MORMON RACIST DOCUMENTS AND A SBC RESOLUTION By Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr.

by Guest Blogger on June 14, 2012 · 137 comments

When did Spencer Kimball, LDS President, state that curses against Black people are no longer in effect? Baptist Press cites Tal Davis, a former interfaith witness consultant with the North American Mission Board and now Executive Vice President of MarketFaith Ministries of Tallahassee, FL, making such a claim. Can Davis or anyone else document this claim?

According to Joanna Brooks, a Mormon author:

 “To my knowledge, no Church leader has ever stood at the pulpit and formally renounced the idea that Cain or Ham are the source of racial Blackness and the priesthood ban.  Perceptive observers note that the LDS Church leadership prefers to let old doctrines fade away quietly rather than address them directly.  On race issues especially, I think this leads to missed opportunities.  While younger generations of Mormons may rarely think about and may not even know about the Church’s history with African-Americans, older Mormons continue to quietly harbor outmoded ideas, and many non-Mormons, especially African-Americans, are aware of the Church’s past teachings but without a formal renunciation do not know whether such doctrines continue.  In 2006, Church President Gordon B. Hinckley did state over the pulpit at General Conference that racism is unequivocally wrong and totally unacceptable among Church members.  His comments were welcomed by African-American Mormons and their allies.

Still, I’m looking forward to the day when more Mormons will say out loud:  We were wrong.  We were wrong about Cain.  Wrong about Ham.  And wrong to deny the priesthood to people of African descent.  For in this regard, the curse has been ours to bear.”

There is a growing awareness and acceptance of Mormonism—particularly among Blacks—in Africa and America. In the Baptist Press article, Tal Davis mentioned evangelizing Mormon Church members with the true gospel as a reason to not affirm this Resolution. Wouldn’t equipping African and African American Christians from being influenced by Mormon good deeds to accept Mormonism be a good reason to affirm this Resolution? I Peter 3:15 commands that believers be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about our faith. When a Mormon knocks on an African or African American door, wouldn’t this resolution equip the African/African Americans to defend the Christian faith?

Persons might take the Mormon documents at face value unless the SBC warns them.

I’ve never known Southern Baptists to be squeamish or timid about denouncing Mormonism. Why now?

1 Walt C arpenter June 14, 2012 at 8:50 am

Why now? Precisely because it will be perceived as a political statement due to the Republican nominee being a Mormon. The timing could not be worse, and may well contribute to Obama’s re-election.

2 Dwight McKissic June 14, 2012 at 3:37 pm

Walt,

Why not now? Mormonism is spreading like wildfire in Africa, island countries around the globe, and even among Blacks in America. Apologetics, evangelism, discipileship, biblical fidelity, and the gospel of the Kingdom are all in one accord that the racists, unrepented of, and to this point unrecanted racist Mormon “bible” texts that describe dark complexioned people as Divinely “cursed”, “loathsome”, “despised”, “unattractive”, “filthy” and all of this with God’s approval needs to be addressed by the SBC for Kingdom purposes now–without any regard to any possible political considerations.

Dwight

3 Walt Carpenter June 14, 2012 at 4:38 pm

Dwight: I am not arguing with the substance of the motion but the timing in presenting it. In this vale of tears I believe that 4 more years of Obama would be tragedy for our country and I do not believe that we should be perceived by non-Christians as attacking his challenger.

4 Dwight McKissic June 14, 2012 at 6:10 pm

Walt and David B.,

Why are you making this about Romney or politics? Do you feel the same way about the same-sec marriage resolution? This resolution solely has to do with the Kingdom of God, that affirms every kindred, tongue, tribe and nation. Can’t you see the value of notifying potential Mormon converts now, as oppose to 4 years later about another theological pitfall of Mormonism? Why would we let politics stand in the way of our mission to evangelize, disciple, and “earnestly contend for the faith”?

Dwight

5 Walt Carpenter June 14, 2012 at 7:16 pm

Dwight:
I believe that your intention is that this be a non-political statement. However, that will not be the perception among non-Baptists (and many Baptists) due to its timing in the midst of a contentious political climate. Often the perception becomes the reality. Like it or not, this will be perceived by many as an attack on one political candidate and we will be resented for engaging in secular politics. How much more powerful it would be if presented in 2013 when Romney is president and forced to deal with the issue. We are told to be as harmless as doves, not as wise as them. I believe that Jesus was teaching Christians to develop savvy in the field of secular politics. He endorsed government as God-given and I don’t think that He thought that this did not involve secular politics. That said, Obama is such a disaster for this country that I think it most unwise to weaken the one man who can get us rid of him. Best, Walt

6 Walt Carpenter June 14, 2012 at 7:20 pm

P.S. Even so I might agree with you if I thought that Romney was a racist but he has done or said nothing that would lead me to this conclusion. W.

7 Dwight McKissic June 14, 2012 at 7:33 pm

Walt,

Have you ever stop to think that the same-sex marriage resolution, if passed could politically hurt President Obama? That’s why the decision to adopt these resolutions should not even take into consideration any possible political consequences, but only what’s in the best interest of spreading truth and the furtherance of the gospel. Please answer the question about whether or not you support the same-sex marriage resolution that you can find by googling Dwight McKissic blog?

Dwight

8 Walt Carpenter June 14, 2012 at 7:54 pm

Dwight: Please see my response which was placed out of order at the bottom of the page.

9 Joe Blackmon June 14, 2012 at 8:33 pm

Why are you making this about Romney or politics?

Probably because your timing to offer the resolution is obviously politically motivated. The mormon “scriptures” have had the repugnant statements you mention for, oh, over 150 years give or take? Why not offer this motion last year? 3 years ago?

Yeah, it’s not about politics.

10 Dwight McKissic June 14, 2012 at 7:35 pm

Walt,

If your Bible contained racist statements, would you not openly renounce or distance yourself from these statements?

Dwight

11 David R. Brumbelow June 14, 2012 at 10:41 am

Pastor Dwight,
You said, “I’ve never known Southern Baptists to be squeamish or timid about denouncing Mormonism. Why now?”

It might be because the presidential candidate has not declared his agreement to those old racist views, like another presidential candidate has declared his support of same-sex marriage.
It might be because Southern Baptists don’t want to detract from the news of the election of Fred Luter as SBC president.
It might be because Southern Baptists have already clearly spoken to the issue of race.
It could be because there are a long list of church groups with present and past beliefs we find in error. Should we pass a resolution on every one of them?
Or because Southern Baptists have plainly spoken on this issue by saying what we believe in the Baptist Faith & Message, in past statements, and in material produced by the North American Mission Board and LifeWay.

