Andrée Seu Peterson on the "Time" cover 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Mormons more conservative than evangelicals
Mormons are the most politically homogenous religious group, next to those who go to historically black churches. The Pew Forum paints a portrait of Mormons, who make up about 1.7% of the population. Highlights:
- Six-in-ten Mormons identify as conservative, about three-in-ten (27%) say they consider themselves moderate and only one-in-ten identify as liberal.
- Nearly two-thirds (65%) of Mormons say they identify with or lean toward the Republican party, 15 percentage points higher than among members of evangelical churches (50%) and 30 points higher than among the general population (35%).
- Just one-fifth of Mormons (22%) say they are Democrats and the remainder say they do not favor either party.
- 70% say abortion should be illegal in most or all circumstances. (Among evangelical Protestants, 36% say abortion should be illegal in most cases and 25% say it should be illegal in all cases.)
- Two-thirds of Mormons (68%) say homosexuality should be discouraged rather than accepted by society.
- More than half of Mormons (56%) prefer a smaller government with fewer services, compared with 36% who prefer a bigger government with more services.
- A majority (54%) says government should do more to protect morality, with a smaller number (39%) saying they worry the government is too involved in the issue of morality
Only historically black churches are more politically homogenous, with 77% of the members identifying as Democrats. The report concludes, “This places Mormons to the right of all other major religious traditions on a continuum of ideology and partisanship.”
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top254 Comments to “Mormons more conservative than evangelicals”
The biggest difference is that Mormons will vote conservative, blacks won’t. And as a Latino, neither will Latinos vote conservative.
Report comment to moderator
Ouch! How can a bunch of polygamist, angel worshiping, joseph smith following, baptizers of the dead beat us at our own game? Since when was it conservative to think that Jesus is Satan’s brother?
Report comment to moderator
Yes Mormons appear to be conservative, however they most certainly don’t represent conservative beliefs as many in Utah still have multiple wives.
The moral issue is rarely discussed, examined, identified or acknowledged – it most certainly isn’t conservative.
Report comment to moderator
((Insert obligatory anti-LDS comment here))
I think if you look at the church’s history (Lynch mobs and harassmt, the lynching of Joseph Smith, the Federal army attack during the “Mormon War” conducted by then US General Albert Sidney Johnston) mistrust of centralized power is easily understood.
Ike’s Ag Sec was Ezra Taft Benson who was later tagged as the “Prophet of God in our Time”. That and other instances solidified a GOP affiliation for most loyal LDSers.
Any word on how African American Mormons vote? Oh wait, never mind.
Report comment to moderator
#1 The only conservative Latinos are the GOP’s favorite minority group: Cubans in Florida
Report comment to moderator
There is no “game” when it comes to Christian Believers, and Biblical teaching – to call it a “game” isn’t correct, all that amounts to is competive “game” playing.
Christ, the Church has never been a game, and neither are conservative values.
Report comment to moderator
Mormons are completely out of touch with reality, like most social conservatives.
Report comment to moderator
So if the evangelical churches could just separate off the Latinos and the Blacks, they might do a better, from a good conservative point of view. How did the Mormons manage to keep their “homogeneity,” to use a neutral term?
Report comment to moderator
CT 8,
Mormon law.
Report comment to moderator
What is “Mormon law?”
Report comment to moderator
CT, study up on the LDS Church, that way you’ll know.
Report comment to moderator
It’s all the indoctrination. They’re better at it than we are.
Report comment to moderator
OP – 12
I’ve studied the Mormons belief for over six years – many churches now instruct Born Again Believers as to what the LDS Church really believes, what they teach at the door, and what is NOT KNOWN until they are baptized – The Mormon Church knows that if people were knowledgeable before baptism they would never join the LDS Church.
Report comment to moderator
Friends,
As you know, I like to use Mormonism as an analogy for the faith of the key Founding Fathers. They both considered themselves “Christians,” believe in “Providence” and outwardly say things that make them sound like their faith is compatible with yours. But when you scratch below the surface you see incompatibility. Indeed, because Mormonism was founded IN AMERICA AFTER THE AMERICAN FOUNDING, Mormons looked to America’s FFs for inspiration and incorporated some of their eccentric theology into Mormonism. For instance Jefferson, Locke and Joseph Priestley among others believed God the Father is a materialistic being. Elias Boudinat among others believed American Indians were the lost tribe of Israel. Ben Franklin believed at least at one point in his life the God of Abraham was the God only of our solar system and other solar systems had other Gods. I could go on.
Report comment to moderator
And most importantly America’s key Founders and Mormons either deny or do not assent to the Trinity/Nicene Creed. As John Adams put it:
“The Trinity was carried in a general council by one vote against a quaternity; the Virgin Mary lost an equality with the Father, Son, and Spirit only by a single suffrage.”
– John Adams to Benjamin Rush, June 12, 1812.
And:
“An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent, omnipresent omniscient Author of this stupendous Universe, suffering on a Cross!!! My Soul starts with horror, at the Idea, and it has stupified the Christian World. It has been the Source of almost all of the Corruptions of Christianity.”
– John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816.
This is one reason why it’s important for evangelicals to reject the idea of a “Christian Nation.” America’s founding could have been “Christian” ONLY if you have so muddy a level of spiritual discernment, Mormons “count” as “Christians” along with America’s key Founders and the philosophers and divines they followed.
Report comment to moderator
CT,
Little things like being required to tithe even so far as to say that the church hierarchy has the right and obligation to go through your books to make sure you are tithing.
Report comment to moderator
With all the talk about Mormons, nobody is paying attention to the other half of the meaning of this post: the advancing liberalism of evangelicals, many of whom voted for Obama in an attempt to appear “relevant.” Mormonism isn’t the scandal in this story; the American church is.
Report comment to moderator
“My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a higher exaltation, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself.” Founder Mormon Church, Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 4, 1844,
The book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible,” History of the Church, 4:461
When did that happen, did GOD say that the Book of Mormon was more correct than the Bible?
“There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God,..” Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, p. 188
The verse above doesn’t include Joseph Smith, to have everlasting life.
Report comment to moderator
The following is an extremely entertaining cartoon in the “Superfriends”/”Heavy Metal” style on Mormonism from the evangelical perspective. Though my Mormon friends tell me this is a distortionist smear, not unlike calling Catholics cannibals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFZ1jVO3-OE
Report comment to moderator
David, I know of not one strong Bible believing Evangelical who voted for Obama – not one.
The American Church isn’t the scandal at all – the problem we face is one of people turning their backs on Christ. Thousands of people play with the Bible but they don’t study it, nor do they take it seriously – the glitter of this world has dazzeled so many people – that isn’t the churches fault – we will all stand before GOD, we won’t be able to lay blame on anyone else but ourselves.
Report comment to moderator
George Washington and the other FFs, though I don’t think would have believed in much of Mormon theological eccentricities, would have had no problem with the way Mormon theology differed from historic Christianity. Consider the case of the Swedenborgs:
This is what Wiki writes of the Founder:
Emanuel Swedenborg…[(]February 8, 1688[1]–March 29, 1772) was a Swedish scientist, philosopher, Christian mystic,[2][3] and theologian. Swedenborg had a prolific career as an inventor and scientist. At the age of fifty-six he entered into a spiritual phase in which he experienced dreams and visions. This culminated in a spiritual awakening, where he claimed he was appointed by the Lord to write a heavenly doctrine to reform Christianity. He claimed that the Lord had opened his eyes, so that from then on he could freely visit heaven and hell, and talk with angels, demons, and other spirits. For the remaining 28 years of his life, he wrote and published 18 theological works, of which the best known was Heaven and Hell (1758),[4] and several unpublished theological works.
Swedenborg explicitly rejected the common explanation of the Trinity as a Trinity of Persons, which he said was not taught in the early Christian Church. Instead he explained in his theological writings how the Divine Trinity exists in One Person, in One God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Swedenborg also rejected the doctrine of salvation through faith alone, since he considered both faith and charity necessary for salvation, not one without the other. The purpose of faith, according to Swedenborg, is to lead a person to a life according to the truths of faith, which is charity.
Now consider George Washington’s address to them:
To the members of the New Church at Baltimore.
Gentlemen,
It has ever been my pride to mind the approbation of my fellow citizens by a faithful and honest discharge of the duties annexed to those Stations to which they have pledged to place me; and the dearest rewards of my Services have been those testimonies of esteem and confidence with which they have honored me. But to the manifest interpretation of an over-ruling Providence, and to the patriotic exertions of United America, are to be ascribed those events which have given us a respectable rank among the nations of the earth. –
We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart. In this enlightened Age & in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets, will not forfeit his protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining & holding the highest offices that are known in the United States.
Your Prayers for my present and future felicity were received with gratitude; and I sincerely wish, Gentlemen, that you may in your social and individual capacities, taste those blessings which a gracious God bestows upon the Righteous.
G. Washington
http://www.watch.pair.com/GW.html
Imagine, God forbid, if Victoria was POTUS, the kind of letter she would send to good, patriotic Mormon Americans.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Your reply makes no sense. First, just because you don’t personally know any Christians who voted for Obama doesn’t mean none did. Just look at the statistics. Apparently, about 25% of those who identify themselves as “evangelical” supported Obama.
Second, if the members of the church aren’t studying the Bible or taking it seriously, and if they’re being dazzled by the glitter of this world, don’t you think that maybe the leadership has just a teeny bit of responsibility for that? Whom are these people following, do you think? Of course, these individual members can’t escape the responsibility for their souls’ state–I wasn’t saying that; but I do think that those who are leading them will have a lot to answer for.
Report comment to moderator
I’m going to have to ask Mumsee and Victoria to evaluate the animated expose of Mormonism posted in #19: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFZ1jVO3-OE. Midway through we get an explanation of how their doctrines may have assisted in maintaining racial “purity”, and hence, why they are winning the race towards conservative ideological purity.
Report comment to moderator
DAVID L does bring up a good point.
For too long, Evangelical churches have pedaled a “soft gospel”, preaching God as a means to an end and faith as just another “accessory” to add to life after one has acquired everything else.
We wrongly overemphasize the “free” gift of salvation through faith in Christ without telling people to “count the cost”.
Report comment to moderator
David – there are many people who identify as ‘Christians’ however if you ask them what that means, or what makes them a Christian they have a hard time answering – the usual response is “well I try to be a good person” –
Saying one is a Believer and actually knowing what that means are two different things.
I don’t take responsibility for anyone who turns from Christ, or refuses to listen – lots of people go to church twice a year and still find no reason to go back. What does the Bible say:
Christ wasn’t kidding when HE made that statement -
Report comment to moderator
David – there are many people who identify as ‘Christians’ however if you ask them what that means, or what makes them a Christian they have a hard time answering – the usual response is “well I try to be a good person” –
And this is EXACTLY how the key Founding Fathers defined “Christianity.” If you were a “good person” you were a “Christian.”
Franklin:
“But that from such Faith alone Salvation may be expected, appears to me to be neither a Christian Doctrine nor a reasonable one….Morality or Virtue is the End, Faith only a Means to obtain that End: And if the End be obtained, it is no matter by what Means.”
– “Dialogue between Two Presbyterians,” April 10, 1735.
J. Adams:
“I believe with Justin Martyr, that all good men are Christians, and I believe there have been, and are, good men in all nations, sincere and conscientious.”
– To Samuel Miller, July 8, 1820.
Jefferson:
“My fundamental principle would be the reverse of Calvin’s, that we are to be saved by our good works which are within our power, and not by our faith which is not within our power.”
– To Thomas B. Parker, May 15, 1819.
Washington:
“[F]or no man, who is profligate in his morals, or a bad member of the civil community, can possibly be a true Christian, or a credit to his own religious society.
“I desire you to accept my acknowledgments for your laudable endeavours to render men sober, honest, and good Citizens, and the obedient subjects of a lawful government.”
– George Washington, Letter to General Assembly of Presbyterian Churches, May 1789.
Report comment to moderator
Deet – that would depend upon which Church you’re talking about. Which ones are referring to?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, you’re talking about the church universal and invisible–all those who are truly Christians. I’m not. I’m talking about the visible church.
Report comment to moderator
Query: Is voting for a Obama a sin?
Report comment to moderator
David – I’m talking about the visible church as well – we will know them by the fruits.
Report comment to moderator
Well, whatever, Victoria. You take negative references to the “American church” personally, as if I’m saying truly Biblical churches–such as your church–are “bad.” I think it’s clear that’s not what I’m saying.
Report comment to moderator
I’ll take the bait, Mynock.
Obama, as president, was elected almost directly by the people. He openly supported several sinful practices before this. Everyone who voted for him supported these policies, and that is sin.
I have a seventh day Adventist friend who voted for Obama. (Curiously SDAists are responsible for the current popularity of seventh day creation, and he is adamant about it.) I asked him why he supported the man. Apparently Obama was going to raise taxes and eliminate the national debt.
There was a slight change of plan somewhere along the line and we are now so far along that were we to pay our debt in paper cash, we could use the sum to crush a small country off the map.
And my friend still supports Obama.
Report comment to moderator
Voting for a man who would think it just fine ……”if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
No I don’t think a true Believer would vote for such a man, but I am aware that there are those who ’say’ they are ‘Christians’ who did just that, they voted for the man.
Abortion is a sin, to vote for someone who advocates sin is nothing more than participating in sin, by voting for a man who stands for the slaughter of infants.
Report comment to moderator
David – perhaps I have misunderstood what you mean – could you explain exactly what it is.
Report comment to moderator
Mynock,
No. Voting for Obama is not a sin. Or rather, is not a sin against God—it IS however a sin against politicized ‘evangelical christianity’, which in my view has got next to nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with politics.
And I am a strong, Bible believing Evangelical (Assemblies of God) Christian who voted for Obama—and would do so again if the same circumstances arose. (That is not to say that I will support him again—the jury is still out on that.)
Report comment to moderator
There’s an invisible church? Who knew?
I’ve heard of secret societies and clubs, but an invisible church? Much less one that is invisible and universal?
Maybe you guys are really both talking about a silent church.
…Or rather, several serpents, but the worst is the folly of intellectualising the practice. This makes it into a matter of belief, argument, and ultimately dogma. It debases religion into a matter of belief in a certain number of propositions, so that if you can recite those sincerely you are an adept, and if you can’t you fail. This is Armstrong’s principal target. With the scientific triumphs of the 17th century, religion stopped being a practice and started to become a theory – in particular the theory of the divine architect. This is a perversion of anything valuable in religious practice, Armstrong writes…
So what should the religious adept actually say by way of expressing his or her faith? Nothing. This is the “apophatic” tradition, in which nothing about God can be put into words. Armstrong firmly recommends silence, having written at least 15 books on the topic. Words such as “God” have to be seen as symbols, not names, but any word falls short of describing what it symbolises, and will always be inadequate, contradictory, metaphorical or allegorical. The mystery at the heart of religious practice is ineffable, unapproachable by reason and by language. Silence is its truest expression. The right kind of silence, of course, not that of the pothead or inebriate.
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/all-quiet-on-the-god-front1/
Report comment to moderator
There are churches who call themselves Evangelical yet give a watered down version of the Gospel – that doesn’t mean they really stand under the Evangelical umbrella no matter how many times they use the word ‘evangelical’ –
The very definition of the word EVANGELICAL is as follows;
There are a number of churches who call themselves by the name, but they don’t CLAIM the identification with the definition.
Report comment to moderator
DJ:
William Young’s god says in The Shack “I’m not interested in rules, only a relationship.”
My God says in his most Holy Bible, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”
Judging by scripture (if it is indeed a “lamp unto your feet”) what are his commandments concerning:
1. Abortion
2. Homosexuality
3. The boundaries of scientific research
4. Government taking care of as many aspects of a person’s life as possible.
5. Unfair taxation of the wealthy.
6. Etc.
Report comment to moderator
Sin as a category has no meaning outside of man’s relationship to God. If God isn’t in the picture, the wrongs we do to each other aren’t technically “sins.” If voting for Obama isn’t a sin against God, then it certainly isn’t a sin against any other person, much less some nebulous abstraction like “politicized evangelical Christianity.”
By the way, evangelicals who voted for Obama are just as guilty as politicizing their faith as those who voted for McCain are. (Don’t try to tell a liberal that, though.)
Whether voting for Obama is a sin against God is a difficult question, and I’m quite inclined to say that it is. Of course, I’m also willing to be persuaded that voting itself may be a sin. (I mean, is McCain really that much more of a Christian option? I mean, of course, except for the whole baby-slaughter thing.)
Basically, I’m of the opinion that there has to be a whole lot wrong with a person’s “Christianity” if the product of such a belief system can lead them to vote for Obama. They were in a spiritual mess long before they ever pulled that lever.
Report comment to moderator
Mormons are the *nicest* people. Their church cares for its people in a way I’ve rarely seen matched by Christian ones. Their “fruit,” if you will, appears very good. They even claim to be Christian.
And then you look at their theology.
8O
I just can’t sit there and buy that. It saddens me. The Christian church can’t even perform to the standard of Mormons?
Report comment to moderator
We will know a Believer by their fruit – Obama said he was a Christian yet…..
So where’s the FRUIT?
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia:
The invisible Church has also been called the Universal Church. That means the entirety of the Lord’s faithful throughout history.
Ah, but of course; Sam Harris does not believe in history. Not if his unconditional endorsement of Eastern Mysticism is to be believed. In one of his books he proudly open a Buddhist (godless, spiritual) text and proclaims it as far superior to anything western religion has produced. His randomly selected text happens to preach that the self is an illusion, but one would hope he knows that.
Report comment to moderator
I am glad that Mormons are conservatives and vote mostly with the GOP, God knows we can use every vote we can get, but to compare them to Evangelicals is like comparing a Cadillac to a Yugo; the Mormon theology is something out of science fiction and rivals L. Ron Hubbard’s Christian Scientology.
Report comment to moderator
The Bible believing church preaches the Gospel from the Word of GOD, that’s the STANDARD that we fly, it’s the only one on the planet that is relevant -
If you’re in a church which doesn’t care for the members find another one, you’re in the wrong church.
Report comment to moderator
Tjscatlover:
Mormonism is not about kindness, it is about inclusiveness.
I met a man whose family was briefly Mormon while he was in eight grade. He did poorly in school. After the year’s final report cards went out, his Mormon teacher noticed his name on the Steakhouse Roster and noted, “if I’d known this earlier, you could have had much better grades.”
Report comment to moderator
“If you’re in a church which doesn’t care for the members find another one, you’re in the wrong church.”
Thats not what he meant. He meant that Christians do not exemplify what they say they believe. They do not live it out as well in comparison to the Mormon church.
He’s not denying the Biblical Standard, he’s complaning that we dont live like it.
Simmer down now.
Report comment to moderator
Mormonism is all about trying to work your way into Heaven, they have no understanding of “saved by Grace through faith.” They are only a Christian faith in the loosest since of the term.
Report comment to moderator
1. Abortion
2. Homosexuality
3. The boundaries of scientific research
Perhaps you could point to a literalist view of the Bible to condemn these practices, but I don’t see HOW scripture relates to the following.
4. Government taking care of as many aspects of a person’s life as possible.
While the Bible arguably doesn’t mandate bigger, more bureaucratic government, I hardly see how scripture considers it “sin.”
5. Unfair taxation of the wealthy.
Double ditto here. Jesus arguably hated rich people. See Mark 10:25. And if we are supposed to live in a world where government actively affirmative tries to make men act biblically (as opposed to punishing certain sins, like when one uses force or fraud, but leaving other consensual sins alone) then I don’t see how it would NOT be biblical to tax the wealthy out of their riches and redistribute wealth to the poor.
As a libertarian, I disagree with this; but unlike Jesus I don’t see a moral problem with accumulating wealth.
Report comment to moderator
Provost – 44
I could but won’t tell my experience with a Mormon dentist – I was naive to think mentioning my father being a pastor would not affect my treatment – of course I changed dentists after 6 plus years, realizing MY ERROR – never again!
Report comment to moderator
I disagree – many of us do “live it out as well” – we don’t preach cultism, that’s more important than anything else to consider.
I’ve known Mormons who weren’t helped when disaster visited them, their Mormon employers didn’t lift a finger – I asked, that’s why I know.
You can defend the Mormons and their so called ‘nice nice’ all you want, I don’t believe it, not anymore.
That’s immature when you don’t like the content of what I say, it’s silly – lol
Report comment to moderator
4. Government taking care of as many aspects of a person’s life as possible.
Christ says,” give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give to God what is God’s.” Point being, government is not supposed to run everything and keep religion in a tiny box, or padded cell. Government should not be so large that it usurps God. Prayers should be going up, not towards Washington DC.
5. Unfair taxation of the wealthy.
“It is easier for a camel to enter through an eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.” The disciples asked, “who then can be saved?”
The disciples asked because the culture considered wealth to be a sign of favor from God. Consider Job and Abraham. Jesus point is that it is not so in every case. “WIth God all things are possible.” Jesus did not hate rich people by any stretch.
Proverbs, (or Psalms, or mosaic law; Victoria probably knows) demand that one set of scales be used for the poor and the rich alike. The principle is not hard to determine.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe:
I never said Government should make men act Biblically. I believe that those who call themselves Christian should act Biblically or get a knew label.
The Bible is the Christian’s deepest conviction. The Atheist is not asked to give up his deepest convictions when voting, why should the Christian be?
Report comment to moderator
Dittos to all said by Southern Conservative above. They might not be Scriptural but they take Christian/biblical views on many of the hot button issues of our day. And for that matter, some of the more conservative Jews similarly “vote correctly” on HBIs.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry, I meant “new” label. I’m not a bad speller, there’s just a demon in the keyboard.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe writes: “This is one reason why it’s important for evangelicals to reject the idea of a “Christian Nation.””
Hopefully this time it will sink into his head that his favorites Founders are NOT the ONLY Founders. Moreover, you have to take the ENTIRE population into consideration when you make your decision. The OVERWHELMING number of Founders who signed the Declaration and the OVERWHELMING numbers of the populace who ultimately ratified the Constitution were CHRISTIANS and practiced Christianity.
Jon Rowe wants you to believe that because the Founders in Philadelphia chose Jefferson to write the Declaration because he had a way with words. They did not choose him for his religious beliefs because that wasn’t the issue at hand. Jon Rowe would have you deny hundreds of years of history.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe writes: “This is one reason why it’s important for evangelicals to reject the idea of a “Christian Nation.””
Hopefully this time it will sink into his head that his favorites Founders are NOT the ONLY Founders. Moreover, you have to take the ENTIRE population into consideration when you make your decision. The OVERWHELMING number of Founders who signed the Declaration and the OVERWHELMING numbers of the populace who ultimately ratified the Constitution were CHRISTIANS and practiced Christianity.
