot?

I would not vote for Romney, not because I dislike his religion, but because he dislikes mine. Mormons believe that their church is not just one of many Christian denominations which are equal in God's sight, but that it is the only truly Christian church. Mormons teach that all other Christian denominations are actually inspired by Satan. Mormons teach that their church is "the only true church" and that the only way non-Mormons can ever gain entrance into the kingdom of God is to reject almost everything we now believe about God and accept in its place all that the Mormon Church teaches about him.

As I said, I would not vote for Romney, not because I dislike his religion, but because he dislikes mine. The way I see things, Mormons are the bigots.

Romney will win Iowa because of superior organization and message. Huck's record in Arkansas will catch up with him. The last thing we need is another glib/phony politician from Hope. Been there, done that.

Those who are doubtful of Romney have good reason to be. His past lack of support for the GOP includes "Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans, has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents -- including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights, a Globe review of the nominations has found. Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show. In all, he has nominated nine registered Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters, and 14 registered Democrats." - Boston Globe 7/25/2005
His tacit support for pro-abortion and pro-homosexual policy throughout his term as Governor in Massachusetts is well documented by the Parents' Rights Coalition and Mass Resistance. They have produced a 20plus page report of Romney's record. It is quite sobering.

There are plenty of other articles about Romney's faith. Please take the religious arguments there. Thanks.

"That said, Romney works a crowd better than Huckabee does."

Don't know what crowds you've been watching, but Huckabee clearly bests Romney in that department. Huckabee's crowd appeal is how he came in 2nd in Ames with no money or organization, and ended up with votes that Romney paid for.

Huckabee's the genuine article. Mitt withers when confronted with a real, honest conservative.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Michael Satterlee is actually very similar to a Mormon; just one letter off: Moron. The church of Jesus Christ of latter day Saints teaches that many people and many religions have truth in them, and in fact, invites people to bring along whatever truth they have found when they join the LDS church. The LDS church teaches it is in fact the restored church of Jesus Christ and as such has been given the complete gospel including the restoration of prophets and apostles. The catholic church also teaches that it is the one church with the complete gospel, it's first Pope having received authority from the last of Christ's Apostles; so should we call Catholics bigots. If a church doesn't teach that it's doctrines are true, how can it call itself Christ's church. Think about it.

i find it interesting that the financial futures market favors Huckabee over Romney to win Iowa.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_republican_caucus-207.html

The biggest thing Romney has had going for him has been Huckabee's "unelectability" ... that wall is slowly coming down as Huckabee is surging upon the support of grassroots social conservatives in Iowa, Florida, and Texas (and the surge is mounting in South Carolina).

As a Huckabee supporter, I take GREAT offense with the "anti-mormon" label. If anything, this surge is based upon the authenticity of Huckabee's social conservatism and practical executive experience as opposed to Romney's apparent willingness to say what he thinks needs to be said to get elected.

A new poll has Huckabee's surge extending to Florida where he is now a strong second. He is truly on fire everywhere.

Pretenders like Rudy, Thomson, McCain, Huckabee are MORONS while Romney is a MORMON plus MORON.

to Gideon's comment; I agree. Huckabee's experience and especially his sincerity is obvious. I like Romney a lot, but I am starting to see some great potential in Huckabee as our man to beat the Dem's this year.

to GOP. That was hillarious!!! There should be a joke in there somewhere: how about " whats the difference between a MORMON and a MORON? answer: one letter. (p.s. since I'm Mormon myself, is it prejudice to make fun of my own?)

I agree with John Micheals as to the own bigotry and hatefullness of Michael Satterlee. Check your facts Satterlee, ask any member of the mormon faith and they will tell you that mormons do not in fact believe that all other faiths are drived from satan or any of the other many falsehoods circulated by preachers and pastors of many denominations who are willing to say anything to keep people from leaving their congregation. Although you really can't blame them, those congregations are how they support themselves, even though the bible forbids it. It all goes back to the old saying, you don't go to a ford dealer to ask about chevys, so why would you do the same with religion?

Huckabee is now beeting Hillary by the widest margin (Zogby) of any GOP candidate.

Also do you research folks. Reagan raised taxes as well.

People are supporting Huckabee because he's authentic and likable. He's surging in every poll. He has the momentum. If Romney starts turning negative, this will hurt Mitt even more.

Romney thought he could just buy the election, but is finding out you can't

It is interesting the Romney propaganda says if Christians bypass Romney and support say Mike Huckabee they are bigots , but when the flip side will inevitably happen , namely Romney winning the Utah primary and Huckabee is no where that is OK . Is there any serious pundit who doubts that Romney will not carry Utah and probably Idaho because of the Mormon communities . Thank God most Bible believing Christians will not vote for a man who believes that Jesus is the Devil's brother and that God the Father is married and over him is another god who is married and over him is yet another god who is married and so on .
Christians will see it for what it is namely paganism .

One person alot of individuals are ignoring is McCain and I think that is a big mistake. Here is a scenerio that I can see play out.

Huckabee beats romney in Iowa by 5-10 percentage points. McCain comes in third barely a blip above Guliani. Thompson comes in 5th, effectively ending his campaign.

NH comes rolling around and Romney starts dropping in the polls. Thompson is done and is a none factor. Huckabee gets strong momentum but social conservatives do not dominate NH, independents do. McCain pulls off the upset and wins NH, with Romney second and Huckabee in a strong third. Guliani again finishes 4th. Thompson ends his campaign with a 6th place finish behind paul

Here is where it really becomes interesting. Along comes south carolina. Huckabee is the darling of the evangelicals and they start rallying around him. Numbers start going up. McCain gets a strong boost from the NH bump. Northeast liberal from NY who hasn't come in a top three finish yet? Numbers start coming down. Romney has alot of cash so he is going to try to survive until the big primaries. Romney and Guliani battle it out for 3rd and 4th.

I believe ALOT and I mean ALOT of of Guliani and Romneys support is soft. I think voters will think that if they can not win any of the first three events, what makes them think they can win the general election.

Should make it an interesting election year.

Probabilities keep on improving that Mr Huckabee will win in Iowa.

People in general are aware that Mr Romney was for abortion and for the homosexual agenda before and of course when Mr Romney decides to switch positions now they wonder about his integrity.

One thing that most people are not aware is what the Mormon Church believes and preaches.

Specifically the fact that they believe that Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers.

When people get informed about this fact and many others, they will say "under no circumstances" I will vote for a man whose church have such beliefs.

Myself I do not believe that within the Republican field of candidates there is a man whose views are more in tune with the general public than Mr Huckabee.

Once again we all see just how blinded people like andrew price and pedro delgado really are. Am i the only person concerned that thousands maybe even millions of people just like them are so willing to blindly accept anything their pastor spoon feeds them on sundays no matter how ridiculous it may sound without even questioning its validity? It's no wonder there are so many denominations out there, the vast majority of americans are too easily manipulated. Getting back to politics, which is what this thread is supposed to be about, not different peoples views on who is a bigot and who is not. Mitt Romney is the only GOP canadite who can beat Obama, Edwards, or God help us Hillary, hands down. We all know it, and so do the Democrats, why else would they target him more than double of anyone else, because he's the REAL threat to them. Case closed.

The "correctness" of a religion has no place in these discussions. Nor does fighting or attacking of any sort. Compare records, discuss thoughts, but don't attack. Romney and Huckabee are both good men who have been married for a long time, and have (what at least appears to be) a lot of integrity.

Is someone a bigot for not voting for a Mormon? No. But they are a bigot if their only reasoning is because he or she is a mormon. I would love to vote for a woman, but it won't be for Hillary. Mitt's character is strong. The flip-flop title is cute, but (like with many other contendors) just a negative tool. As can be read on occasion in blogs, Romney changed positions on few items: abortion once, and that's about it. If he were such a fraud and a flip-flop, and an evil man, would his wife stick with him? There's love in that family, and respect. I just feel good when I see them together (I realize how silly that sounds. Check their video about the christmas decision to run for president... that's the one that got me.)

Which brings my next point. I consider each candidate on three scales: first, their integrity, second, their positions, and third, their competence. As an example, Giuliani would score low on integrity, and half way on positions (social issues bad, other things good) but he would do well in the realm of getting things done, or competence.

I think Huckabee is nice, but I worry about how well he would do at actually getting things done. He speaks well, and has good ideas, but he seems to be the cheerleader, more than the football player. He didn't fundraise at all, until the success came to him. Romney, an unknown governor, has fundraised, and more importantly, made his campaign happen.

Romney and Giuliani both got things done. I like Giuliani, but I have issues with his social positions. Romney could actually balance our budget.

I also like to remind people that Thompson, or Huckabee is far better than Clinton, and I would vote for them if it came to it. But I'd rather have someone who gives me as much as I want.

After all, why do people not like a flip-flopper? Because he's dishonest right? Well, the only problem with that is that he kept all of his campaign promises in MA, even after changing his positions. If he changes positions while president, he'll do what he told you he would. If anything, I think he was pro-choice to win in MA, and is switching to his true position now, not vice versa.

Second, the main reason that I see Governor Huckabee surging is because of the word "hype." It isn't permanent--just ask Howard Dean. Or Fred Thompson.

It is shocking that so many citizens of Iowa can have their votes bought by Mr. Romney's money, as at the Straw Poll with his buses, tents, entrance fee "bribes". As we learned in Massachusetts, Mr. Romney will say anything to win. Did he lie to us when he told us over and again what a strong supporter he was of women's and gay rights and gun control? Or is he lying to the people of Iowa and the Nation with his transparent and politically self-serving "conversions". I'm not opposed to wealth, but he wreaks of it and its entitlements. He and his family--he brought them into this discussion, not us--seem like something out of the Stepford Wives.

Mike Huckabee has indicated that his religion is above his politics, and would not mind having a state-sponsored religion, namely baptist. This seems to be what a lot of evangelicals want. Also, he seems to feel that his religion requires him to help the poor and downtrodden and he doesn't mind raising taxes to do that.

It seems that with Mike we would be voting more for a pastor-in-chief rather than for a president and one who has some rather socialistic economic views.

Low blow Northlite. Just because Romney has the family we all wish we had. Again, he did not change positions on gay rights, he has always opposed gay marriage, and has always opposed federal discrimination against gays, a position I find myself and most other christians in. He didn't bribe anyone at that Straw Poll, any more than any other person there did. He just had the money. If any others had had the money, they would've done the same. He is a supporter of women's rights! When was he not?

Most people in MA that stopped liking Romney forget why they put him in in the first place: 3 billion deficit. And he solved it, didn't raise taxes, raised extra money, and kept his campaign promises from start to finish.