Many would feel Baptists can witness to Mormons and those swayed by Mormonism just fine without an official SBC resolution. Some may also feel if we were to pass a resolution against Mormonism, it could include other doctrines with which we disagree.

By the way, if people take these Mormon documents on race at face value, I think it would hurt, rather than help the Mormon cause.

Just my guess (and of course I could be wrong), but I think the Resolutions Committee will not choose to present this resolution to the Convention. This would not mean, however, they disagree with it or that Southern Baptists are for racism.
David R. Brumbelow

12 Dwight McKissic June 14, 2012 at 6:30 pm

David B.,

These racists views are in what Mitt Romney consider his “Bible”. Tim Russert in 2008 gave him an opportunity in a interview to distance himself from the racists views in Mormon documents and he refused. As a matter of fact, in that interview he said that he would not distance himself from the faith of his fathers. He has declared his support of the “faith of his fathers”, therefore, your statement is inaccurate in my judgement that ” the presidential candidate has not declared his agreement with those old racist views.

How could expressing Kingdom truth, and serving notice to potential Mormon converts, and discipling believers regarding Mormon heresy, distract from the election of Fred Luter? I thought the convention was in the business of pursuing those goals? Please explain how this resolution would distract from Luter’s election? Luter’s election is such a huge and right decision, I can’t see any thing distracting from that event? If anything, adopting this Kingdom-driven apologetic/evangelistic resolution should enhance the purposes of the convention, not distract.

Dwight

13 Dwight McKissic June 14, 2012 at 6:42 pm

David B.,

If the resolutions committee don’t recommend this resolution, I plan to make a motion from the floor. Because if there reasons for rejecting it are similar to or identical with yours, I find all of those reasons unacceptable. Why? They don’t address the substance or veracity of my resolution; only side-bar non-issues, that are in no way related to my resolution.

BTW, thanks for the book. I look forward to reading it with keen anticipation.

Dwight

14 Dwight McKissic June 14, 2012 at 6:46 pm

David B.,

Do you support the same-sex marriage resolution presented by Pastor Eric Redmond and myself?

Dwight

15 Dave Miller June 14, 2012 at 12:03 pm

Let me address the elephant in the room (definitely not the donkey in the room). If a Mormon were going to be the Democratic presidential candidate, we would be likely to take a stand.

16 Jason June 14, 2012 at 12:08 pm

I see what you did there with the elephant and the donkey.

Clever.

17 Tom Parker June 14, 2012 at 12:40 pm

Dave Miller:

I 100% agree. It seems since we have a Republican presidential Candidate and a Mormon no stand will be taken.

I’m really curious why it has to be this way.

18 Nate June 14, 2012 at 1:27 pm

“I’m really curious why it has to be this way.”

Perhaps it’s because the Democratic candidate (and the entire party) have given themselves fervently to the killing of babies, same-sex marriage, government-entitlement, destruction of 1st ammendment privileges, etc.

Now, are the Republicans pure as the driven snow? Of course not, but when your party platform (Democrat) demands a presidential candidate sign off as a pro-abortionist (i.e. baby-killer) then it shouldn’t be so curious to you.

19 Dave Miller June 14, 2012 at 1:30 pm

It is morally incomprehensible to me how anyone could support Obama, because of his policies – especially about abortion and homosexual marriage.

But just because Obama is morally reprehensible does not make Romney moral or acceptable.

20 Frank L. June 14, 2012 at 1:36 pm

Dave,

Thoroughly agree. But, even if you take morality out of it–Obama is an abysmal failure in every area.

I’m with you in pointing out that Obama should not be the reason one chooses Romney. That just seems like a bad way to make decisions and political choices.

I wrestle every day trying to discover a way to effectively fulfill my civic duty in the next election. It is not an easy struggle.

21 Dave Miller June 14, 2012 at 1:51 pm

This is one of the toughest for me. I’ve had other elections where I wasn’t crazy about the Republican candidate, but I felt he was vastly superior to the Democrat – generally because of moral issues like abortion.

This one is different. I have serious moral concerns about voting for a Mormon and I do not want to simply dismiss them. My loyalty to the Word must be higher than my loyalty to the Republican party, which is not that great, really.

If Mitt Romney were some kind of nominal Episcopalian or something like that, it would be less difficult for me.

22 Frank June 14, 2012 at 3:18 pm

“””If Mitt Romney were some kind of nominal Episcopalian or something like that, it would be less difficult for me.”””

Dave,

That’s how i feel. I’m sure some would criticize this stance for “grading sins” (or heresies). I can see that point of view, but I think that when you cross the line to a “flat-out, full bore cult,” it does change the nature of the game.

23 Walt Carpenter June 16, 2012 at 2:52 pm

Dave: It would be easier for you ig Romney was a nominal Episcopalian? WOW. The Episcopal church has endorsed homosexuality as morally acceptable while the Mormons have staunchly opposed it.

24 Nicholas June 21, 2012 at 4:20 pm

Walter, Mormonism believes the God used to be a man and that men and become gods. Mormonism is just as abominable and must be denounced.

25 Chief Katie June 14, 2012 at 12:19 pm

Dwight,

Against my better judgment, I’m going to provide you with some personal information regarding Mitt Romney.

http://latayne.com/mitts-mormonism

This is from LaTayne Scott’s blog. LaTayne and I are friendly acquaintances, but we run in different circles. She belongs to the Church of Christ. While I don’t approve, given that she was as “true-blue Mormon”, it is a vast improvement.

LaTayne wrote ‘The Mormon Mirage’. I believe its now in its 3rd printing and is considered to be a fairly definitive work on the subject.

For me personally, LaTayne could tell me that Mitt Romney was a closet axe murderer and I’d still vote for him over BHO. Still, I respect your right to draw a line wherever you see fit.

You might be able to hear some of her programming that was done by Chris Arnzen on his Iron Sharpens Iron program.

26 Dave Miller June 14, 2012 at 12:32 pm

That is actually kind of disturbing, Katie.

27 Joe Blackmon June 14, 2012 at 12:39 pm

Well, at least she didn’t say she’d vote for him if he was a Yankee’s fan. (Shudder)

28 Dave Miller June 14, 2012 at 1:24 pm

For the record to all, what I found disturbing was not Katie’s comment, which I knew was sarcastic, but the material she linked to above.

I would encourage you to read it.

29 Chris Roberts June 14, 2012 at 2:12 pm

Everything you read on the internet is true. Especially if the person is trying to sell something.

30 Jake Barker June 14, 2012 at 7:58 pm

I don’t see anything much more disturbing than what happens at a Masonic Lodge. Blood oaths etc, drinking from a skull. Both groups are quasi-religious cults. Any “good” SBC Masons in the room?