Jon Rowe wants you to believe that because the Founders in Philadelphia chose Jefferson to write the Declaration because he had a way with words that they had the same religious beliefs. They did not. They did not choose him for his religious beliefs because that wasn’t the issue at hand. He could write! Jon Rowe would have you deny hundreds of years of history.
Report comment to moderator
Read 55, not 54.
Report comment to moderator
The Bible is the Christian’s deepest conviction. The Atheist is not asked to give up his deepest convictions when voting, why should the Christian be?
I agree with you here; however I would note, 1) born-again Christians can begin with a common set of moral convictions about the nature of God and man and end up with a different set of political convinctions. And 2) it’s possible that traditional Christians and atheists (and openly unapologetic homosexuals) can form a common ground politics. I know this is a hard nut to crack. But I think I’ve found it in political libertarianism. As the late great Harry Browne used to say (and his former press secretary, my good friend and co-blogger Jim Babka is a bible believing evangelical) both Christians AND gays should vote for him (that is Libertarian) and will see that his vision is the only one that wouldn’t use politics to step on either of their toes or violate the rights of either.
Report comment to moderator
The OVERWHELMING number of Founders who signed the Declaration and the OVERWHELMING numbers of the populace who ultimately ratified the Constitution were CHRISTIANS and practiced Christianity.
No way; there is no way you can prove the overwhelmimg majority of FFs who signed the DOI were “Christians” the way you (evangelicals) understand the faith.
Jon Rowe wants you to believe that because the Founders in Philadelphia chose Jefferson to write the Declaration because he had a way with words.
Actually I’d think this is why YOU would want him to write the DOI. Why else would a Christian pick a man who denied every tenet of the faith that they hold dear? It needs to be answered why “Christians” (that is Trinitarians who believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God, salvation thru Grace) would pick a man who denied every single fundamental tenet of their faith to write a political document, if the politics expressed in said document was supposed to be a reflection of their personal theology. Would you ask me to write a “Christian” document to form a “Christian” organization because I have a way with words?
They did not choose him for his religious beliefs because that wasn’t the issue at hand.
Jefferson’s religious beliefs are 100% in accordance with the theology expressed in the DOI. It mentions God four times and each time it does it is consistent with Jefferson’s, J. Adams’, and Franklin’s rejection of EVERY tenet of orthodox Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: thanks.
I happen to know a few Mormons. They *are* incredibly nice people. Their church *does* take care of them. They *do* tend to be responsible people. And all of this more noticeably than their Christian counterparts. This is generally, of course: they’re human too.
That said: I will completely agree that their beliefs are the most whacked-out ones I’ve heard, aside from Scientology. They don’t really get to claim to be Christians. I think, though, that not all of them know as much about their beliefs as even I do, so they are actually offended that mainstream Christians don’t accept them.
What I’m saying is that the Christian church, in general, does not live up to what it should be as well as the Mormon church, in general. Mormons, for example, not Christians, are largely what has kept the Boy Scout program from going under as did the Girl Scouts. It makes me sad to say that, but I’ve found it true.
Report comment to moderator
This thread was/is about Mormons, what is the reason to have yet another debate on the Founding Fathers? – it reminds me of the threads which are ‘gayed’ the minute anyone who is homosexual comes to the thread – in the same way this thread is ‘F. Fathered’ -
Report comment to moderator
This is a bit off topic, but I’ve noticed something strange happen for the second time. My computer is old — I’m about to get a new one. It’s got registry problems I think from damages from virsues and spyware. Sometimes when I post it does funny things. While it’s waiting for the data to fully post, it has let me see the “real names” behind some of the aliases. I post non-anonymously and I certainly could case less about who is whom or would never do anything with anyone’s info. However I have seen the “real names” of anymous posters on this thread whose real initials are as follows:
BO, CR, TW, GF, TG, HRD
I would then post the anonymous surnames; but I wouldn’t want anyone to object that someone could match initials up with surnames and hence violate your privacy.
I thought I should let you know.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I gave you my reasons in 14 why Mormonism is a relevant analogy to the FFs. Likewise if I want to inject, homosexuality, interracial marriage, science or whatever else in a thread where I think it might be apt, I ALWAYS give the reason for so doing. If you have a problem with my post in 14, address its logic head on.
Report comment to moderator
VICTORIA, Yes, “Evangelical” has a specific meaning as you posted in #36.
Unfortunately today, the term covers all sorts of things, beliefs you and I would soundly reject. The term is overused these days, often for little more than a demographic description with little interest in truth or error.
There’s a lot of people who claim the “evangelical” label when it comes to answering surveys but have no understanding of what authentic Christian faith is.
Church leadership is partly responsible for that (DAVID L #21). “A church will rise no higher than its leadership”. (Rev. Terry L. Johnson, writing for TableTalk June 2009).
The gist of my post #23 was that when the Gospel is preached as self-fulfillment rather than self-denial, Christianity turns into a “get what you want” movement but Christ calls us to deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow.
A lot of what passes for “evangelicalism” these days centers around the “satisfaction of man” not the Glory of God.
Report comment to moderator
Yes Jon, I’m positive you can mix this all up into a “Founding Father’s MALT” – no surprise!
Report comment to moderator
Yes that’s true, and for the most part we know who these churches and leaders are – Many times I have spoken out as to who they are and what they DON’T REPRESENT – OR – what they represent which isn’t Biblical, either way I speak out.
Report comment to moderator
Still not addressing points 14 & 15 Victoria. I’ll make it clearer. According to YOUR understanding of “Christianity” America’s key Founders [Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin] belonged to a non-Christian cult and the theology of said cult was the political theological driver behind the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, and Federalist Papers.
The subject at hand is “Mormonism” which YOU believe to be a “non-Christian cult.” I am suggesting an analogy between Mormonism and the political theology of the American Founding and that the these two religious systems are closer to one another than either are to “historic Christianity.”
Report comment to moderator
Jon – not going to discuss FF’s with you – we simply don’t agree-
Report comment to moderator
Fine. Though I will note I’ve done everything I can to present my evidence in a fair and balanced manner, a way in which evangelicals COULD agree and accept, even if I have the shortcoming of coming off a little too strong.
I hope others are more open minded to a fair presentation of evidence than you are. I know some of the evangelical posters here are; they’ve told me so.
Report comment to moderator
You did not address me in either one of these posts – but even if you had, I would NOT have gotten into a discussion with you. You don’t seem to comprehend someone not agreeing with you, and avoiding the waste of time to do it over and over again. You must have guessed by now that I don’t read your posts but rarely – I’ve told you this in the past -
You see Jon, everyone doesn’t agree with you, that’s the point you have problems with –
Being “open minded” isn’t the problem here Jon, it’s your INSISTENCE that some of us engage you in debate when we’ve told you we won’t – it has nothing to do with being “open minded” that’s an old game – in other words, “if you won’t argue with me, or agree with me, you aren’t open minded.” – I’m not “other posters” I’m not required to go over ‘your special treatment’ of the FF’s, I don’t buy much of what you hand out -
Report comment to moderator
Sorry Victoria, but you shouldn’t have brought it up in post 60 then. And btw, what I “hand out” on the FFs and religion is FACTS and LOGIC. If you don’t buy what I am presenting on that particular matter (on this particular thread) it’s because you don’t buy facts and logic.
Most of the posters here by the way agree with the moderate and reasonable case I’ve presented on the FFs, religion and Christianity. It’s only holdouts like you and a few others that keep me hanging around here.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, I didn’t think anyone was arguing that all of the Founders were orthodox Christians.
You seem to have mentioned four, and used them to prove that “the founders” were no better theologically than Mormons. (Which I still doubt: Mormons are out there.)
Refresh my memory: how many founders were there?
Report comment to moderator
Let’s be honest. Jon Rowe is making some good points here. Victoria is being…well, she’s being Victoria. I enjoy Victoria as much as anyone else – when there’s not a serious and insightful argument on the table.
Report comment to moderator
Hellooo everyone.
This article sheds light on something I’ve tried telling my kiddos in history class before.
Political conservatism is not orthodox Christianity. There certainly exists a plethora of common ground between the two, but in the end, it is not man’s greatest hope.
And when we posit our politics before our confession, our confession ends up becoming identified with nothing more than a handful of pressing political “issues”, like those mentioned above in Ms. Harris’ article.
“O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!”
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.
Romans 11:33
Report comment to moderator
Tjscatlover – 71
I believe there were 204 Founding Fathers. 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence -
Report comment to moderator
And when we posit our politics before our confession, our confession ends up becoming identified with nothing more than a handful of pressing political “issues”,
Thanks, Dan, for emphasizing the real ‘issue’, which for us as Christians is to know the Author and Finisher of our faith, to learn His ways, and to know His Voice and follow it. Political parties (left,right,or center) will never really be able to fully reflect that truth. The best we can do is to seek and follow to the best of our ability.
Report comment to moderator
Tjscatlover – 71
Religious Affiliation of U.S. Founding Fathers
Report comment to moderator
Re the FFs & religion:
1) Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin were beyond a reasonable doubt theological unitarians who denied almost every tenet of orthodox Christianity (they comprised a majority who wrote the DOI with Jefferson as the author). 2) Washington and James Madison were likely in their camp, but with some uncertainty (i.e., they can’t be claimed as “orthodox Christians who believed the Bible the infallible Word of God,” but likewise lack the smoking gun quotations to put them in the box with Jefferson, J. Adams, and Franklin). 3) Also in the box with Washington and Madison are James Wilson, G. Morris (a man who was as promiscuous as Bill Clinton) and Hamilton (before the end of his life, before his son Philip died in 1801; shortly before his own death in a duel, Alexander Hamilton converted to orthodox Christianity).
T. Paine, E. Allen, and E. Palmer were the “strict deists.” The orthodox Christians included Patrick Henry, Sam Adams, John Witherspoon, and John Jay.
And there was also a big incestuous exchange of ideas going on among the orthodox Christians/heterodox unitarians/strict deists. They influenced one another even as they disagreed and debated.
This can confuse. I’ve seen “Christian America” proponents cite Paine’s and Franklin’s citing of the Bible to prove their thesis that even the non-Christians held to a “biblical worldview.”
Likewise I can cite John Witherspoon’s enlightenment rationalism and Patrick Henry’s citing of Addison’s “Cato” — a play that gloried a pagan figure from antiquity who did the very UNCHRISTIAN thing of committing suicide as a matter of political/moral principle — to prove even the Christians were influenced by a pagan-Enlightenment worldview.
Re the rest of the FFs, the more minor figures, it’s a big uncertain debate, they could fall into any one of the three boxes (strict deism; heterodox unitarianism; or orthodox Christianity).
Ultimately we ended with a politics that formed a lowest common denominator among those three competing theological systems.
Report comment to moderator
76:
And Thomas Jefferson who rejected, his words,
The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of Hierarchy, &c.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_short.html
was a lifelong Episcopalian/Anglican, indeed, perhaps the quintessential Episcopalian/Anglican of 88/204 FFs. Likewise the second President John Adams, another militant theological unitarian, was a lifelong Congregationalist, and perhaps properly speaks for the 27/204 Congregationalist FFs.
And perhaps Nanci Pelosi properly speaks for Romans Catholic American politicians and Richard Nixon for Quakers.
Report comment to moderator
76
I’d emphasize “affiliations”.
Numbers tell you how many affiliated themselves with a particular denomination not how many with which Christ actually did affiliate.
Another harmful trend of political conservatism is tendency of backward looking at our nation’s founding with an uncritical, unthinking eye. We gloss over the rich traditions and the context of the times which influenced these men’s minds for the sake of making our point; sort of whitewashing the record unintentionally.
An excellent book out presently on the subject is Founding Faith by Steve Waldman. One of the most honest and balanced accounts of the faith of the FF I’ve ever read. A good primer for the layman historian.
Report comment to moderator
Mr. Rowe makes a good case. Close to what I’ve read as a history teacher myself.
Report comment to moderator
SHOULD READ:
Joseph Smith announcing that his words, were more important than the Bible. To this day, the Book of Mormon is first within the LDS Church.
Report comment to moderator
Provost: If you had clicked on the link you would have noticed that those words were not Sam Harris’. It was a third party’s review of a book by Karen Armstrong (who has written 17 books about religion).
And your religi-political catechism in post 37 is exactly the kind of thing Armstrong was writing against.
And finally with respect to #37, why do you suppose a god would insist or even care that one, but only one, of his billions of creations spread throughout the universe, “loves” him?
Love is indeed one of our finer emotions, but demanding it and expecting it and punishing those who don’t obey, is a pretty stupid way to get it. On the other hand preachers telling others whom they must/should love and what they must do to prove it, is a darned good way to control people. And a catechism is a pretty good enforcement/reinforcement tool, don’t you think?
To me at least it makes more sense (not enough) to worship a deity who through his power set this whole thing in motion. No more, no less. For He did one heck of a job. And simple thankfulness might be in order. That seems to be part of Armstrong’s point.
And one final thought: if your god is truly so jealous and demanding of love, doesn’t it seem like he’s done a lousy job getting the word out? Some pretty big chunks of the planet have never even heard of him. That might cause one to question his omnipotence.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe:
I agree that Christians can find common ground with others. My main point is that a Christian’s political views ought to match his theological views, which vary greatly. If a Christian consciously sets his views aside then he’s not viewing Jesus as the way, the truth, and the life. In other words, if you ignore your conscious, you might as well not have one.
My indictments of mormonism should not be taken to mean that the religion makes its adherents treacherous. I merely believe that, being founded on a lie, it does not encourage honesty. Only Christianity is true, but some belief systems make a better case for truth than others.
Archaeology has disproved Mormonism, plain and simple.
Report comment to moderator
And yet Harry Reid is Senate Majority Leader. Strange that…
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia:
I made no mention of your excerpt that I can see. I only explained the concept of the invisible church, because you appeared to misunderstand.
How can one practice religion without any religious propositions? What exactly does Armstrong mean by religion: a new fashion line?
Religion has always been intellectualized (see John Calvin, apostle Paul) because intellect is what we use to examine things. I would not recommend wielding such a powerful thing as religion without understanding what it is capable of.
Can you not see the absurdity of the deist argument? Why would God, in all the billion galaxies, care whether anyone worshipped or love him? They concede his creation, but staring dubiously at the vastness, wonder whether it is actually too ‘big’ for him to manage.
I do not believe in neutrality. There is love, or hate, the only other alternative is ignorance, and no one is ignorant of God. You stated that God is jealous and needing of Love, that the planet is in ignorance of him. You are quite wrong. God does not need our love. We are the ones who need to love God to have any meaning in our lives. As creations we live physically in his world, and spiritually in his communion.
You deride #37 for being a catechism. I quite understand, and do not expect you to agree with me. #37 was a response to DJ, who is an evangelical Christian. We were operating on common ground. When you and I are on the common ground of faith we may talk of catechisms, but I do not ask you to come up here without the consent of your reason.
Report comment to moderator
“And one final thought: if your god is truly so jealous and demanding of love, doesn’t it seem like he’s done a lousy job getting the word out? Some pretty big chunks of the planet have never even heard of him. That might cause one to question his omnipotence.”
Hi Arcadia.
Dan here. Wanted to take a moment to offer a thought or two on the above quote.
Let’s start with “lousy job getting the word out”.
First, I’ll take a personal hit. I don’t do it very well myself. So that might be one part of the problem for which God deserves no blame.
Second, you really never mentioned it to me, but I’m going to assume by your post you’re agnostic rather than thoroughly going atheistic.
So, if you’re “not sure” about God, lets say for argument’s sake, can you really be sure about any sort of qualitative assesment you make of His actions? How can one be certain of what someone does if you aren’t sure if that someone even exists?
And lastly, “pretty big chunks of the planet have never heard of him”. But again, questioning God’s omnipotence means you actually have some sort of plan in front of you which tells you things are not clipping along as they ought to be.
I thought of writing “That might cause one to question your omnipotence, too Arcadia, presupposing all those things.” but I decided not to because I didn’t want to be perceived as provoking you in an unloving, uncaring way.:wink:
I hope you know I’m trying to be witty and informative at the same time here, but I fear I’m failing badly.
Seriously, though Arcadia, God does have a plan and in His time, before it all ends, the “chunks” of which you speak will know or at least hear.
Jesus says as much in Matthew 24:14
“And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.”
So God has a plan to be accomplished in His time, His way.
By the way, what’s the empirical standard for measuring divine omnipotence?
Dan
Report comment to moderator
Oh, and by the way, I liked what you said about us being thankful up there, too. You are right.
Report comment to moderator
The catechism is merely a reference tool for research and clarity of Church beliefs. It is not a tool of deceit and unreasoning acceptance. I agree with the Westminster catechism, having considered it heavily. The westminster catechism list scripture references at the bottom of every question to show its integration. If I already agree with the Bible, I can use the catechism to increase my knowledge, like a study guide.
Report comment to moderator
Oldhickory68,
I too endorse Steven Waldman’s excellent book. Before it came out he emailed me and told me he had read my websites and agreed by in large with the contents thereof.
Report comment to moderator
Hi John:
Thanks! Good stuff. Waldman provides some of the best balance on the subject I’ve ever read.
What’s your website? Might take a peak at it for some history stuff for my classes this year, if that’s ok.
Dan
Report comment to moderator
Thanks DJ for your kind words, too.
Report comment to moderator
You can click on my name for “American Creation,” a group blog solely about the FFs & religion issue. We have Mormons, secularists, Roman Catholics and conservative evangelicals all posting there for balance.
And http://positiveliberty.com is my other group blog with a politically libertarian theme. All are libertarians; though we have a conservative evangelical, some atheists, a deist and a few agnostics posting there.
Report comment to moderator
Okay, if OH and Jon Rowe are agreeing on a book, I suppose I ought to put it on my reading list as something which would at least be interesting.
Report comment to moderator
TRS, That’s what I was just thinking.
Report comment to moderator
Well, both Provost and Dan have assured me that their omnipotent god really does have a plan, even though he seems to have a bit of difficulty getting the word out after a)3,000 years, b)30,000 years or c)a few billion years. I’m not sure either of them can tell me what’s in the plan, but they know it’s there. At least one of them believes in some kind of rapture, which has been deduced and predicted by countless other “learned” folks, but has not yet occurred. Due to technical difficulties, no doubt.
Provost. I do not believe in neutrality. There is love, or hate, the only other alternative is ignorance, and no one is ignorant of God. You stated that God is jealous and needing of Love, that the planet is in ignorance of him. You are quite wrong. God does not need our love. We are the ones who need to love God to have any meaning in our lives. As creations we live physically in his world, and spiritually in his communion.
First of all, what’s wrong with neutrality? We appear to have reason, and neutrality is in fact the starting point for all reason.
And I gather that you see no difference between worshiping and loving your god. But, just in case, is not the commandment “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” a statement of a jealous god who requires love? And are not the various genocides in your bible evidence of how he reacts to being spurned? Not to mention threats of eternal damnation which are passed on daily from pulpits?
As for the planet’s citizenry’s ignorance of your god, I guess you are free to deny it, but a worldwide poll will not help you much. Nor will trend lines, charts of Christianity’s various spokespeople’s worldwide temporal power and influence,etc. But you do have that option. And I guess you might at some point come to question whether in exercising it you are whistling past a graveyard of billions of folks who led “meaningful lives” without benefit of your particular brand of clergy.
Your suggestion that catechisms are solely for organizing one’s thoughts is interesting, but I suspect that there are a lot of folks, from executed heretics to children with sore bottoms who would disagree. Not to mention a lot of schisms and fissures which have resulted from ever so slightly different opinions of “organization”.
Finally, to answer your question, as to why a god who created something that turned into a billion galaxies and millions of different life forms might have a management problem, let me ask you if you have ever planted a vine or tried to manage a small bonfire that you started?
Creation is a long long way from the kind of micromanagement that you allege your creator continues to engage in. With a particularly morbid and fastidious fascination with every single member of one species in all those millions…
Report comment to moderator
TRS/DJ, me too!
Report comment to moderator
I don’t know. Maybe it is the hour. Maybe it is because I am busy planning my trip to Africa.
But you know when I see less than seventy per cent I hardly think of monolithic. For me to think homogenous I would want to see at least eighty per cent. Preferably ninety per cent. Dull percentages are just that. Dull as well as assumed to be accurate.
Just pray for them all.
Report comment to moderator
Milk is more homogenous than mormons. By the above mathematics.
And at 99 and 44/100 ths. Dove is more pure.
Report comment to moderator
Well, Arcadia, I guess Deism is a starting point.
Report comment to moderator
CT 22,
Most of the stuff on there sounded like stuff I had read or heard from Mormons/ex Mormons over the years. Don’t recall hearing specifically that Jesus married those three and had many children though. But, this is why Mormons did not consider themselves Christians thirty years ago. Don’t know why the change other than politics.
Report comment to moderator
Hello All.
I’m a member of the LDS Church (the “Mormons”) and I recently happened upon this site while searching news articles online.
As a member of the LDS Church growing up in the U.S. South, I can say that I have had the privileged of being friends with many individuals of other Christian (and otherwise) denominations. They have all, with very few exceptions, been very kind and respectful people. I am glad to find many on this comment thread who are also kind and respectful.
I realize that some doctrines of the LDS Church can be confusing to those unfamiliar with the overall context of our doctrines. Sometimes I think that our most misunderstood doctrines often become such due to the unique terminology that we use. This LDS-centered terminology is often incongruous with the terminology of the Christian world in general. Also, quotes from our various leaders are often taken out of context and, when presented isolated from the overall context, can understandably lead others to misinterpret our beliefs.
Also, I feel that many misunderstand us and our beliefs because they might have not had the chance to meet us face-to-face with their questions. I once was confused about the beliefs that a Jewish friend of mine held and I first thought to consult someone in my church. I then realized that I would perhaps find more accurate and in depth answers by asking her directly. In doing so, I was rewarded with a wonderful relationship that we still hold many years after.
When feeling compelled to judge others for their loyalty to Christ I try to remember one of my favorite C.S. Lewis quotes concerning Christianity. In “Mere Christianity,” one of my favorite works of Lewis’, he reminds all that “It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men’s hearts. We cannot judge, and indeed are forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say any man is, or is not, a Christian…”
I know that Jesus is my Savior and that He died for my sins. I know that if I obey His commandments and repent of my sins that He will, through His mercy and grace, allow me to return to live with Him again.
I defer the right to to all men to worship Christ as they will and I hope that we can all find brotherhood and peace now through our mutual faith in Jesus Christ and His Atonement.