Friend, your post was ill-informed, and not thoughtful. If you don't like him, that's fine, but keep the level of conversation higher. It's like telling someone they're ugly and their mother dresses them funny.

By the way, it's reeks, not wreaks. Wreak is like, wreak havoc. Reeks is smells.

Concerning Charles Bates's comments , insult is always a poor substitute for reasoned argument . If he is denying that Romney believes that Jesus and the Devil are brothers then he is either ignorant or being dishonest . May I suggest he speaks to the next Mormon Missionary he meets - after all Romney himself was one or he could consult the Mormon hymn O My Father , which speaks about a Heavenly Mother or the Mormon hymn If I Could Hie To Kolob , which refers to the star which has a planet nearby which man is supposed to originate [see also the Mormon scripture The Pearl of Great Price ]

I make the observation again - the apologists for Romney cry bigotry if Christians bypass Romney , but if the Mormons in Utah overwhelmingly support Romney and bypass the Christian Huckabee in their primary that is OK .

I am sorry but Romney and the Mormons have got to understand that we Christians find deeply offensive the view that Jesus is the Devil's brother.

And in any case in the light of Romney's remarks aboout Muslims in his cabinet and his absurd play on Obama's name who is playing the religion card ?

The key to understanding whether someone’s motives are based on religious bigotry, is in recognising the difference between casting a vote on doctrinal difference as apposed to a value based vote.

Values, whether derived from a candidate’s faith or some other place, directly affect their decisions in office. Doctrine on the other hand, whether it is doctrine “A” or doctrine “B”, don’t matter so much as long as they both lead to say … shared value “X”. Forgive the algebraic example.

It is fine if we want to not vote for a candidate because we disagree with there stance on something like gay marriage, abortion rights or even say fiscal policy. However, the moment we start voting based on whether someone does or does not believe the same things we believe or speak the same “language of Zion” that we speak, the flood gates will be opened for all sorts or religious scrutiny. And, don’t think the left isn’t going to have a hay day pursuing that line of fire.

We risk opening the doors to making it acceptable public discourse to judge candidate base solely on the tenants of there faith. Eliminating there validity as a candidate based on there religious denomination, doctrines, or the fact that they are crazy enough to believe in any of that religious mumbo jumbo.

The point is, values not doctrines are what really matters in public office and flirting with confusing the two will only come back to bite all people of faith.

In talking to people on the ground in Iowa, Huckabee is the clear favorite. I cannot seem to find a lot of people that Romney and especially find people that like him enthusiastically. Never underestimate momentum. Even more stunning is this recent poll out of Florida tonight:

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/11/new_ia_gop_poll_for_florida.html

Huckabee is now second to Giuliani in Florida. That is huge for a candidate who spent next to no time in the state. This could be the year that the Internet proves to be the most useful tool in organizing a campaign. Huckabee, like the Ron Paul folks, has really developed a great buzz by the massive amounts of communication centered around the Internet.

I am excited about the Huckabee surge in Iowa and nationally (3rd place in today's Rasmussen national tracking poll). I long ago concluded that he was the GOP's best candidate. However, as an evangelical (with no fondness for Mormon theology), I think when it comes to politics we need to be more tolerant of a candidate's differing religious views than some of the commenters on this blog are. If Mitt Romney had been more consistent in his views over time, I think I would be very impressed with him, regardless of his religion. I will still be pleased to support him if he wins the nomination. Evangelicals don't want others to marginalize us politically because of our faith, and we must not do that to others. As Gov. Huckabee has said, "Real faith makes us humble and mindful, not of the faults of others, but of our own."

Now with regard to Dr. J's assertion that Gov. Huckabee wants to make Baptist the state-sponsored religion, that's just silly. Huckabee's actual position is diametrically opposed: "The First Amendment requires that expressions of faith be neither prohibited nor preferred. We should not banish religion from the public square, but should guarantee access to all voices and views. We should share and debate our faith, but never seek to impose it." (Source: www.mikehuckabee.com)

Charles Bates wrote: Check your facts Satterlee, ask any member of the mormon faith and they will tell you that mormons do not in fact believe that all other faiths are drived from Satan ...

Really?

Joseph Smith asked, "What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the DEVIL, by which he deceives the whole world" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.270).

President Joseph Fielding Smith said: "There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth...no man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p.190).

Brigham Young stated: "no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith...every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.289).

Brigham Young also declared, "he that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fullness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is anti-christ" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p.312).

Bruce McConkie stated: "If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (Mormon Doctrine, p.670).

Brigham Young stated this repeatedly: "When the light came to me I saw that all the so-called Christian world was grovelling in darkness" (Journal of Discourses 5:73); "The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God" (Journal of Discourses 8:171); "With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world" (Journal of Discourses 8:199); "Should you ask why we differ from other Christians, as they are called, it is simply because they are not Christians as the New Testament defines Christianity" (Journal of Discourses 10:230).

Orson Pratt proclaimed: "Any person who shall be so corrupt as to receive a holy ordinance of the Gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent" (The Seer, p. 255).

President Joseph Fielding Smith said: "For hundreds of years the world was wrapped in a veil of spiritual darkness, until there was not one fundamental truth belonging to the place of salvation ...Joseph Smith declared that in the year 1820 the Lord revealed to him that all the 'Christian' churches were in error, teaching for commandments the doctrines of men" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, p.282).

More recent statements by apostle Bruce McConkie are also very clear: "Apostasy was universal...And this darkness still prevails except among those who have come to a knowledge of the restored gospel" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol 3, p.265); "a perverted Christianity holds sway among the so-called Christians of apostate Christendom" (Mormon Doctrine, p.132); "virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ whom they vainly suppose to be a spirit essence who is incorporeal uncreated, immaterial and three-in-one with the Father and Holy Spirit" (Mormon Doctrine, p.269)

President George Q. Cannon said: "After the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were only two churches upon the earth. They were known respectively as the Church of the Lamb of God and Babylon. The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christendom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common origin. They all belong to Babylon" (Gospel Truth, p.324).

President Wilford Woodruff stated: "the Gospel of modern Christendom shuts up the Lord, and stops all communication with Him. I want nothing to do with such a Gospel."(Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p.196).
Charles Bates further wrote: or any of the other many falsehoods circulated by preachers and pastors of many denominations who are willing to say anything to keep people from leaving their congregation. Although you really can't blame them, those congregations are how they support themselves, even though the Bible forbids it.

"The Bible forbids it?" Obviously you have never read the entire Bible. But then why should you? Your leaders in Salt Lake strongly imply that it has been so often corrupted by mistranslation there is little to be gained from reading it. Why do they tell you this? Because if you actually read it you would see that what the LDS church teaches on this and other matters is simply untrue. As a "for instance" let's take your false statement that the Bible forbids ministers from making their living serving the spiritual needs of their congregations.

Paul's words in 1 Cor. 9:3-12 deal very directly with this subject. There we read, "This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. Don't we have the right to food and drink? Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas? Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living? Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its grapes? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk? Do I say this merely from a human point of view? Doesn't the Law say the same thing? For it is written in the Law of Moses: 'Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.' Is it about oxen that God is concerned? Surely he says this for us, doesn't he? Yes, this was written for us, because when the plowman plows and the thresher threshes, they ought to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? If others have this right of support from you, shouldn't we have it all the more?"

Now pay very close attention to Paul's words in verses 13 and 14. "Don't you know that those who work in the temple get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered on the altar? In the same way, the Lord has commanded that those who preach the gospel should receive their living from the gospel."

Also consider the fact that the hightest leaders of your church are compensated for their service to the Church, just as full-time non-LDS clergy are compensated for their service to their congregations. The LDS Church clearly employs a double-standard on this issue. The LDS Church teaches that a paid clergy is wrong, yet the LDS Prophet and Apostles are paid a salary. Why is it acceptable for LDS leaders to be paid but wrong for Protestant clergy to be given a salary?

You wrote: It all goes back to the old saying, you don't go to a ford dealer to ask about chevys, so why would you do the same with religion?

Because I have found that when it comes to the members of some religions, they actually know very little about some of their own church's more contoversial teachings and history. For their leaders have in tried their best to hide both from their members by "sanitizing" church teachings and church history and strongly advising their members not to read anything about either which is written by others.

Mr. Satterlee,
Take your comments elsewhere. That was offensive.

As a Democrat, I have some distance on Republican candidates. I think many Republicans overestimate Giuliani's electability - he has a lot of baggage, especially when the NYC firefighters start running ads against him.

Huckabee is the strongest candidate the Repblicans have for the general election. He is articulate and a good campaigner (an underrated ability); he appeals to conservative evangelical voters, a large portion of whom will stay home if Giuliani is nominated; he has a powerful populist message, including calling the Club for Growth the "Club for Greed" - Norquist's people have a lot of money but have insignificant votes. Huckabee also has a compelling message on health care, after his own weight loss.

Whether Huckabee can actually win the Republican nomination I don't know, but he has done more with less than any of his opponents. Finally, the media narrative is extremely important. So far, the mass media have largely ignored Huckabee, but if he wins Iowa he will become the media darling: the David who beat two Goliaths. He has a good shot at the nomination and is perhaps the most worrisome opponent for Clinton or Obama in the general.

I have been telling people, Huckabee is not only electable, he is the best situated to beat Hillary in the General Election. Now the numbers are in to prove it. Huckabee beats Clintion by the widest margin: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews2.dbm?ID=1393
Huckabee is polling 2nd in Iowa and Florida, and 3rd nationally 1-point behind Romney.

Donate now and help defeat Hillary Clinton:
http://tinyurl.com/2jjrbn

Concerning Layne Pitcher's remarks - values do not exist in a vacuum , the reason why I am opposed to abortion and same sex unions is the same reason that I am opposed to the notion that Jesus is the Devil's brother or that Black people are cursed because of the colour of their skin [Romney's view in the 1970s ], namely because of my understanding of the Bible - because I am a Christian.

Morality and ethics etc are defined by God not by man . An atheist has a value system rooted presumably in what he thinks is superior in man , a Muslim defines his values by the Koran etc .

Mitt Romney has frequently alluded to the fact that America needs a President to be a man of faith - fine so dont cry foul when his faith comes under scrutiny .

By the way for the benefit of those who view this blog I have many Mormon friends who I love dearly and desire greatly that one day they will become Christian and know the true Jesus

If you are against abortion and against same-sex marriage, but also would like changing position on the same issues every election, Romney is your candidate.

If you are against abortion publicly while privately make money helping those who kill babies, then you should vote for Thompson.

If you want illegal immigrants take one-quarter of all blue-collar jobs over night, then McCain is your man.

