Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Via CNN.

Billy Graham site removes Mormon 'cult' reference after Romney Meeting.

Shortly after Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney enjoyed cookies and soft drinks with the Rev. Billy Graham and his son Franklin Graham on Thursday at the elder Graham's mountaintop retreat, a reference to Mormonism as a cult was scrubbed from the website of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.

In a section of the website called Billy Graham's My Answer there had been the question "What is a cult?"

Answer: "A cult is any group which teaches doctrines or beliefs that deviate from the biblical message of the Christian faith."

"Some of these groups are Jehovah's Witnesess, Mormons, the Unification Church, Unitarians, Spritualists, Scientologists, and others," the site continued.

No longer. On Tuesday, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association confirmed that page has recently been removed from the site.

Before this turns into the catalyst for the bi-weekly Atheists v. Theist v. Different sects of Theists thread, I will just post why this ticks me off.

What ticks me off about this is the hypocrisy between 2008 and 2012, and maybe this is just a result of me living in the Oklahoma portion of the Bible belt. But during 2008 a large group of people around me kept on talking about how you should always vote for a "Christian", and if this country votes for somebody that is not a "Christian" then we will fail as a country and will be punished by God. Sure, Obama says he is a Christian, but he cannot be trusted. He could secretly be a Muslim and there could be nothing worse for this country than to vote for the guy that doesn't love Jesus and is not a Christian. Some pastors openly preached this, many politicians campaigned on it, tons of emails repeated it.

Forwards to 2012: After the elections of "Evil Non-Christian (D) vs. Christian (R)" 4 years earlier we now have the tickets of "Guy who says he is Christian & the Catholic guy v. Mormon & other Catholic guy". And pretty much every Church around here has had a very consistent track record for decades that Mormons and Catholics are not really Christians. My church is affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention (and thankfully does a splendid job of keeping politics out of anything we do) which makes most of my friends in this church Southern Baptists. They grew up being taught from a very young age that Mormons are a cult, and that Catholics are practically a cult, and that neither one of them are true Christians. Heck, the Southern Baptist conventions sends missionaries to Mexico to make sure the Catholics there have a chance to convert and become saved after getting to know Jesus. So according to Southern Baptist teachings, out of the 4 people running for President and VP, only one of them is actually Christian (the bad guy).

Again, I'm not ticked off that according to a religious leader Mormons have been taking off the cult list. I don't think that religious affiliation should be a deciding factor for political office. I do think that this is a good example of what happens when you mix your religious thoughts with your political thoughts.

I am angry at the double standard of "vote for the Christian guy, or the country will fail" in 2008 and the "vote for the non-Christian who just had his cult-card revoked, or the country will fail" in 2012.

Agreed. There's a bit of twisting and turning on the evangelical vote. They have to choose between pro-life and Christian. Not acknowledging the difficulty isn't a very worthy approach.

I mean, I consider myself to be a religiously motivated voter and it's rough. I'll probably just vote third party or abstain. (I don't mean to imply voting for a non Christian is wrong, it's just I can't bring myself to vote for either of them)

I live in Texas so I get to cast my vote in the knowledge I won't decide the election. It would be harder if I lived in Ohio, for example.

Wait, catholics aren't really christians?
If I recall my history lessons correctly, it's protestant christians (Luther, Calvin, et al hammering notes on church doors and whatnot) who broke away from the teachings of the catholic christians, not the other way around.

I mean, I'm not religious (though I was raised a catholic), but at least catholics acknowledge protestants as christians.

If they can pull that crap with a straight face, I see no real objection to changing your stance on a christian president vs a mormon one.

Should you vote for a presidential candidate who once believed in the tooth fairy?

What about one who is unsure about bigfoot?

Loch Ness Monster?

I'm sure the LNM would have made a fine president, but the birthers will keep it down.

Bran Dawri wrote:
Wait, catholics aren't really christians?
If I recall my history lessons correctly, it's protestant christians (Luther, Calvin, et al hammering notes on church doors and whatnot) who broke away from the teachings of the catholic christians, not the other way around.

I mean, I'm not religious (though I was raised a catholic), but at least catholics acknowledge protestants as christians.

If they can pull that crap with a straight face, I see no real objection to changing your stance on a christian president vs a mormon one.