Your Brother in Christ,
A.C. Rhinehart
Report comment to moderator
Acatlanta1,
I have no doubt there are many believers in the Mormon church. But what the Mormon church teaches is not compatible to Christianity. The Book of Mormon, the Doctrines and Covenants, and the Joseph Smith bible are all glaring examples of that. I have had many lengthy discussions with Mormons, including a Mormon cousin (she does not agree that the current Mormon teachings are Mormon, she is more a follower of the polygamy sects). We often use the same words but with different meanings so it is difficult to carry on a coherent conversation.
That is not to say that Mormons are not nice. Many of them are. But as being kind to the neighbors in an attempt to bring them into the church is a pillar in salvation, it is always a curiosity as to why they are being nice. Perhaps you can illuminate for us and dispel any false notions.
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee,
Thank you for your response.
I’ve often heard from others that our extended canon which includes both the Bible and continuing revelations is, as you say, “not compatible to Christianity.” In all honesty and good will, I’ll say that I’ve never had it explained to me why some believe this. If you have a few moments, could you perhaps explain it to me?
I have a Fundamentalist Mormon relative, and like your conversation with your cousin, we often miss each others’ points entirely due to our differences in theological semantics. I can definitely relate with you.
As for being nice to neighbors and proselyting: Many members of Christian denominations try to show kindness to neighbors and invite them to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We are not different in this regard. However, I’ve always joked that our neighbors like my dad better than his own children do. Similarly – with the humor aside – like my imperfect dad, its always difficult for one to maintain charitable behavior all the time. I can imagine that once neighbors begin to know each other better than what only a pure acquaintance would allow, a multitude of faults begin to emerge. In my estimation it would be easy under such circumstances to confuse a neighbors’ initial friendliness as merely a strategical attempt at conversion.
As Christ encouraged His disciples to share the Gospel with all, LDS try to emulate that teaching as well. Unfortunately, we are all imperfect mortals, and thus at times perform the aforementioned commission imperfectly. This being said, I cannot speak too liberally for others. But I can only say that this is my best estimation.
I always attempt to be sincerely kind and “nice” when I meet others, regardless of whether I plan to share the Gospel message or not. However, I struggle at times with my own trials and can find it hard to crawl out of my shell – so to speak – and be the constant kind extroverted neighbor that I so wish to be. Perhaps in these moments others might perceive me as less kind, when in truth I am only in need of kindness myself during my struggles.
Best regards,
A.C. Rhinehart
Report comment to moderator
#102
Hi A.C.,
I too do not doubt that there are those who are genuinely saved in the LDS church.
However, I have heavily researched LDS beliefs due to friends who belong (and my husband’s boss), and they are not compatible with Christianity. They may be another belief system that also recognizes Christ as important, but LDS is not a Christian belief system.
In the past, your church admitted that. It has only been in recent years that they have tried to sell themselves as another Christian “denomination.”
Simply put, LDS is not another denomination, but is another faith entirely.
All (and I do mean pretty much all, whether Catholic or Evangelical, or Mainline or Pentacostal) actual Christian denominations are able to ascribe to the Statements of Faith that groups such as American Heritage Girls hold to or other Christian groups such as those in the homeschooling movement hold to. LDS members cannot.
http://www.ahgonline.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=19322
These are minimalist Christian statements of faith. If you cannot hold to these, you must call yourself something else. The term “Christian” does not apply.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
Hello Victoria and TRS,
Thank you for your replies.
I’m off to bed (as it is late – or early – in Atlanta and I have two energetic toddlers to watch today at 8am), but I promise to do my best to respond to your posts later this evening when everyone has settled down for the evening. This is just to let you know that my temporary silence doesn’t imply that I wish put you off. I’m happy to try and answer the reasons for my faith.
Until later then,
A.C. Rhinehart
Report comment to moderator
Why?
1) Christians believe that Jesus Christ is God, the ONLY begotten Son of the Father. He is not the firstborn spirit child. He is not Satan’s brother. He is not the eldest brother of all mortals.
2)Christians believe that the Bible is the only authoritative Scripture. Any additional books are unacceptable, and the Bible certainly is not secondary to them.
3) God the Father, in Christian belief, is Spirit. He is not married. There is no “heavenly mother” and God is not the literal father of all mortal spirits.
4) Mormanism denies one or more of the essential beliefs of Christianity: that there is only one God, Jesus is God in flesh, forgiveness of sins is by grace alone, and Jesus rose from the dead physically. Of these, Mormonism denies three of them: how many gods there are, the person of Jesus, and His work of salvation.
So, why is Mormonism not Christian? It is not Christian because it denies that there is only one God, denies that Jesus is the uncreated creator, distorts the biblical teaching of the atonement, and undermines the authority and reliability of the Bible by adding additional sources which conflict with the Bible, and then giving precedence to those sources.
Report comment to moderator
“Episcopalian/Anglican 88
Presbyterian 30
Congregationalist 27
Quaker 7
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6
Lutheran 5
Catholic 3
Huguenot 3
Unitarian 3
Methodist 2
Calvinist 1
A TOTAL of 204 Founding Fathers”
The preacher’s daughter flunked math class.
Report comment to moderator
Here is another standard Statement of Faith, the Nicene Creed. It is pretty minimalist, and Christians of all denominations can ascribe to it. LDS, however, cannot:
“I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.”
Report comment to moderator
And, of course:
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:” [Deut. 6:4, KJV]
There is ONE God, not many gods ruling all sorts of different worlds.
Report comment to moderator
Jesus said:
Report comment to moderator
Great Scripture TRS!
Report comment to moderator
Hi ACATLANTA1,
I appreciate your willingness to swim with the sharks here. I see you’ve been challenged by a couple others on LDS particulars, so I understand if you don’t have the time or inclination to answer me here, but if you do, I’d be interested in your thoughts about the following…
I’ve been visited 5 or 6 times at my house by Mormon missionaries–usually young men who appeared no older to me than 25 (which is perfectly fine!)–and I’ve had brief discussions with Mormon acquaintances where we talked about these matters, but I’ve observed a disturbing phenomenon in every instance: while each of them could recount for me certain aspects of LDS theology, none–none–could tell me specifically which doctrines held by contemporary denominations Joseph Smith had rejected, and why.
You’re probably aware that while searching for a true church, Smith claimed to have been instructed by heavenly beings to reject every denomination because of doctrinal error within them. Given that such an admonition was so instrumental in the eventual establishment of the LDS faith, I would have thought its adherents would be better versed in that aspect of the church’s history.
Can you help me out on that point? What are those false doctrines Joseph Smith was instructed to avoid in his search for a church and in the establishment of a new one?
As I mention above, it’s no problem if you don’t have time to post a reply. If you don’t respond, I won’t conclude it’s because you don’t have a good answer. Besides, you might not even be checking the thread anymore, in which case, Hi, everybody else!
Report comment to moderator
There have been sharks of another color in these waters for a long time – they just don’t surface until the bait is used.
Report comment to moderator
15&77(Jon Rowe): “1) Jefferson, J. Adams and Franklin were beyond a reasonable doubt theological unitarians who denied almost every tenet of orthodox Christianity (they comprised a majority who wrote the DOI with Jefferson as the author).
Hi Jon. I see you’re back pushing the same tired chestnuts about Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin. Sigh!
Jefferson may well have been a unitarian. For sure, he was not a deist. Deists don’t invoke Divine Providence (it doesn’t exist for them). Jefferson invoked “Almighty God” and Divine Providence as governing the affairs of men. I notice he never used the term “Christ” in referring to Jesus; however, only Jesus and His Angels have the prerogative to determine whether he was a Christian. Not you or me or anyone else.
” 2) Washington and James Madison were likely in their camp, but with some uncertainty (i.e., they can’t be claimed as “orthodox Christians who believed the Bible the infallible Word of God,” but likewise lack the smoking gun quotations to put them in the box with Jefferson…”
This is simply just false. Consider the following prayer of Washington: “Most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ, my merciful and loving Father; I acknowledge and confess my guilt in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. I have called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of my sins, but so coldly and carelessly that my prayers are become my sin, and they stand in need of pardon. I have sinned against heaven and before Thee in thought, word, and deed…I humbly beseech Thee to be merciful to me in the free pardon of my sins for the sake of Thy dear Son and only Savior Jesus Christ who came to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me…increase my faith, and direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” No wiggle room there at all. He was orthodox and Trinitarian.
“…J. Adams,…”Here is a quote for you from Adams: “The Christian religion, as I understand it, is the brightness of the glory and the express portrait of the character of the eternal, self-existent, independent, benevolent, all powerful and all merciful creator, preserver, and father or the universe, the first good, first perfect, and first fair. It will last as long as the world. Neither savage nor civilized man, without a revelation, could ever have discovered or invented it. Ask me not, then, whether I am a Catholic or Protestant, Calvinist or Arminian. As far as they are Christians, I wish to be a fellow-disciple with them all.” He also refers to Jesus as the Christ–something a unitarian would never do. I’ve got more if you need it.
“and Franklin).” Here is Franklin’s self-written epitaph: “”THE BODY of BENJAMIN FRANKLIN Printer, Like the cover of an old book, Its contents torn out, And stripped of its lettering and gilding Lies here, food for worms; Yet the work itself shall not be lost, For it will (as he believed) appear once more, In a new, And more beautiful edition, Corrected and amended By the AUTHOR” In his autobiography, he indicates he toyed with deism, but later states, “Here is my Creed. I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshiped. That the most acceptable service we render to Him is in doing good to His other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its conduct in this…As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, is the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see.” We are guaranteed that he believed in God, in Heaven, and the resurrection. We can only conjecture regarding his view of the divinity of Christ. I, for one, won’t do it and neither should you.
3) Also in the box with Washington and Madison are James Wilson, G. Morris (a man who was as promiscuous as Bill Clinton) and Hamilton (before the end of his life, before his son Philip died in 1801; shortly before his own death in a duel, Alexander Hamilton converted to orthodox Christianity). A person’s sins do not dictate whether he/she is a Christian. You are supposed to know that. As for Madison, here are some notes on ACTS 19 in his personal Bible: “”Believers who are in a State of Grace, have need of the word of God for their Edification and Building up therefore implies a possibility of falling. V. 32; Grace, it is the free gift of God. Luke. 12. v. 32; Giver more blessed than the Receiver. V.35; to neglect the means for our own preservation is to Tempt God: and to trust to them is to neglect him. v. 3 & Ch. 27. v. 31; Humility, the better any man is, the lower thoughts he has of himself. v. 19; Ministers to take heed to themselves & their flock. v. 28; The apostles did greater Miracles than Christ, in the matter, not manner, of them. v. 11.” I have more if you need them.
Jon, I think it is time for you to stop pushing your agenda and improve your scholarship.
Report comment to moderator
Good Morning Dr. Dave
Just wanted to chime in here with a caveat to what you say.
I think John has valid points. At least from what John says, the issue at hand takes more than a quote from a book or from one particular quote from a speech or something they’d said once or twice in a lifetime.
A lifetime.
I appreciate John’s comments, however much they may appear disagreeable to some, simply because of what I see as a history teacher and as a Christian, namely that we as evangelicals have a tendency to “justify” these men and their beliefs by a few words on a page without having a much deeper appreciation for the complexity and context of their time and of their person.
Having read a lot of history myself, I’ve come to see that there is a much more robust complexity to the question of whether or not someone was truly a believer.
Sure, the Christian faith was widely accepted during those times, but that does not mean we can finally know precisely who was accepted by Christ. I think it is difficult to determine. From the writings available to us we may make our own conclusions of course. But to take a few snippets from Franklin’s autobiography and conclude that because he said favorable things about Christianity he was a Christian is a bit too simple, in my estimation.
I like what both of you have said, John brings good points to the table and from my own limited perspective, confronts us with the notion that we ought to be good historians and leave a bit more room for enigma and uncertainty rather than trying to smooth out the bumps and contradictions, sins and follies, temperaments and the likes of these men with one or two quotes. Quote vollies really end in a draw.
I think its fine to offer them. I think they are good spring boards for further study and scholarship. But a handful of quotes does not solve the problem. John at least points this out, I think. And so do you, Dave. There is paradox, intrigue and the likes. What else did these men do and say? Were any of us there at their deaths? Do we know what happened or what was said between the lines they wrote? So we may not agree on historical perspectives, but much more “good scholarship” is needed and will continue to come forth.
But let us perhaps content ourselves with the notion that we truly may not really ever know with certainty this side of eternity if these men were truly known of Christ or not. Let this be the goad that drives us to continue to seek out a much more fully informed sense of who these men were, what they did and what they believed.
My students always ask me, “Do you think so-and-so was a Christian, Mr. Ray?” assuming the answer to be an easy one. I have a difficult time with simply yes or no, because in the end, I don’t know, despite what is written. My response to them is to read a great deal and draw your own conclusion. Sometimes, from a passage, one might conclude “Yes” but then in another, one might question it. The historian looks at the outward appearance, for that is all he can do. It is God alone who looks at the heart.
One of the best approaches to sketching the rich complexity of a historical person can be found in Roger Lundin’s biography of Emily Dickinson. Mr. Lundin is so gracious and careful not to draw hard-and-fast conclusions about Emily’s life and treats his subject with the utmost courtesy and respect, as though Emily were still alive. I may have forgotten much of the detail of the book since reading it several years ago, but Mr. Lundin’s treatment of Ms. Dickinson has never left me. I try to apply that same courtesy and respect to the figures we study in class.
Anyhow, for what its worth.
Dan
Report comment to moderator
I didn’t read all these posts, but I was interested in RPN’s #111. Not a single Baptist in the bunch!
Of course not, they were in prison at the time.
But John Leland helped get James Madison elected to the Consitutional convention, and we got religious liberty.
It’s just amazing that such a great country could have been formed without Baptists.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave,
Remember, I have done my homework here and am not trying to pull the wool over Christians’ eyes.
This is simply just false. Consider the following prayer of Washington: “Most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ, my merciful and loving Father; I acknowledge and confess my guilt in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. I have called on Thee for pardon and forgiveness of my sins, but so coldly and carelessly that my prayers are become my sin, and they stand in need of pardon. I have sinned against heaven and before Thee in thought, word, and deed…I humbly beseech Thee to be merciful to me in the free pardon of my sins for the sake of Thy dear Son and only Savior Jesus Christ who came to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me…increase my faith, and direct me to the true object, Jesus Christ the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” No wiggle room there at all. He was orthodox and Trinitarian.
NO what is false is GW’s “Daily Sacrifice” Prayerbook. It has been debunked as phony.
Report comment to moderator
Much else of what you write is consistent with my overall thesis. For instance the John Adams quote. Yes he and the others like “the Christian religion,” but it was as THEY understood the faith. What they didn’t appreciate were orthodox doctrines like original sin, trinity, incarnation, atonement, infallibility of the biblical canon. Rather it more Jesus’ moral teachings and the doctrine of a future state of rewards and punishments.
Much of what you reproduced from Adams and Franklin in your post 118 could have been said by Mormons. And THAT’S my overall point on this thread.
Report comment to moderator
[John Adams] also refers to Jesus as the Christ–something a unitarian would never do. I’ve got more if you need it.
Adams was not just a unitarian, but a lifelong militant unitarian:
I thank you for your favour of the 10th and the pamphlet enclosed, “American Unitarianism.” I have turned over its leaves and have found nothing that was not familiarly known to me.
In the preface Unitarianism is represented as only thirty years old in New England. I can testify as a Witness to its old age. Sixty five years ago my own minister the Reverend Samuel Bryant, Dr. Johnathan Mayhew of the west Church in Boston, the Reverend Mr. Shute of Hingham, the Reverend John Brown of Cohasset & perhaps equal to all if not above all the Reverend Mr. Gay of Hingham were Unitarians. Among the Laity how many could I name, Lawyers, Physicians, Tradesman, farmers!
– John Adams to Jedidiah Morse, May 15, 1815. Adams Papers (microfilm), reel 122, Library of Congress.
And:
We Unitarians, one of whom I have had the Honour to be, for more than sixty Years, do not indulge our Malignity in profane Cursing and Swearing, against you Calvinists; one of whom I know not how long you have been. You and I, once saw Calvin and Arius, on the Plafond of the Cathedral of St. John the Second in Spain roasting in the Flames of Hell. We Unitarians do not delight in thinking that Plato and Cicero, Tacitus Quintilian Plyny and even Diderot, are sweltering under the scalding drops of divine Vengeance, for all Eternity.
– John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816, Ibid, reel 430.
Report comment to moderator
Good morning ARCADIA!
Just wanted to briefly reply to your post in #96.
From what you’ve written, it sounds to me as though you have a fairly solid concept of the way things ought to be verses what you actually observe with your senses.
Creation is a long long way from the kind of micromanagement that you allege your creator continues to engage in. With a particularly morbid and fastidious fascination with every single member of one species in all those millions…
Have you ever engaged God in a discussion about the way He manages things? And merely because I’ve said God has a plan, doesn’t mean I know all the details. Your posts seem to suggest you know what God should be doing or should have done by now.
Here is God’s perspective on the matter regarding sinful humanity and its knowledge of Himself from Romans 1:20-21.
“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.”
I put myself in there, of course. If man made something like an acorn, Arcadia he’d call it technology, we’d all marvel and give the chap a nobel prize for such an ingenious design. Scripture says that man has a tacit understanding that the physical world/universe was designed. The sustaining business is beyond my realm of expertise, but I know that He must do it.
As God asks Job, “Have you an arm like God?
Or can you thunder with a voice like His?” or “Have you given the horse strength? Have you clothed his neck with thunder?”
And
“Do you know the ordinances of the heavens?
Can you set their dominion over the earth?”
As far as what you know of the millions of folks who’ve gone on without a particular brand of clergy, how do you know this, Arcadia? Seems you’ve taken on a bit of omniscience yourself in positing such a suggestion. That’s fairly significant generalization which must take into account some sort of notion that you know precisely what these people did or did not know of God during their lifetimes.
“Have you commanded the morning since your days began,And caused the dawn to know its place,That it might take hold of the ends of the earth,And the wicked be shaken out of it?”
I can’t answer that in the affirmative, Arcadia, and neither can Job. Compliants about the management of terrestrial affairs will have to be directed to the office of the Right Hand of the Most High.
And I can tell you from past experience having knocked on that Door once or twice with a few complaints of my own, the replies are not at all what you’d expect them to be and often times quite humbling.
Arcadia, you’re a thoughtful, thoughtprovoking person and I’m glad you’re in here. I love our exchanges. Thanks.
Dan
Report comment to moderator
WHOOPS! Forgot to turn off the italics. Sorry about that! No attitude intended.
Report comment to moderator
It is evident that Jon Rowe doesn’t think the country would have been formed without his Fave Founders. It would have.
Report comment to moderator
In re: 50
Victoria,
GOOOOOD GRief…I never said nobody in the christian church lives it out. I never said there are Mormons who dont live nice, and I certainly never made any claim that being nice substantiates Mormonism.
The only point was that, those who claim to be Mormon follow their beliefs, live it out, on average more so than those who claim to be christian.
Christians should be leading that, honestly.
Report comment to moderator
“It is evident that Jon Rowe doesn’t think the country would have been formed without his Fave Founders. It would have.”
Jon does a great job of always trying to get some point across that just doesnt really matter. Maybe one day he will apply his ambition to something more useful…
Report comment to moderator
Chas writes: “It’s just amazing that such a great country could have been formed without Baptists.”
Well, this accounts for why we have problems. Had the Baptists not been in jail, rest assured, Jon Rowe would have no argument at all.
Report comment to moderator
Acatlanta 1, 106,
Thank you for your reply.
The basic belief of Christianity is that we are all sinners and God demands a payment. No payment would be sufficient except a sinless one. He took it upon Himself to be that sinless sacrifice so we could live eternally with Him.
We are told in Genesis and John that in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. That is from the beginning. Jesus Christ, the Word of God, is the very expression of God’s nature. He is not a created being. He is God. He always was God and always will be God. He has no brothers and sisters other than those adopted into the family through regeneration, washed in His Blood.
We are told that we are all broken, sinners. We all are dead in our sins. We cannot make ourselves alive or do enough good works to save ourselves. Our only hope is Christ. Our “good” actions are a result of our being made alive in Christ. We do them out of gratitude for what happened on the Cross.
When we are made alive in Christ, we are given the indwelling Holy Spirit, another aspect of God. He is in us causing His fruit to grow in us: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control.
When we die, we will join Him for all eternity. He will be God, we will help.
This is what we get out of the Bible. As long as the LDS take the Bible with the attitude of “as long as it is translated correctly” there can be no agreement. Anytime there is something the prophet does not agree with, he can have a revelation and change it (blacks, caffeine, etc). We believe the Word of God is unchanging. When you add the D and C, you are adding to Scripture not just clarifying Scripture.
When I talk about Jesus Christ, I am referring to the eternal God Who always has been and always will be. When you talk about Jesus Christ, you are referring to a man who became exalted and became a god. Two entirely different things and that is what I mean when I say we use the same terms with different meanings.
I encourage further discussion.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia:
13.7 billion years of creation, and 4 billion years of earth evolution. And no, the rapture is crazy.
Regardless, you bring up some good points, but I do not wish to get bogged down. I’ll stick to what seems most important. You commented that neutrality is the starting point for all reasoning. There are only about three other sentences I disagree with more.
The greek philosopher Socrates posed a question: do the gods follow a higher morality, or do they arbitrarily decide right and wrong? As you’ll observe, neither option is satisfactory. In reality all things are based off the unchanging character of God. Socrates’ “higher morality” is in fact part of the only true unified God. You cannot talk about God filling a category of “existence”, the same way we do.
So, if God created everything, from nothing, then we can not use neutrality as a basis for reasoning. So called neutrality is nothing less than setting yourself up as the standard and measure of all things. No offense Arcadia, but you’re not up to the job. Alternately, you can measure all things against an
1. eternal
2. unchanging
3. perfect
God.
If there is only God and creation, where is the place of neutrality when the objective standards are themselves grounded in God? How does it fit in?
Consider scripture:
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” (No neutrality)
“I AM who I AM” (God is self contained, his own higher principle.)
“You shall be like God, knowing good from evil.”
All attempts at neutrality are at the bottom layer attempts to set oneself up as the standard, to set oneself up as God.
Report comment to moderator
<iMormons more conservative than evangelicals
Evvies aren’t conservative. They’re just a little less progressive than liberals.
And Mormons are just a little less progressive than evvies.
That is all.
Report comment to moderator
I agree Dr. Dave – it’s always a pleasure to read your posts -
Report comment to moderator
GOD made this country possible – one of the important things to remember which ’some’ forget, it took far more then the ‘fav’ few to construct what we now have, the United States. Dr. Dave has much more insight, not to mention historical background then ’some’ of the resident wannabes -
Report comment to moderator
Jon does a great job of always trying to get some point across that just doesnt really matter. Maybe one day he will apply his ambition to something more useful…
To some folks it does matter, to some it doesn’t. Whether the FFs believed in the Trinity & other orthodox doctrines and how their personal theology affect their public political principles DO matter. In large part it’s why orthodox Christians are no longer executing unitarian heretics like Servetus.