If you want your children to smoke drugs publicly and legally, then vote for Ron Paul.

I think a Romney-Huck ticket would be a monster.

Regarding Iowa, anything but a Romney win would be devastating to his plan. He's spent SO much money, and it would be sort of a repudiation of his message to have this guy who had NO money to come out of nowhere and take first place.

You can't spin that.

GO HUCK!

Romney and Giuliani are the only games in town. The rest of the R's are background noise that will fade away by February. Huckabee is a one state side-show. Romney is poised to win Iowa. I don't care if it is by 4 points or 14, I would take a win any day. Huckabee is taking away points from Thompson, who was the last great social conservative hope. Thompson is a goner -- which is a shame, since he is the more consistent conservative (too bad he's so lethargic!).

Come Super Tuesday, it will be Mitt and Rudy and it's anybody's guess who will win it there. As much as I don't like Rudy's social positions, at least he is strong on economic and fiscal issues (not 1/10th of Romney, but still good).

Huckabee is a fiscal disaster waiting to happen.

Finally, about Mitt's Mormonism -- you can debate it all you want BUT doing so is a waste of time. On a non-political note, I must address, Michael Satterlee's string of quotes from apparently Mormon leaders, I don't find them to be much different than quotes from leaders (especially founding generation leaders) of any other Christian denomination about the fate of non-believers (or, if you know your history outside of Mormonism, what other 19th century religious leaders said about followers of other Christian sects or denominations -- they all condemned eachother to hell: Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics, etc.). The reason different sects exist is because each sect's founders believed they found the way to heaven that the other sects were missing. What does that have to do with the fact that Mitt Romney is an extremely capable leader? Nothing. I hope Mitt wins just to make people see that trying to make a big deal about his religion is about as silly as making a big deal about JFK's religion was 47 YEARS AGO. GROW UP AMERICA! Besides that, Mitt Romney is the best leader of the bunch. We need leadership now.

Latest Florida CNN/Opinion Poll research 11/27/07 4 p.m. If election were held today;

Giuliani 26%, Romney 17%, McCain 14, Huckabee 12%, Thompson 7%, Paul 4%.

Romney is up 6 points in FLA since September. Go Mitt, Go! Kick some wagon train dirt in their eyes tonight in St. Petersburg.

On to Iowa, and victory!

Concerning Christian in NY'S comment about Romney showing leadership . Did Romney show leadership in the following and what sort

1 What was Romney saying and doing in the 1970s when there were protests in Salt Lake and Provo [Romney's university town ] concerning the Mormon organisation's awful views on race ?
2 Did Romney object when the Mormons started baptizing dead Jewish holacaust victims ?
3 What sort of leadership did Romney adopt on abortion when he stood for Governor of Mass?
4 What sort of leadership did Romney adopt on homosexuality and same sex unions when he stood for Governor of Mass?

Is not voting for Romney only because he is a Mormon bigotry?

Is not voting for Obama only because he is black bigotry?

Is not voting for Clinton 46 because she is a womn bigotry?

Find another decent reason to not vote for them so you can hide your bigotry. You and your conscience will be the only ones who know if you keep quiet about it and don't don your white sheets.

"One person alot of individuals are ignoring is McCain "

Good reasons:

Reason #1: immigration. McCain is from Arizona and what he did is unforgivable. He stabbed his own state in the back.

Reason #2: age.

Reason #3: he is a media wh*re that spent the last 8 years kissing the MSM b*tts and bad mouthing the President to get on TV in order to keep his name in front of the public. The MSM loves RINOs and uses them. Now he is Mr Big Time Conservative Republican. Bull droppings.

Reason #4: can we really respect a man who blatantly uses his honorably, even heroic, military service to further his political aspirations?

Romney and Gulliani are going to beat each other up really bad. Both have enough cash to last the long haul but I do not see either of their support as being strong. The question becomes whether Huckabee can be the "conservative candidate". Social conservatives may rally around Huckabee but Fiscal Conservatives detest him (or will once they see his track record in Arkansas). McCain may have a resurgence as the "conservative candidate" if Thompson falls apart (a fourth place finish in Iowa and a 5th or lower finish in NH will eliminate Thompson).

Iowa could eliminate thompson with a dismal showing. If romney comes in second, it would be a crushing blow.

What is more interesting is the dynamics of NH. If Obama or Edwards wins Iowa, many independents will vote in the democratic primary. If clinton wins by a healthy margins, I think those independents will vote in the republican primary. The more independents that vote in the republican primary will give McCain a big boost in NH.

Gov Romney position on abortion seems difficult to understand. I understand his position this way:

As an individual he apparently abhors abortion and always has.

As a public official sworn to uphold the law he has had to support laws that permit women to have abortions and had to say he would.

If my understanding is correct then I have no problem with Romney vis-a-via the abortion issue.

How does this square with what Romney actually did in MA when opportunities to oppose pro-abortion and related (like parental notification) issues were presented to him?

His actions must have made some pro-life people happy because Massachusetts Citizens For Life Executive Director Marie Sturgis said "Having Governor Romney in the corner office for the last four years has been one of the strongest assets the pro-life movement has had in Massachusetts." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, National Review, 1/10/07)

Romney has not hurt the anti-abortion movement as some of the other candidates have.

Mad Jayhawk

I disagree with your immigration take. Living in Phoenix, Immigration reform is a must. I believe he needs to revise his position to secure the borders first but he has a pretty good handle on what's needed for our state.

As for Age, you may be right on this one.

McCain has always been a conservative republican, he just didn't always follow bush's marching orders. That's why the independents like him.

Whether you like it or not, he has courage and served this country with honor. That is part of his resume and he should be proud. Military service is nothing to be ashamed of and I would hope that most americans agree. I know alot of veterans that find military service an important part when deciding who to vote for and I believe, he is the only canidate out there with military service.

Huckabee didn't raise taxes. Only the legislature, propositions, and initiatives can do that in a State. He signed into law the will of the people. If 80% of the people want to raise taxes to improve the roads, he'd better sign the darn thing.

Huckabee is a uniter. He doesn't care about Romney's faith. He cares that Romney says he's a conservative, but only recently changes his views on issues that define social conservatism.

If you actually read your Bible once in a while, you'll see Huckabee's opinions on healthcare, schools, illegal aliens, and the environment aren't wacko, they are Christian views.

Please tell me what Romney is going to do to all the millions of criminal illegals running around. What is his solution? Catch them, and what?

Why is Fred Thompson loosing so much traction? Because he's never run anything in his life. At least Romney was a buisness man and Governor. Huckabee was the leader of a church, which is sometimes like a small buisness, and a Governor, for 10 + years. How did he get re-elected in a 60% democratic state so many times? If you want someone to beat Hilary, think about why Huckabee is beating her by such a wide margin.

I'm tired of hearing a vote for Huckabee is a vote for Guiliani. What about McCain, and Thompson. If Thompson were to drop out today, do you really think all his Conservatist votes would go to Romney? No way. Every vote Thompson's been loosing for the past 2 months, have been all the votes Huckabee's been gaining. Thompson drops out, and now Huck's tied with Guiliani, and a vote for Romney is a vote for Guiliani.

Romney's religion does matter. I know what Mormons believe in. They tell me all the time. Most of the things are great and wonderful. Some I feel makes them look like an accult. How can we vote for someone that believes with all his heart such things.

Money always comes up. Do we really want a rich guy, who was born with a silver spoon represent the middle and lower classes of our country. No way. Romney did earn anything, he bought it all. He's not going to buy the Presidency. There are too many of us in the middle class who are tired of rich people telling us all how we should act and vote.

Remember Ross Perot's famous comment about Bill Clinton's experience as governor of Arkansas, a beautiful state with wonderful people: Being governor of Arkansas is similar to managing a Wal-mart?

Gov Huckabee (and his wife) had a lot of problems in Arkansas that are going to come back and haunt him. He is pretty glib about deflecting questions about his ethical lapses, but he will get nailed sooner or later.

Some people will look at his degree from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and years of trying to get people saved as a job as a plus when they look at his presidential candidate resume. Myself, I think I had rather my kid go to Southwestern than to Harvard in a way.

"Whether you like it or not, he has courage and served this country with honor."

Totally agree, but...

In my opinion, I think that he uses his service to further his political career.

I can appreciate his service to our country and disrespect his almost flaunting it everywhere he goes. Kerry did the same thing. Most people do not know my personal military history because I don't talk about it, wear hats or other military paraphernalia or call attention to myself at every opportunity. I resent those who do. They are not better than the rest of us grunts who did what we were asked to do, sometimes at great sacrifice.

Mad Jayhawk asked: Is not voting for Obama only because he is black bigotry?

I say, yes it is.

Mad Jayhawk asked: Is not voting for Clinton 46 because she is a woman bigotry?

I say, yes it is.

Mad Jayhawk asked: Is not voting for Romney only because he is a Mormon bigotry?

I say, no it's not. Because a person has no control over their race and gender, and neither of these things can tell us anything about their character or their good judgment. But a person does have control over their choice of religion. And I believe their choice in this matter can tell us a lot about both their character and their good judgment, or lack thereof.

It seems to me Romney is just about right at this point. Huckabee isn't really going anywhere, and Giuliani is pretty much blown out of Iowa water. It'll all come together for him is my bet. He doesn't need the nomination by a landslide, just by enough. He for sure is a long way from the "stick a fork in 'em" posts of several months ago. I want more bang for my tax dollar go ROMNEY

Why do we have so many different Christian religions and different interpretations of the Bible?

If God created us, who created Satan?

What would have happened to us if there was no sin and no Satan?

I think it would be better to select a leader with leadership, familiy values, experience, and sincerity. The only person with all that is MITT ROMNEY!!!

I like Romney or Rudy. I am looking forward to them duking it out and will fully support the winner. On a side note... I am definitely not voting for whomever Satterlee is voting for hahahaha. I dont think Stephen King could come up with a better whack-job... you're killin me dude!

Jared,

"whack-job"? Have you studied the nutty teachings of the Mormon church? Here's a free sample. According to Mormons, the God of our planet lives on some far off planet orbiting the star "Kolob", who himself worships a God who lives on another planet, who himself worships a God who lives on another planet .... etc., etc., etc. .....

I believe that only a fool could believe such foolishness. I don't want a fool running the U.S. government.

When will you people ever learn?

Ignore all the pollsters (especially those paid for by the MSM) and pay attention to Rasmussen.

Rasmussen's most recent Iowa poll showed Romney ahead by 16 points. Zogby (less reliable) showed him ahead by 13 points. Then we get the NYTimes and WaPo showing it so close?