31 Nicholas June 21, 2012 at 4:24 pm

Freemasonry must definitely be denounced and expelled from the SBC.

Interestingly, Joseph Smith borrowed many Freemason rituals for Mormonism.

32 Tom Parker June 14, 2012 at 12:42 pm

Chief Katie:

You said: “For me personally, LaTayne could tell me that Mitt Romney was a closet axe murderer and I’d still vote for him over BHO. Still, I respect your right to draw a line wherever you see fit.”

Surely, you did not mean to say the above.

33 Chief Katie June 14, 2012 at 1:17 pm

Dave, Joe and Tom,

Certainly some sarcasm is still dripping from the comment. But, yes, I meant to say it.

I think Dave pointed out just what a quagmire this is. If Romney was the Democratic candidate, I’d not be supporting him at all. I live in Mormon country and as LaTayne has said, one should NEVER underestimate the power of the Mormon Church, nor their determination to get what they want. I see that everywhere I go here in AZ. In less than 1 mile of where I live there are two wards and an ‘Institute of Religion’. I think the word ‘ubiquitous’ applies. Mormons are in our state legislature and my U.S. Congressman is Jeff Flake. BTW, he has done a great job and he is now running to take over Senator Kyl’s position as U.S. Senator. He will get my vote.

I see both the good and the bad in terms of living with Mormonism. I educated predominantly Mormon children while a public school teacher for 10 years. These families are what many of us wish we had.

Look guys, I don’t like Romney. I don’t trust him. He has changed his mind on every issue that is important to me to include abortion. He is the author of RomneyCare. I truly believe he would say or do anything to get elected. If there was any other viable choice, I’d take it. The realities are, this is what we have. And THAT is the most disturbing fact of all. In a country like ours, with so much greatness in it, we are left with choosing the lesser of two actual evils. I can’t control that. But what I won’t do, is sit on my hands while BHO gets reelected. I don’t think there is anyone worse than him. If I didn’t know better, I’d have no problem calling him the anti-Christ. He is intrinsically evil, beyond what he was born with, and the only thing scarier than he is, is the people who elected him.

While you guys are shocked at my sarcasm, might I remind you that we have a history of less than honest leaders who on the surface seemed appropriate to the Baptist mindset. Clinton and Carter. Also a certain adulterer and murderer comes to mind.

Yes, gentlemen, I’m going to hold my nose and vote for a Mormon.

34 Dave Miller June 14, 2012 at 1:22 pm

For the record, Katie, it was not your comment I found disturbing, but the information on the link you provided.

I trust you – I’ve seen enough of your comments to know that you are of sound mind.

What I found disturbing was the information on Mormonism provided by LaTayne Scott. I realized you were being sarcastic.

35 Chief Katie June 14, 2012 at 2:21 pm

Dave,

Thanks. I’m relieved.

I have a copy of LaTayne’s fiction book ‘Latter Day Cipher’. LaTayne sent me the book personally. She weaves a deliberate picture of what Mormons believe throughout. Here is one line: “Don’t ever underestimate the will, nor the ability, nor the financial resources that the LDS Church has, and will expend, in defending itself.”

If you’d like, I’ll send the book up to your church address. It’s a quick read… a murder mystery, complete with Mormon ciphers! Yes, really. It’s a complete picture of the Mormon church to include their beliefs about native Americans, Jews, Mason influence, etc.

I’m glad you believed me. I have enormous respect for you.

36 Doug Hibbard June 14, 2012 at 3:32 pm

I have her “The Mormon Mirage” and enjoyed reading it. It definitely appears she did a ton of research on that, and that some of the research came right to her.

Interacted with her a few times via Twitter, seems like a good person. Even if she doesn’t care for pianos in church.

37 Greg Harvey June 14, 2012 at 1:19 pm

Speaking of closet axe murderers, you guys remember where you saw the Last Man Standing on-screen wife–played by Nancy Travis–of Tim Allen before, don’t you?

I think Chief Katie–without speaking for her–feels that there are many things that President Obama has done which make any other choice–including a convict in prison in Texas–more palatable to many people.

38 Jeff Musgrave June 14, 2012 at 2:23 pm

That movie is so quotable that it’s scary. One of them sounds like it belongs here for some reason.

Stuart Mackenzie: Well, it’s a well known fact, Sonny Jim, that there’s a secret society of the five wealthiest people in the world, known as The Pentavirate, who run everything in the world, including the newspapers, and meet tri-annually at a secret country mansion in Colorado, known as The Meadows.
Tony Giardino: So who’s in this Pentavirate?
Stuart Mackenzie: The Queen, The Vatican, The Gettys, The Rothschilds, and Colonel Sanders before he died. Oh, I hated the Colonel with is wee beady eyes, and that smug look on his face. “Oh, you’re gonna buy my chicken! Ohhhhh!”
Charlie Mackenzie: Dad, how can you hate “The Colonel”?
Stuart Mackenzie: Because he puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes ya crave it fortnightly, smartpants!

39 Doug Hibbard June 14, 2012 at 3:30 pm

The Gettys?

Here I thought they just did Irish music.

40 Jeff Musgrave June 14, 2012 at 9:25 pm

Do they have pipers who fall down? If so, they might have been in the movie too. :)

41 Frank L. June 14, 2012 at 1:31 pm

“””These families are what many of us wish we had. “””

Dear Chief,

Far be it from a lowly 2nd Class to speak against the Chief, but I have to mitigate the implication of your statement.

I pastored a church in the heart of AZ Mormom country–some of Flake’s family members as a matter of fact.

I must say, that it is a myth that Mormons have more stable and successful families than society at large. My experience and the statistics that can be gathered do NOT bear this out.

They do put a go front before the public, but suicides, divorce, lawsuits between business partners, and a whole multitude of other problems plague the Mormon community as much as anyone else.

42 Chief Katie June 14, 2012 at 2:14 pm

Frank,

I don’t doubt you. I can only report my own observations. In 10 years I did not see a single family with divorce issues. Not ONE.

43 Frank June 14, 2012 at 3:11 pm

Chief,

It is very possible you did not see a divorce case in a highly Mormon community in ten years. Usually, the pressure to keep the public relations image causes many really bad marriages (abusive marriages) to continue as shams.

The statistics are pretty well known that that divorce rate is equal to or higher than the national average for Mormons. But, as you point out, that does not tell the whole story.

The Mormon church is all about image–what you see is not always what really exists. Again, as you point out, there are pockets of populations that are outside the norm, so it would not suprise me to hear a report such as yours.

I’m just suggesting that things might not always be as they seem.

44 Frank June 14, 2012 at 3:14 pm

PS–Chief,

On a personal note: my son is thinking about joining the Navy. Would you please pray for him.