Well, I might rephrase that to "many evangelical Christians don't think Catholics are Christians" to make it a bit more accurate.

 CT GAMER wrote:
Should you vote for a presidential candidate who once believed in the tooth fairy?

What about one who is unsure about bigfoot?

Loch Ness Monster?

Like I said, I don't think there should be a religious test for candidats. My beef with this is the blatant switch of positions from 2008 to 2012.

Either these people have no religious convictions and can abandon their "only vote for Christians" stance really quickly, or the atheists can pick this up as an example of using religion to manipulate people and maintain a grip on power.

Wasn't there a time, around the 60s where there was an element who felt that we should never vote for Kennedy because he was a Catholic, and therefore only a step away from a Communist, or some other "dirty" person?

I know that the particular church that I grew up in viewed Catholics as being Christian, albeit of a strange and very rigid brew, but I do think that most all church sects regard Mormonism as being distinctly not Christian.
'
Ultimately, in regards to voting, obviously d-usa, only YOU can decide who you will or will not vote for (if you vote at all). I know that prior to this election, you would never hear me say anything positive about voting for Obama, or the majority of Dems, however, I have always felt that I lean towards the side of "lesser of two evils". Being that we all know Politicians to be dirty, cheating liars and whatnot, it really comes down to who you (anyone here, not targeted at d-usa) feel is the lesser of two evils, or who you think will do the most good in their allotted period of time.


I would actually take beef with the Billy Graham people who have had the "anti-mormon" stance since their inception, and had advertised themselves as such on their website suddenly taking that particular statement down. I mean, what, suddenly, because we now support a cultist candidate, we must accept all cults? I find here that, really I just no longer care what Billy Graham has to say anymore, I think that he once had a place in many church's hierarchies as far as his evangelism goes, but now... not so sure.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Wasn't there a time, around the 60s where there was an element who felt that we should never vote for Kennedy because he was a Catholic, and therefore only a step away from a Communist, or some other "dirty" person?

I know that the particular church that I grew up in viewed Catholics as being Christian, albeit of a strange and very rigid brew, but I do think that most all church sects regard Mormonism as being distinctly not Christian.
'
Ultimately, in regards to voting, obviously d-usa, only YOU can decide who you will or will not vote for (if you vote at all). I know that prior to this election, you would never hear me say anything positive about voting for Obama, or the majority of Dems, however, I have always felt that I lean towards the side of "lesser of two evils". Being that we all know Politicians to be dirty, cheating liars and whatnot, it really comes down to who you (anyone here, not targeted at d-usa) feel is the lesser of two evils, or who you think will do the most good in their allotted period of time.


I would actually take beef with the Billy Graham people who have had the "anti-mormon" stance since their inception, and had advertised themselves as such on their website suddenly taking that particular statement down. I mean, what, suddenly, because we now support a cultist candidate, we must accept all cults? I find here that, really I just no longer care what Billy Graham has to say anymore, I think that he once had a place in many church's hierarchies as far as his evangelism goes, but now... not so sure.

I've been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for years. I still wonder how people do not think us Christian since we believe in Jesus as the son of God and through his sacrifice we are able to gain redemption if we strive to follow his example.

Relapse wrote:


I've been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for years. I still wonder how people do not think us Christian since we believe in Jesus as the son of God and through his sacrifice we are able to gain redemption if we strive to follow his example.

Generally speaking, there are certain passages of the Bible that basically, or rather bluntly state that adding to, or taking away from "this" book is basically blasphemy. Most other Christian denominations view the Book of Mormon as falling under those passages. Whether or not they are ignorant in assuming that this particular book forms your central belief system or not, it is how it's viewed.

@Relapse

I understand, which is why I tried to make sure it was clear that for me it was the switch in stance that was the issue and not the actual stance itself. I know we covered the actual "Are Mormons Christians" a few times already in the OT, so I didn't want to make it appear that the thread was a "Why are you voting for the non-Christian Guy" thread.

It really is the whole "You said that Obama was not a Christian, but now you want me to vote for the guy who you said was not a Christian for decades but now he's no longer a cult because you support him" mess that ticks me off.