Now think about it, NYTImes and WPo never paid for a poll that didn't support their agenda. Why are they afraid of Romney?

Anyway, Rasmussen comes out with a new Iowa Poll today. Pay attention. If he shows Romney and Huckabee tied or close, I'll believe it, untl then, its all liberal spin to me.

That is pretty crazy!!! It's right up there with believing that God intentionally created billions of people so he could watch them Burn in Hell forever. Oh, wait, they didn't teach you that in your seminary. Well think about it; IF God created each of us, AND God is omnipotent, or "all powerful," AND God is omniscient, or "all-knowing," AND anyone who does not have faith in God will burn in Hell forever, THEN, we can conclude that God's intention was to create billions of people for the purpose of burning in hell.

So when God created Mitt, he said to himself (according to Rev. Satterlee), "Mitt's not going to believe in me, so if I create him, I'll need to burn him in hell forever. Hmmm, should I or not? Oh, what the hell (no pun intended) I might as well. After all, I am a _________God ." Here you would need to insert whatever makes sense to you as to why God would actually want to create someone to burn in hell. I believe according to Satterlee it would be "Loving." What the hell kind of weird love is that? And don't say it's "just" instead, because, after all, God did create Mitt, whom He knew all along would not believe.

Honestly, its people like Satterlee that make me scared to think of what would happen if a seemingly nice, smart guy like Huck were elected. Why can't people just accept that all religions require faith? That faith is what covers the holes in the logical analysis.

All you people who think that you could not vote for Mitt because he believes in a "weird" religion, think for a minute what earths inhabitants would look like to a couple of aliens who were studying religious actions by earthlings.

Well, you've got a bunch of people who routinely drink wine to remember the blood of their dead God. Some of those folks believe that it actually becomes real blood (even though it doesn't change texture or taste) when it enters their mouth. You've got a bunch of people who are compelled to not eat at diverse times of the day/month/year in order to become closer to their God whom they have never seen or heard. Those who do eat probably wont eat certain perfectly healthy and nourishing foods because God says not to. Almost everyone claims some authority from an inanimate object (convenient), usually a book.

I'm sure you get the picture. Next time you call Mitt's, or any other religion weird, take a look in the mirror, and act like you are an outsider and see how weird your own religion would be if you didn't believe in it.

Romney is the best thing that's happened to the republican party in years. He is experienced, articulate, charismatic and has a proven record. His moral values are outstanding. The obvious reason he is not the overwhelming front-runner is religious bigotry, which is still alive and well in this country.

Huckabee = Black Oak Arkansas

i.e. a flash in the pan

Ok - for those of you that did not get that joke, I will explain. He comes on strong at first, with some catchy riffs, but once you give the whole album a listen it's clear that there are some weaker tracks.

As nice a story as Mike is right now, he doesn't have the whole package to go the distance on a national tour.

Just don't get it,

The answer to your primary question is "free will."

Because "God is love" He wanted to create people whom He could have a loving relationship with. But since true love can be neither forced nor programmed, in order to have loving relationships with us, God had to create us with free will. Free to choose to love God and His ways or to not love God and His ways. In other words, free to do both right and wrong, free to do both good and evil.

Like most parents God rewards good behavior, punishes bad behavior, and is willing to forgive the bad behavior of any of His children who ask for it and show him that they are truly sorry for that bad behavior. That being the case, if someone does not end up receiving God's greatest reward and instead spends eternity outside of heaven, I do not see how you can blame God for that.

So far as all religions teaching things that are hard to believe, that is certainly true. But what causes me to question Romney's judgment is his failure to see that the teachings of his church flat out contradict the Bible which they claim to honor. I admit that some of what I believe cannot be scientifically proven to be true. Jesus being raised from the dead for instance. But neither can anything I believe be scientifically proven to be untrue, since I do not understand all parts of the Bible literally. But the very foundation of all Mormon teachings has been proven to be untrue, that 2,000 years ago North America was widely inhabited by Israelites living in highly developed civilizations. No remains of any such civilizations have ever been found. And DNA studies prove that American Indians are not descended from any of Israel's tribes, "lost" or otherwise.

These things being so, again I have to question Romney's powers of good judgment since he has so gullibly accepted the demonstrably false teachings of the Mormon church.

November 28, 2007
IA Poll: Huckabee Leads
Well, it's finally happened: we have our first poll showing Mike Huckabee overtaking Mitt Romney for the lead in Iowa. Rasmussen has the goods (Nov 26-27, 839 GOP LV, MoE +/- 3.5%):

Huckabee 28 (+12 vs. last poll Nov 12)
Romney 25 (-4)
Giuliani 12 (-3)
Thompson 11 (-3)
Paul 5 (+1)
McCain 4 (-2)

The logic of Michael Satterlee and Andrew Price, if adopted on a widespread basis, would launch our republic into the downward spiral of sectarian turmoil. I have no problem with their fervent disagreement with Mormon theology, even if they are not entirely honest in their characterizations of that theology. However, I take issue with their conclusion that Mormon theology disqualifies Mitt Romney to serve in public office.

Satterlee and Price never explain how Mitt Romney's acceptance of particular religious doctrines would have any impact on his execution of the duties of the office of the presidency. Examine the supposed belief that Satan and Jesus are brothers. Mormons believe that all humanity were created as spirits by God the Father before mortality. Mormons believe that those spirit children included Jesus as well as Lucifer. This theology indicates that Jesus, Lucifer and all of humanity were spiritually begotten of God and given the freedom to choose whether or not to follow God, and that Lucifer chose not to follow God. Mormons believe that Lucifer rebelled against God and was cast out of heaven to become Satan. Thus, Mormon theology includes a narrative to explain the origin and reality of Satan, which indicates that from the beginning, Satan has been diametrically opposed to the Father and the Son. In their effort to cast aspersions on Mormon theology, Satterlee and Price misleadingly truncate this narrative to suggest that Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are somehow in league with one another because they are brothers.

With that explanation, the question follows: What relevance does that theological belief have to secular governance? Absolutely none. Thus, the logic of Satterlee and Price vainly attempts to draw secular, political conclusions from theological premises. By including an Article that forbids a religious test for public office, our Constitution repudiates such logic as being anathema to our political culture.

History and current events clearly expose the serious hazards inherent in using irrelevant theological differences as a basis for making political decisions. Like it or not, we are all citizens of this republic and that is our common bond and heritage. Our republic is designed to afford all of us the right to participate in its governance. The logic of Satterlee and Price dictates that certain citizens should be excluded from full participation in public affairs because those citizens embrace a theology that differs from the theology to which Satterlee and Price subscribe. To adopt such logic leads us down a very perilous path that endangers every one of us. Thus, participation in civic and political affairs requires that we set aside our theological differences that have no relevance to governance for the common good.

That being said, if there is a clear connection between Mormon teachings and public governance, that connection should be legitimately explored and used as a basis for making political decisions. In that regard, it might interest some to know that Mormon teachings include very specific principles about the relationship between religion and government. For instance, the Mormon canon includes the following statement of belief regarding governments.

1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

3 We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective bgovernments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

6 We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men show crespect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker.

7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.

8 We believe that the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offense; that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed; and for the public peace and tranquility all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment.

9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

Consider as well the Mormon's 11th Article of Faith, which states:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

It seems to me that if we want to debate the novelty of a Mormon candidate for office, we'd be much better served in exploring the Mormon teachings on political and civic culture rather than delving into theological trivialities that have no bearing on public governance. I safely venture to say that neither Satterlee nor Price nor those sympathetic to their dislike of Mormon theology can show that Mitt Romney's belief about the origin of Satan or the requisites for salvation have impacted his public service to date. Rather, an examination of his record as Governor of Massachusetts will demonstrate that he has consistently governed in accordance with conservative values regarding the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, the sanctity of family, the sanctity of the free exercise of religion, the sanctity of private property, and the importance of personal responsibility.

Since Huckabee and Romney both have records of public service, I think we'd be much better served by examining the differences reflected in their respective records than dwelling on the irrelevant distinctions between their respective theologies.

But alas, perhaps Satterlee and Price know that such a comparison of records will find Huckabee wanting in terms of conservative credentials.

Dan Gus wrote: Satterlee and Price never explain how Mitt Romney's acceptance of particular religious doctrines would have any impact on his execution of the duties of the office of the presidency.

As I wrote earlier: The very foundation of all Mormon teachings has been proven to be untrue, that 2,000 years ago North America was widely inhabited by Israelites living in highly developed civilizations. No remains of any such civilizations have ever been found. And DNA studies prove that American Indians are not descended from any of Israel's tribes, "lost" or otherwise. These things being so, again I have to question Romney's powers of good judgment since he has so gullibly accepted the demonstrably false teachings of the Mormon church.

In other words, since Mitt Romney has allowed himself to be duped by the con men who have long run the LDS church, I think his judgment cannot be trusted in some other very important matters, such as negotiating nuclear arms treaties with this country's enemies.

Of course this is not the only reason that people are having a hard time trusting Mitt Romney (he now trails Huckabee in Iowa). His back and forth flip-flopping for political expediency on important issues such as the sanctity of life and gay rights show him to be a person of highly questionable integrity.

Poor Poor Mr. Satterlee, once again you are grossly misinformed. Your so called "DNA proof" is nothing but a hoax. The man who "discovered" this "proof" is named Thomas W. Murphy, and he is a professor at a small community college, not some recognized DNA specialist. In fact Professor Murphy is a professor in Anthropology, which the official definition is "the study of humans from the point of view of culture." Which is obviously a far stretch at best being connected to DNA reasearch. Even ignoring the fact that Murphy has no credentials to make DNA "theories" every REAL DNA scientist has denounced Murphy's "discovery" simply because it's a known fact that DNA science CANNOT prove such ancestry either way without a common ancestor for both groups to compare to. Such a common ancestor would be someone like Jacob, or Abraham, but since no such DNA exists, Murphy's "theory" CANNOT be proven either way. This is the same reason that modern Jews living in Europe cannot be linked through DNA to those in Jerusalem. Or vice versa. Why? Because it cannot be done without a common ancestor, it is just impossible with current DNA science. Now, putting all this aside Mr. Satterlee, this thread started out being about politics, and that's where it should stay. It's obvious to everyone here that you are so full of hate and contempt for anyone not of your particular denomination that you are more than willing to argue contentiously probably till your dying breath. So my suggestion to you is to take your hateful and biased religious comments to blogs made for such things, God knows that there are plenty out there for people just like you who take joy and pleasure out of destroying other people's faith. And just as a side note, don't judge people you don't know, you assume i know little about my faith, but in fact i don't need to ask the next mormon missionary i see. I was one, and for two years i spent almost every waking moment defending myself and my religion and faith from bigots like you. And sadly i still have to do it today. And since i'm sure that no matter what i or anyone else says won't deter you in your quest for religous persecution, this will be my last post on this blog. I'm going to go find one that hasn't been tainted by hate yet. Post whatever rebuttal you wish, i won't see it, as most people who have already left this blog because it has been ruined. All said and done, i do have respect for you Mr. Satterlee, you have great tenacity in your faith, and that certainly is admirable, but my only suggestion for you as a fellow believer in Christ is to let go of your hate, live your faith as best as you can. Concentrate on the attributes of love and humility, trust me, you'll be much happier. By the way, Dan Gus, your the man!