Report comment to moderator
GOD made this country possible – one of the important things to remember which ’some’ forget, it took far more then the ‘fav’ few to construct what we now have, the United States. Dr. Dave has much more insight, not to mention historical background then ’some’ of the resident wannabes -
It’s obvious that you are saying this simply because you are choosing sides and not because of the content of the arguments. I’ll admit I am not a professional historian by training; I did study legal history in law school and have JD, MBA, and LL.M. graduate degrees (all from Temple U).
Dr. Dave as far as I understand likewise has a PhD but not in history.
I caught him peddling at least two blatant factual untruths: 1) the debunked GW Daily Sacrifice Prayer, and 2) his assertion that John Adams was not a unitarian.
He caught no errors in fact or logic from my end.
Report comment to moderator
Again,
I want to reiterate, I do not have any kind of agenda to fool Christians on this site. I have published in conservative publications on this very issue and have friends and admirers and those whom I admire who are evangelicals and other conservative Christians. Michael Novak (with whom I sometimes/often disagree) has called my arguments “intelligent.” And John Fea, of Messiah College appreciates and largely agrees with my work. Of course I’ve learned much from Gregg Frazer of the Master’s College. I’ve also been out for drinks with (well he didn’t drink; I did) Jeff Morrison, professor of political science at Regent University who has a new book out on GW’s political philosophy published by Johns Hopkins (quite an accomplishment for Regent!).
There is a difference between disbelieving America had an authentically “Christian Founding” (what I argue) and buying into the AU/ACLU understanding of “separation” (which I don’t).
Report comment to moderator
It’s not a matter of taking sides, that’s an excuse to save one’s ego – the point is Dr. Dave is much more learned on this subject. Many of us have proven our points with historical documentation, only to be told by the ‘wannabes’ “heh heh yeah, that’s true” – thinking we couldn’t find the documents and than posting the rest of the ‘letter’ Adams to be exact – the truth was twisted until the entire paragraph could be posted to this blog –
No sides taken, the facts speak for themselves -
Report comment to moderator
Provost: Both Socrates and you assume that a god has anything whatsoever to do with morality. I am, for the purposes of this argument, positing one who is *merely* the creator or first cause of the universe of which we are an infinitesimal part. Unfortunateley I have no time today to go any farther.
Oldhickory: On another thread sometime perhaps we can discuss endings.
Report comment to moderator
The framework of our government has nothing to do with Christianity. Why? Because they didn’t set up a theocracy. They went out of their way not to. But denying that Christianity has played a heavy role in it is a lie. There is a lot more to our government than the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. There are people, and a lot of them. This country was not founded by a few, but a few wrote the documents. To say otherwise is a lie. To say that Christians who believed that Jesus Christ is Lord did not found this country is a lie. The country consisted of a lot more people than JonRowe’s fave few, and they wouldn’t have gotten anywhere without the support of the populace — and that populace overwhelmingly believed in Jesus Christ.
Report comment to moderator
Colonial Americans were more than willing to allow freedom of religion. It seems today, and we see it here on this blog everyday, that the secularists are not as generous.
Report comment to moderator
It’s not a matter of taking sides, that’s an excuse to save one’s ego – the point is Dr. Dave is much more learned on this subject.
The problem with this Victoria is you don’t believe this. I exposed two factual errors of his and he none of mine.
Many of us have proven our points with historical documentation, only to be told by the ‘wannabes’ “heh heh yeah, that’s true” – thinking we couldn’t find the documents and than posting the rest of the ‘letter’ Adams to be exact – the truth was twisted until the entire paragraph could be posted to this blog –
I don’t know what you are talking about. I never twisted John Adams words. And Dr. Dave erroneously claimed John Adams was not a unitarian.
No sides taken, the facts speak for themselves -
Well that’s one thing we agree on.
Report comment to moderator
The framework of our government has nothing to do with Christianity. Why? Because they didn’t set up a theocracy. They went out of their way not to. But denying that Christianity has played a heavy role in it is a lie.
I never denied this. I concede, after Harvard’s Bernard Bailyn, that biblical Christianity was one of five prime ideological sources that comprised the political principles of 1776-1800. It was not the dominant one, however.
To say that Christians who believed that Jesus Christ is Lord did not found this country is a lie.
They helped to found America but did not “own” the Founding. They did indeed assent to the Enlightenment project of the key Founders. Their consent was needed by virtue of the Enlightenment concept of liberal democracy/constitutional republicanism which America’s Founders established.
Report comment to moderator
One doesn’t have to twist the words of John Adams – what they can do is give a short sentence —- leave out the rest of an entire paragraph which makes the letter (Adams) to mean the oppposite of what they argue – this has been done over and over again on the blog.
Report comment to moderator
If anyone doesn’t fully understand what I meant in 144. “Consent of the governed” and “unalienable rights” are the two components of liberal democracy as posited by John Locke and America’s Founders. It’s for the most part an Enlightenment not a Christian idea. However the Christians in the population needed to assent to the Constitution and to the “rulers” for the “system” to be legitimate according to its own internal theory.
Harry Jaffa has written of how this related to blacks and the Founding. A lot of FFs knew “all men are created equal” men blacks have unalienable rights. However, in order to implement a legitimate legal system to abolish slavery, you needed the “consent of the governed” which not enough of the slave states were willing to give. Jaffa termed this the “Crisis of the House Divided.”
Under the “old system,” the authentically biblical system based on Romans 13, there was no need for “consent of the governed.” Rather Rulers, invariably Kings/Monarchs obtained their power from God and the Christians’ biblical-political duty was to SUBMIT. THAT’S what a “Christian Nation” looks like: Divine Rule of Kings where Church & State are one.
Report comment to moderator
Yes Victoria, it’s been done by, among others, YOU AND DR. DAVE.
Show me ONE INSTANCE OF ME DOING THIS.
Report comment to moderator
I have done just that in the past –
The feeble attemps to persuasively but ineffectively sway anyone who will listen isn’t working – One either knows their stuff or they don’t – having drinks, or a kind remark here or there doesn’t constitute agreement, nor does it give one a special place in any field, it’s done in society all the time as a courtesy.
Report comment to moderator
SHOULD READ
I have shown your mistakes in the past -
Report comment to moderator
#120(OH68): “Good Morning Dr. Dave. Just wanted to chime in here with a caveat to what you say. I think John has valid points. At least from what John says, the issue at hand takes more than a quote from a book or from one particular quote from a speech or something they’d said once or twice in a lifetime.
First, the above quote is only for context. I apologize for not including more of your response, but my time is limited. I appreciate your input, but I want to note that this is not the first time Jon Rowe has posted the quotes from John Adams, Jefferson, and others. He has posted them multiple times and I have responded at least three times. He and I have exchanged views on the need to provide context and I have reminded him at least twice of the Historical context in which they were made.
As you correctly point out, it is important to remember the zeitgeist. Virginia (Jefferson’s home colony) was primarily Church of England territory (now the Episcopal Church). This branch of Christianity firmly supported King George III as you would expect them to. Much of Jefferson’s writing on freedom of religion and his diatribes against the clergy have to be understood in that context. The clergy in his colony were no doubt preaching vehemently on Romans 13. You can guess how that sat with Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and other Virginia patriots. And you yourself have noted that Romans 13 presents a real dilemma for the Christian who takes the Bible seriously. Jon Rowe mentions none of this, of course. Context gets in the way of his agenda.
Jefferson’s Bible, his reasons for writing it, and the context he places around his reasons (see
http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/index.html) are really important in understanding his positions on freedom of religion and his other quotes that Jon has so much fun posting. I grant that Jefferson had strong opinions on Jesus’ divinity that are antagonistic to Orthodox Christianity and there is reason to believe he ascribed to a Unitarian view of God. However, I disagree totally that we can safely make that judgment especially since Christ has emphatically denied us that right or privilege (see Matthew 13–parable of the wheat and tares).
Finally, notice what Jon does regarding the quote I provided from John Adams. Instead of addressing it, he cuts and pastes other 1816 quotes from John Adams–the same quotes he has posted here several times before. Again, no context and no reference to the zeitgeist. I suspect, and I will be testing it shortly, that he doesn’t even know how Adams could say in my quote in post 119: “…Ask me not, then, whether I am a Catholic or Protestant, Calvinist or Arminian. As far as they are Christians, I wish to be a fellow-disciple with them all…” That is, Jon did not address the key idea in that quote that there is something that unites all Christians, Catholics, Protestants, Calvinists, and Armenians, regarding Jesus Christ. I would be pleasantly surprised that Jon could even name that commonality as it would totally undermine his thesis regarding John Adams.
Blessings and good to have you back.
Report comment to moderator
V,
Your 148 is a non-response. But re whether one knows his stuff or not, mine is the 4th blurb down and yes that is First Things Magazine and Princeton University Press.
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8013.html
Report comment to moderator
The clergy in his colony were no doubt preaching vehemently on Romans 13. You can guess how that sat with Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and other Virginia patriots. And you yourself have noted that Romans 13 presents a real dilemma for the Christian who takes the Bible seriously. Jon Rowe mentions none of this, of course.
Oh really in my post on 146 I seem to mention exactly this, that classic orthodox Christian political theology held that believers are to SUBMIT to their rulers, even if tyrants. Me in particular and my site American Creation has probably blogged more about Romans 13 and the American Founding than any other blog source out there.
Report comment to moderator
Jefferson’s Bible, his reasons for writing it, and the context he places around his reasons (see
http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/index.html) are really important in understanding his positions on freedom of religion and his other quotes that Jon has so much fun posting. I grant that Jefferson had strong opinions on Jesus’ divinity that are antagonistic to Orthodox Christianity and there is reason to believe he ascribed to a Unitarian view of God.
This is consistent with everything I have written here.
However, I disagree totally that we can safely make that judgment especially since Christ has emphatically denied us that right or privilege (see Matthew 13–parable of the wheat and tares).
And I never presumed to judge Jefferson’s soul. As far as I am concerned Jefferson’s (and J. Adams’ and Franklin’s) fervent rejection of Jesus divinity didn’t stand in the way of him getting into Heaven.
Report comment to moderator
Finally, notice what Jon does regarding the quote I provided from John Adams. Instead of addressing it, he cuts and pastes other 1816 quotes from John Adams–the same quotes he has posted here several times before. Again, no context and no reference to the zeitgeist. I suspect, and I will be testing it shortly, that he doesn’t even know how Adams could say in my quote in post 119: “…Ask me not, then, whether I am a Catholic or Protestant, Calvinist or Arminian. As far as they are Christians, I wish to be a fellow-disciple with them all…” That is, Jon did not address the key idea in that quote that there is something that unites all Christians, Catholics, Protestants, Calvinists, and Armenians, regarding Jesus Christ. I would be pleasantly surprised that Jon could even name that commonality as it would totally undermine his thesis regarding John Adams.
First you erroneously assert that I didn’t address the issue. But I’ll repeat myself and address it again. Whatever it was that John Adams liked in those groups — whatever Adams himself thought “united” the Christian sects — it was NOT original sin, the Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement, eternal damnation, infallibility of the Bible. Because these are all things that John Adams, in no uncertain terms, personally rejected.
Therefore, what J. Adams liked about those “Christians sects,” — indeed what J. Adams repeatedly over and over again said he valued about “Christianity” — was its teachings of an overruling Providence, future state of rewards and punishments and Jesus’ moral teachings.
Report comment to moderator
SOUTHERN CONSERVATIVE (43): … to compare [Mormomns] to Evangelicals is like comparing a Cadillac to a Yugo; the Mormon theology is something out of science fiction and rivals L. Ron Hubbard’s Christian Scientology.
Frank: … not to mention the idea that the GOP unquestionably represents “conservative” values.
The unspoken assumption since the start of this thread has been that, if you are “conservative,” you must vote GOP — and if you don’t, you simply aren’t.
Pish.
And tosh.
Either the word “conservative” doesn’t mean to most of you what it means to me, or being conservative theologically — believing, and ordering one’s life according to, the Bible as the Word of God — does not automatically correspond to being conservative politically.
I’m wondering which case has the stronger argument …
Report comment to moderator
#124&137(Jon Rowe): [No Contextual quote, Sorry. But it should be clear below what I am responding to.]
I find it interesting that in response to my quote from John Adams to Benjamin Rush in 1810 that you respond with the same set of quotes you have used numerous times before to establish John Adams Unitarianism instead of addressing the astonishing fact that John Adams, if he were indeed a Unitarian, would say, “…Ask me not, then, whether I am a Catholic or Protestant, Calvinist or Arminian. As far as they are Christians, I wish to be a fellow-disciple with them all.”
Are you aware of what that quote implies? Hint: What is common to all denominations of Christianity such that John Adams could say that the commonality is what is important and what defines a Christian–whether their doctrine be Catholic, Protestant, Calvinist or Armenian? In this context, Unitarianism cannot be included.
I await your answer.
As you should know (and I presume you do know), New England was not dominated by the Church of England like Virginia was. Instead, it was Puritan, Congregational, Presbyterian, and so on. All these were Reformed in their doctrine although the Congregational church splintered around the time of the Revolution and one branch became Unitarian in its beliefs. Your first quote from John Adams demonstrates only that he knew of Unitarianism as one would expect since he was a Congregationalist as was his wife Abigail. Your second quote is a little more problematic until one realizes that the Unitarianism of the colonial period was not the Unitarianism of today–a syncretic polyglot of Christianity, Judaism, and other non-Christian sects.
Anyway, let me know when you are ready to discuss my John Adams quote.
Report comment to moderator
A few weeks ago, Pastor Doug Wilson made the following observation in an open letter to Sarah Palin [his ital; my bold - FiS]:
Oops, forgot the link: Wilson’s open letter to Sarah Palin
Report comment to moderator
… and then I made it down to post (74), where Old Hickory entered the fray:
Well put, friend … well put!
Report comment to moderator
156:
Dr. Dave: Oh what a tangled web we weave,…
John Adams was, as a factual matter, a unitarian from at least 1750 till his death.
I thank you for your favour of the 10th and the pamphlet enclosed, “American Unitarianism.” I have turned over its leaves and have found nothing that was not familiarly known to me.
In the preface Unitarianism is represented as only thirty years old in New England. I can testify as a Witness to its old age. Sixty five years ago my own minister the Reverend Samuel Bryant, Dr. Johnathan Mayhew of the west Church in Boston, the Reverend Mr. Shute of Hingham, the Reverend John Brown of Cohasset & perhaps equal to all if not above all the Reverend Mr. Gay of Hingham were Unitarians. Among the Laity how many could I name, Lawyers, Physicians, Tradesman, farmers! [Bold mine.]
– John Adams to Jedidiah Morse, May 15, 1815. Adams Papers (microfilm), reel 122, Library of Congress.
And:
We Unitarians, one of whom I have had the Honour to be, for more than sixty Years, do not indulge our Malignity in profane Cursing and Swearing, against you Calvinists; one of whom I know not how long you have been. You and I, once saw Calvin and Arius, on the Plafond of the Cathedral of St. John the Second in Spain roasting in the Flames of Hell. We Unitarians do not delight in thinking that Plato and Cicero, Tacitus Quintilian Plyny and even Diderot, are sweltering under the scalding drops of divine Vengeance, for all Eternity. [Bold mine.]
– John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816, Ibid, reel 430.
As you would put it Dr. Dave there is NO wiggle room in those quotations where Adams identifies as a unitarian since 1750 or so.
Likewise I have smoking gun quotations of Adams, not just denying but often times bitterly mocking original sin, the trinity, incarnation, atonement.
If you can’t concede this, you will just come across to everyone else here (except Victoria) as someone who is arguing for the sake of arguing because you don’t like what the other person is saying.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, you have re-arranged the text of Adams letter, not only on the LINK below but other posts. This is complete proof as to how you handle original text, and then what you do with it to prove something that was never there.
Your post 192 and mine 193
Your post 197 and mine 198
http://online.worldmag.com/2008/11/13/light-gay-and-violent-ii/
And than further down you COMPLAIN because I won’t click on your ‘tinyurl’s’ – LOL as if you don’t understand why, calling it paranoid – ‘tinyurl’s’ can be directed to anyone’s personal site, which I NEVER go to. The point is, you were caught twisting the letter and you didn’t like it.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Re 192-93, I simply reproduced Adams letter to Jefferson verbatim from the Cappon ed. which is *the* authoritative ed. of their letters.
Further, what Cappon inserted in brackets in NO WAY distorted the meaning of Adams’ letter, but rather clarified it. The “Shastra” or “Shasta” [sic] as Adams originally wrote, was indeed a HINDU TREATISE. Or as they would write during the Founding Era a “HINDOO” Treatise.
Report comment to moderator
“V” – “Yes Mormons appear to be conservative, however they most certainly don’t represent conservative beliefs as many in Utah still have multiple wives.”
If by “conservative” you mean adhering to tradition, polygamy is very conservative, since it is the oldest tradition in the Bible.
Report comment to moderator
#163
Except, polygamy wasn’t part of God’s plan, only accepted.
Report comment to moderator
Re 197-98 V, you further misfire.
Indeed the original context of Adams’ quote indicates he thought the Bible “the best book” NOT because it was infallible but rather because it agreed with HIM and HIS PHILOSOPHY which was the result of “reason.”
In other writings Adams makes clear however much he appreciated the Bible, he believed the Bible an errant, fallible book.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe is right. When attempting to discern someone’s orthodoxy (I’m acknowledging our limited perspective), the UNorthodox statements trump the orthodox ones, as long as those unorthodox statements go unretracted, were made prior to an apparent conversion, or were not due to simple immaturity in the faith. A Mormon can make any number of orthodox claims, but once he asserts, for example, that Jesus is not co-eternal with the Father, we know what’s what. Same with the Founders or anyone.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, you twisted the letter, as I pointed in 193 – the error’s which were many, all in bold – I gave the text as it was originally written. LOL you didn’t fool anyone –
http://online.worldmag.com/2008/11/13/light-gay-and-violent-ii/
Report comment to moderator
#122(Jon Rowe) says in reponse to my GW quote: “NO what is false is GW’s “Daily Sacrifice” Prayerbook. It has been debunked as phony.
Funny how the people who call it a fraud are you and somebody named Brad. I know you quote Grizzard in an email to Ed Brayton and you say you can provide conclusive proof. But the quote you provide begins with the sentence, “”The so-called prayer journal is not in GW’s writing, although I’m not sure it’s actually a forgery.” All this appears on your blog, “AmericanCreation” and nowhere else that I can find easily. Perhaps you can point me to the authoritative research that fully establishes that it is a forgery.
In the meantime, I offer the following:
1. “The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.” – General Orders, July 9, 1776
2. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian. The signal instances of Providential goodness which we have experienced and which have now almost crowned our labors with complete success demand from us in a peculiar manner the warmest returns of gratitude and piety to the Supreme Author of all good.” – General Orders, May 2, 1778
3. “What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” – Speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs, May 12, 1779
4. “I am not less ardent in my wish that you may succeed in your plan of toleration in religious matters. Being no bigot myself to any mode of worship, I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church, that road to Heaven, which to them shall seem the most direct plainest easiest and least liable to exception.” – Letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, August 15, 1787
5. “So far as I am capable of judging, the principles upon which the society is founded and the rules laid down for its government, appear to be well calculated to promote so laudable and arduous an undertaking, and you will permit me to add that if an event so long and so earnestly desired as that of converting the Indians to Christianity and consequently to civilization, can be effected, the Society of Bethlehem bids fair to bear a very considerable part in it.” – Letter to Rev. John Ettwein of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel to the Heathen, May 2, 1788
6. “The determinations of Providence are always wise, often inscrutable; and, though its decrees appear to bear hard upon us at times, is nevertheless meant for gracious purposes.” – Letter to Bryan Fairfax, March 1, 1778
7. “The hand of Providence has been so conspicuous in all this that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more wicked that has not gratitude to acknowledge his obligations; but it will be time enough for me to turn Preacher when my present appointment ceases; and therefore, I shall add no more on the Doctrine of Providence.” – Letter to Brigadier General Thomas Nelson, August 20, 1778
8. “We have, as you very justly observe, abundant reason to thank Providence for its many favorable interpositions in our behalf. It has at times been my only dependence, for all other resources seemed to have failed us.” – Letter to William Gordon, March, 1781
9. “I accept, with much pleasure your kind Congratulations on the happy Event of Peace, with the Establishment of our Liberties and Independence. Glorious indeed has been our Contest: glorious in its Issue; but in the midst of our Joys, I hope we shall not forget that, to divine providence is to be ascribed the glory and the Praise.” – Letter to Rev. John Rodgers, June 11, 1783
10. “While I reiterate the professions of my dependence upon Heaven as the source of all public and private blessings; I will observe that the general prevalence of piety, philanthropy, honesty, industry, and economy seems, in the ordinary course of human affairs, particularly necessary for advancing and conforming the happiness of our country. While all men within our territories are protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of their consciences; it is rationally to be expected from them in return, that they will be emulous of evincing the sanctity of their professions by the innocence of their lives and the beneficence of their actions; for no man, who is profligate in his morals, or a bad member of the civil community, can possibly be a true Christian, or a credit to his own religious society.” -Letter to the Presbyterian General Assembly, May, 1789
11. “It would ill become me to conceal the joy I have felt in perceiving the fraternal affection, which appears to increase every day among the friends of genuine religion. It affords edifying prospects indeed, to see Christians of different denominations, dwell together in more charity and conduct themselves in respect to each other, with a more Christian-like spirit than ever they have done in any former age, or in any other Nation.” – Letter to General Convention of Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church, August 18, 1789
Finally, I leave you with this quote from his adopted daughter, Nelly Custis-Lewis, in response to a request from Jared Sparks in 1833 for information on Washington’s religions views, “He attended the church at Alexandria when the weather and roads permitted a ride of ten miles (a one-way journey of 2-3 hours by horse or carriage). In New York and Philadelphia he never omitted attendance at church in the morning, unless detained by indisposition [sickness].” She continues by saying “No one in church attended to the services with more reverential respect.” She adds: “I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, that they may be seen of men.”
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave, Mr. Rowe:
Greetings gentlemen. It is apparent I’ve stumbled into the midst of a very thoughtful and ongoing presentation between you both on a subject that fascinates me to no end. I’m sorry for not completely understanding the context of the ongoing threads.
I only teach middle school U.S. History. I do my own reading and homework of course, but I must candidly admit I’m not up to par with much of what either of you have posted in great detail, but I’m familiar. I really enjoy history and have often aspired to obtain a degree toward that end at some point, but who knows?