I think this is a very good choice for him. Please pray he would get a good score on his ASVAP, and would get into a good program that he would really enjoy. Also, pray that the recruiter would be helpful (as he has been so far) and keep a positive attitude as my son works through this process.

His name is Jonathan.

Thanks.

Sorry for the temporary hijack of the thread.

45 Chief Katie June 14, 2012 at 3:46 pm

Frank,

I will be honored to pray for Jonathan.

Things have changed in the Navy since I retired in 1995. It would be helpful for you to join a website called “Navy Together We Served”. They have many forums and they post all of the news regarding the Navy as we have many active duty members using the site.

I’ll be happy to sponsor you. We have a Christian forum on the site and I know you would be welcome. If after a month, you don’t think it is helpful, you can decline membership.

46 Frank L. June 14, 2012 at 5:06 pm

Chief,

I’d love to see the site. Email me any info I would need. Send it to my office email: jkcfbc@gmail.com.

Thanks.

PS–Thanks for the discussion on Mormonism. Trying to figure them out is a little like catching night crawlers–a bit slippery if you know what I mean.

47 Chief Katie June 14, 2012 at 3:29 pm

Frank,

Truly, I do not doubt you. I had a huge percentage of intact, mom stays at home families. Whenever I needed anything from helping with class parties, field trips, even things like copying work materials, I only had to ask. They were just lovely. Our music teacher was a Mormon. Seriously Frank, that was my experience. Yes, I do know that image is very important to them. I also know that whenever a learning or behavior problem arose concerning a Mormon student, the parents would not act until they spoke with their “Bishop”. I even had a family who had completely financed a charter school that was LDS backed. It was an abysmal failure and I was lucky enough to have their child in my class in the aftermath. I also had the sweetest little girl tell me when she grew up she was going to be a “sister-wife”.

I cannot control what they believe. I never forgot that to a Mormon I was a potential convert.

Let me add, that the school I taught at was largely white-upper- middle-class families. It was a strange community. In the minority for attendance were Mexican children whose parents were legal migrants. I had never in my life encountered a community that had no true middle class. But you surely know, that to the Mormons, the Mexican families were targets of proselytizing.

I can only report what my actual experience was. I accept and respect your view.

48 Job June 14, 2012 at 2:21 pm

T.D. Jakes is a modalistic monarchianist. Yet they sell his books in Lifeway. That is a bigger issue for the SBC than Romney and Mormonism.

49 Dave Miller June 14, 2012 at 6:58 pm

TD Jakes has renounced his modalism.

50 Chris Roberts June 14, 2012 at 8:09 pm

Sort of.

51 Nicholas June 21, 2012 at 4:27 pm

Jakes most certainly has not renounced modalism. Furthermore, he is a Word-Faith Prosperity heretic, and this theological poison is indeed sold at Lifeway.

52 Dave Miller June 14, 2012 at 7:27 pm

Bart Barber has announced his support of Dwight’s resolution.

http://praisegodbarebones.blogspot.com/2012/06/endorsements-part-2.html

53 Walt Carpenter June 14, 2012 at 8:35 pm

Apologies to Dwight, The above comment was intended for Dave Miller.

54 Chief Katie June 14, 2012 at 10:12 pm

Walt,

Let’s not forget the PCA and ELCA for their stand on gay ordination and abortion. Shoot, while we are at it, let’s go after the Amish for their understanding of salvation, and the fact that they don’t seem to have any people of color among them. We could continue with a call to condemn the Church of Christ because of not recognizing the gift of music which surely is just plain wrong… but then, we’d have to poke a stick at the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Black Liberation Theology. I don’t know whether faithful SBC Baptists would cheer or take cover. We can’t forget FR Prager who is a Catholic. Since we’ll be in New Orleans I’m thinking that we should make sure to address the Oneness Pentecostals, the Hindus, and the Rastifarians and finally, we should feel compelled to take on the Muslums, both Sunni and Shiite. Let’s just get it all out in the open so the whole world will know exactly what Southern Baptists believe.

Yep… this is sarcasm.

Seriously, most of the criticism we face comes from our political machinations, not our theology. Taking a critical stand on Mormonism during a convention is that last thing we should do. It can’t be supported unless we address all the other denominations. That’s not going to happen nor should it.

Dave is right. If we have something to stand for as children of the Risen King, we should do so, but it shouldn’t be in response to politics.

55 Walt Carpenter June 14, 2012 at 10:26 pm

Well spoken Chief.

56 Jake Barker June 15, 2012 at 11:53 am

Chief,
You got the PCA mislabled. It is the PCUSA that ordains sodomites and has marriage ceremonies for them. The PCA is an orthodox Christian church rather than hetrodox.

57 Chief Katie June 15, 2012 at 4:29 pm

Jake, Thank you. I do know the diffference, but I obviously didn’t exercise due care when I posted it.

I’m glad you caught it.

58 Ken Hamrick June 14, 2012 at 10:13 pm

Mormonism is a false gospel from top to bottom, and you want a resolution adopted condemning their racism?? Everyone of every race who follows Joseph Smith will follow him to hell… and yet, you want a resolution about how they treat other races while on their way there?? They certainly have many greater errors to be considered.

59 Walt Carpenter June 14, 2012 at 10:31 pm

Right, like the council of gods residing near the star Kolob who bestowed deity on the man Jehovah Elohim. When I point out this theology to Mormons they accuse me of being hateful but have yet to give a substantive reply.

60 Chief Katie June 14, 2012 at 11:55 pm

They can’t. Even their children sing songs about Kolob. I’ve heard them.

61 Dave Miller June 15, 2012 at 12:05 am

My guess is that if you, Ken, were black, you might feel somewhat differently about that.

62 Ken Hamrick June 15, 2012 at 7:22 am

Dave,

You surprise me. If the Mormons accepted our rebuke on racism, would we then find them more acceptable?

63 BDW June 15, 2012 at 10:00 am

As far as the historical facts go, Dwight does have the “goods” so to speak. Joanna Brooks is an excellent authority on modern Mormonism and the history o LDS.

No chance this resolution comes out of committee for all of the political reasons that have been noted and alluded to here (including what Bart Barber wrote on his blog).

Here’s the thing: Dwight’s beef really is with the leaders of the Mormon Church not individual Mormons. I think this resolution would leave many with the impression that individual Mormons are racists. This isn’t a simple topic that can be dumbed down in the media. I think people will hear that the Book of Mormon is racist and quickly conclude that Mormons are racist. That’s just not fair.

I would say that this resolution could have the potential – in the media – to take away from Luter’s election. I think the resolution will be received as “mean.” And truth is, most folks like Mormons. They are good patriotic, family people. So, those feelings will inform the public’s reaction.