Charles Bates wrote: Your so called "DNA proof" is nothing but a hoax. The man who "discovered" this "proof" is named Thomas W. Murphy, and he is a professor at a small community college, not some recognized DNA specialist.

Rubbish. The experts who tell us that DNA disproves the Book of Mormon are numerous.

Readers of this blog can judge for themselves. Do a Google search. Or just watch this video. If you dare. Or just run away from this discussion and hide your head in the sand like Charles Bates.

DNA vs. The Book of Mormon

http://www.lhvm.org/vid_dna_med.htm

Andrew Price, what is your real objective for posting on these boards? Maybe this article will shed some light.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/01/nmorm01.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/12/01/ixhome.html

Seems like Michael Satterlee is of the same cloth.

In England, "Judge tells ranting preacher to stop abusing Mormons"

read the article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/01/nmorm01.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/12/01/ixhome.html


Looks like we need to add Michael Satterlee's name next to Andrew's.

I've been a strong proponent of the early Iowa Caucus and New Hampshire Primary, as I've observed time and again how studious and sober the voters are in these two states. They truly spend the time studying the issues and the candidates to make an informed first decision. Their positions in the early primary season has historically been very well deserved as bellwethers of what's to come.

That said, I'm increasingly disappointed in the apparent lack of scrutiny of Mike Huckabee in Iowa. Please take a close look at this man's record and stop fueling the media love fest that is inflating his poll numbers. I trust you, my friends in Iowa, to see through this smoke screen and allow sanity to prevail.

If not, rest assured that the Iowa Caucus will be further marginalized as was the Iowa Straw Poll earlier this year when Guliani and McCain forfeited. Your fate is in your hands. It's up to you whether you remain relevant.

Debrar,

Nice to see you again. You might enjoy viewing this video entitled "DNA vs. The Book of Mormon". http://www.lhvm.org/vid_dna_med.htm
It's basically a series of interviews with several Mormon scientists.

PollZealot,

The Iowa Straw Poll was marginalized earlier this year, not just because some big names chose not to compete, but because Mitt Romney was the only competitor who could afford to spend millions of his own money on TV ads. He was also the only one who could afford to pay the $35.00 participation fee for anyone who promised to vote for him, and the only one who could afford to pay for his supporters' transportation to the event, and the only one who could afford to buy them all a couple of nice meals. The Iowa Straw Poll was marginalized earlier this year largely because the results were bought and paid for by Mitt Romney.

The caucuses will be different. Now everyone will be competing. Now everyone will be running ads. Now there will be no $35.00 charge to participate. Now people don't have to buy a bus ticket to Ames (or have Romney buy one for them) to participate. They can do so locally. Now Romney is in big trouble. Romney will not be able to buy victory in the caucuses like he did in the straw poll. This time around he can again spend millions in advertising but doing so will not stop people from seeing him to be the typical "say anything to get elected" politician that he is.

Mr. Satterlee's only connection between Mr. Romney's theological beliefs and public governance is that belief in Mormon theology indicates a certain gullibility which raises questions about Romney's political judgment. Of course, this is the most tenuous of connections that experience disproves. Moreover, it is an argument which can easily be wielded against those of any faith. Speaking to the latter issue first, there are many that say it is gullible to believe in many of the traditions and stories of Judeo-Christian heritage. Should we disqualify from public office those that believe in the creation of the world in six days, the creation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden as the origin of humanity, the worldwide flood in which humanity and animal life were preserved by a 600 year old man who built a giant boat to hold at least two of every species, the parting of the Red Sea, the story of Elijah and the priests of Baal, the story of the Son of God being borne of a young virgin, Christ's healing of lepers and the blind, Christ's raising of Lazarus from the dead, and even Christ's own resurrection from the dead. For every Michael Satterlee who thinks Mitt Romney is gullible for believing in the Book of Mormon, there are ten others who think Michael Satterlee is gullible for believing in core Jude-Christian traditions. So let's be very careful in using belief in religious tenets and traditions as a basis for disqualification from public office.

But to the primary point of Mitt Romney. Where is the demonstrated lack of judgment reflected in his life because of his religious views with which Satterlee disagrees? A gullible dupe does not graduate as valedictorian of his college class, or graduate with top honors in a joint degree program of Harvard's law school and business school, or get hired by one of the top consulting companies in the country and rise to a position of prominence within that company before launching one of the most successful venture capital firms in the United States. A gullible dupe does not get called upon to rescue a foundering Olympics and restore it to financial solid footing when others are calling for its cancellation due to terror attacks on 9-11. A gullible dupe does not get elected as a Republican in a heavily Democratic state and then turn around that state's fiscal woes by cutting spending and rejecting tax increases. A gullible dupe does not spearhead the creation of a free-market approach to increasing the availability and affordability of health insurance of a state's citizenry. A gullible dupe does not work tirelessly to force a democratically controlled legislature to address measures to potentially reverse a court-imposed gay marriage regime. A gullible dupe does not in one year raise millions of dollars and mobilize thousands of activists and supporters in a campaign to become a leading presidential contender despite the lack of any widespread name recognition just mere months ago.

If all those accomplishments stem from "gullible" acceptance of Mormonism, then sign me up!

I'll tell you what is gullible. It is gullible to believe that there is nothing to the multiple ethics censures that Mike Huckabee received while Governor of Arkansas. It is gullible to believe that Mike Huckabee's wish to impose a 20+ percentage national sales tax is going to be good for taxpayers. It is gullible to believe that Mike Huckabee's history of begging the Arkansas Legislature for tax increases will not be repeated on the national level if he were to become president. It is gullible to believe that Mike Huckabee's soft spot for illegal immigrants while governor of Arkansas will yield to sound immigration policy if he were to be elected president. It is gullible to believe that Mike Huckabee's penchant for expansion of government programs while governor of Arkansas will give way to fiscal restraint if he were to become president. It is gullible to believe that Mike Huckabee will apply conservative principles to our health care dilemmas when he criticized President Bush's veto of the Democrat's latest push for socialized medicine through expansion of the S-CHIP program. It is gullible to believe that, given Mike Huckabee's proven record of big-government liberalism, he is the consistent conservative that he claims to be in his latest TV spots in Iowa.

If gullibility is such a sin, then please do not compound the sin by embracing Huckabee as a consistent conservative. That is the ulimate in gullibility. It is truly sad to see the Michael Satterlees of the Republican Party (if he truly is a Republican) straining over Mitt Romney's theological gnats while gullibly gulping down Mike Huckabee's herd of political camels.

Wow,...
Bigots here, bigots everywhere.
The message of Michael Saterlee who claimed to be a follower of Christ, as he pretends he is, but in reality, questionable, is the gospel of hate, bigotry and pride.

Based on what he's posting is an utter opposite of Christ's teachings.

If I were a Michael Saterlee, I'd rather shut up myself from exercising vainly my ego of bigotry.

Watch your words man. You make me sick.

If the world is full of Michael Saterlees', the world will be in chaos. And mankind will be in utter destruction.

@Michael Satterlee: Uhhh, John 14:6 much? Guess according to your definition, Jesus was a bigot towards everyone who wasn't a proper worshiper. Have fun with that.

Dan Gus wrote: gullibility ... is an argument which can easily be wielded against those of any faith. ... Should we disqualify from public office those that believe in the creation of the world in six days,

Since science strongly suggests that the creation of our universe did not take place during such a short period of time, I would question the good judgment of anyone who insisted that we must understand those "days" as literal 24 hour days.

Dan continued: the creation of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden as the origin of humanity,

Since science strongly suggests that the traditional understanding of God's creation of Adam and Eve cannot be a correct one, I would also question the good judgment of anyone who insisted that we must understand this part of the creation account in the traditional way.

Dan continued: the worldwide flood in which humanity and animal life were preserved by a 600 year old man who built a giant boat to hold at least two of every species,

Scientists have now proven that our earth has never been completely covered with water at any time since man has walked this earth. That being the case, I would also question the good judgment of anyone who insisted that we must understand the Bible's account of Noah's flood only in the way it is most often understood.

Dan continued: the parting of the Red Sea, the story of Elijah and the priests of Baal, the story of the Son of God being borne of a young virgin, Christ's healing of lepers and the blind, Christ's raising of Lazarus from the dead, and even Christ's own resurrection from the dead.

Science has not proven, and never can prove, that these miracles and various others recorded in the Bible did not happen. If an all-powerful God exists He is certainly capable of performing miracles. Now I suppose someone could say the same about the six "days" of creation as well as the traditional understandings of Adam and Eve and Noah's flood. God could have created the universe in six literal days, etc. It's really not a matter of what God could have done. It's a matter of what the scientific evidence shows us that He did do.

As I wrote earlier, I admit that some of what I believe cannot be scientifically proven to be true. Jesus being raised from the dead for instance. But neither can anything I believe be scientifically proven to be untrue, since I do not understand all parts of the Bible literally. But the very foundation of all Mormon teachings has been scientifically proven to be untrue, that 2,000 years ago North America was widely inhabited by Israelites living in highly developed civilizations. No remains of any such civilizations have ever been found. And DNA studies prove that American Indians are not descended from any of Israel's tribes, "lost" or otherwise.

That being the case, unless Mitt Romney can explain a reasonable way for us to understand the entire Book of Mormon in a non-literal way - which would put him at odds with his church and probably get him excommunicated for apostasy - I must continue to question Romney's powers of good judgment for his rejection of all of the scientific evidence that the Book of Mormon cannot be anything more than a work of fiction.

Satterlee

Get a life, you have wasted so much time (yours and others) go out and feed the hungry, visit the sick, clothe the naked, etc. here is a suggestion: try to scientifically prove why God created you. I'll help, oh wait science doesn't know everything. Its so you could be like his son.

May your soul find peace in the arms of our savior. There are far better things you and I should be doing than this.

G-Dub,

You wrote: There are far better things you and I should be doing than this.

I don't know about you, but I spend very little of my time on-line (far less than most people spend watching TV, which I don't do). I also spend a substantial amount of time in a Christian charity work.