My own take on a few gents you both have mentioned is that Jefferson, so far as his last letters seem to indicate, denied some key components of basic Christian doctrine regarding the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jefferson never mentions “Jesus as Lord” in what I’ve read of him and by him, something Romans 10:9-10 says is essential for salvation. Doesn’t mean at some point before he died he didn’t, but only God knows.
Adams. A man of his times and culture. He seemed to be culturally aware of the basics of the Christian faith, but as far as the evidence we’ve collected, again, I can’t make the call from here. Looks like it, but who really knows? I don’t think quotes and paragraphs from certain times in his life solve the issue concretely, but present a rather complex picture of a gifted, intelligent and politically astute 18th century farmer-patriot.
Lots of FF’s hated Calvinism and scorned the Reformed tradition. That’s something to consider.
Washington. A mystery, wrapped in an enigma, surrounded by something or other that makes it very difficult to tell. There are scant mentions of Jesus in his writing, the one I’ve seen the most is in a short quip about teaching Native Americans about the “religion of Jesus Christ.” As Dr. Dave has up there. But as this thread has demonstrated, Washington was so shrouded in a cloak of “morality” that one could not pin down his precise beliefs. “Conservative” yes. Orthodox Christian? I can’t tell. At least I don’t think its fair to say one way or the other based on a handful of his writings. There’s a lot that isn’t there.
Franklin. Friend and promoter of Whitefield the evangelist. Autobiography suggests he wasn’t too concerned about eternity. Certainly knew the importance of looking the part of a determined, hard-working man with one eye on the plow and one to “Providence”. But what was really churning in the mind and soul of the “First American”? Who knows, really? I mean you want to forgive this man his faults, but on the other hand he was a bit doctrinally and ethically lax in his later years. Big question mark for me.
Anyhow gents. You can poke my “scholarship” full of holes of course. Just wanted to add to the debate and encourage you both for bringing valid points to both sides of a never-ending and fascinating dialogue.
Dan
Report comment to moderator
#160(Jon Rowe): “Dr. Dave: Oh what a tangled web we weave,…John Adams was, as a factual matter, a unitarian from at least 1750 till his death.
Jon then quotes from John Adams letter to Jedidiah Morse as follows: “I thank you for your favour of the 10th and the pamphlet enclosed, “American Unitarianism.” I have turned over its leaves and have found nothing that was not familiarly known to me. In the preface Unitarianism is represented as only thirty years old in New England. I can testify as a Witness to its old age. Sixty five years ago my own minister the Reverend Samuel Bryant, Dr. Johnathan Mayhew of the west Church in Boston, the Reverend Mr. Shute of Hingham, the Reverend John Brown of Cohasset & perhaps equal to all if not above all the Reverend Mr. Gay of Hingham were Unitarians. Among the Laity how many could I name, Lawyers, Physicians, Tradesman, farmers!”
Jon has reprinted this quote any number of times on this blog and all it shows is that John Adams is familiar with the Unitarianism that had crept into the Congregational Church denomination. John fails to mention that the letter is in response to a query by Morse regarding a pamphlet being distributed in New England that discloses what is regarded as the heresy of Unitarianism. Moreover, Jon fails to reprint the remainder of the letter which clearly demonstrates that John Adams is addressing the issue of religious liberty (a major issue in New England considering its history. Moreover, John Adams goes on to rant about consiracies of Jesuits and ecclesiastical authority to restrict religious liberty. and how it will never be allowed in America. The letter offers no evidence that John Adams was a devout Unitarian (if such a thing can exist). What it does demonstrate is that John Adams is very sensitive about freedom of religion.
Jon’s next quote is from John Adams to his son in 1816: “We Unitarians, one of whom I have had the Honour to be, for more than sixty Years, do not indulge our Malignity in profane Cursing and Swearing, against you Calvinists; one of whom I know not how long you have been. You and I, once saw Calvin and Arius, on the Plafond of the Cathedral of St. John the Second in Spain roasting in the Flames of Hell. We Unitarians do not delight in thinking that Plato and Cicero, Tacitus Quintilian Plyny and even Diderot, are sweltering under the scalding drops of divine Vengeance, for all Eternity.
Jon never gives the context of this quote from John Adams to his son. According to JonRowe.blogspot.com, however, it is lifted from an book by James H. Hutson entitled, “The Founders on Religion: A Book of Quotations,” which again provides no context. It is instructive, however, to remember that John Quincy Adams was reformed in doctrine and quite possibly was concerned about his parent’s salvation. In this context, the quote seems more like a reproof than an affirmation of Unitarian belief as we know it. I do, however find the initial admission by John Adams troubling.
In this context, it is useful to remember James H. Hutson’s response to the following query in Christianity Today:
Q: Many of the Founders were well versed in religious and theological matters. How did this affect their work as architects of the republic?
A: “They could quote Scripture. Jefferson and others were tutored by ministers. They were an extremely biblically literate generation. This certainly shaped their view of Providence. The extent to which they believed in Providence would be unimaginable today. Adams and folks like that continually quoted [Jesus'] statement that a swallow cannot fall without God’s knowledge. Washington talks about the invisible hand of Providence. Their biblical knowledge convinced these people that there was an invisible hand of God, and that there was a moral government of the universe.”
Jon, you might also find this link enlightening regarding John Adams:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/mayweb-only/118-45.0.html
Report comment to moderator
Yes, I believe the majority of the Founding Fathers believed in the LORD Jesus Christ, and put great emphasis on the Word of GOD.
The argument as to whether the Founding Fathers ever wanted Bibles to be in schools, or the Ten Commandments to be placed in public places – this is a great quote from Benjamin Rush.
Perhaps Benjamin Rush in some way could invision the Bible and GOD being removed from our schools and elsewhere, knowing how man can stray from GOD Almighty.
Report comment to moderator
#169(OH68): “Anyhow gents. You can poke my “scholarship” full of holes of course. Just wanted to add to the debate and encourage you both for bringing valid points to both sides of a never-ending and fascinating dialog.
You’re scholarship is just fine. I certainly can find nothing to complain about.
My main point has always been that we are not to judge others regarding their relationship with God. That is the Christ’s job along with the Angels on the Day of Judgment. As far as I am concerned, if a person says he/she is a Christian, then that is what they are (even if they are not bearing much fruit
). As you say, if a person can with honesty and integrity affirm Romans 10:8-13, then that person is a Christian and I have no further questions (unless, of course, that person is applying for membership in my church 
).
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave:
You bring up something which has always intrigued me.Taking quotes from letters, etc. How does one or two letters, or one or two lines from a book give us the complete portrait of someone’s life? Granted all we have to go on is what is written, but I think I’d hate for someone to declare they knew what I believed 200 years into the future by one or two personal letters or a sentence or two. You know what I mean?
Many of the FF’s knowledge of Scripture was “cultural”. But it cannot be ascertained from said knowledge that such was a “saving” knowledge, at least I don’t think so anyway.
I think of the first three verses of 1 Corinthians 13.
“Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing.”
And James 2:19
“You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!”
And Matthew 7:21-23
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.“Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’”
These are verses which have troubled me over the course of my walk. But I think they do raise questions about the level of “knowing” we might have regarding the state of several of the FF’s souls. I don’t mean to dismiss the enormous cultural impact Christianity had upon our founding, by no means. I’m simply addressing what I believe is in the end, based upon the evidence available to us, we cannot be 100% sure of whether or not they were truly regenerate.
I do think Dr. Rush is a great deal more forthcoming about his profession of faith in his writing than many of his contemporaries.
Report comment to moderator
And Dave, I’m not trying to nitpick you with my last comment. As a teacher myself, especially in a Christian school, I’ve often seen lots of “quote mining” not for the sake of being accurate, but for the sake of having the upper hand in the culture wars.
Not saying you’re doing this, sir. Heavens no! Please don’t misunderstand me. It’s just that I’ve done my fair share of it and have realized (and have been embarrassed) by what I didn’t know.
That’s all. No harm. No arguments.
Thanks.
Dan
Report comment to moderator
Also, I agree with you up there at 172. Posting crossings!
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
In 167 you are just nitpicking and it does not deserve a response. You showed no error in how I presented Adams’ quote.
Report comment to moderator
Before I deal with Dr. Dave’s claims one at a time, let me say a word about Rush. Yes, he was an orthodox Trinitarian Christian. He was also a fairly liberal orthodox Trinitarian in that he denied eternal damnation and claimed the Bible taught universal salvation (in short, his “Christianity” was more like Steve G.’s than Victoria’s).
As he wrote in “Travels through Life,” his autobiography:
At Dr. Finley’s school, I was more fully instructed in those principles by means of the Westminster catechism. I retained them without any affection for them until about the year 1780. I then read for the first time Fletcher’s controversy with the Calvinists, in favor of the universality of the atonement. This prepared my mind to admit the doctrine of universal salvation, which was then preached in our city by the Rev. Mr. Winchester. It embraced and reconciled my ancient Calvinistical and my newly adopted Arminian principles. From that time I have never doubted upon the subject of the salvation of all men. My conviction of the truth of this doctrine was derived from reading the works of Stonehouse, Seigvolk, White, Chauncey and Winchester, and afterwards from an attentive perusal of the Scriptures. I always admitted with each of those authors future punishment, and of long duration.
I also wonder how Victoria feels about what the Bible teaches on the Death Penalty because Rush believed that Scripture forbade capital punishment.
Report comment to moderator
Okay, re “The Daily Sacrifice,” I think you misunderstand Frank Grizzard’s comments about whether it was a “forgery.” Grizzard in no uncertain term concedes this was NOT GW’s personal prayerbook as he did a handwriting analysis and proved it was not in GW’s hand. It make have been not a forgery in the sense that it may have been an actual prayerbook that belonged to someone in GW’s family. Or it may have been a forgery, something someone concoted for $$. But the idea that it was GW’s personal prayerbook has been debunked by among others Grizzard as a fraud.
http://tinyurl.com/n8h33v
The Smithsonian rejected the prayerbook as not authentically George Washington’s. See page 51 in Grizzard’s book if google lets you preview it.
Report comment to moderator
Onto the quotes.
What I want us to keep in mind is as GW praises and discusses “Christianity,” everything that came out of his mouth is consistent with Mormonism. That is, you NEVER get specific endorsement of believe in orthodox Trinitarian biblical Christianity. That’s why the “GW was a ‘Christian’” crowd needs to invoke the spurious “Daily Sacrifice.”
1. “The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor to live and act as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rights and liberties of his country.” – General Orders, July 9, 1776
2. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian. The signal instances of Providential goodness which we have experienced and which have now almost crowned our labors with complete success demand from us in a peculiar manner the warmest returns of gratitude and piety to the Supreme Author of all good.” – General Orders, May 2, 1778
These two actually prove my thesis. What GW valued in “Christianity” was NOT things like original sin, Trinity, Atonement, infallibility of the Bible, but rather how Christianity made men moral and hence self governable. GW equated Christianity with being a good person like the other key Founders did, NOT as being born again or “regenerate” through the shed blood of Christ! Or, if GW did believe in these things, we don’t see it in those quotes.
Report comment to moderator
3. “What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” – Speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs, May 12, 1779
This misquotes Washington. I’ll deal with the quotation once you cite it properly.
4. “I am not less ardent in my wish that you may succeed in your plan of toleration in religious matters. Being no bigot myself to any mode of worship, I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church, that road to Heaven, which to them shall seem the most direct plainest easiest and least liable to exception.” – Letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, August 15, 1787
Here GW sounds like he’s talking about Christianity as an outsider, as though he were not a member of the group.
5. “So far as I am capable of judging, the principles upon which the society is founded and the rules laid down for its government, appear to be well calculated to promote so laudable and arduous an undertaking, and you will permit me to add that if an event so long and so earnestly desired as that of converting the Indians to Christianity and consequently to civilization, can be effected, the Society of Bethlehem bids fair to bear a very considerable part in it.” – Letter to Rev. John Ettwein of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel to the Heathen, May 2, 1788
Again this supports my thesis. GW didn’t care about Indians converting to Christianity because their Native religion was “false” and “Christ is the only way to God,” or that they were in a state of spiritual darkness. To the contrary, twice when addressing unconverted Natives GW spoke of God as “the Great Spirit” exactly as they did, once going so far as to pray to “the Great Spirit” by name (worse than praying to “Allah” by name b/c at least Allah claims to be the God of Abraham; the Great Spirit made no such claim). This suggests GW thought the Natives religion was like Christianity, a valid way to God.
Rather, GW supported Indians converting to Christianity for utilitarian reasons; it helped to “civilize” them. That is a unitarian or works oriented reason for supporting Indian conversion to Christianity.
Report comment to moderator
AND
I believe the reason for this comparison is important – ask yourselves WHY anyone would be so intent to prove those who founded this country were not Godly? – OR, why would they work diligently to play games with the Word of GOD regarding homosexuality? We have a breakdown in society of moral values, people are being TALKED AT regarding our country as though it was founded on good words rather than Christian values and principles – rather than men who believed in GOD and HIS Word and made it plain.
We must examine the motives of those who take liberties in describing dedicated men who labored in forming our government, with a foundation built on Christian beliefs, the Bible and most importantly upon GOD.
Report comment to moderator
Lol Victoria. When you try to impugn someone’s motives you commit the logical fallacy known as the genetic fallacy or poisoning the well.
You don’t even have the pattern right in my case. While I don’t think homosexuality is immoral I do not “look[] for Scripture which would absolve one from the sin of homosexuality, AGAIN arguing against every piece of of Scripture which proves that homosexuality is an abomination.”
The progay biblical revisionists, ala John Boswell are, as I understand, correct in only ONE of their arguments. Sodom & Gomorrah, from a plain literal sense of the text seemed not about ordinary homosexuality but gang rape.
I have always conceded the anti-homosexual stance taken for instance by Leviticus and St. Paul. Unlike the text of S&G, those would apply to ordinary homosexuality.
Report comment to moderator
Re Dr. Dave’s 168 points 6-9, they prove only that GW believed in “Providence,” which hardly equates with being an orthodox Trinitarian Christian.
Re point 10:
10. “While I reiterate the professions of my dependence upon Heaven as the source of all public and private blessings; I will observe that the general prevalence of piety, philanthropy, honesty, industry, and economy seems, in the ordinary course of human affairs, particularly necessary for advancing and conforming the happiness of our country. While all men within our territories are protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of their consciences; it is rationally to be expected from them in return, that they will be emulous of evincing the sanctity of their professions by the innocence of their lives and the beneficence of their actions; for no man, who is profligate in his morals, or a bad member of the civil community, can possibly be a true Christian, or a credit to his own religious society.” -Letter to the Presbyterian General Assembly, May, 1789
I actually quoted this address in an above comment as proving my thesis: GW equates “Christianity” with being a good person or a moral, self governable individual. I.e., if we applied this test to the Mormons, we’d have to conclude Mormons are “Christians,” because they are not “profligate in [their] morals, or a bad member of the civil community,…”
Likewise point 11 is consistent with Mormonism and doesn’t prove GW’s orthodoxy.
Report comment to moderator
Re N. Custis’ testimony 1) she may have been dealing with a different understanding of “Christianity.” Indeed the biographer Jared Sparks to whom she wrote was himself a Unitarian and considered himself a devout Christian.
GW attended church about once a month, btw.
Custis’ testimony may be biased in the sense that it seeks to protect GW from a “charge” of infidelity. Further if you read the original letter she lets the cat out of the bag and admits GW avoided communion in his church which suggests he disbelieved in the Trinity and Christ’s Atonement.
Here is what GW’s own minister had to say on GW’s systematic avoidance of communion in the Anglican/Episcopal Church:
With respect to the enquiry you make, I can only state the following facts; that as the Pastor of the Episcopal Church (an humble assistant minister to its Rector, the Rt. Rev. Dr. White) observing that on Sacrament Sundays, Gen’l Washington, immediately after the Desk and Pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the congregation, always leaving Mrs. Washington with the communicants, she invariably being one, I considered it my duty, in a sermon on Public Worship, to state the unhappy tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations, who invariably turned their backs upon the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the President, and, as such, he received it. A few days after, in conversation with, I believe, a Senator of the U. S., he told me he had dined the day before with the President, who, in the course of conversation at the table, said, that on the preceding Sunday, he had received a very just reproof from the pulpit, for always leaving the church before the administration of the Sacrament; that he honored the preacher for his integrity and candour; that he had never considered the influence of his example; that he would never again give cause for the repetition of the reproof; and that, as he had never been a communicant, were he to become one then, it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal arising altogether from his elevated station. Accordingly, he afterwards never came on the morning of Sacrament Sunday, tho’, at other times, a constant attendant in the morning. Of the assertion made by Dr. Wilson in the conclusion of a paragraph of your letter, I cannot say I have not the least recollection of such a conversation, but had I made use of the expression stated, it could not have extended farther than the expression of private individual opinion. That Washington was a professing Christian is evident from his regular attendance in our church; but, Sir, I cannot consider any man as a real Christian who uniformly disregards an ordinance so solemnly enjoined by the divine Author of our holy religion, and considered as a channel of divine grace. This, Sir, is all that I think it proper to state on paper. In a conversation, more latitude being allowed, more light might, perhaps, be thrown upon it. I trust, however, Sir, you will not introduce my name in print.
I am, Sir,
Yrs.
James Abercrombie
http://tinyurl.com/cd8gb
Report comment to moderator
“We must examine the motives of those who take liberties in describing dedicated men who labored in forming our government, with a foundation built on Christian beliefs, the Bible and most importantly upon GOD.”
I think it is every person’s duty to “take liberty” to examine what history affords us regarding our nation’s past and the lives of those who helped founded it.
But we cannot possibly “examine the motives” of people who do so, at least I don’t think I can. I scarcely know what my own motives are half the time, let alone someone else’s.
These same individuals are almost always looking for Scripture which would absolve one from the sin of homosexuality, AGAIN arguing against every piece of of Scripture which proves that homosexuality is an abomination.”
Woah. Where’d that come from? I know it isn’t true of myself. And I don’t think it could be said of Mr. Rowe, either.
To conclude that because someone might have a particularly different view of the faith of the Founding Fathers than another and suggest this is also somehow tied in with using Scripture to justify homosexuality is a non sequitur, logically speaking anyway. It is when a conclusion does not logically follow a premise. As if to say “Because men eat potatoes, they will drive blue cars.”
It simply “doesn’t follow.”
Report comment to moderator
Eh, hem. “helped found” it.
Report comment to moderator
185: You are right it is as big a non-sequitur I can think of. For instance, I follow Dr. Gregg Frazer of the Master’s College on this, who is as much of a fundamentalist as Victoria (but one who thinks and reasons better) and holds the same view of homosexuality as she does.
As noted I don’t believe anything is wrong with homosexuality, but I certainly don’t use the Bible to prove the point and only think that the story of S&G, not Leviticus or Paul’s assertions re homosexuality have been misunderstood.
That alone disproves her hairbrained assertion.
Report comment to moderator
I don’t condone homosexuality myself but I make a concerted effort to be cordial when the topic arises. It’s tragically become one issue among countless others that for some reason has been polarized into an evocative conservative/liberal political debate.
There is fairly clear language in Romans 1:24-32 regarding the issue. But Romans 1 in context is life apart from Christ for any of us. So while it does mention homosexuality, it also mentions the state of the sinful man’s mind in general.
“Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.”
So while I might have some issues with Victoria’s logic in her argumentation, I will side with her in regards to the practice of homosexual behavior being unnatural and sinful. Albeit, as I said, it’s unfortunately become a lightning rod in our culture that cannot be discussed without much ad hominems being cast about.
But I do appreciate your contributions to the thread in here and your efforts at attempting to understand our nation’s past.
Thanks.
Dan
Report comment to moderator
To say that George Washington may or may not have been a Christian Victoria is in no way going to necessarily lead to me 1) tearing apart our nation’s Christian heritage or 2)justifying homosexuality.
Some people might do that, but one doesn’t of necessity come out of another.
It is a non sequitur.
Report comment to moderator
Two of the top political issues today are, same sex marriage, homosexuality taught in schools, and than to top it off we have a whole breed of people who claim this country was NOT founded on Christian beliefs, when in fact it was. These two hot botton topics are rooted in a sinful desire to discredit the Word of GOD, and the men who founded this country – It’s a ROOT problem, it is dishonest -
Report comment to moderator
#173(OH68): “Dr. Dave: You bring up something which has always intrigued me.Taking quotes from letters, etc. How does one or two letters, or one or two lines from a book give us the complete portrait of someone’s life? Granted all we have to go on is what is written, but I think I’d hate for someone to declare they knew what I believed 200 years into the future by one or two personal letters or a sentence or two. You know what I mean?
It doesn’t! But that is Jon Rowe’s approach to the business of the religion of the Founding Fathers. You will note that he has now claimed that my set of quotes proves his point. I now need to address that.
Report comment to moderator
#179, #180, #183(Jon Rowe): Onto the quotes. What I want us to keep in mind is as GW praises and discusses “Christianity,” everything that came out of his mouth is consistent with Mormonism. That is, you NEVER get specific endorsement of believe in orthodox Trinitarian biblical Christianity. That’s why the “GW was a ‘Christian’” crowd needs to invoke the spurious “Daily Sacrifice.”
You’re interpretation of the quotes supports your view because you want them to support your view. There is nothing in the quotes that even suggests that George Washington was not a trinitarian and orthodox Christian. What they do suggest is that he had deep respect for Christianity to the point that he supported churches and evangelizing the Native Americans.
As OH68 has so eloquently put it, there is no way to determine a person’s theology from short snippets in documents they wrote. But the “General Orders” he issued to his officers and men clearly show that he thought it very important that they be in church on Sundays worshiping. I also wonder how you can so cavalierly dismiss a man riding for three hours to church to attend services and then ride three more hours home after services Sunday after Sunday. It boggles my mind.
Now I want to address your post 184 as it shows a significant ignorance of the significance of Communion to a Christian and why George Washington refused to take it and why. This I will do in the next post.
Report comment to moderator
#184(Jon Rowe) quotes George Washington’s pastor as follows: “With respect to the enquiry you make, I can only state the following facts; that as the Pastor of the Episcopal Church (an humble assistant minister to its Rector, the Rt. Rev. Dr. White) observing that on Sacrament Sundays, Gen’l Washington, immediately after the Desk and Pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the congregation, always leaving Mrs. Washington with the communicants, she invariably being one, I considered it my duty, in a sermon on Public Worship, to state the unhappy tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations, who invariably turned their backs upon the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the President, and, as such, he received it. A few days after, in conversation with, I believe, a Senator of the U. S., he told me he had dined the day before with the President, who, in the course of conversation at the table, said, that on the preceding Sunday, he had received a very just reproof from the pulpit, for always leaving the church before the administration of the Sacrament; that he honored the preacher for his integrity and candour; that he had never considered the influence of his example; that he would never again give cause for the repetition of the reproof; and that, as he had never been a communicant, were he to become one then, it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal arising altogether from his elevated station.
