Tag Archives: Mitt Romney

If Mormonism is not a Cult, then Mitt Romney and the Mormon Church owe Billy Graham an Apology.

By now I am sure you have heard that Billy Graham has endorsed Mitt Romney in his bid for the Presidency. Soon after that, Billy Graham’s website took down an article which labeled Mormonism as a cult. I emailed Billy Graham, asked why the information was taken down and encouraged him to put the article back on his website. I knew what would come next if he didn’t. The official statement from Billy Graham’s ministry was reported as saying, “We removed the information from the website because we do not wish to participate in a theological debate about something that has become politicized during this campaign.” I then addressed this issue on our blog by posting, “An Open Letter to Billy Graham Regarding Mitt Romney and Mormonism.”

As I predicted, the secular media, and Mormons in particular, have taken advantage of Graham’s actions. I have read reports ranging from claims that because Graham took the “cult” label off of Mormonism, he is treating people the way he would want to be treated, to claiming he must no longer believe that Mormonism is a cult.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Billy Graham no longer believes that Mormonism is a cult and he has removed the cult label to be nice. If that is the case, then Mitt Romney and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owe Billy Graham an apology. Why? Because it is hypocritical for Mormons to accept their new endorsement, yet still maintain what they really think about “other” Christians. Earlier this year I wrote an article on our website titled, Mormonism’s Hypocritical Attack. I will rephrase some of what I wrote then and apply it directly to Billy Graham. Read More …

An Open Letter to Billy Graham Regarding Mitt Romney and Mormonism

Billy Graham,

I want to thank you for your many years of serving our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. You came to Rochester, New York in September of 1988. A friend invited me to the crusade and I went three times that week. On Friday evening the 16th, I surrendered my life to Christ at the Crusade and have been serving Him since. A short time after I was saved, a couple of Jehovah’s Witness ladies came to my door and challenged my new faith. That incident led me to become a missionary to Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. My wife and I founded Evidence Ministries in 1992 and I have been a full-time missionary to these two cults since 1999.

This morning I read an online article which stated that you endorsed Mitt Romney, and then your ministry took down some information from your web site which describes Mormonism as a cult. The article can be read here. Read More …

Romney Advocates Following Mormon Prophet, Even If It Is Wrong

No, not that Romney. The other one. Marion G. Romney, 1st cousin once removed from former Presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Yeah, that one.

Marion G. Romney, who attained to the First Presidency of the Mormon Church, once told a story about then President of the LDS Church, David O. McKay. In this story, the LDS President encourages Romney to “keep his eye on the President.” Romney states;

I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President Grant talk to our ward.
After the meeting, I drove him home. At that time there was a great deal of
criticism against the President of the Church because of a front-page editorial
some of you may remember. We talked about it. When we got to his home I got out
of the car and went up on the porch with him. Standing by me, he put his arm
over my shoulder and said: “My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of
the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do
it, the Lord will bless you for it.” Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said,
“But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the
people astray.”
(Elder Marion G. Romney, Conference Report, October 1960,
General Priesthood Meeting 78.)

Even if it is wrong? This statement raises a number of questions.
First, if something is wrong by nature, who decided that is was wrong? That would be God, right? He has the authority to declare what is right and wrong.

Second, doesn’t the LDS prophet claim to receive authority and direction from God? That being the case, the LDS prophet is himself subject to the authority of God.

Third, why would God bless someone who disobeyed Him because they were obeying someone else of lesser authority?

Fourth, why would that person of lesser authority, i.e. the prophet, encourage people to obey Him even if it is wrong?

Fifth, and this is a side question. Does Mitt Romney agree with this reasoning? If so, and he is chosen as the Vice President and some day is put in the position where he must chose to obey one or the other, how can Americans be assured that he will do the right thing instead of obeying his prophet?

MLK Day-I Marched With Romney And Martin Luther King!

Happy Martin Luther King Day! This holiday is unique in that Martin Luther King is a relatively recent figure who has received the honor of having a holiday named after him. The work he accomplished in his short life has impacted the world and continues to do so to this day. Our children are already familiar with him and know what he stood for.

Today being MLK day, I was reminded of an article I had read last December about Mitt Romney stating that his father, a four term governor of Michigan, had marched with Martin Luther King back in the 60′s. When Romney was recently asked about Mormonism’s past policies regarding Blacks, he stated that his father had marched with Martin Luther King. That statement did not ring true for a number of journalists who decided to investigate the matter. One such journalist, DAVID S. BERNSTEIN of The Phoenix, wrote an article on the matter, which contrary to Mitt Romney’s claim, clearly shows that George Romney did not march with Martin Luther King. Not in Michigan or anywhere else.

I invite you to read the article for yourself, but I did want to quote one statement made by the Romney Campaign. Evidently the they had heard about Bernstein’s article so they released a statement in an attempt to explain what Mitt Romney really meant when he said that his father had marched “together” with King. Not only is this statement appropriate for MLK Day, I also think it is a statement that gives us an example of how Mormonism works. In his article, Bernstein quotes that Romney Campaign as stating that “together” may mean different cities and on different days. Here is how it appears in Berstein’s article;


A spokesperson for Mitt Romney now tells the Phoenix that George W. Romney and Martin Luther King Jr. marched together in June, 1963 — although possibly not on the same day or in the same city.”