Which is something I agree completely with. It also bugs me, again, that something that has been a sort of basic belief with the people in question can so swiftly and suddenly be changed, with the added caveat that they act as if it never had happened before.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Relapse wrote:


I've been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for years. I still wonder how people do not think us Christian since we believe in Jesus as the son of God and through his sacrifice we are able to gain redemption if we strive to follow his example.

Generally speaking, there are certain passages of the Bible that basically, or rather bluntly state that adding to, or taking away from "this" book is basically blasphemy. Most other Christian denominations view the Book of Mormon as falling under those passages. Whether or not they are ignorant in assuming that this particular book forms your central belief system or not, it is how it's viewed.

A lot of people cite the "adding to or taking away" passage, but that particular piece of scripture refers to the book of Revelation. The bible itsel is a collection of individual books that were put together centuries after they were written. The book of Mormon is an account of God's dealings with the ancient American people, much like the Bible gives account of his dealings with people in the Holy Land.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@d-usa, no worries, I caught what you meant, bro.

Relapse wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Relapse wrote:


I've been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for years. I still wonder how people do not think us Christian since we believe in Jesus as the son of God and through his sacrifice we are able to gain redemption if we strive to follow his example.

Generally speaking, there are certain passages of the Bible that basically, or rather bluntly state that adding to, or taking away from "this" book is basically blasphemy. Most other Christian denominations view the Book of Mormon as falling under those passages. Whether or not they are ignorant in assuming that this particular book forms your central belief system or not, it is how it's viewed.

A lot of people cite the "adding to or taking away" passage, but that particular piece of scripture refers to the book of Revelation. The bible itsel is a collection of individual books that were put together centuries after they were written. The book of Mormon is an account of God's dealings with the ancient American people, much like the Bible gives account of his dealings with people in the Holy Land.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@d-usa, no worries, I caught what you meant, bro.

A quick google search found 3 other passages within the bible talking about the same thing, and not in relation to Revelations specifically. And, like most religious writings, is down to interpretation of individuals and "individual" congregations. But, that is ultimately a whole different topic.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Relapse wrote:


I've been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for years. I still wonder how people do not think us Christian since we believe in Jesus as the son of God and through his sacrifice we are able to gain redemption if we strive to follow his example.

Generally speaking, there are certain passages of the Bible that basically, or rather bluntly state that adding to, or taking away from "this" book is basically blasphemy. Most other Christian denominations view the Book of Mormon as falling under those passages. Whether or not they are ignorant in assuming that this particular book forms your central belief system or not, it is how it's viewed.

A lot of people cite the "adding to or taking away" passage, but that particular piece of scripture refers to the book of Revelation. The bible itsel is a collection of individual books that were put together centuries after they were written. The book of Mormon is an account of God's dealings with the ancient American people, much like the Bible gives account of his dealings with people in the Holy Land.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@d-usa, no worries, I caught what you meant, bro.

A quick google search found 3 other passages within the bible talking about the same thing, and not in relation to Revelations specifically. And, like most religious writings, is down to interpretation of individuals and "individual" congregations. But, that is ultimately a whole different topic.

The fact that it is mentioned in other parts of the Bible would condem those who wrote the later books if taken in the context of adding to or taking from as used by those who say members of the LDS faith are going to hell because of the Book of Mormon.

As a Mormon, this double standard has been a really good thing for the church. The extra attention has allowed us to better define what we are, and become less of an obscure group.

Put vegetables and a burger on a kid's plate, they'll eat the burger. Put only vegetables on it and they eventually take a piece.

That context, however is incorrect, since the writers of the various books were Prophets and inspired men of God.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Nobody wrote:
As a Mormon, this double standard has been a really good thing for the church. The extra attention has allowed us to better define what we are, and become less of an obscure group.

Put vegetables and a burger on a kid's plate, they'll eat the burger. Put only vegetables on it and they eventually take a piece.

True enough, I've read some comments from different news articles and have seen some truly silly misconceptions out there with the most outrageous stories starting out with, "Our neighbors are Mormons and....

Imma just gonna park this here

Relapse wrote:
That context, however is incorrect, since the writers of the various books were Prophets and inspired men of God.

This assumes of course that you a) believe there are prophets, b) there are prophets past Jesus (or Muhammad if you are Muslim), and that c) they are actually prophets. If you don't think one, or any, of those is true the argument sort of falls apart, and that isn't even touching on belief in god or divine inspiration.