All this demonstrates is that you are wildly ignorant of what it means to be a communicant or member of a church, the significance of communion, and what is called “fencing the table.” You see this as evidence of George Washington’s non-belief in Christianity. Nothing could be further from the truth. George Washington is showing a profound understanding of what it means to take communion as a believing Christian. There are two reasons why devout Christians do not take Commumion. They are as follows:
1. They are not communing members of the church and the church requires them to be. The Episcopal Church (after the Revolution) was a denomination that required membership to take communion.
2. A Christian does not take communion if there is a aspect of his/her lift that has damaged their relationship to Christ. Usually this is a sin of some sort which is unresolved.
George Washington offers the first reason as his reason for leaving the service before Communion is served.
However, there is the possibility that the second reason is also playing a role. Consider this: George Washington served in the Virginia House of Burgesses from 1759 to 1774. To serve in the House of Burgesses, you were required to take an oath of loyalty to the Church of England and to the King. Obviously, Washington took that oath as did Patrick Henry and, of course, Thomas Jefferson. When the colonies broke ties with Britain, everyone in the House of Burgesses violated their oath to the Church of England–a very serious sin. My guess is that Washington took that oath very seriously and saw his personal rebellion as sin and did not want to repent of it (I know I would not). Under those circumstances, as a matter of conscience, Washington, as a devout Christian, would not want to compound his sin by taking Communion. Just a guess, but it really makes sense to me in light of your quote.
Taking that oath in the House of Burgesses probably was a significant event for Washington given his honesty, humility, and integrity. To violate that oath would be a significant sin in his point of view.
By the way, I assume you know that most of the colonies required these loyalty oaths and the dislike of them was what lead to the “no religious test” clause in Article IV, Section 3 of the U. S. Constitution. You should look at it sometime.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave
There would have been a third reason if my fathers answer had been factored in.
My father born in Europe, was to receive communion after all his studies within the church. The Sunday came when he and his brothers all sat in one of the family pews, to walk forward – my father sat and didn’t walk to the alter – my grandfather walked over and asked ______, what’s wrong son, why aren’t you going forward? my father answered “Papa I’m not Born Again I can’t go forward” – …… my father told the story many times. When he came to this country he came to Christ in a tent meeting – the famous pastor preached a sermon which was based on the Scripture: For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Matthew 16:26 – - my father came to Christ that night.
The other passage Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Jon 3:3 was one of the most important passages in my fathers life. How does a young boy who is barely 12 or 13 know these things? – I believe the HOLY SPIRIT speaks, and there are those who listen and live to tell about it –
Communion is very serious, ones heart must be right, all sin confessed – Christ must be acknowledged as the Savior, without HIM their would be no Salvation by grace through faith.
Report comment to moderator
The title of this thread reads like “Mormons Crazier Than We Are”
Report comment to moderator
But that is Jon Rowe’s approach to the business of the religion of the Founding Fathers. You will note that he has now claimed that my set of quotes proves his point. I now need to address that.
If you actually spent some time and read my blogs you’d see that I offer a comprehensive approach of the FFs religion.
What are you complaining about? That I don’t post ENOUGH WORDS here re the FFs’ religion? Would YOU or the OTHER READERS like me to post a BOOK here?
Report comment to moderator
All this demonstrates is that you are wildly ignorant of what it means to be a communicant or member of a church, the significance of communion, and what is called “fencing the table.” You see this as evidence of George Washington’s non-belief in Christianity. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Okay, you tell me that I am ignorant of what it means to be a communicant in late 18th Century Anglicanism. But I reproduced a lengthy letter from GW’s OWN MINISTER explaining that systematic avoidance of communion equates with not being a “real Christian.” So was he a Rev/Dr in the American Episcopal Church who happened to be GW’s personal minister in Phila. ignorant as well? I think he knows more about the matter than you.
That Washington was a professing Christian is evident from his regular attendance in our church; but, Sir, I cannot consider any man as a real Christian who uniformly disregards an ordinance so solemnly enjoined by the divine Author of our holy religion, and considered as a channel of divine grace.
For this reason (and a few others) the overwhelming majority of historians of GW and the 18th Century do NOT believe he was an orthodox Trinitarian Christian.
Those who didn’t commune did so back then because they had deistic or unitarian views of Christology — that is they disbelieved in what the act stood for: Christ’s Atonement.
Here is John Marshall’s daughter’s testimony on why Marshall didn’t commune in that very same Church:
“The reason why he never communed was, that he was a Unitarian in opinion, though he never joined their society. He told her he believed in the truth of the Christian Revelation, but not in the divinity of Christ; therefore he could not commune in the Episcopal Church.”
http://tinyurl.com/nzkor5
Report comment to moderator
George Washington served in the Virginia House of Burgesses from 1759 to 1774. To serve in the House of Burgesses, you were required to take an oath of loyalty to the Church of England and to the King. Obviously, Washington took that oath as did Patrick Henry and, of course, Thomas Jefferson. When the colonies broke ties with Britain, everyone in the House of Burgesses violated their oath to the Church of England–a very serious sin. My guess is that Washington took that oath very seriously and saw his personal rebellion as sin and did not want to repent of it (I know I would not). Under those circumstances, as a matter of conscience, Washington, as a devout Christian, would not want to compound his sin by taking Communion. Just a guess, but it really makes sense to me in light of your quote.
Taking that oath in the House of Burgesses probably was a significant event for Washington given his honesty, humility, and integrity. To violate that oath would be a significant sin in his point of view.
By the way, I assume you know that most of the colonies required these loyalty oaths and the dislike of them was what lead to the “no religious test” clause in Article IV, Section 3 of the U. S. Constitution. You should look at it sometime.
This could be. It’s speculative. And I admit the atonement explanation is speculative as well. However, at this point we need to look to Occam’s Razor and under that principle I think the atonement explanation is the simplest and most logical.
Report comment to moderator
Gentlemen:
As I posted earlier, a quote volley usually ends in a draw. I think you both have demonstrated you each have a remarkably rich understanding of our Founding Fathers, of which I am envious.
I hate to see such an exchange deteriorate. Mr. Rowe brings up a good point. There are books out there. He needn’t write one in here.
If I want a completely secular viewpoint of the founding of our nation, I know what to read.
If I want a thoroughgoing “conservative” view of our nation’s founding, I know what I can read.
If I want a broadly evangelistic perspective on the matter, I am familiar with sources to which I may turn.
Gentlemen, you do us all a service by offering different perspectives. Thank you. My apologies for once again misunderstanding the ongoing nature of your exchanges.
Dr. Dave (from 192) I can say I’ve been guilty of quote mining myself. I dare say we all do it. Quotes are good, don’t get me wrong. They invite study, inquiry and further research into the topic at hand. Yes. But lets be candid, we all wish to have these patriarchs solidly in our corner when engaging in the exchange of ideas in the public square. There is enough evidence just from the quotes alone that suggest there is much more than meets the eye with these men. Without denying the robustness of the Christian hope and witness which has much contributed to our nation’s existence, “the human heart is desperately wicked, who can know it?”
Purely altruistic and charitable motives elude the best of us when aspiring to be heard in the public square or when running for public office. Washington himself knew how to curb his own ambition for the sake of actually obtaining it. I think “religion” for him served a utilitarian purpose. The man was proud, temper-driven and wanted recognition for himself. Yet he was also obviously aware of the fact that nothing would’ve been possibly accomplished without God. At times he appeared humble, resigned and gracious, too. A quote or two, from any one particular camp, doesn’t nicely tie up the complexity that was Washington.
Anyhow, I’ve appreciated what you’ve both said. It’s my hope and prayer y’all ‘ll play nice for the sake of maintaining thoughtful and fascinating dialogue about our nation’s history.
Dan
Report comment to moderator
You’re interpretation of the quotes supports your view because you want them to support your view.
And you interpret those quotes the way you want them to mean to support your view.
There is nothing in the quotes that even suggests that George Washington was not a trinitarian and orthodox Christian.
And there is nothing in them that suggest GW WAS an orthodox Trinitarian Christian.
What they do suggest is that he had deep respect for Christianity to the point that he supported churches and evangelizing the Native Americans.
Which is entirely consistent with both the unitarian view and in the present day could have come out of the mouth of a Mormon, which again is my entire point on these threads.
Report comment to moderator
But the “General Orders” he issued to his officers and men clearly show that he thought it very important that they be in church on Sundays worshiping.
Again this is consistent with either a unitarian or a Mormon approach to religion. GW & the other key Founders thought “religion” in a general sense was not just necessarily but indispensable for providing republican government support. That is if you don’t have someone ruling you from the top, the people have to government themselves and they need to believe in a Providence and future state of rewards and punishments to keep them in line. Religion was a social duty.
This is a far cry from believing men should be in church because Christ was the only way to God and that men are saved thru Christ’s shed blood. Nothing in GW’s writings indicated he believed THAT.
I also wonder how you can so cavalierly dismiss a man riding for three hours to church to attend services and then ride three more hours home after services Sunday after Sunday. It boggles my mind.
I don’t dismiss it; but he didn’t attend every week. He attended on average once a month.
Report comment to moderator
Jon has reprinted this quote any number of times on this blog and all it shows is that John Adams is familiar with the Unitarianism that had crept into the Congregational Church denomination.
This is probably the most uncharatible interpretation I could imagine. I am a trained attorney and you are viewing the facts like a defense attorney trying to defend a factually guilty party in a criminal proceeding.
The letter, let’s reproduce it in whole, has John Adams speaking as a PARTISAN UNITARIAN, bitterly responding to Jedidiah Morse who wrote a pamphlet attacking unitarianism.
John fails to mention that the letter is in response to a query by Morse regarding a pamphlet being distributed in New England that discloses what is regarded as the heresy of Unitarianism. Moreover, Jon fails to reprint the remainder of the letter which clearly demonstrates that John Adams is addressing the issue of religious liberty (a major issue in New England considering its history. Moreover, John Adams goes on to rant about consiracies of Jesuits and ecclesiastical authority to restrict religious liberty. and how it will never be allowed in America. The letter offers no evidence that John Adams was a devout Unitarian (if such a thing can exist). What it does demonstrate is that John Adams is very sensitive about freedom of religion.
I’ll reproduce the entire letter here and let any reader make their minds up re whose assessment is more sound. When you see John Adams mocking the Trinitarian (Athanasian) creed, it’s clear that he does so not just as a partisan unitarian, but as a militant unitarian. BTW, I have one letter of his where he states even if he were on Mt. Sinai with Moses and God Himself revealed the doctrine of the Trinity to him, he still wouldn’t believe it because man’s reason proves 1+1+1=3, not 1.
Report comment to moderator
“DEAR DOCTOR,
“I thank you thank you for your favour of the 10th, and the pamphlet enclosed, entitled, ‘American Unitarianism.’ I have turned over its leaves, and found nothing that was not familiarly known to me. In the preface, Unitarianism is represented as only thirty years old in New-England. I can testify as a witness to its old age. Sixty-five years ago, my own minister, the Rev. Lemuel Bryant; Dr. Jonathan Mayhew, of the West Church in Boston; the Rev. Mr. Shute, of Hingham; the Rev. John Brown, of Cohasset; and perhaps equal to all, if not above all, the Rev. Mr. Gay, of Hingham, were Unitarians. Among the laity how many could I name, lawyers, physicians, tradesmen, farmers! But at present I will name only one, Richard Cranch, a man who had studied divinity, and Jewish and Christian antiquities, more than any clergyman now existing in New England. More than fifty years ago, I read Dr. Clarke, Emlyn, and Dr. Waterland: do you expect, my dear doctor, to teach me any thing new in favour of Athanasianism? — There is, my dear Doctor, at present existing in the world a Church Philosophick. as subtle, as learned, as hypocritical, as the Holy Roman Catholick, Apostolick, and Ecumenical Church. The Philosophical Church was originally English. Voltaire learned it from Lord Herbert, Hobbes, Morgan, Collins, Shaftsbury, Bolingbroke, &c. &c. &c. You may depend upon it, your exertions will promote the Church Philosophick, more than the Church Athanasian or Presbyterian. This and the coming age will not be ruled by inquisitions or Jesuits. The restoration of Napoleon has been caused by the resuscitation of inquisitors and Jesuits.
I am and wish to be
Your friend,
JOHN ADAMS”
Quincy, May 15th, 1815.
http://tinyurl.com/mlm5kr
Report comment to moderator
By the way, I assume you know that most of the colonies required these loyalty oaths and the dislike of them was what lead to the “no religious test” clause in Article IV, Section 3 of the U. S. Constitution. You should look at it sometime.
Yes I am aware of this; but something else was connected to this that YOU should understand. Deistic and Unitarian minded “Christians” (that is men like Jefferson, Washington, John Marshall who attended Christian Churches) hated reading Trinitarian liturgy as well because they didn’t believe it. They consequently hated Trinitarian religious tests for public office and other Trinitarian oaths. THAT is also a reason for Art. VI. Cl. 3.
Report comment to moderator
#172 Dr Dave,
Forgive my intrusion into the conversation with an aside, but I have a question.
You said: My main point has always been that we are not to judge others regarding their relationship with God. That is the Christ’s job along with the Angels on the Day of Judgment. As far as I am concerned, if a person says he/she is a Christian, then that is what they are (even if they are not bearing much fruit ). As you say, if a person can with honesty and integrity affirm Romans 10:8-13, then that person is a Christian and I have no further questions (unless, of course, that person is applying for membership in my church ).
Do you extend that same courtesy to the Obama family? I’m not trying to sidetrack the discussion, but I am curious to know the answer. Thanks.
Report comment to moderator
I wish ACAtlanta1 had made it back. Maybe another thread.
Report comment to moderator
Mumsee, the thread was side-tracked – I doubt the LDS was interested unless they were made to defend their cult.
Report comment to moderator
#195(Victoria): Dr. Dave. There would have been a third reason if my fathers answer had been factored in.
You are absolutely right, Victoria. It is possible that George Washington believed he was not “born again” although I doubt he would use that phrase. In the Eighteenth Century there may have been some who used that phrase, but in the Church of England (later the Episcopal Church), there was, like in the Catholic Church, infant Baptism and later Confirmation–significant rites that defined first, salvation coverage through the covenantal rite of Baptism and then through the personal confirmation of belief at Confirmation. Since George was raised in a believing household, I have every reason to believe he was Confirmed in his faith (he was, after all, tutored by clergy).
Still, I should have included that possibility. I do not think, however, it applies to George Washington for the following reasons:
1. He attended “Episcopal Church” services all his life–rarely missing a Sunday Service. At some locations, he traveled three hours each way to attend services. That means really early rising and spending virtually the whole Sabbath going to church.
2. He was a principal contributor to the construction/maintenance of three “Episcopal” church buildings and he purchased for great sums of money the family pews where he worshiped (buying pews was a major source of income for mainline denominations at that time).
3. He supported several missionaries personally. These missionaries were not always “Episcopal,” but then I support several missionaries myself that are not in my denomination.
These are the behaviors of a man committed to the Lord and one who is emphatically not a Unitarian universalist. The latter would not send out missionaries since in their view there are many legitimate paths of salvation. His faithfulness to the church speak very loudly of his devotion to God and Jesus Christ.
Report comment to moderator
#197(Jon Rowe): If you actually spent some time and read my blogs you’d see that I offer a comprehensive approach of the FFs religion.
What are you complaining about? That I don’t post ENOUGH WORDS here re the FFs’ religion? Would YOU or the OTHER READERS like me to post a BOOK here?
I don’t have time to read your blog and since I know your agenda by now, I don’t want to read your blog. The reason I respond to you occasionally on this blog is that, occasionally, I have some free time and, occasionally, you post something preposterous that requires a reasoned response.
What I am complaining about on this blog is that when you do occasionally post something preposterous, it is usually a series of quotes without context that you claim prove your thesis. Unless you are challenged to do so, you almost never provide supporting documentation, rarely post the entire passage you say demonstrates your point, and almost never provide the historical context that would provide a means of understanding why the author would write the passage. It’s like quoting one or two verses from the Bible and then basing a judgment of the whole Bible on that one passage or building a whole theology on it–like the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses do.
Report comment to moderator
#198(Jon Rowe): For this reason (and a few others) the overwhelming majority of historians of GW and the 18th Century do NOT believe he was an orthodox Trinitarian Christian.
That is their opinion and , obviously, yours. It is not mine.
Those who didn’t commune did so back then because they had deistic or unitarian views of Christology — that is they disbelieved in what the act stood for: Christ’s Atonement. Here is John Marshall’s daughter’s testimony on why Marshall didn’t commune in that very same Church: “The reason why he never communed was, that he was a Unitarian in opinion, though he never joined their society. He told her he believed in the truth of the Christian Revelation, but not in the divinity of Christ; therefore he could not commune in the Episcopal Church.”
First, John Marshall’s behavior says nothing about George Washington’s behavior except that the pattern was similar.
Second, you accept Marshall’s daughter’s testimony, but not the testimony of George Washington’s relatives. How very interesting.
Third, thank you for the link. It was very interesting. However, it was disappointing that you did not produce the rest of John Marshall’s daughter’s testimony. A portion of the rest follows: “…But during the last months of his life he read ‘Keith on Prophesy’, where our Savior’s divinity is incidentally treated, and was convinced by this work, and the fuller investigation to which it led, of the supreme divinity of the Savior…” [the rest of the quote tells of His desire to join the church and receive Communion]
Finally, if you read further into the link, an anecdote is told of John Marshall that is a delight to read and reflect upon. I would urge everyone who is still reading this thread to link to the Google book Jon references and read especially the bottom of page 265 through 267. It is simply a delight to read.
Congratulations, Jon. You did a remarkable service for us and I, for one, applaud you.
Report comment to moderator
Oops. Sorry for the extended italics in the last post.
Report comment to moderator
#199(Jon Rowe): This could be. It’s speculative. And I admit the atonement explanation is speculative as well. However, at this point we need to look to Occam’s Razor and under that principle I think the atonement explanation is the simplest and most logical.
I’m sorry. I don’t see how Occam’s Razor even applies here. How is your Theistic Rationalism and Unitarian Belief simpler and more elegant? We are both expressing opinions that require conjecture that goes well beyond the data.
Report comment to moderator
#202(Jon Rowe): Dr. Dave said “But the “General Orders” he issued to his officers and men clearly show that he thought it very important that they be in church on Sundays worshiping.” And Jon Rowe replied, “Again this is consistent with either a unitarian or a Mormon approach to religion.”
No Jon, it is not. A Unitarian would urge them to be religious and a Mormon would urge them to be a Mormon.
Jon continued: “GW & the other key Founders thought “religion” in a general sense was not just necessarily but indispensable for providing republican government support. That is if you don’t have someone ruling you from the top, the people have to government themselves and they need to believe in a Providence and future state of rewards and punishments to keep them in line. Religion was a social duty.
That’s true, John. But George Washington did not urge them to be “religious,” he urged them to be “Christians.”
Jon continued: “This is a far cry from believing men should be in church because Christ was the only way to God and that men are saved thru Christ’s shed blood. Nothing in GW’s writings indicated he believed THAT.
And nothing in his writings indicate he did not believe in the trinity. His daughter’s testimony was that he was a believer. Absence of evidence in not evidence of absence.
Dr. Dave said, “I also wonder how you can so cavalierly dismiss a man riding for three hours to church to attend services and then ride three more hours home after services Sunday after Sunday. It boggles my mind. John replied, “I don’t dismiss it; but he didn’t attend every week. He attended on average once a month.
That is not what I have read. Wikipedia has an article that suggests the opposite. The article even states he took communion earlier in his life. I realize that Wikipedia is not always reliable, but this article has references to testimonies. With reference to your statement, I quote the following: “Washington regularly attended Sunday services and purchased a family pew at several churches. Rev. Lee Massey, his pastor in Mt Vernon, wrote: ‘I never knew so constant an attendant in church as Washington.’ Whether Washington partook of communion is a question of tremendous controversy. An 1833 statement by his adopted daughter, Nelly Custis-Lewis, states of her mother Eleanor Calvert-Lewis (who resided in Mount Vernon for two years), ‘I have heard her say that General Washington always received the sacrament with my grandmother before the revolution.’ Major William Popham, one of General Washington’s aides during the Revolution wrote, ‘the President [Washington] had more than once—I believe I say often—attended the sacramental table, at which I had the privilege and happiness to kneel with him.’ Another contemporary, Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton (the wife of Alexander Hamilton), is reported by her great-grandson to have said the following to him: ‘If anyone ever tells you that George Washington was not a communicant in the Church, you say that your great-grandmother told you to say that she ‘had knelt at this chancel rail at his side and received with him the Holy Communion.’”
I know there are sources that claim as you do that his attendance was infrequent, but they know how to edit Wikipedia and should do so.
Report comment to moderator
Oops. Sorry about the bolding. I was in a hurry.
Report comment to moderator
204(Jon Rowe): Reproduced the entire letter from John Adams to Jedediah Morse after stating in the previous post: The letter, let’s reproduce it in whole, has John Adams speaking as a PARTISAN UNITARIAN, bitterly responding to Jedidiah Morse who wrote a pamphlet attacking unitarianism.
First, I congratulate you for kindly reproducing the entire letter. It is appreciated.
Second, Can you also answer the following questions (inquiring minds want to know): (1) Who was Jedidiah Morse? (2) Did Morse author the pamphlet or did he forward it to John Adams for comment? (3) Why did John Adams consider Jedidiah Morse a friend? (4) Was there a proposal to have a religious test oath in Massachusetts at the time or was it already law? (5) Is there further correspondence between the two? (6) What was the nature of the correspondence prior to this letter?
Finally Jon, What is your take on the closing portion of the letter which says, “There is, my dear Doctor, at present existing in the world a Church Philosophick. as subtle, as learned, as hypocritical, as the Holy Roman Catholick, Apostolick, and Ecumenical Church. The Philosophical Church was originally English. Voltaire learned it from Lord Herbert, Hobbes, Morgan, Collins, Shaftsbury, Bolingbroke, &c. &c. &c. You may depend upon it, your exertions will promote the Church Philosophick, more than the Church Athanasian or Presbyterian. This and the coming age will not be ruled by inquisitions or Jesuits. The restoration of Napoleon has been caused by the resuscitation of inquisitors and Jesuits.”