Now, I admit that english and grammar are my absolute worst subjects, but does this explanation strike anyone else as humorous? Together at different locations at different times? Huh? I understand the idea the Romney campaign is trying to convey, but the choice of wording is bizarre. I’m sure they meant something akin to saying that George Romney marched for the same reasons King marched and that he was in total agreement for that which MLK stood, but it is a stretch to say that Romney marched “together” with Martin Luther King. It is even more of a stretch to say that “together” means on different days at different times.

According to this definition, would it not be possible to say that I marched with Mitt Romney’s father and Martin Luther King despite the fact that I was not yet born? I am in a different place and in a different time, but I agree with Martin Luther King on this issue. All races should have equal rights and protections. In fact, just today San Antonio held their annual MLK day parade in honor and remembrance for what King accomplished. Oh sure, there is the little annoying detail that I did not attend today’s march and have never marched in a civil rights parade, but why should that keep me from claiming that I stand with Romney and Martin Luther King? If the Romney campaign can redefine “together” then I can redefine “march.”

This incident is a perfect example of what I see the LDS Church doing when it claims the title “Christian.” All is fine and dandy until someone does the research to prove the claim as false. Once the lie is detected, a cover-up explanation is fabricated and words are redefined. Almost every basic theological term that Mormons and Christians use in common have completely different definitions. God, Jesus, salvation, repentance, heaven, etc., they all mean something different once world views are contrasted.

Let us just compare the term “God.” Within Mormonism God is two things really; one, a position and two, a species. Man is considered an underdeveloped God (species) with the potential of attaining Godhood (position). In Christianity, the Triune God is completely unique and does not share His position with anyone else. He alone possesses authority, glory and power. With these two contradictory definitions, it is impossible for Mormons and Christians to say that they believe in the same God. The two views are too far apart to consider them in the same category.

So with this in mind, we can say that Mormonism is “together” with Christianity. We’re just not in the same place at this time. They are too different to be considered in the same company.

read more digg story

Joel Osteen: Mormons Are Christians

On Sunday December 23rd, Joel Osteen was interviewed by host Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. Politics came up and Wallace asked Osteen what he thought about Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. The subject then turned to Mormonism. Here is the transcript of the conversation.

WALLACE: And what about Mitt Romney? And I’ve got to ask you the question,
because it is a question whether it should be or not in this campaign, is a
Mormon a true Christian?

OSTEEN: Well, in my mind they are. Mitt Romney has said that he believes in Christ as his savior, and that’s what I believe, so, you know, I’m not the one to judge the little details of it. So I believe they are. And so, you know, Mitt Romney seems like a man of character and integrity to me, and I don’t think he would — anything would stop me from voting for him if that’s what I felt like.

WALLACE: So, for instance, when people start talking about Joseph Smith, the founder of the church, and the golden tablets in upstate New York, and God assumes the shape of a man, do you not get hung up in those theological issues?

OSTEEN: I probably don’t get hung up in them because I haven’t really studied them or thought about them. And you know, I just try to let God be the judge of that. I mean, I don’t know. I certainly can’t say that I agree with everything that I’ve heard about it, but from what I’ve heard from Mitt, when he says that Christ is his savior, to me that’s a common bond.

Common bond? This is frightening. Joel Osteen is the pastor of the largest church in America, is seen on TV world-wide by millions of people and then goes and speaks on a subject he admits to know nothing about. He is so concerned about not offending or judging anyone that he inadvertently leads people astray with his ignorance.

I have been asked in the past why I am not a fan of Joel Osteen. Here is why; I believe a pastor is more than a positive, motivational speaker. Pastors are suppose to preach the WHOLE gospel, both the good news and the bad. The good news make no sense unless one understands the bad news. Osteen doesn’t like to preach about sin, but has failed to understand that without the knowledge of what sin is and how it offends God, we will still be lost in them. I can think all the positive thoughts in the world and turn my life into a worldly success, but unless I face the bad news, the good news will do me no good.

Pastors are to be teachers. Before one can teach, you need to know the difference between truth and error. To do that, you must first be willing to identify error. This is impossible to do unless you are willing to judge. In our politically correct society, judging is taboo and condemns the “judger” as one who is intolerant of others. Has it ever occurred to Osteen that by refusing to judge, he is also refusing to identify error and hence has no right to preach truth? You cannot declare something to be true without also identifying the opposite as false.

Pastors are supposed to protect their flocks. I don’t know any other way to put it than to say that Mormonism is a wolf. Sure, individual Mormons may be nice, moral, family loving people, but the system of belief is an abomination. Any belief system which teaches that men are Gods in embryo is straight from the pit of hell itself. It is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and must be identified as the danger that it is before more sheep are fooled into the wolf’s den.

Any shepherd who refuses to first identify danger and then protect his sheep from the wolves does not deserve the responsibility of being a pastor. In contrast to what we see happening with Joel Osteen, praise God for the Great Shepherd who was willing to lay down His life for His sheep. There is a passage of scripture which comes to mind and I think it fits this situation perfectly. John 10:11-15 states;

I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. “He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. “He flees because he is a hired hand and is not concerned about the sheep. “I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.

To see the conversation yourself, go to the Fox News web site. The part of the conversation about Mormonism is from 3:17 to 2:39 . It is possible to fast forward to that spot.