Nevertheless, the Calvinism kerfuffle has already done Luter no favors. The timing of that statement was particularly atrocious and revealing, IMO. When America’s largest Protestant denom elects its first black President, it ought to be a big deal to paraphrase our VP. It shouldn’t have to compete with half-a-dozen other controversies.

64 Dwight McKissic June 15, 2012 at 12:05 pm

BDW,

If it doesn’t come out of the committee, I’m taking it to the floor. Politics should have no bearing on the passing of this resolution. If Fred Luter were White, no one would raise this as an issue. His election should have no bearing on this resolution. Truth and Kingdom advancement should be the only consideration. To say that Luter’s election should impact an issue like this–that could go a long way toward retarding the growth of Mormonism among dark complexioned people and others–is hugely problematic to me. There simply should be no mrelationship between these two worthy matters. If anything, they compliment each other.

Dwight

65 Dwight McKissic June 15, 2012 at 12:09 pm

BDW,

One more thing: what chances do you think this resolution have to be passed on the floor? Well a second thing: how will it look if they pass the same-sex marriage resolution, but not the Mormon resolution?

Dwight

66 BDW June 15, 2012 at 2:04 pm

I think it could pass from the floor. We saw how the Resolutions Committee was opposed to bringing forward an NIV resolution last year and yet, when brought from the floor, it passed easily.

Overall, I think this resolution could distract from Luter’s election to a certain degree. It really depends on how the media chooses to report. There are just alot of angles to cover. The resolution would, however, be consistent with Luter’s election in that you are denouncing racism while affirming an African-American pastor to be your highest elected official.

I think the Calvinism statement is a huge distraction and very untimely.

I just don’t think they will touch Mormonism in this election year.

67 Dave Miller June 15, 2012 at 2:37 pm

I agree that if it gets to the floor, it has a good chance of passing.

68 Ken Hamrick June 17, 2012 at 7:41 am

Dave Miller,

Even if I were black, I would not warn a single black person to stay away from Mormonism due to racist teaching, any more than I would recommend Bhuddism to black people due to its racial tolerance! My goodness, Dave — Mormonism has set aside the truth of the Bible and offers a counterfeit Scripture. It has set aside the true deity of God and Christ and offered godhood to those who work hard enough. It teaches the “advanced” members that God the Father had physical sex with Mary. It is a false gospel that is leading its members to eternal destruction, and yet, you think that I “might feel somewhat differently” if I were black?? And if we are offered Kool-Aid with cyanide, shall we complain that the sugar will decay our teeth??

If the SBC is to adopt such a resolution, then let them first adopt resolutions condemning all the false doctrines, false scriptures, and false prophets of Mormonism. Otherwise, we imply that their most significant problem is racism.

69 Dwight McKissic June 15, 2012 at 11:08 am

Ken,

What makes the Mormons other errors greater than their racial errors? I’m not comprehending your reasoining?

Dwight

70 Ken Hamrick June 15, 2012 at 3:57 pm

Maybe I’m missing the whole point, here. But considering that they make God and Christ out to be created beings, and only one god among many (even you and I can become gods equal with them), then I fail to see the significance of racist teachings. To me, that’s like criticizing the attitude of the staff on the Titanic.

71 SBC Layman June 17, 2012 at 9:55 pm

Ken, I am completely with you here. Let me state emphatically that Mormon racist teachings are abhorrent, but I can’t understand why we wouldn’t be much more offended at their blasphemous view of God and Christ than their supremacist teaching on race. If we haven’t denounced their teachings on God, we’ve got the cart before the horse here. Being offensive to humans on race is secondary to being offensive to God on his nature and that of his son. If we were to propose a resolution, that is the place to start.

72 Louis June 14, 2012 at 10:31 pm

There are lots of religions in the world, and a lot of those religions have doctrines and beliefs that are odious.

If the SBC wants to reach the world for Christ we are going to have the best effect promoting Christ and what He has done and offers.

The SBC can go down the road of passing resolutions against certain religions at each convention. We can have speakers denouncing various religions and pointing out how wrong they are and how many of the things they teach and believe are evil and detrimental.

For me it really boils down to proclaiming Christ. We can always proclaim those aspects of the Christian faith that are contrary to the bad aspects of various religions.

We are going to elect the first African American President of the SBC. I think that says a lot about what Christianity says about race.

Maybe the followers of other religions who don’t believe in equality before God regardless of race will see what we do and will take heart, and maybe that will help draw them to Christ.

Personally, I don’t believe I will ever vote for a resolution that is a critique of another religion, whether Judaism, Islam or Mormonism.

I truly hope the SBC doesn’t go in this direction.

73 Chief Katie June 14, 2012 at 11:52 pm

Louis,

Great comment. I wish I could have said it as well as you did.

74 Dwight McKissic June 15, 2012 at 12:21 am

Louis and Katie,

Do you honestly not see the value in educating the dark complexioned people of the world–where Mormonism is spreading rapidily–that the Mormon “bible(s) makes “odious” statements concerning dark skinned persons that have never been recanted or repented of? When potential Mormon converts are made aware of this it could stop Mormon evangelism among dark complexioned people almost dead in its tracks. Wouldn’t that be a good thing?

Dwight

75 Frank L. June 15, 2012 at 4:36 am

Dwight,

Are you saying that the primary impetus behind your resolution was to help Africa?

I must say, I missed that in reading your post.

I’m not sure a resolution at the Convention is the best way to get a message to Africa.

76 Joe Blackmon June 15, 2012 at 7:06 am

Your timing to offering the resolution is obviously politically motivated. The mormon “scriptures” have had the repugnant statements you mention for, oh, over 150 years give or take? Why not offer this motion last year? 3 years ago?

Yeah, it’s not about politics.

77 Dwight McKissic June 15, 2012 at 11:22 am

Frank L.,

The primary impeteus behind my resolution is: (1) to notifty potential Mormon converts of all colors–but particularly the dark skinned people that are so negatively discussed in Mormon documents–regarding their unrepented, unrecanted racial views. (2) Since Mormonism is spreading like wildfire in Africa and island countries predominately occupied by dark skinned persons–I wanted to equip missionary friends in Africa and island countries with the weight of SBC approval–that the Mormon documents so highly cherished in those areas are racially flawed. (3) I wanted to educate/equip the average SBC layperson with this info, so they could use it for apologetic/evangelistic and discipleship purposes. (4) Exposing theological error is what the OT prophets did; the NT apostles did; and Jesus himself with the Pharisees and others. Thanks for asking.