In particular, what is your take on the first sentence? What is the “Philosophical Church” John Adams speaks of? Why will the pamphlet promote the “Church Philosophick, more than the Church Athanasian or Presbyterian”? What is Adams trying to communicate in the last two sentences? What is he upset about?
Report comment to moderator
205(Jon Rowe): Yes I am aware of this; but something else was connected to this that YOU should understand. Deistic and Unitarian minded “Christians” (that is men like Jefferson, Washington, John Marshall who attended Christian Churches) hated reading Trinitarian liturgy as well because they didn’t believe it. They consequently hated Trinitarian religious tests for public office and other Trinitarian oaths. THAT is also a reason for Art. VI. Cl. 3
Is that right? Can you name a colony that imposed a Trinitarian religious test? How about a state (after the constitution was ratified)? Are you sure they weren’t strictly denominational in content. I know the Quakers and Baptists were routinely excluded from holding office in several colonies, but I know of no “Trinitarian” religious test.
Report comment to moderator
206(DJ): Forgive my intrusion into the conversation with an aside, but I have a question.
It is no intrusion at all.
You said: My main point has always been that we are not to judge others regarding their relationship with God. That is the Christ’s job along with the Angels on the Day of Judgment.[remainder snipped to save bandwidth]
Do you extend that same courtesy to the Obama family? I’m not trying to sidetrack the discussion, but I am curious to know the answer. Thanks.
Indeed I do. I do take issue with his stand on abortion and many other things, but I take issue with the positions of people who claim to profess Christ. Whether they are Christians or not is not for me to decide. Christ has emphatically told us that it is not our prerogative to make such judgments. We are also commanded to pray for them and I do try (I am a sinner like every Christian is
).
Report comment to moderator
Oops! “positions of people” should be “positions of many people” Sorry.
Report comment to moderator
216(Victoria): Regarding George Washington – even his being tutored by clergy, they may have missed completely the Scripture which points straight to being Born Again – but at the same time it may not eluded Washington. Just as my father attended a parochial school it apparently was never mentioned, even though my father did not live in the era of George Washington this too could have been the case with Washington ……. they had read it, but it wasn’t taught by their head masters or the church.
You are essentially correct. Anglicans (George Washington’s church) had to learn the Westminster Confession of Faith and the larger and shorter Catechisms. These documents treat the divinity of Christ, the need for atonement, and Christ’s role in redeeming lost souls. The also teach the notion of “Limited Atonement”, but the dynamics of being “born again of the Holy Spirit” is not explicitly expressed in those documents. Rather, the doctrinal consequences of that dynamic are taught. It is primarily evangelical churches that emphasize and explicitly teach being “born again.” Unfortunately, there is even disagreement among evangelicals as to when that occurs and whether we have a role (free will) in that regeneration.
And I pleased when I have an opportunity to respond to your posts.
Report comment to moderator
And your dad sounds like a real gem, Victoria. I would have liked to have met him. God Bless.
Report comment to moderator
Since George was raised in a believing household, I have every reason to believe he was Confirmed in his faith (he was, after all, tutored by clergy).
And you would be wrong. GW was never confirmed. Confirmation wasn’t available for his early life because there were no Bishops. Once Bishops got sent over or otherwise became available, GW, Madison and other more deistic or unitarian Episcopalians didn’t get confirmed.
1. He attended “Episcopal Church” services all his life–rarely missing a Sunday Service. At some locations, he traveled three hours each way to attend services. That means really early rising and spending virtually the whole Sabbath going to church.
You keep on repeating this but it’s not true. The records show he went on average once a month.
2. He was a principal contributor to the construction/maintenance of three “Episcopal” church buildings and he purchased for great sums of money the family pews where he worshiped (buying pews was a major source of income for mainline denominations at that time).
That’s true; but the same thing can be said of Ben Franklin. The Deistic/Unitarian minded founders behaved in this way.
3. He supported several missionaries personally. These missionaries were not always “Episcopal,” but then I support several missionaries myself that are not in my denomination.
Ditto.
These are the behaviors of a man committed to the Lord and one who is emphatically not a Unitarian universalist. The latter would not send out missionaries since in their view there are many legitimate paths of salvation. His faithfulness to the church speak very loudly of his devotion to God and Jesus Christ.
Again you don’t understand 18th Century Christian-unitarian-universalism. Unlike the Deists they were not hostile to “Christianity” in principle. However they preached a faith of works and generic morality. They wanted Indians to convert not because they thought Christ was the only way to God thru his shed blood, but because he (something less than fully God, NOT the 2nd person in the Trinity) saved man thru his superior moral example.
Everything GW said and did is consistent with this. It also “fits” a pattern. The following three Presidents clearly believed like this. So it makes sense that GW did too, when putting pieces of the puzzle together.
Report comment to moderator
In particular, what is your take on the first sentence? What is the “Philosophical Church” John Adams speaks of? Why will the pamphlet promote the “Church Philosophick, more than the Church Athanasian or Presbyterian”? What is Adams trying to communicate in the last two sentences? What is he upset about?
I see Adams as positioning “unitarianism” as a rational middle ground between the “fanaticism” of strict deism to his left and orthodox evangelical Christianity to his right. Morse is attacking unitarianism from the right. “Church philosphick” is strict deism. Adams is basically saying to Morse if you keep on being a Trinitarian fanatic you are just going to push folks away from Christianity in general and into the strict Deist camp.
Report comment to moderator
Re GW & Church, scholars have looked at his diary — in particular focusing on Sunday and the records show he attended once a month.
See the following article from Peter Henriques history prof. at George Mason University. The entire thing is worth a read but here is Henriques on GW & Church. These are not just assertions. This is all verified in the record.
There is no evidence that GW provided any religious education for his slaves and Oney Judge, Martha’s seamstress who successfully ran away from MV that there was none. According to a later interview in 1846, she said, “she never received the least mental or moral instruction of any kind while she remained in Washington’s family. … the stories of Washington’s piety and prayers, so far as she ever saw or heard while she was his slave, have no foundation. Card-playing and wine-drinking were the business at his parties, and he had more of such company Sundays than on any other day.”
GW did not go to church more than about once a month on average and perhaps less than that. While his attendance was relatively high as President, it was much less frequent after he left office and I believe there he only went 3 times in the nearly 3 years he lived after the presidency.
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/henriques/hist615/gwandreligion.htm
Report comment to moderator
I don’t have time to read your blog and since I know your agenda by now, I don’t want to read your blog.
The fact that you don’t have time to read my blog is fine; but to write if off as “agenda” is a smear. Everything I post here and there is sourced in the public record. AND by the way, it’s a group blog with a variety of posters who have a worldview and historical view that is closer to yours than mine. They comment, post on the front page, review my work and hold my feet to the fire as do I with them. My American Creation blog is about is good as any peer reviewed journal. You are free to comment there AND if you’d like guest post on the front page. However within a few hours, sometimes minutes, if you make an error like citing the Daily Sacrifice Prayer Journal or misquote a Founding Father, you’ll be called on it.
What I am complaining about on this blog is that when you do occasionally post something preposterous, it is usually a series of quotes without context that you claim prove your thesis.
Again, if you look at how MUCH I give on these threads, what you are asking for is a BOOK. I seriously wonder if your fellow evangelicals want me to post that many more words for the sake of “context”?
Unless you are challenged to do so, you almost never provide supporting documentation, rarely post the entire passage you say demonstrates your point, and almost never provide the historical context that would provide a means of understanding why the author would write the passage.
And when I’m challenged I ALWAYS provide additional context or defend my assertions. Again, you are asking me to write a book on these threads.
It’s like quoting one or two verses from the Bible and then basing a judgment of the whole Bible on that one passage or building a whole theology on it–like the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses do.
And I assure you folks that I am not misrepresenting the context. My perspective is actually to the RIGHT of the consensus in the historical academy which views the Founding Era political theology as more or less deistic. Folks like Gordon Wood and a few others are backing off that claim and understanding the Founding in more of a unitarian, not strict deist political-theological sense. And I will personally take a small amount of credit for this. Folks in the historical academy and in important positions elsewhere do occasionally read my blogs. Mary Thompson of Mt. Vernon who has a book out on GW’s religion published by UVA Press and Steven Waldman of Beliefnet, author of “Founding Faith,” both told me they check in with my work from time to time. And John Fea of Messiah college reads my work regularly and recommends it to Christians who want to understand whether America was founded as a “Christian Nation,” which is the topic of a forthcoming book of his.
Report comment to moderator
#38
Provost,
I tend to read the Bible fairly literally where possible. I’m mindful that the mysteries are rarely found lying right on top, but it’s best to start there.
As to governmental issues, we live in a country that permits us a voice in what will be legal and what won’t. I believe that how we exercise that liberty responsibly as Christians is largely a matter of having a Biblically informed conscience. That means having read and studied the scriptures, and prayerfully put them into practice to the best of our ability. As the Church, we help each other in the process. But as we stand before God singly and are judged by Him, so we vote singly, and are individually accountable for that action as well. It will always be imperfect while we are in the world, but it’s the best we can do
Regarding the specific issues you raised:
1–There are several mentions of the individual in the womb. David talks of God seeing the formation of his body in the womb. And John was filled with the Spirit in the womb. Though abortion is not specifically mentioned, and I don’t see a prohibition against birth control, still we can easily extrapolate that killing our unborn is wrong and violates God’s commands against arbitrary killing.
2–Homosexual behavior is clearly prohibited in scripture, both OT and NT.
3—Some of the scientific research is really playing with human life, and some of that could fall under #1 above, and some just seems to be human arrogance (or carelessness?). Research should be undertaken with great care so as not to abuse life itself—–embryos—or even the (ab)use of animals. I’m all for research, but we are all part of God’s creation and that creation—human, animal, plant, mineral—deserves to be treated with respect. We are stewards of the earth.
4&5–Jesus’ position on taxation was clear in scripture: whose image is on this coin [dollar bill], then render to Caesar [Washington] the things that are Caesar’s [the coin bearing his image/or Washington’s image] and render to God the things that are God’s [we are created in the image of God]. We can be conformed to the image of Christ, or we can continue the natural progression of being conformed to the image of _______ (fill in the blank with whatever is in the heart). When we fill our minds with the venal motives of self-interest which has been all the rage in politics for the past few decades, we risk being conformed to an image other than Christ’s.
What Jesus did say to government workers is to be found in His interaction with the Roman soldier: be satisfied with your pay that is given by the government. Don’t try to use your position to strong-arm the people to bring advantage to yourself outside of what you are already being paid for your services.
And also with Zacchaeus, whose conscience was so stricken, that he confessed to taking more taxes than was due and paid it all back double. Jesus was telling those people who worked for the Roman government, to perform their jobs fairly without using their positions of trust to enrich themselves, and to follow the law in the performance of their duties. That’s still good advice.
What He did not say, also speaks loudly. He did not say that one should not be a soldier. He did not say that one should not be a tax collector. He did not say that government was bad or wrong or in any way evil. He did not take a political stand against the Roman government, nor did he instruct his disciples to do so. I can’t find anything in the rest of the New Testament that contradicts Jesus’ positions on these things, or makes me think that I’ve misunderstood them.
All of that does not mean that laws violating God’s commands to us are to be followed by Christians, but neither are such laws an excuse for ungodly behavior. In such cases, we obey God and not man. Life is imperfect; and that’s probably why Christians still disagree about some of these things after all these centuries.
Writing all this down is one thing, but living it out —-that’s my real challenge.
Report comment to moderator
#202(Jon Rowe): Dr. Dave said “But the “General Orders” he issued to his officers and men clearly show that he thought it very important that they be in church on Sundays worshiping.” And Jon Rowe replied, “Again this is consistent with either a unitarian or a Mormon approach to religion.”
No Jon, it is not. A Unitarian would urge them to be religious and a Mormon would urge them to be a Mormon.
Okay let’s deal with the Mormonism claim first. Mormonism didn’t exist during the Founding era. From my studies of Mormonism and my interaction with them I know they posit something like a “Mormon Christian Nation” thesis. And it’s more legitimate for THEM to do it than evangelicals because America was founded one thousand seven hundred years or so after Christianity, but Mormonism was founded in America post the Founding and Mormons in fact incorporate some of the FFs’ eccentric heterodox theological views into their faith.
The point is Mormons are non-Trinitarian “Christians” and that’s exactly how the key Founders understood themselves. A Mormon for instance would not approve of a particular Founding Father defending the Trinity or taking an oath to orthodox doctrines. A Mormon would however approve of a particular FF “talking up” Christianity in a general sense or the idea that citizens should be in “Christian” churches worshipping every week.
Re the unitarians you are just dead wrong. Men like Franklin, Washington and even Jefferson thought that men should be worshipping in Christians Churches just as Jefferson DID WHILE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and for most other parts of his life. The question is WHY? Is it because the Trinity is true and men are saved through the Christ’s shed blood atonement? NO. It’s because the Churches teach the existence of a future state of rewards and punishments and Jesus moral teachings which the unitarians thought superior to anyone else’s.
I think you are aware of this letter from Franklin to Stiles (I think you cited it above). He explains exactly why he, as a unitarian thought men worshipping in Trinitarian Churches was a good thing. As Franklin wrote in 1790:
You desire to know something of my Religion….Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we can render to him, is doing Good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever Sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity: tho’ it is a Question I do not dogmatise upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble. I see no harm however in its being believed, if that Belief has the good Consequence as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more respected and better observed, especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Believers, in his Government of the World, with any particular Marks of his Displeasure.
Did you get that, Franklin’s creed was “one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we can render to him, is doing Good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this.” And on Jesus “the System of Morals and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see;…” Orthodox Trinitarian doctrine is something Franklin “doubts” but doesn’t see as harmful because “that Belief [probably] has the good Consequence…of making his Doctrines more respected and better observed,…” In other words, Trinitarians likewise believe in a future state of rewards and punishments and the superiority of Jesus’ moral teachings and THAT’S all that matters. THAT’S why unitarians/Christian-Deists/theistic rationalists like Franklin, J. Adams, Jefferson or Washington could support worship in Trinitarian Churches.
Report comment to moderator
Re communion, most of the sources that say GW communed are either second or third hand accounts. And Eliza Hamilton testified in her 90s, years after the fact, perhaps having a senior moment.
Nelly Custis, Bishop White and James Abercrombie gave first hand eyewitness accounts and witnessed GW systematically over and over again avoiding communion, turning his back on the Lord’s Supper.
Report comment to moderator
I’m sorry. I don’t see how Occam’s Razor even applies here. How is your Theistic Rationalism and Unitarian Belief simpler and more elegant? We are both expressing opinions that require conjecture that goes well beyond the data.
The most common reason why “Christians” from the 18th Century avoided communion was because they didn’t believe in what the act stood for: Christ’s Atonement and hence His status as second person in the Trinity. Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement all rise and fall together. There were some Arian unitarians who believed Christ divine but created and subordinate, but they still denied Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement. That’s why I don’t want to say GW disbelieved, as did John Marshall, in Jesus’ divinity. The notion of Jesus having some kind of “divine” nature is NOT shorthand for Trinity, Incarnation and Atonement.
Report comment to moderator
Re 211, yes at my blogs I ALWAYS post to the original sources where folks can go an read further for context. And if I got around to it I would have noted that towards the very end of his life, John Marshall became a Trinitarian. The same thing can be said of Alexander Hamilton who converted to orthodox Christianity after 1800, after his son Phillip died in a duel. Before that he was a “theistic rationalist” like the other key Founders, though Hamilton during his college years may have been conventionally Christian.
Report comment to moderator
223(John Rowe): Dr. Dave said, “Since George was raised in a believing household, I have every reason to believe he was Confirmed in his faith (he was, after all, tutored by clergy).
And Jon Rowe replied, “And you would be wrong. GW was never confirmed. Confirmation wasn’t available for his early life because there were no Bishops. Once Bishops got sent over or otherwise became available, GW, Madison and other more deistic or unitarian Episcopalians didn’t get confirmed.
You obviously don’t know what you need to know about the Church of England (Episcopal Church) during the colonial period. Here are some important facts that you need to be aware of:
a. Confirmation was a strict requirement of the Church of England. You had to go through it before the age of 12 or 13. It typically followed careful instruction in the Westminster Confession and memorization of all the answers to the questions in the larger and shorter catechisms. People like George Washington were tutored by Clergy for that very reason.
b. Children of communing parents would not refuse Confirmation during the colonial period. They knew better. You can argue that George Washington’s Confirmation may not have been of his total free will, but he was confirmed. He could not have avoided it.
c. Who told you that the absence of Church of England Bishops in Colonial Virginia meant that George Washington was not confirmed. That is profoundly poor scholarship. A simple search of the Internet demonstrates its falsity. I quote, “The Church of England also retains Roman Catholicism’s hierarchical form of government: rule of its churches today rests in ascending bodies of clergy, headed by bishops and archbishops. This mode of organization also prevailed in early modern Britain, but the American colonies, lacking a bishop, entrusted enormous authority to local church vestries composed of the most eminent laymen. This was especially true in the South, which led to frequent contests for control and influence between parsons and the vestry.” [see
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/eighteen /ekeyinfo/chureng.htm] Note 1: Remove the “blank” after the word eighteen. Note 2: A Vestry is charged with the administrative duties of the parish. It was like a combined Board of Elders and Deacons who ministered to the poor, handled the finances of the church, examined candidates for Confirmation, and examined candidates for the Vestry. The latter examination was even more rigorous than the examination for Confirmation.
d. George Washington became a member of the Vestry of his local parish in his thirties and remained in that position until 1774. This is a matter of record. To do that, he would have to be a communing member of the church. This is clear proof that he was “Confirmed” in the church (probably by the Vestry and Pastor since, as you note, Bishops were in short supply). More importantly, in order to stand for election as a Vestryman, he was examined (not might have been) by the Vestry of his parish very rigorously and he had to affirm all of the doctrines of the Church of England including the doctrine of the Trinity. Even more importantly, he had to swear that he would defend all aspects of doctrine espoused by the Church of England.
Now, if George Washington was a Unitarian in belief, then he lied to his Pastor and the Vestry. That is what you are claiming. Such an assertion is so far out of character for George Washington that your claim that he was Unitarian is simply false.
Dr. Dave said, “1. He attended “Episcopal Church” services all his life–rarely missing a Sunday Service. At some locations, he traveled three hours each way to attend services. That means really early rising and spending virtually the whole Sabbath going to church. And Jon replied, “You keep on repeating this but it’s not true. The records show he went on average once a month.
The records do not show this and you know it (I found only one reference that said this and that reference provided no data). Just one point in rebuttal. As a Vestryman, George Washington was obligated to attend as often as he could. The Sundays he was not in his home church, he was obligated to attend another church in the parish to administer his shepherding duties. Duty was one of the things that George Washington took very seriously.
Face it Jon. If we accept your thesis here, then we must also accept that George Washington was a liar, a charlatan, and a hypocrite. There is nothing in his public life that would indicate such a significant flaw in his character. In fact, his entire life shouts just the opposite.
Jon continues: Again you don’t understand 18th Century Christian-unitarian-universalism. Unlike the Deists they were not hostile to “Christianity” in principle. However they preached a faith of works and generic morality. They wanted Indians to convert not because they thought Christ was the only way to God thru his shed blood, but because he (something less than fully God, NOT the 2nd person in the Trinity) saved man thru his superior moral example.
I know a great deal about the Unitarianism of the colonial and post-revolutionary period. They denied the trinity, they admitted everyone who believed in one God, and held to universal salvation (the many paths to heaven approach). The Unitarians started as a heresy in the Congregational Church which eventually led to a split (since the Congregational Church was Calvinist in doctrine) in the Congregational Church weakening it severely (as splits always do).
I also know the level of religious intolerance in colonial America. Each denomination regarded the others as heretics with two possible exceptions: Presbyterians and Congregationalists would tolerate each other barely. And the Quakers would probably not publicly condemn other sects. But otherwise, it was pretty rough in those days. Against this were the few who preached religious toleration. These few included all the people you want to claim as Unitarians. These people used the term “Christian” liberally not because they were Unitarian, but because they refused to name any denomination as the “true faith.” Which was disappointing to any number of church leaders who were pushing for a “religious test” oath to hold office in their colony and later their state. Everything we read in the correspondence of Jefferson, Adams, Washington, and others must be read in this context.
Report comment to moderator
224(Jon Rowe): In response to a series of questions from Dr. Dave on the last paragraph of John Adams’ letter to Jedidiah Morse, Jon said, “I see Adams as positioning “unitarianism” as a rational middle ground between the “fanaticism” of strict deism to his left and orthodox evangelical Christianity to his right. Morse is attacking unitarianism from the right. “Church philosphick” is strict deism. Adams is basically saying to Morse if you keep on being a Trinitarian fanatic you are just going to push folks away from Christianity in general and into the strict Deist camp.
Funny, I don’t at all see Adams saying that Unitarianism is “a rational middle ground between the ‘fanaticism’ of strict deism on his left and orthodox, evangelical Christianity to his right.” I do agree that “Church Philosophick” refers to the deism of Voltaire, etc.
You see, it helps to understand the context of the letter. Here it is:
1. A book was published in Europe on the history of Unitarianism. One of the chapters was on Unitarianism in America (principally in New England. Morse read the book, extracted the chapter into a pamphlet and forwarded it to Adams for comment. NOTE: Morse’s reply to Adams (09 September 1815) indicates he had sent the pamphlet to Adams not to enlist his support “in the controversy…but I supposed that the letters of Dr. Priestley and Mr. Jefferson particularly might amuse you.” Dr Morse does indicate surprise a John Adams response for what that’s worth.
2. John Adams and Jedidiah Morse were friends and political allies. Morse supported Adams for reelection in 1800 because they were both alarmed by the outcome of the French Revolution and the subsequent takeover of the first republic by Napoleon. Hence the references to what happens when the “Church Philosophick” takes charge of a revolution which leads to a counter-revolution takeover by “a resuscitation of inquisitors and Jesuits.”
3. John Adams never intended his reply to see the light of day. Unfortunately, it got into the wrong hands, was copied multiple times, and sent to at least four individual. In his letter of 09 September, Jedidiah Morse apologizes for the breach and states the following: “In these circumstances, I presume, sir, that you will have no objection to its being printed. Otherwise, it may produce effects, from the manner in which it was [originally] circulated, which were not anticipated by you, and which it would not be pleasant for me to contemplate.” Now Morse might be disingenuous in this response, but I suspect he was genuinely concerned that John Adams might be unfairly associated with the Unitarian heresy within the Congregational Church.
4. At the time of this letter, Unitarianism was not a separate denomination. It was largely confined to the pastor’s of “liberal” Congregational Churches in the Boston area. It was only later that the two branches of the Congregational Church split over the position of its “liberal” pastors.