You wrote: science doesn't know everything.

I have helped bring several skeptics to Christ by helping them to see that the Bible does not conflict with science. I consider the time I spent doing so to be time well spent.

You wrote: Get a life.

I wonder. When Mormon missionaries knock on your door, who are spending years of their lives trying to convince people who are already Bible believing Christians to change denominations, do you criticize them for spending too much of their time discussing spiritual matters? Do you tell them to "get a life"?

I just glanced over this blog and i am disgusted with what i see. Mr. Satterlee you are by and far the worst hypocrite, you claim you spend less time online than most people watch tv, but by the time stamps on this blog, you've been hovering over it for the past two days. Always ready for a response when someone disagrees with your very pointed views. I'm not here to argue doctrine with you, it's obvious that your too thickheaded to change even with overwhleming proof. I'm a firm believer in the gift of free agency, a gift from God. Let people make up their own minds and stop trying to brainwash them. Oh and by the way, i've known many members of the mormon faith, they are all wonderful people with high moral values, and i have one friend in particular who was a mormon missionary, and he told me all about what they do. This is where the difference is, when mormon missionaries go around talking to people, all they do is tell everyone about their own faith, and let people decide for themselves if they want to learn more, NEVER do they tear down others beliefs, or attack their faith. This is why you are a hypocrite, you claim to do the same thing, but in actuallity, all you do is maliciously attack others. What you should do is just share the message of your own beliefs, rather than tear down others. Remember the words of the saviour, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" No one likes to be attacked, why waste time attacking others. Because i'm sure your also aware of the teaching that "contention is of the devil" You will never convince people to come to your side of the fence, the scriptures are clear, only the spirit of the Lord can convert, and the spirit is not present when contention is. Take a step back, review your life, become a better person, and may God have mercy on your soul. You'll need it as will we all.

You say I have been attacking others. I have not. I have only been pointing out that I believe many teachings of the Mormon church are false and that they have recently been scientifically proven to be so. That is not a personal attack. I have never attacked or insulted anyone here personally as you have just repeatedly done so to me. First strongly implying that I am a liar when I say I usually spend very little time on line, then calling me "thickheaded" and a "hypocrite."

Others here have called me worse. I find that strange coming from members of "the only true church." Over the years I have had many discussions with atheists who have strongly questioned my belief that the Bible being God's word. Some of them have even been very insulting to me because of my firm belief. However, I never returned "evil for evil." Why? Because I never for one second felt threatened by their disbelief.

I guess that's most likely the difference.

For my faith in the God of the Bible is built on rock, not on sand. To begin with, I know that the places and people spoken of in the Bible really existed. Historians and archeologists have found strong evidence for the actual existence of nearly all them, and they are digging up more such evidence all the time. Quite unlike another book we have here discussed.

If someone was sure that I had been spending years of my life engaged in a pursuit that was based on totally inaccurate information and they let me know of their discovery, I hope my attitude would be one of appreciation for their help in saving me from wasting many more years of my life. But I understand why that is not always the attitude some have toward the bearer of such news. I'm sure it is sometimes very difficult and painful for some people to admit that they have been very wrong about something very important for a very long time and that they have just wasted many years of their life believing and promoting a lie. So difficult and painful in fact that they lash out at the bearer of that news and begin attacking him personally.

"You can't fake sincerity"????? Be careful not to be fooled

Disc jockey for president
Tuesday, Nov 27, 2007

By John Brummett

One of the national writers putting together a profile of Mike Huckabee asked how it might be that this preacher showed such an affinity for popular culture.

The Chuck Norris alliance, the tailgate party in South Carolina with the wrestler, the pardon for Keith Richards, the playing of bass guitar in a rock cover band offering Lynyrd Skynyrd - isn't all that out of character for a man from the Southern Baptist pulpit?

Actually, Huckabee was a radio man before he was a preacher and he has remained more decidedly a media man than a pulpit man.

His superficially likable nature, which provides the essence of his oddly succeeding presidential campaign, comes via a disc jockey's shtick rather than a pastor's. I refer to the rich intonations of his professional voice, the music, the hip topicality, the impersonations, the jokes, the Mr. Glib.

It can't be those radical policies. Outlawing abortion altogether, not merely leaving it to the states, is extreme. A national sales tax to replace the income tax is a gimmick, either scandalously regressive or entirely too difficult to design so that it wouldn't be. He barely scratches the surface on foreign policy with what got described over the weekend as "cheerful know-nothingness." He denies the better points of his record in Arkansas, since they're entirely too moderate for modern Republican primary voters.

His is wholly a candidate of personality, and, as such, is more Don Imus than Billy Graham.

Yes, Imus. Huckabee can be mean and inappropriate. It usually doesn't get revealed until the second impression. He's still making his first out there on the trail.

As a midteen, Huckabee found work, including some on-air, on a Hope radio station. Then he had one of those seminal religious moments. So he figured he'd apply his talents and interests to serve Jesus through Christian broadcasting.

That led him to the seminary, after which, almost by accident, he got preaching work in Pine Bluff, then Texarkana. In both towns, he supplemented the preaching with work for which he was better-suited and that he more enjoyed. That would be a local cable television show.

He attained the presidency of the Arkansas Baptist Convention not so much by conventional preaching as by the clever politics of making himself palatable both to fundamentalists and moderates. It was from there that he moved to secular politics.

When Huckabee was lieutenant governor, needing something to do in that pointless job, he accepted an invitation to substitute for a vacationing radio talk show host. He invited me to be his guest, mainly so he and his callers could berate me. He was fully at home and adept in the radio booth.

One day as he prepared to ascend to the governorship, Huckabee had a news conference. I was struck by his intimacy with the TV cameramen. He joshed with them authoritatively about their equipment, specifically about the comparative modernity of one station's gear versus another's.

Then the producer of his cable show in Texarkana, Gary Underwood, joined the governor's staff. Huckabee and Underwood transformed the governor's conference room into an audiovisual studio. They produced a slick, self-promotional cable television program that they distributed for use by ever-pliable local access channels.

As Huckabee prepared to become governor, he said one of his dreams was to do radio play-by-play for a Razorback football game. Naturally, as the new governor, he was obliged. He described a few downs, smoothly and ably, of course.

From time to time I've written an unoriginal but incisive line, which is that Huckabee is really running for his own show on Fox or MSNBC. I'm sticking with that.

But I'll admit there are moments lately when I wonder if he'll have to go through the motions of being the Republican presidential or vice presidential nominee first.

-------

John Brummett is a columnist for the Arkansas News Bureau in Little Rock. His e-mail address is jbrummett@arkansasnews.com; his telephone number is (501) 374-0699.

Some interesting new ARG data in Iowa:

56% of those saying they support Romney say their support is definite. 89% of those saying they support Huckabee say their support is definite.

In South Carolina, Huckabee has gone from 5 percent to 18 percent in a month. Romney has gone from 29 to 21 percent in the same period.

New Hampshire is critical to Romney now. But one gets the feeling that Mitt is sitting atop a NH souffle. If he loses Iowa, his support in NH could drop suddenly.

Stay tuned.

Romney should have a little pow-wow with Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul and make a deal with them for who the VP should be. They agree on a lot of issues, and the ones they split on will just garner more voters. It would work great. It seems like it should be everyone vs. RG in the primary by 80-20 and the national vote will be close, but a victory as long as edwards stays off the Dem nom.

Satterlee-

Can science prove that a virgin can give birth to the son of God? Or that he then resurrected and ascended from this planet? I could go on and on, By the way if you wanted to know if you were going down a path of deception, please inform us which path you are on. Where is the true church? Or are you unsure of the true church? Because I know that a lot of scientists go to different churches, why all the confusion?

Can't wait to hear your response.

G Dub,

You asked: Can science prove that a virgin can give birth to the son of God? Or that he then resurrected and ascended from this planet?

Of course not. I did not say that scientists can now prove that any of the miracles recorded in the Bible actually occurred.

What I said was that, allowing for the fact that God is certainly capable of performing some miracles, scientists cannot prove that any of the events recorded in the Bible did not take place. For there is nothing recorded in the Bible, when we understand that some parts of it were not meant to be understood literally, that scientifically proves the Bible to be a false.

To begin with, as I mentioned earlier, historians tell us that the places and people spoken of in the Bible really did exist. Archeologists have found strong evidence for the actual existence of nearly all of them, and they are digging up more such evidence all the time. Compare that to the BOM which historians, archeologists, and geneticists tell us they have proven to be a work of fiction from beginning to end. (There is absolutely no evidence that supports the historicity of any of the people, places, and events recorded in the BOM. And DNA studies prove that the native peoples of North and South America did not descend from the Israelites, as the BOM claims.)

You wrote: By the way if you wanted to know if you were going down a path of deception, please inform us which path you are on.

I follow Christ.

You asked: Where is the true church? Or are you unsure of the true church?

Before we can say where Christ's church is we have to understand what it is. The Bible uses the word "church" to refer to a group or "body" of people who have declared themselves to be Christ's followers. It uses the word "church" to refer to the body of believers who lived in a particular area and to refer to Jesus Christ's entire body of believers throughout the world.

Jesus said, "Wherever two or three are gathered together in my name there I will be in their midst." (Matt. 18:20) So Christ's "true church" - his only "church" - is all around us. The fact is some members of Christ's church, his entire body of believers, regularly worship God in "church" buildings which are owned by all Christian denominations, and some members of Christ's church choose to do so in none of them.

This is how the Bible uses the word "church." It is not, however, how the word "church" is most often used today. Today the word "church" is most often used to refer to a particular Christian denomination, which is actually only a small faction within Christ's church. Someone may say, "I belong to the Roman Catholic church." Or, "I belong to the Baptist Church." Or, "I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." Or, "I belong to the Unification church." Or, "I belong to the Presbyterian church."

Some who say they belong to something more than just "Christ's church" then go further. They say, "My church is the only true church." By saying this they mean that they believe members of their particular denomination are the only believers in Jesus Christ who Christ himself views as true Christians.

Those saying such a thing do so as a result of a misunderstanding of the Bible. Roman Catholics who say that their church is "the only true church" tell us that the authority which Christ gave his apostles never perished from the earth. They say that it was passed down by his apostles to younger men, who then passed it to yet other younger men, so that Christ's church ruled over by men with God given authority over the lives of other Christians has always existed on earth from the First Century until today. I'm sure you and I agree that the Bible teaches no such thing.