Removing that page doesn't mean that "Billy Graham no longer thinks Mormonism is a cult".

If you read the whole article.. that info was removed for political reasons. (not that I agree with the decision)

GG

 Ahtman wrote:

Relapse wrote:
That context, however is incorrect, since the writers of the various books were Prophets and inspired men of God.

This assumes of course that you a) believe there are prophets, b) there are prophets past Jesus (or Muhammad if you are Muslim), and that c) they are actually prophets. If you don't think one, or any, of those is true the argument sort of falls apart, and that isn't even touching on belief in god or divine inspiration.

I obviously believe there are prophets, but I understand your point.

 generalgrog wrote:
Removing that page doesn't mean that "Billy Graham no longer thinks Mormonism is a cult".

If you read the whole article.. that info was removed for political reasons. (not that I agree with the decision)

GG

Do you think that there are many, if any at all, people who DO agree with the decision? I mean, I think I understand WHY it was done, even though I don't agree with it personally.

Well, I agree with the decision because that definition of cult is pretty bad, but I do consider Billy Graham a cop out (shocked, major public figure shifts political position for convenience). Who'd have seen it coming?

how is it bad? He says they see it as a set of beliefs that are divergent from "mainstream" Christianity. Of course, he branches out to include non-christian belief systems, which goes beyond the reach of cults, but that's not really the point.

It's worth pointing out that Billy Graham, since he got burned pretty bad by Nixon, has stayed out of politics. He refused to join Falwell's Moral Majority, stating "I'm for morality, but morality goes beyond sex to human freedom and social justice. We as clergy know so very little to speak with authority on the Panama Canal or superiority of armaments. Evangelists cannot be closely identified with any particular party or person. We have to stand in the middle in order to preach to all people, right and left. I haven't been faithful to my own advice in the past. I will be in the future."

He's an interesting figure, Billy Graham, and quite admirable in a lot of ways. But he's also very old now, and from his scarce public visits in the last few years, almost certainly not all there anymore.

His son, Franklin Graham, has no such concern about plunging into politics. In fact, his son is all about using his Dad's name to put himself into every political position he can, recently putting his Dad and his name over billboards and leaflets campaigning for rightwing political issues.

So this really comes as no surprise, but it is pretty sad to see Billy Graham's wishes get ignored, and his legacy abused by his son for his own power.

 sebster wrote:

So this really comes as no surprise, but it is pretty sad to see Billy Graham's wishes get ignored, and his legacy abused by his son for his own power.

Well, at least his youngest daughter is hot:



Unfortunately she's married to Corey Lynch, a noted douche.

Romney, Tzeentch is disappointed in you, my son.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
how is it bad? He says they see it as a set of beliefs that are divergent from "mainstream" Christianity. Of course, he branches out to include non-christian belief systems, which goes beyond the reach of cults, but that's not really the point.

Because classifying all non-mainstream religion as a cult is just a bad definition for an already poorly articulated word. Find me a credible expert who would ever claim the Unitarians or Latter Day Saints can be sweepingly categorized as a cult, or Mormon's for that matter (ignoring that Billy Graham apparently missed that Mormons are Latter Day Saints). The definition doesn't even fit the examples, as Scientology has no relation to Christianity at all, which really only leads to the conclusion that Bill Grahams site was calling all non-Christian religion a cult or has no idea what any other religion is about.

Its just a bad definition on its face. Define for me the 'biblical message of the Christian faith.' That's so abstract as a piece of criteria it means nothing.

As to what D-USA has a beef with I agree with him. The Christian block loves to make fun of Mormons, until a Mormon is the only chance they have of voting out the maybe-Muslim (who goes to church...). Then being Mormon is just a-ok

Psst, let me let you in on the little secret.

When they were saying you need to vote for a "Christian" they really meant something else that you can't say in polite company anymore.

 Easy E wrote:
Psst, let me let you in on the little secret.

When they were saying you need to vote for a "Christian" they really meant something else that you can't say in polite company anymore.

I'm pretty sure you can still say WASP in polite company.

"Mormons and Catholics are not really Christians"?

What's a 'Christian' again?

And... Rev. Billy Graham holds that much stroke still?

And should be listened to?

Really?