So it is my position that this letter was not an admission of Unitarian thought by John Adams. It was merely the acknowledgment to a political friend and ally that he (Adams)was aware of the Unitarian bent of several Congregational Church pastors in the Boston area and an reminder to Morse that religious tests/oaths were a serious danger to the new American Republic.
Parenthetically, I would add that Massachusetts had a religious test oath and collected taxes from the citizens to be distributed to that citizen’s denomination until 1833 (Massachusetts was the last New England state to have them). In ended that year largely due to the efforts of the Orthodox Presbyterians and Congregationalists who realized that the Unitarian branch of the Congregational Church was receiving more than its fair share of the revenue (The big Boston Congregational Churches were declared Unitarian by this time and because of their size got a greater proportion of the taxes even though the majority of the attendees at these churches were conservatives–tradition dies hard).
Finally, I am surprised you did not give out more information about Jedidiah Morse. For example, he was the father of Samuel F. B. Morse (inventor of the telegraph and Morse code), a famous American geographer, a Doctor of Divinity, a personal and political friend of John Adams who worked hard for Adams election as President in 1896 and for his reelection in 1800, and a missionary to the Native Americans. I do not know what happened to their personal friendship after the exchange of letters. Maybe you can enlighten me.
Report comment to moderator
226(John Rowe): Dr. Dave said, “I don’t have time to read your blog and since I know your agenda by now, I don’t want to read your blog.” And Jon replied, “The fact that you don’t have time to read my blog is fine; but to write if off as “agenda” is a smear. Everything I post here and there is sourced in the public record.”
And I have an apology to make. Actually, I have been to your blog several times due to research. Unfortunately, in each and every case, I was directed to pages that were very much like your posts here–an isolated quote or two and then an exposition on the perceived meaning of the quote. If there is a serious difference, it is that your posts on your blog, American Creation, are somewhat longer. My problem is this is not useful to me. I desire both historical context and specific context with lots of links to supporting material. I am a skeptic of any one source document is just that–a single data point. Since I already have that data point when you post here, I have no reason to go to your blog. I was in a hurry last night and did not know how to say the above politely. And the above is probably polite either. Just put me in the category of the irascible John Adams.
Dr. Dave said, “What I am complaining about on this blog is that when you do occasionally post something preposterous, it is usually a series of quotes without context that you claim prove your thesis. And Jon replied, “Again, if you look at how MUCH I give on these threads, what you are asking for is a BOOK.
I am not asking you write a book. What you did in post 225 is more than sufficient. I’m referring to the link now. Unfortunately, while you source favors your viewpoint, he also acknowledges that distinctly different view points are reasonable and possible. That is, Dr. Peter Henriques also states, “Of course, a great deal depends how you define the term-one can in fact make a make a strong case that GW was a Christian-a life long member of the Anglican church, baptized, married and buried within the church, a vestryman, a fairly consistent-if not regular-attendant of church, a man who occasionally specifically referred to himself as a Christian and certainly never explicitly said he was not one, a man whom those who knew him well [like Eliza Powell and John Marshall] called a Christian-a man who was a strong believer in a Supreme Creator who actively intervened in the world and who was “wise, irresistible and inscrutable,” a man who strongly supported religion as a necessary prop to morality, a man who was always respectful to the Christian church and its clergy and supported by them. That is a lot of points on one side of the equation. Indeed, I would be willing to concede that in the way many if not most Americans use the term, GW was a Christian, and frankly, GW probably thought of himself as one.”
One final comment. It is deeply problematic for me that Dr. Henriques rests his case on “absence of evidence” and you know how I feel about that.
Next Dr. Dave said, “Unless you are challenged to do so, you almost never provide supporting documentation, rarely post the entire passage you say demonstrates your point, and almost never provide the historical context that would provide a means of understanding why the author would write the passage. And Jon responded, “And when I’m challenged I ALWAYS provide additional context or defend my assertions. Again, you are asking me to write a book on these threads.
May I make a friendly suggestion. When you post a quote and your opinion of it, do like you did in 225 above. That will save a lot of bandwidth for both of us.
As it is, you and I turn threads like this one into a book anyway.
Finally, Dr. Dave said, “It’s like quoting one or two verses from the Bible and then basing a judgment of the whole Bible on that one passage or building a whole theology on it–like the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses do. And Jon replied, “And I assure you folks that I am not misrepresenting the context. My perspective is actually to the RIGHT of the consensus in the historical academy which views the Founding Era political theology as more or less deistic. Folks like Gordon Wood and a few others are backing off that claim and understanding the Founding in more of a unitarian, not strict deist political-theological sense. And I will personally take a small amount of credit for this.
That’s nice Jon. However, your initial posts only provide the quotes and your assertion about the quotes. Provide a referential context right away. It’s courteous and a really big help.
Report comment to moderator
Dear Jon:
I think it is now time to close out this discussion at least on my side. I’ve presented my position, discussed why I disagree with yours, and used up four evenings of time that I could well be doing something else. Let’s just leave it at this: You say several of the Founding Fathers were Theistic Rationalists and not Christians. I say that is not your decision to make. It is God’s. You presented your case and I presented mine. We disagree as always.
Report comment to moderator
I just read this last post (#235), not having followed the previous interchange, though interested in the gist of the disagreement. Is Dr. Rowe simply saying that, according to the evidences available to us today, “several of the Founding Fathers [would have been by our standards today regarded as] Theistic Rationalists and not Christians.” This is entirely compatible with the claim that the fate of their souls is ultimately in God’s hands (which sounds like the spirit of Dr. Dave’s claim).
Report comment to moderator
CT:
I think you got it exactly. There are different rungs of scrutiny for determining what is a Christian. The evangelical/fundamentalist standard can be set so high that only “born again” Christians who believe in salvation from faith only qualify. Gregg Frazer of The Master’s College is an evangelical/fundamentalist, but he sets the standard one rung lower and that is by looking to the creeds of every established Church in America during the late 18th Century save the Quakers who didn’t have a creed. This includes Roman Catholics and Anglicans who would not qualify as “born again Christians.” But they all adhered to Nicene orthodoxy. They all also believed in original sin and eternal damnation. According to a 10 point test of 18th Cen. Christianity Frazer concludes America’s key Founders (first 4 Presidents, Ben Franklin, James Wilson, G. Morris and Hamilton before his deathbed conversion to orthodox Christianity) were not Christians but theistic rationalists.
If we set the bar lower, i.e., anyone who calls or thinks of himself as a Christian, believes Jesus a “savior” in some sense (without necessarily believing in the Trinity). ALL of those FFs might qualify as “Christians” as would the Mormons.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave,
I don’t have a problem with your skepticism. I do have a problem with you continually underestimating my scholarly acumen. I assure you I’ve done my homework and don’t make half-cocked assertions on these matters. Though an attorney and not a trained professional historian, I command respect from trained prof. historians in the academy (I don’t think we can say the same thing of David Barton).
c. Who told you that the absence of Church of England Bishops in Colonial Virginia meant that George Washington was not confirmed. That is profoundly poor scholarship. A simple search of the Internet demonstrates its falsity.
David L. Holmes, of William and Mary College who is one of the premiere historians of religion & the Founding era in the nation. See “The Faiths of the Founding Fathers” page 62 where Holmes notes confirmation in the American Anglican-Episcopal Church was not available until they secured bishops in the 1780s. The deistic Episcopalians like GW, Madison and Jefferson all remained indifferent to that ritual while the more orthodox members did not. James Madison mother was confirmed at 84 for instance.
Here is the link to the source. If googlebooks lets you preview the page (newer books alas are copyright protected), again, it’s on 62.
http://tinyurl.com/l23w3o
Report comment to moderator
a. Confirmation was a strict requirement of the Church of England. You had to go through it before the age of 12 or 13. It typically followed careful instruction in the Westminster Confession and memorization of all the answers to the questions in the larger and shorter catechisms. People like George Washington were tutored by Clergy for that very reason.
Now this is a half-cocked assertion. Not only was confirmation not available, BUT the Church of England did NOT USE the Westminster Confession. They were not REFORMED. They used the 39 Articles of Faith.
Report comment to moderator
One last point, let me address the vestryman argument (which in case you haven’t figured out, I’ve addressed before).
More importantly, in order to stand for election as a Vestryman, he was examined (not might have been) by the Vestry of his parish very rigorously and he had to affirm all of the doctrines of the Church of England including the doctrine of the Trinity. Even more importantly, he had to swear that he would defend all aspects of doctrine espoused by the Church of England.
Now, if George Washington was a Unitarian in belief, then he lied to his Pastor and the Vestry. That is what you are claiming. Such an assertion is so far out of character for George Washington that your claim that he was Unitarian is simply false.
[...]
…Face it Jon. If we accept your thesis here, then we must also accept that George Washington was a liar, a charlatan, and a hypocrite. There is nothing in his public life that would indicate such a significant flaw in his character. In fact, his entire life shouts just the opposite.
Okay, when GW was a vestrymen in VA, Church & State were integrated there and the position was largely a social and political duty. In short, these were a gentlemen of high social standing and wished to be in a position of political power. Thomas Jefferson likewise was an Anglican vestryman in VA as was George Wythe, another deistic-unitarian Anglican FF. These were deistic-unitarian minded gentlemen who had to assent to Trinitarian oaths, as a means to an end (this is one reason why they hated religious-political oaths so much and got them abolished in politics! In order to be politicians in VA they had to assent to religious tests in which they didn’t believe).
But the Vestry oaths were much more than simple trinitarianism. They required assent to ALL of the 39 Articles INCLUDING THOSE THAT REQUIRED LOYALTY TO THE KING OF ENGLAND.
So we know that GW took an oath, not just to the Trinity but of loyalty to the King of England as a vestryman and then broke that oath by engaging in armed rebellion against the crown.
This rebuts your claim that “[i]f we accept [my] thesis here, then we must also accept that George Washington was a liar, a charlatan, and a hypocrite. There is nothing in his public life that would indicate such a significant flaw in his character.”
You see based on your own premises, the charge of “liar, charlatan, and hypocrite” is impossible to escape. Whether GW took an oath to the Trinity while not believing it to become a vestryman, we know he took an oath of loyalty to the King of England to become a vestryman and then broke it in the severest of ways.
Either way, GW was a “dissent” in the Church of England, someone who remains a member while disbelieving in its official doctrines. And dissidents either are hypocrites or they are not. I’ll let you and the other readers judge.
Report comment to moderator
240(Jon Rowe): OK Jon. I erred in three areas in this discussion and I apologize. My three errors were as follows: (1) I quoted a prayer from a list of purported quotes by George Washington that clearly was not written by George Washington. (2) It is clear to me now that Baptism was the only requirement for membership in the Church of England in Virginia and I falsely assumed that confirmation was an additional rite that took place automatically. (3) I used the Westminster Confession as the source of Doctrine for the Church of England when it should have been the Thirty-Nine Articles.
For those errors I repent and apologize.
However, I am somewhat fortunate that the Thirty-Nine articles are sufficiently similar that my point that George Washington was trained in them is a data point that he knew and understood classic Christian Doctrine.
Now what do we do with that. If we presuppose your thesis that George Washington was a “Rational Theists” and not an Orthodox Christian, then George’s acceptance of a position in the Vestry of his Parish and his membership in the House of Burgesses where an oath to the Church and the Crown were required were calculated moves to further his political career. And service as a British Officer was done for the same reason. And he resigned from the Vestry and from the House of Burgesses in 1774 to prepare himself to accept the post of Commanding General and lead the colonial army to victory over the British. All this career enhancing behavior was then ultimately aimed at becoming the first President of the new country and being revered and the Father of his country by his countrymen. That is so in keeping with his character and high moral standards that I’m surprised I did not see it sooner.
The thing that is so sad about this is that your pursuit of your agenda forces you to do the following:
1. Impugn the character and moral standards of a man whose overall behavior shows no evidence of such chicanery.
2. Impugn the motives of a man whose friends, fellow politicians, and fellow officers spoke of his pure motives and high moral character.
3. Question every utterance made by the man that even mildly contradicts your agenda driven research.
4. Impugn the religious beliefs of a man who sprinkled his speech with phrases that are found in the Westminster Confession of Faith (this is not a error) and never once in his life said anything that would imply he did not believe in the divinity of Christ and His work of atonement.
Moreover, you are forced to deny an even simpler theory because it does not jive with your presuppositions. The simpler theory says his perceived character and high moral standards were real and based on his religious upbringing and training; that his resignation from the Vestry and from the House of Burgesses was driven by the fact that he had to break his oaths, and that sin haunted him the rest of his life. So much so that he could no longer, in good conscious, take communion in his church. The simpler theory explains his humility, his seeking the good for others, his sacrifices for the ideals of liberty, and his adding of the words, “so help me God” to the Presidential Oath of Office.
Sorry Jon. I have to tell you that I find your thesis, its accompanying agenda, and the way both of them cause you to filter the data and impugn a man’s character and religious beliefs morally repugnant and bankrupt.
Report comment to moderator
I can’t believe how melodramatic you are being.
A couple quick points.
Yes, GW was a very self interested man; if you read about him and his life in detail you see that is the case. He was born of relatively modest means and moved his way up the social ladder. Most historians believe that GW “calculated moves to further his political career.” However, they don’t believe and I don’t believe all of this was “ultimately aimed at becoming the first President of the new country.”
That was something that just happened to GW (at least from his perspective) something not part of his calculated plans. What did John Lennon say about life being what happens when you are making other plans?
You seem to have a hard time accepting that “gentlemen” who may not have believed in the essential doctrines of their church’s faith would NOD to various creeds as means to ends. Jefferson, Madison, George Wythe and many others did it; I don’t see why you see it’s any different with GW. And in the 1780s in VA they happened to be the same men who found to separate church & state, get rid of those oaths so gentlemen didn’t have to be put thru the humiliating exercise of assenting to oaths in which they didn’t believe in order to become politicians.
A lot worse than this went on in the Founding era. I have testimony from unitarian preachers in Trinitarian Churches who had to recite Trinitarian creeds in which they didn’t believe. They did it and they testify about how it sickened them.
3. Question every utterance made by the man that even mildly contradicts your agenda driven research.
When have I questioned one “utterance” of GW (other than assents to oaths that were means to ends; oaths which he broke by rebelling against GB). I address the “agenda driven” smear below.
4never once in his life said anything that would imply he did not believe in the divinity of Christ and His work of atonement.
This is true only insofar as GW never addressed the issue in his private writings. And almost never addressed the issue in his public addresses either. In all of GW’s private writings the words or person of Jesus Christ never come up. I’d expect someone who believed in Christ’s atonement to talk about Jesus a bit more.
Moreover, you are forced to deny an even simpler theory because it does not jive with your presuppositions. The simpler theory says his perceived character and high moral standards were real and based on his religious upbringing and training;
Washington’s morals were also based on his reading of the noble pagan Greco-Roman classics, figures from antiquity whom he revered. That has to be factored in their somewhere. Arguably GW’s noble pagan or “Stoic” sense of morality superseded his “Christian” worldview.
that his resignation from the Vestry and from the House of Burgesses was driven by the fact that he had to break his oaths, and that sin haunted him the rest of his life. So much so that he could no longer, in good conscious, take communion in his church.
Why wouldn’t he just quit that church and join the Baptists or Presbyterians? He still remained a member of a church whose official doctrines preached loyalty to the King of England. Simply remaining an Episcopalian and not communing raises the same hypocrisy issues.
“so help me God” to the Presidential Oath of Office.
Actually one of my co-bloggers, Ray Soller, shows the evidence GW did this is lacking in the record.
Sorry Jon. I have to tell you that I find your thesis, its accompanying agenda, and the way both of them cause you to filter the data and impugn a man’s character and religious beliefs morally repugnant and bankrupt.
Fine, but don’t tell it to me. Tell it to just about every secular scholar who has done notable biographies of GW, from Paul Boller to Joe Ellis to Peter Henriques, to Frank E. Grizzard to Douglas Southall Freeman. Also tell it to David L. Holmes of William and Mary who wrote “A Brief History of the Episcopal Church” (in his book “The Faiths of the Founding Fathers,” he argues just as I do). Tell it to renowned journalists who recently wrote books on the FF and religion Stephen Waldman (Founding Faith) and Jon Meacham (American Gospel).
And also tell it to orthodox evangelical Christian scholars (all political scientists or professional historians) who have done highly regarded work on the FFs & religion, Gregg Frazer (the Masters College) Mark Noll (Notre Dame), Gary Scott Smith (Grove City College), and Jeff Morrison (Regent).
You see I am not really offering anything NEW here. This isn’t “my” agenda driven research. This is me simply following along the path of those aforementioned names and reciting what THEY’VE uncovered and argued.
So maybe the problem isn’t with me and my analysis. Maybe it’s with you and yours.
Report comment to moderator
242(Jon Rowe): I can’t believe how melodramatic you are being.
Not melodramatic Jon. I just traced out the consequences of your presuppositions and your interpretation of the available data. I added a little sarcasm to let you know how silly your claims really were. My use of “your” in the previous sentence includes you and your cadre of historians.
Jon continues: “Yes, GW was a very self interested man; if you read about him and his life in detail you see that is the case. He was born of relatively modest means and moved his way up the social ladder. Most historians believe that GW “calculated moves to further his political career.”
Ahhh! Of Course. George Washington was a very self-interested man. I forgot. Silly of me. OK Jon, tell me how George Washington’s strong self-interest explains the following:
1. George Washington accepts the assignment of Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army, but refuses a salary and says in effect, “pay me when we win.” Of course, if the colonies lose, George will be hung for treason and his lands confiscated, but pay no attention to that. Surely you can provide the quotes to demonstrate it was George’s self-interest that drove this decision.
2. In 1782, George Washington indignantly responds to a letter from one of his officers, Lewis Nicola, suggesting that Washington become King of the United States. Surely, your suggestion that George was very self-interested explains easily this behavior.
3. In 1783, George Washington quells an Officer mutiny over Congressional refusal to compensate them for back pay with the famous comment upon producing a set of reading glasses: “Gentleman, you must pardon me. I have grown gray in your service and now find myself growing blind.” The outcome of the meeting is well-known, but I am sure you will easily be able to explain his behavior in terms of self-interest.
4. On December 23, 1783, George Washington submitted his resignation of his military commission as commander in chief. Some people think his willing resignation of his military powers and his return to private life are striking since democratic republics are thought to be especially vulnerable to military dictatorship. However, I am sure you will be able to make a case for his exercising his self-interest. Wait, Washington became as famous for his willingness to relinquish command as for his successful conduct of it in the War. I’m sure you can work self-interest in fame in there somewhere.
5. George Washington served two terms as president and had the total devotion of his country working for him. Yet he refused to serve further terms and retired to Mt. Vernon. I’m not sure how this demonstrates your thesis of self-interest, but I am sure you will figure it out.
Not surprisingly, Jon then says, “You seem to have a hard time accepting that “gentlemen” who may not have believed in the essential doctrines of their church’s faith would NOD to various creeds as means to ends. Jefferson, Madison, George Wythe and many others did it; I don’t see why you see it’s any different with GW.
Because of all the evidence from his life that shouts out that he was simply not that kind of individual. I have no difficulty accepting that many people will compromise their morals to achieve ends that they aspire to. I’ve met many, in fact. But it is always easy to discern their motives. Where I have difficulty is inferring self-interest from behavior that is so consistently selfless, humble, and reverent.
[Snip of several exchanges that go nowhere]
Jon now says, “Why wouldn’t he just quit that church and join the Baptists or Presbyterians? He still remained a member of a church whose official doctrines preached loyalty to the King of England. Simply remaining an Episcopalian and not communing raises the same hypocrisy issues.
Because that’s the common response of many believing Christians in apostate mainline denominations. They consider their denomination to be mired in sin and corruption, yet they love what their church once was and feel comfortable with its liturgy. This is quite common in the modern Episcopal and PC-USA denominations. You see, Jon, it is quite possible to worship God just about anywhere as long as you stay focused on Him and not your surroundings. That may be hard for you to believe, but it is a fact.
“so help me God” to the Presidential Oath of Office.
Actually one of my co-bloggers, Ray Soller, shows the evidence GW did this is lacking in the record.
[Snip of an extended appeal to authority]
Report comment to moderator
Dude,
I’m trying to have a nice discussion here with you. I appreciate the time you have put into this and your willingness to confirm things in the record and learn (which you clearly have).
However, you are crapping on this what could be a very nice, enlightening experience with ad hominen insults.
Report comment to moderator
And btw, your argument in your last post was a straw man.
I never 1) denied GW was a man of honor (he was) or 2) asserted EVERY move GW made was part of calculated self interest.
Rather I just noted that GW was a self-interested man; though we see more of it during the earlier part of his life while he was moving his way up the social ladder.
And there were plenty of men of honor in Trinitarian churches who likewise disbelieved in orthodoxy but otherwise had to assent to those oaths in customary situations.
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
For what it’s worth, I thought it was a very intelligent discussion. You and Dr Dave seem to be well matched; you both presented your evidence and made an interesting case for the layman to consider. Many thanks to both of you.
Report comment to moderator
sorry, that was to Jon.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks DJ.
Victoria: Your comment was so predictable. It’s not coming from a fair and intellectually honest place, however.
Report comment to moderator
Ah no Victoria, it’s because this is what Dr. Dave DID in his post in 241 when he wrote:
Sorry Jon. I have to tell you that I find your thesis, its accompanying agenda, and the way both of them cause you to filter the data and impugn a man’s character and religious beliefs morally repugnant and bankrupt.
Dr. Dave would have us believe that Paul Boller, Joe Ellis, Peter Henriques, Frank E. Grizzard, Douglas Southall Freeman, David L. Holmes, Stephen Waldman, Jon Meacham, Gregg Frazer, Mark Noll, Gary Scott Smith, and Jeff Morrison are all “morally repugnant and bankrupt” because they argue the same thing I do (or vice versa).
The comment was beneath him.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
Don’t bother to frustrate yourself, you do this often – you borrow from one post and attach it to your post plus a few lines from another post – that were never meant by the original poster, or they posted it in another post within a different context.
You don’t give post numbers, just your rendition of TWO paragraphs, one that is a quote (italicized) the other which isn’t a quote but your remarks, which don’t correspond to whatever Dr. Dave wrote, but is your rendition. – LOL
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Maybe you need to take a class in simple logic.
A) I make a claim;
B) in the context of criticizing me for a claim I make, Dr. Dave insults me with an ad hominen attack
C) other very notable scholars make the same claim I do based on the same evidence/reasoning; therefore
D) Dr. Dave’s terming my thesis “morally repugnant and bankrupt” applies to those other names as well who hold to the same thesis.
Or maybe this is just over your head, V.
Report comment to moderator
Jon,
It’s not over anyone’s head, – save it for your blog -
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!