I believe you and I agree that Christ and his apostles prophesied that a large scale "apostasy" would take place within Christ's church after Christ and his apostles left this earth. Where we disagree is that Mormons, and some other denominations, teach that the Bible prophesied that some sort of restoration of apostolic authority would take place at some time many centuries after Christ and his apostles left this earth. Of course the denominations which say that the Bible teaches that such a "restoration" would take place always claim to be that "restored true Christian church" possessing that newly God given authority.

The problem is that, just like the Bible does not support the the Roman Catholic teaching of "apostolic succession," it does not support the claims of those denominations which teach that God would "restore" his church in latter days by again giving a few men the same kind of authority that he gave to his apostles nearly two thousand years ago. Anyone who tells you that the Bible teaches such a thing badly misinterprets the Bible.

The fact is that the Bible teaches that up until the time of Christ's return those whom Christ will judge to be true Christians and those whom he will judge to be false Christians will be found in all Christian denominations. In Christ's parable of "the wheat and the weeds" (Matt. 13) Jesus said, "The wheat and the weeds will grow together until the harvest." He explained "the harvest" to be the time when the wheat (those Christ judges to be true Christians) will be separated from the weeds (those he judges to be false Christians) and a time the weeds will be "thrown into the fire." The denominations which claim to be Christ's latter day restored "true church" usually explain away passages such as this one by saying that we are now living in the time of the harvest and that Christ now determines if we are wheat or weeds by whether or not we accept their claims to be Christ's true church. This is a very self-serving distortion of the clear and simple meaning of Christ's parable. The wheat and the weeds would grow together until the harvest. Not all the wheat in one part of the field shortly before the harvest or during the harvest.

Does this mean that since there are most likely true Christians in all denominations that we are just as well off attending one denomination's church services as another's? No. Certainly God expects us to do our best to take a stand for what we know to be right and what we know to be true, and to take a stand against what we know to be wrong and untrue. No body of believers is perfect. For they are all led by imperfect men with imperfect understandings of the scriptures. But why would any Christian want to associate with a denomination which they stongly believe continually promotes falsehoods?

You asked: why all the confusion?

Because way too many people are much too willing to accept what others tell them about God rather than doing what the Bible itself strongly encourages all Christians to do, 'Carefully examine the scriptures daily to make sure the things you are being taught are true.' (Acts 17:11)

Michael

Thanks for ALL the time you have spent on this blog, I can see that this is leading nowhere. I could spend hours debating this with you but why? Good night and good luck following Christ.

I testify that the Book of Mormon is a true account of an ancient people who were visited by Christ after his resurrection. You said yourself that anything is possible with God. (James 1:5) Ask him yourself, I would find out for myself before I just tossed it aside. If you read it it will bring you closer to Christ. And that is your goal.

Sorry to all the bystanders of this religious exchange

Go Mitt not because of his religion ( I can't stand Harry Reid) but because his is the most qualified to bring our country out of the economic mess and the socialist, victim, and entitlement mentalities that have created it.

G Dub,

You wrote: I can see that this is leading nowhere.

That being the case, I write this more for any lurkers here than I do for you.

You wrote: I testify that the Book of Mormon is a true account of an ancient people who were visited by Christ after his resurrection. You said yourself that anything is possible with God. (James 1:5)

In this case, however, it is not a matter of what God could have done. It is a matter of what the evidence shows us that he did do or did not do. And the evidence shows that he did not do what you say you believe that he did. Now I suppose you could say that maybe God hid all of the archeological evidence that would have supported the BOM or that he changed the DNA evidence that would have done the same. But why would God have done such a thing? He didn't do it with the evidence supporting the Bible's historical accounts.

You wrote: Ask him yourself, I would find out for myself before I just tossed it aside.

I did just that. At some length. THE LDS church and its BOM did not fare well.

You wrote: If you read it it will bring you closer to Christ.

Reading it can only bring someone closer to the LDS church, since they are the only ones who believe it is anything more than a book of total fiction.

There comes a time in the life of many Mormons when their desire to know the truth about their church becomes stronger than their desire to belive their church is true. If you ever come to that point in your life there are many Christian ministries dedicated to helping Mormons survive what is most often a very difficult time in their lives. Especially so when facing the truth about their church requires the prospect of losing many friends and family.

But keep in mind that Jesus said, "Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me and anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." (Matt. 10:37)

Michael

I urge you to take the road to Damascus.

Our conversation is done

Good bye

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Matthew 7:20

Look at what the LDS church does for humanity. It is Christ's true church.

The truth is true even if you don't believe it.

These things I command you, that ye love one another.
If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me.
John 15:17-21

God bless

G Dub,

You have made extraordinary claims about your church ("the one true church") and the book it is based on ("divinely inspired"). However, you have offered no evidence to support your claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence of their accuracy.

Now you claim persecution because I doubt your extraordinary claims, and you act as if that persecution proves that your church must be true because the Bible warned that true Christians would be persecuted. Well I guess, according to that logic, Roman Catholics, JWs and Moonies must also belong to "the only true church", as they claim, because I have also doubted and challenged their extraordinary claims.

The apostle John warned Christians, "Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1)

I have tested your spirits and found them to be false.

But this blog was supposed to be about Mitt Romney and how his religion effects his candidacy. For the record, I would vote for a Mormon if I considered him to be a man of integrity. But I do not see that quality in Mitt Romney. He started out "pro-life." Then very shortly before running for Governor of the very liberal state of Massachusetts he began describing himself as "pro-choice." Then shortly before he announced that he would be seeking the Republican presidential nomination, which he knew would require more conservative positions, he again became "pro-life." He has the same flip-flopping history on gay rights issues.

Now that the polls tell us he is trailing Huckabee, a consistent social conservative, Mitt has decided to give a speech on his Mormonism. My prediction: it won't help. Few people are turning against Mitt because of his Mormonism. They are doing so because they see what I see, a politician whose positions on important issues change whenever he decides a change is needed to get elected. Maybe I am wrong about Mitt. Maybe his Flip-flopping has been due to real heart felt conversions. But as much Flip-flopping as Mitt has done, for heart felt reasons or not, would make it hard for Mitt to get elected. Remember what John Kerry's "I voted for the war before I voted against it" flip-flopping did to John Kerry's campaign.

G Dub,

As Southern Baptist I have been reading a lot of blogs about Mitt Romney and Mormonism. I appreciate your words and your dignified responses. Your answers were compelling and I think you me make up my mind to vote for Romney.

Mr. Satterlee,

You ought to be embarrassed for you remarks. If there is anyone who is not a Christian on this site it is you! Shame on you and my you find Jesus!!!!

Your posts were interesting reading, do not be discouraged by Mormon attacks, trust in God, love the brothers and sisters, remember "thy Word is truth." Do not be deceived. Remember that Jesus Christ is righteous and holy and sinless and is coming back in glory! "a new heaven and new earth"!
Remember that "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." (Gal 3:10)
Remember that "even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputed RIGHTEOUSNESS without works,
saying,
Blessed are they whose iniquites are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin..." (Romans 4:6-7)

And to the Mormons "thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery?" You have sinned against Almighty God, your Judge "who shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ"
Hear the commandment of the only true God "Thou Shalt have no other gods before me" and hear this
"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." (James 2:10)
So hear that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were false prophets (do not their teachings plainly contradict your latest false prophet?). God's true prophets do not contradict each other. Instead, all the prophets bear witness that whoever believes in Him, that is, Jesus Christ, receives forgiveness of sins. Jesus Christ was crucified and died for our sins and was buried and rose from the dead, that's the good news! That's the gospel. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved. Repent, and you will be forgiven by Almighty God.

Ten Lies I Told as a Mormon Missionary

As a full-time Mormon missionary from 1975 to 1977, I lied for the church countless times. Like my colleagues in the South Dakota-Rapid City Mission, which served the Dakotas and adjacent areas, I spoke truthfully about my background, but touted many Mormon teachings that contradict the Bible. After my mission ended, however, I examined these doctrines more closely. The harder I tried to reconcile the contradictions, the more evident they became. So, after extensive prayer and study, I resigned my church membership in 1984. Cheated and betrayed, I lacked spiritual life for the next 17 years. But God, knowing those who are His (John 10:14; 2 Timothy 2:19), drew me to Christ (John 6:44) and saved me in 2001. My spiritual emptiness was replaced by the abundant life only the Savior can give (John 10:10). And now, like millions of Christians worldwide, I have everlasting life through my faith in Him (John 3:36; 6:47).

I can't remember all of my missionary lies. Some were small, others grandiose, but all were false and misleading. Here are ten I'll never forget.

1. We're Not Trying to Convert You
Of all my lies, this was the most frequent. I learned it well while in Winnipeg, Manitoba, which was my first assignment. A standard door-to-door proselyting pitch began with, "We represent The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Interrupting, many people said they had their own religion. "Oh, we're not trying to convert you," I responded. "We're sharing a message for all faiths."

But Mormon missionaries have one overriding goal, and that's to bring converts into the church. Clearly, this was the purpose of my mission. I didn't trade the Southern California sunshine for the Dakota snow merely to build interfaith relations. My calling was to teach the church-approved missionary lessons and then baptize the people I taught.

2. The Bible is Insufficient
According to their eighth Article of Faith, Mormons accept the Bible as the word of God only when it's translated correctly. How convenient for a missionary. When a non-Mormon's interpretation of scripture differed from mine, I frequently blamed faulty Bible translation. And since I believed the Bible was missing "many plain and precious things," as the Book of Mormon claims in 1 Nephi 13:28-29, I urged prospective converts not to trust it completely.

And yet, Mormon proof texts had few translation problems. Throughout my mission, I used only those Bible verses that steered prospects away from their church and toward Mormonism. But what kind of Christian believes that an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving God gave mankind an inadequate version of His word. Actually, the Bible is more than sufficient. With its 66 books, 1,189 chapters and nearly 740,000 words, it's the divine road map to eternal life through Jesus Christ.

3. We're the Only True Christians

For decades, the Mormon Church has tried to blend with mainstream Christianity. Accordingly, during my mission a quarter-century ago, I worked hard to convince prospects that Mormons believe in the biblical Jesus. But Paul warned of deceivers who would lure Christians away from "the simplicity that is in Christ." These false teachers preached "another Jesus" and "another gospel" (2 Corinthians 11: 3-4) and were accursed (see Galatians 1:8-9). How interesting that Paul also cautions against false apostles, such as those in the Mormon Church (2 Corinthians 11:13-14).

So which Jesus and gospel do Mormons preach? While a missionary, I taught that Christ was the firstborn spirit child of the Father in a premortal life. (The remainder of humanity was born as spirits later in this "pre-existence.") But I didn't tell prospects this was a literal birth, the result of literal fathering, as Mormon prophets and apostles have claimed. If asked, I taught that the devil was born as one of God's noble spirit sons during the pre-existence, but had rebelled and started a war in heaven.