Dwight

78 Dwight McKissic June 15, 2012 at 11:34 am

Joe,

This is not about politics, sorry that you feel that it is. But if it were, should we shelve truth for politics? Truth and righteousness should be the driving factors behind this resolution; absolutely nothing else. Watching some SBC people be hesitant about this resolution, because of politrical considerations, reenforces the idea that is prevalent among many that the SBC is a Republican prayer meeting and more Republican politically driven, than Kingdom driven. That’s certainly the way you sound, although I could be wrong.

Dwight

Dwight

79 Chief Katie June 15, 2012 at 12:08 pm

No, Dwight, I don’t see any value in educating folks at the convention regarding Mormon documents. First we don’t use the Mormon Bible, so it’s not our concern. Second, unless you are going to personally repudiate Gordon Hinkley then there is no point, other than raising a rukus while everyone is clear that this is about politics on your part. If this is your goal, write a book or convince your own church to do something about it. The SBC has its own dirty laundry when it comes to this issue. Go ahead Dwight, publicize this on the floor of the convention and watch the media proclaim us to be hypocrites because we did the same thing. The ONLY difference is that we didn’t support racism by an actual admonition from the scriptures, but an interpretation of the scriptures. This will be seen for what it is, a mean spirited attack upon Mitt Romney with the cover of Mormon documents.

Black people don’t need you to educate them. They are very capable of doing research for themselves. You know that. Perhaps some time spent with Dr. Lorraine Monroe might be helpful. She has quite a bit to say about ‘victim-thinking’.

I don’t know what’s gotten into you Dwight, but it seems you are on a mission to attack anything left standing that rubs you the wrong way.

If you are truly worried about Mormon missionaries in the African countries, you’ll have to repudiate the Anglicans and Catholics because they have far more influence there. You want to be seen as fair, right?

80 Louis June 14, 2012 at 10:33 pm

There are lots of religions in the world, and a lot of those religions have doctrines and beliefs that are odious.

If the SBC wants to reach the world for Christ we are going to have the best effect promoting Christ and what He has done and offers.

The SBC can go down the road of passing resolutions against certain religions at each convention. We can have speakers denouncing various religions and pointing out how wrong they are and how many of the things they teach and believe are evil and detrimental.

For me it really boils down to proclaiming Christ. We can always proclaim those aspects of the Christian faith that are contrary to the bad aspects of various religions.

We are going to elect the first African American President of the SBC. I think that says a lot about what Christianity says about race.

Maybe the followers of other religions who don’t believe in equality before God regardless of race will see what we do and will take heart, and maybe that will help draw them to Christ.

Personally, I don’t believe I will ever vote for a resolution that is a critique of another religion, whether Judaism, Islam or Mormonism.

I truly hope the SBC doesn’t go in this direction.

Thanks.

81 Louis June 15, 2012 at 11:33 am

Dwight:

I do agree that it would be good for the SBC to help people not join religions that believe bad things, including the particular concern that you have raised here.

I believe that the way to do that is in the context of proclaiming Christ, and not a condemnatory statement.

In this case, I believe that the IMB would be the best branch of the SBC world to consider this issue and see how it can be addressed on the foreign field.

I do not believe that denominational statements against other religions is the way to go.

But I do understand and appreciate the concern you are trying to raise.

82 Dwight McKissic June 15, 2012 at 11:55 am

Louis,

This issue needs to be addressed not only on the foreign field, but also in th USA. Notice Mormon promotionals on television: they often feature professional Blacks(educators, busineess people, engineers, etc.) to affirm Mormonism. They knock on doors here; including mine on several occassions. They are making inroads and beginning to get some traction in the Black community here. There will also be Anglos equipped with this knoweldge who would reject Mormonism. That’s why we need to pass this resolution.

Dwightt

83 Joe Blackmon June 15, 2012 at 12:15 pm

Joe,

This is not about politics, sorry that you feel that it is.

Of course. That’s why you waited till this year to bring it up. The fact that there’s a mormon in the election has nothing to do with it. Your sole concern is repudiating false doctrine. As Wayne would say, “NOT”.

If you came out and admitted “I don’t want to see Mitt Romney as President*. That is my motivation for offering this resolution” I could totally respect that. I also completely get why you support liberal politics and politicians. It’s just plum silly for you to sit there and claim that you’re offering this resolution now but it’s not politically motivated when if a white guy were to offer a resolution denouncing Barak Obama he would be a racist.

*BTW, I’m none to thrilled at the prospect either. I wish Herman Cain had made it in.

84 Dwight McKissic June 15, 2012 at 2:23 pm

Joe,

You are way wrong. First of all, I just discovered the information in my resolution while researching Mormonism for a sermon a couple of months ago. Therefore, I couldn’t have offered this resolution earlier. Secondly, the last time I voted for a Democrat was in 1980, and that would include the year Barack Obama was elected–I did not vote for Mr. Obama in’08, nor do I plan to vote for him in ’12. Neither will I vote for Mitt Romney.

My conscience is captive to the Word of God. I find valid biblical non-negotiable reasons to vote for neither. My resolution addresses an issue–not an individual. Truth does not give way and sway to politics, politics must give way to truth. I thought the SBC was in the truth business. The reasons given for not supporting the Mormon resolution makes me wonder. Joe, I forgive you without you having to ask, for the assumptions, misconceptions, and untruths, you’ve spoken about me and this resolution. May the Lord bless you real good.

Dwight

85 Dave Miller June 15, 2012 at 3:02 pm

For info, the threading on comments here has gone askew. I don’t know why. It did it to my comments as well.

I’m old. I don’t know the hows and whys of all of this.

86 Walt Carpenter June 15, 2012 at 4:14 pm

Dwight: Is your defense of your actions that they won’t be effective so it is acceptable? You missed my point. Despite your best intentions your action IS about the next election as that is how it will be perceived by the great majority of both unbelievers and Christians. If I thought I was doing anything that would aid and abet Obama, regardless of how effective it would be, I would recoil in horror. As it is clear that you cannot be dissuaded from your intended action I hope and expect that wiser heads will reject it and prevail. You will undoubtedly deem them not to be concerned about Kingdom matters and your statements will cause division and strife in the body. That is another unintended consequence to where you are rushing. You are letting your zeal override your wisdom.

87 Dave Miller June 15, 2012 at 4:30 pm

My point is that the question of which political party or candidate would be helped or hurt by a particular resolution should not even be given a second’s consideration in the crafting of or voting on resolutions.

88 Walt Carpenter June 16, 2012 at 2:44 pm

Dave: Don’t you think we should be concerned with presenting our message effectively? Presenting it in a manner that most will deem engaging in secular politics and a mean spirited, unprovoked attack on a political candidate is, in my opinion, not an effective way to proclaim our faith.