Consistent with Mormon doctrine, then, Christ and Satan are spirit brothers. But the Bible teaches that Christ is God (Isaiah 7:14; 9:6; John 1:1), that He has always been God (Psalm 90:2), and that He always will be God (Hebrews 13:8). Born into mortality some 2,000 years ago, Jesus is "God... manifest in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16). He is far grander and holier than "our Elder Brother," as Mormons dub Him. Jesus and Satan aren't spirit brothers, and true Christians don't believe such blasphemy.

4. We're the Only True Church

I usually told this lie during the first of seven 30-minute missionary lessons, which presented the Joseph Smith story. According to our script, Smith prayed in 1820 about which church to join. He claimed the Father and Son appeared and told him that all Christian churches of the day were wrong. Smith said he was forbidden to join any of them, that their creeds were abominable and their professors all corrupt. "They draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me," the Lord allegedly added. "They teach for doctrines the commandments of men" (Joseph Smith — History, verse 19). In subsequent lessons, I told prospects that Mormonism is the true church God restored through Smith.

But the Bible says such a restoration was unnecessary. Admittedly, there was partial apostasy after Christ's resurrection, but never a complete falling away. In fact, shortly before His crucifixion, Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18). During my mission, however, I argued that the gates of hell did prevail against Christ's church.

Shortly after renouncing Mormonism, I learned a scriptural death blow to notions of universal apostasy. Addressing Ephesian believers 30 years after the Ascension, the Apostle Paul writes, "Unto [God] be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen" (Ephesians 3:21). God received glory in the Christian church from the time of Paul's writing to the present day, and He will receive such glory throughout all succeeding generations. Therefore, the church must exist from Paul's day throughout eternity. This annihilates Mormon claims of complete apostasy and makes restoration of Christ's church impossible.

5. We Have a Living Prophet
Whether in wintry Winnipeg or the balmy Black Hills of Rapid City, I criticized Christians because their church lacked a living prophet. Mormons claim the true church must have one. My favorite Bible proof text to back this claim was Amos 3:7, which reads, "Surely, the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets."

When prospective converts remained skeptical of living prophets, I quoted Ephesians 4:11-14, which apparently requires living apostles and prophets until believers unify in the faith and understand Christ completely. However, writing in the past tense, Paul is actually referring to apostles and prophets of Jesus' day. Otherwise, verse 11 would read that the Lord "is giving" or "will give" apostles and prophets. Of course, God did reveal His will through Old Testament prophets, as Amos 3:7 affirms. But for the last 2,000 years, He has spoken to believers through Christ (Hebrews 1:1-2).

The truth about Mormonism's living prophets is further illuminated in Deuteronomy 18:22. "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord," the scripture reads, "if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." Isaiah 8:20 contains a similar warning: "To the law and the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."

False prophets who led ancient Israel astray received the death penalty (Deuteronomy 13:1-5; 18:20), and all who profess to be living prophets should consider the consequences. Mormon prophets might appear grandfatherly and sincere, but they're not God's living oracles. Since the Mormon Church was founded in 1830, its prophets have uttered a striking number of false prophecies. (See chapter 14 of Jerald and Sandra Tanner's "The Changing World of Mormonism.")

6. The Book of Mormon is Scripture
Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth, adding that man would become closer to God by following its precepts than by obeying any other book ("History of the Church," Vol. 4, p. 461). Replace "Book of Mormon" with "the Bible" and Smith would have told the truth.

When teaching missionary lessons, I boldly maintained that the Book of Mormon is scripture. I spent myriad hours convincing prospects that it's a sacred record of Christ's activities in the western hemisphere. Yet many Christians I contacted realized the book "borrows" heavily from the Bible and other sources. And in stark contrast to the Old and New Testaments, virtually no archaeological and anthropological evidence supports the Book of Mormon. Why not? Because it's fiction. When Christians want to read scripture, they turn to the Bible.

7. You're Saved By Works

More than any other Mormon lie, this undermines Christ's atonement, which is the most sacred doctrine of the Bible. Mormons usually equate salvation with resurrection. Likewise, they refer to eternal life as "exaltation." I did both while teaching prospective converts. I relished the church's third Article of Faith, which claims, "through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."

Trying to bridge the doctrinal divide between Mormons and Christians, I emphasized that salvation is by grace "after all we can do" (2 Nephi 25:23). What classic Mormon double-talk. Unmistakably, the Bible says eternal life is a gift from God (Romans 5:15; 6:23) to those who believe in Christ (John 6:47), call upon Him (Romans 10:13) and receive Him as Lord and Savior (John 1:12). Contrary to Mormon dogma, this gift cannot be awarded meritoriously.

Equally clear is that salvation results from God's grace through each believer's faith, not from obeying a checklist of laws and ordinances (Ephesians 2:8-9; 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5). All who confess Christ and believe in Him from the heart shall be saved (Romans 10:8-13).

Most Mormons know little about imputed righteousness — and neither did I during my mission. Essentially, as Christians know, the Lord credits believers with His perfect righteousness and charges their transgressions to His sinless spiritual "account." Paul explains this doctrine masterfully in Romans 4 and 2 Corinthians 5:18-21.

When teaching the Mormon gospel, though, I emphatically denied imputed righteousness, which is the essence of the atonement. I stressed that eternal life is earned by perfect obedience to all gospel laws and ordinances. Yet the Bible says that "there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not" (Ecclesiastes 7:20). As the Psalmist writes: "They are all gone aside. They are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one" (Psalm 14:3; compare Romans 3:10-18).

How many Mormons perfectly obey all gospel laws? None. As the Bible asserts, even the church's current prophet can't keep God's laws thoroughly enough to merit heaven (1 John 1:8). And if he can't, how can anyone else?

8. People Can Become Gods
Given its explosive nature, this tenet was rarely shared with prospective converts. Missionaries try to entice people into Mormonism gradually, and presenting the doctrine of plural gods is seldom the best way. Several contacts learned the concept from their pastors or read about it on their own, but it was new to most prospects.

"Our Father in heaven loves us so much," I often said, parroting our lesson script, "that He provided a plan [Mormonism] for us to become like him." I didn't mention that Mormon godhood includes spirit procreation throughout eternity. Neither did I hint that the Mormon God was formerly a mortal man, had lived on an earth like ours, and had earned salvation through good works. However, such polytheism strips God of glory and sovereignty. No wonder the Bible condemns it so strongly. When discussing plural gods on my mission, I sidestepped Isaiah 44:8 whenever possible. "Is there a God beside me?" the passage reads. "Yea, there is no God; I know not any." Other verses amply testify that only one God exists in the universe (Deuteronomy 4:35, 39; 6:4; Isaiah 43:10-11; 45:21-23).

When confronted with these scriptures as a missionary, I usually countered with, "Those verses mean we worship only one God, that there's only one God to us." And if that failed, I lied further: "The Bible isn't clear on this subject. Fortunately, the Lord told Joseph Smith that mortals can become gods." Smith might have had a revelation, but not from God.

9. You're Born Again By Becoming a Mormon
One of my favorite missionary scriptures was John 3:5. "Verily, verily I say unto you," the Savior explains, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." To Mormon missionaries everywhere, being born of water means baptism into the Mormon Church. Birth of the Spirit refers to the gift of the Holy Ghost, allegedly bestowed after baptism.

Unfortunately, during my mission, I didn't know what it means to be born again. I completely misinterpreted Paul's declaration that "if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new" (2 Corinthians 5:17; compare Galatians 6:15). According to the Bible, believers in Christ are reborn spiritually as sons and daughters of God (John 1:12; 1 John 3:1-2). They experience a complete Christian conversion of mind and heart. Membership in a church organization might foster social activity and fellowship, but it's not spiritual rebirth.

10. Temple Marriage is Required for Eternal Life
I participated in well over 100 Mormon temple ceremonies from 1975 to 1982, including my own marriage in 1977. Based heavily on freemasonry, temple rites are the church's most carefully guarded secrets. And "celestial marriage," which supposedly weds men and women eternally, is probably the most important temple ordinance. While a missionary, I frequently told prospects they needed temple marriage to gain eternal life.

Yet the Lord says marriage between men and women is irrelevant to the hereafter. "The children of this age marry, and are given in marriage," He declares. "But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage… for they are equal unto the angels...." (Luke 20:34-36.)

The Bible does teach eternal marriage, but not the Mormon version. The union is between Christ, the Bridegroom, and His collective body of believers, who are the bride (Matthew 25:1-13; John 3:29; Romans 7:4; 2 Corinthians 11:2).

False Testimony
I close with a few words about "testimony," which is a missionary's emergency cord. When I couldn't rebut an antagonistic statement scripturally, I fell back on my testimony. For instance, while proselyting in Grand Forks, North Dakota, I was once asked where the Bible mentions the secret undergarments Mormons wear. Caught off guard, I admitted that the Bible says nothing about them. I could merely testify that God revealed the need for these garments through living prophets. But my testimony wasn't based on scripture or other hard evidence. Rather, it was founded on personal revelation, which is extremely subjective. Essentially, my testimony was nothing more than a good feeling about the church and its teachings. In Mormon parlance, it was a "burning in the bosom." But burning or not, it wasn't from God.

If you're a Christian, I urge you to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). That faith, the pathway to heaven, is found only in the biblical Jesus (John 14:6). But if you're a Mormon, it's time to prayerfully re-examine your beliefs. Do you know you have everlasting life? No. Can you obey all the commandments perfectly and earn a place in heaven? You can't.

I regret the many lies I told during my Mormon mission. When I received Christ, though, I confessed them (and my other sins) and received His forgiveness (1 John 1:9; Colossians 1:13-14). "He that heareth my word," Christ assures us, "and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (John 5:24).

One problem I have with a Mormon as president is that Mormons believe that God now authoritatively speaks through a man (the current head of the LDS church) who they consider to be a modern day "prophet" of God. The leaders of Christian faiths - other than those which are commonly called "cults" - do not claim to possess this kind of God given authority. Mormons believe that their "prophet" is actually infallible - at least when he claims to be speaking in his "prophet" capacity.

Of course no one other than Mormons believe this man is really a prophet of God. But we all know what great harm has been done in the past by those who have followed the nutty instructions of someone they believed was speaking with God's authority who, of course, really was not doing so. Think Jim Jones.

If a very old senile man in Salt Lake City - falsely claiming to be "God's prophet" - tells President Mitt Romney - who believes this crazy old man really is God's prophet - to fire nukes at Russia, Romney, being the good Mormon that he is, just might do it.