89 Walt Carpenter June 16, 2012 at 3:20 pm

Dwight: I must object to the “have you stopped beating your wife” question tou posed as it assumes facts not in evidence. By refraining from overtly engaging in secular politics and denying that you are doing so when it is patently evident that this is precisely what you are doing will cause people to just shake their heads and question our veracity. If you are concerned with our “unhealthy relationship” with the Republican party you should honestly admit that this is your motive that you are intentionally engaging in secular politics. The Republican party has many faults but one thing they do is morally oppose the party of late term abortions, same sex marriage and hatred of religious liberty. As Jesus said, “He who is not against us is for us.” http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+9%3A50&version=NASB

90 Walt Carpenter June 16, 2012 at 4:13 pm

Dwight:

I keep “dragging politics into this discussion” because what you are doing is overtly political. Your refusal to admit this defeats your purpose as people call your veracity into question and people deem us hypocritical for refusing to admit our evident motives. Saying that it is “kingdom business” when it is overtly secularly political causes unnecessary resentment toward us.

To answer your questions, the answers to 1 and 2 are that it is well known if one can read past the sixth grade level. Mormon heresy has been around for over a century yet you feel you must rush in and condemn it at precisely the time it will fairly be perceived as a cynical secular political calculation from one who resents our alleged “closeness” to the Republican party. Your third question also assumes facts not in evidence. You CANNOT set politics aside despite your best intentions and categorical denials because your action is clearly political due to its timing. Your denial of such brands you as a hypocrite in the eyes of many who do not wish us well and in the eyes of many of our friends. You are setting up a confrontation with many godly people who disagree with you and, if you repeat many of the statements you have made herein, will openly doubt their loyalty to Christ’s kingdom. How you believe that initiating disputes with other godly people who simply disagree with you is pleasing to Christ frankly leaves me slack-jawed. And that is NOT in the best interests of the SBC or the Kingdom.

91 Dwight McKissic June 16, 2012 at 4:53 pm

Walt,

There are many of us “who can’t read past the sixth grade level” because we were unaware of this info until recently. A highly educated, high ranking, Baptist official thanked me for this information, because he said he was unaware of it until I exposed it. The vast majority of people who have expressed appreciation to me for making them aware of this information are well educated people. That leads me to believe, if they were unaware of this, certainly, the vast majority of the potential Mormon converts are also unaware. Nevertheless, point well taken; I along with others need to work on our reading skills.

Being branded a “hypocrite” or one who lacks “veracity” is par for the course. If i have to endure these accusations in an attempt to get the word to an unsuspecting public–most of which by the way, as you say,don’t read above the sixth grade level–so be it. I’ll just hurl these allegations in the palm of my hands and throw them at the foot of the cross and share in the “fellowship of His suffering”(Philippians 3: 10). But if one person rejects Mormonism or refuse to accept Mormonism because of the motion I will bring, if my resolution is rejected by the resolution committee–that in and of itself will make any damage to me or my reputation totally worth it. I’ll give you the last word, and bid this conversation adieu. For two days we have simply engaged in circular arguments. Perhaps I will meet you in NOLA.

Dwight

92 Walt Carpenter June 16, 2012 at 5:44 pm

Dwight:

I would merely point out that Jesus only backed our actions when we were accused “falsely.” If you proceed with this action people will truly deem it a secular political move, which might be more acceptable if the one taking it admitted as much. http://bible.cc/matthew/5-11.htm

93 Joe Blackmon June 16, 2012 at 8:10 pm

This isn’t about an apologetic against mormonism. You know it. I know it. It really doesn’t matter whether you’re willing to admit it or not. Because if that was REALLY your concern, you would have made this announcement well before it was obvious that the man facing your beloved president in the November election would be a mormon. That is the ONLY reason you’re doing this.

Now, if Romney were a racist, I couldn’t vote for him. I will not hold him accountable for something that his church taught no matter how wrong I think his church is. He doesn’t have to take responsibility for things done in the name of his religion any more than one of my staff auditors who is a muslim has to take responsiblity for terroist attakcs.

Again, not only is Obama pro-gay rights, he voted to deny medical care to babies who survived abortions. Those poor infants died left alone in laundry bins and your beloved president voted in favor of that. As much as I can’t stand him I’d still treat him better than that. No human who had been raised right and taught right would vote for something like that.

94 Joe Blackmon June 17, 2012 at 1:25 pm

Dwight

I take you at your word that you just recently discovered these facts. Since I had known about them for years, I took it for granted that they were common knowledge. Therefore, what I said about your motivation (that it was merely political) was not true given that you didn’t know about the racism in the mormon “scrptures” til recently. I apologize.

95 Dwight McKissic June 17, 2012 at 2:50 pm

Joe,

Apology accepted.
Happy Fathers Day.

Dwight

96 Chief Katie June 22, 2012 at 12:32 am

Dwight,

I guess you now have the answer to your question. There were a ‘majority of who’s’ who saw this for what it was.

Mormonism is far more dangerous to people than the fact that it has a racist history. Why are you not addressing that? It is not a Christian religion no matter what they say. It’s wrong and egregious to reduce the Risen Savior to a ‘spirit child’. So, Dwight, why are we not hearing about your objection to that? No, evidently you are only concerned about their racist past. Why, why, why?

Do you think that racism is the only subject worth talking about? Why have you not taken on the racist teaching of Black Liberation Theology? If you want to be fair, then this is a straight-forward obvious question.

I am not under the impression that racism has been completely wiped out. Remember O J Simpson was my neighbor in the Potrero Hills public housing. But most blacks are now firmly entrenched in the middle class. A good percentage in the upper classes. They are at every pinnacle of success our country has to offer, but you aren’t happy. You won’t be happy until you look under every nook and crany and unless people react and respond the way you think they should, you evidently think they are still hiding something.

I know that there are still issues to address and I will wholeheartedly give my support to Voddie Baucham and Thabiti Anyabwile.

We are called to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ first and foremost. I truly hope that you will shift focus to that goal. By all means encourage us all to love each other and treat each child of God with dignity and respect.

James White has a ministry to reach Mormons. Why not talk to him?

97 Walt Carpenter June 14, 2012 at 7:51 pm

Dwight:

I heartily endorse the same sex resolution. I consider it an added bonus that it might harm Obama’s re-election efforts. As to what I would do if my Bible contained clear untruths I am glad I don’t have to face that issue. However, I do not judge Romney harshly as to how he deals with it. I do judge Obama harshly for his endorsement of same sex marriage and to me that is by far the more salient point. I urge you to recognize that fact and postpone your Mormon resolution to a time when it will not be resented as an overt secular political act.

98 Dave Miller June 14, 2012 at 8:18 pm

Walt, it should not be the job of the SBC to either help or harm anyone’s presidential candidacy or any political party’s influence. We should be about proclaiming the truth.

If the SBC opposes homosexual marriage since it harms Obama and refuses to stand against Mormonism because it might harm Romney, we have become servants of a false god.

99 Dwight McKissic June 14, 2012 at 8:25 pm

Walt,

Who will resent this as an overt political act and why would they? Wouldn’t the souls of all the dark skinned people that the Mormon “Bible” says are cursed, be more important to the SBC than any possible political considerations?

Dwight

100 Walt Carpenter June 14, 2012 at 8:31 pm

Dwight: I heartily agree with your statement yet that is precisely what you will be doing if you proceed with this resolution at this time. As to harming Obama vs. Romney, Obama picked the fight with us. You are picking the fight with Romney. That is why the same sex resolution will be viewed as moral and the Mormon resolution political in the eyes of most. While it would be easy to resent your implication that I am serving a false god, I decline to do so. I believe you to be a sincere, godly man with whom I just strongly disagree on the means, not the objective of your proposed resolution. Act in haste, repent at leisure.

101 Tom Parker June 14, 2012 at 9:35 pm

Dave Miller:

So what do we do as SB voters when neither the Democrat or Republican candidate would be one that God would have us vote for?

Please answer that real question.

What say you.

102 Christiane June 16, 2012 at 6:08 pm

you recognize the importance of integrity, DAVID

hopefully, the day will come when ‘changing minds and hearts’ will take priority over supporting a political party’s interests . . .

for our young people, that day can not come soon enough

103 Walt Carpenter June 14, 2012 at 8:41 pm

Dwight: If you genuinely believe that your actions are saving black souls then why stop there? Let’s go after the Catholics for their numerous heresies and the Episcopalians for their endorsement of same sex marriage. Shucks, let’s resurrect the Mason controversy. We can turn ourselves into a denomination of condemners. Do you think that would please Christ?

104 Walt Carpenter June 14, 2012 at 9:38 pm

I don’t know how Dave will respond but when you vote for the lesser of two evils you vote to lessen evil.

105 Dave Miller June 14, 2012 at 9:38 pm

At this point, I don’t know.

106 Chris Roberts June 14, 2012 at 9:58 pm

Tom,

If neither candidate is one that God would have us vote for, then we should vote for neither. In this case, however, for myself, I’m comfortable with Romney.

107 Tom Parker June 14, 2012 at 9:54 pm

Walt:

Would God really ask us to vote for the lesser of two evils?

108 Debbie Kaufman June 15, 2012 at 3:10 pm

I don’t know how Dave will respond but when you vote for the lesser of two evils you vote to lessen evil.

But are you really Walt? I am not a dispensationalist in any form but I do believe their depiction of the anti-Christ is an accurate portrayal of evil and Satan himself. In the left behind series how is he portrayed? He comes promising all this great stuff and people buy it, many Christians bought it. But how did the story end? I think that could be true in this case. Not to the degree of an apocalyptic movie, but on a smaller scale.

109 Walt Carpenter June 14, 2012 at 9:58 pm

Tom: Jesus endorsed government as God-ordained. I don’t think that he naively believed that this did not entail the necessity of determining which candidate most reflects one’s views, realizing that there is no “perfect” candidate.

110 Tom Parker June 14, 2012 at 10:02 pm

Chris:

How are you comfortable with Romney as he is a Mormon?
Is God comfortable for us as SB voting for a Mormon.

111 Tom Parker June 14, 2012 at 10:04 pm

Walt:

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I can certainly see merit in your viewpoint.

112 Joe Blackmon June 14, 2012 at 10:06 pm

How dare you question someone else’s vote when you voted for a man who worked as a Senator to make sure he denied babies who survied abortion attempts medical care. If the choice is between Obama, the most pro-abortion president EVER, and a mormon that’s a choice I can make in a New York minute. Romney, every time, hands down. Well, one hand down and one holding my nose, but still.

113 Chief Katie June 14, 2012 at 10:16 pm

Joe, I will be happy to lend you my MarkV biological defense mask, just as soon as I finish with it.

114 Dwight McKissic June 15, 2012 at 11:26 am

Walt,

Each messenger is allowed to ssubmit three resolutions. Be my guest and offer three repudiating the three you mentioned above. Why is it that you don’t see the same-sex marriage policy as condemning, but you see the Mormon resolution as conemning?

Dwight

115 Walt C arpenter June 15, 2012 at 12:16 pm

Dwight: The distinction is simple. Romney didn’t overtly promote racism but Obama overtly promoted homosexuality. Replying to a political statement with moral considerations is a far different matter than initiating a confrontation. Surely you can see that you are engaging in secular politics despite your disclaimers. It is this that causes Southern Baptists to be so resented. Unfortunately your determination to proceed despite the counsel you have received is likely to engender precisely the opposite effect that you desire. You are about to learn the reality of the law of unintended consequences.

116 Dwight McKissic June 15, 2012 at 1:00 pm

Walt,

Maybe your language is veiled intentionally. But I’m not sure of (1) what counsel I received to not bring this resolution (2) the only outcome I want is for the resolution to pass–I’m not sure what you mean by “engendering the opposite effect that you desire”? What do you see as the “unintended consequences”? Maybe if I knew what they were, it would give me a different or better perspective on this issue.

Do you also disagree with Bart Barber’s perspective and analysis of this issue that you can find at his blog? His view of the lay of the land is cvery similar to mine on this issue. Where do you find fault with his logic? If you can provide me with good and sound reasons to do so, I’m willing to reconsider. Up to this point, I simply have not heard or read a reason that I consider valid enough to reconsider.

Dwight

117 Walt C arpenter June 15, 2012 at 1:13 pm

Dwight: You intend the resolution to be an objective statement of the heresy of Mormon theology without political implications. However, primarily due to the timing of condemning this century-old heresy it will be perceived as a mean spirited political attack on a presidential candidate and if it passes Southern Baptists will be perceived as Baptists engaging in secular politics which will rightfully be resented by non-Baptists and many Baptists as well. I am utterly amazed that you apparently do not see, or if you do, you do not care that your action, if successful, will aid in the re-election of the most ungodly president in our history who actively promotes the homosexual agenda

118 Dwight McKissic June 15, 2012 at 2:40 pm

Walt,

As I told Joe: Truth does not give way or sway to politics; politics must give way to truth. I agree with Bart Barber. If this resolution passes it will have a minimal if any effect at all on the election. If it does not pass is what quite frankly frightens me, and that is–the convention will place secular political considerations above communicating spiritual truth to this generation on a relevant matter impacting people around the globe. I’m amazed that Republican, Democratic or any other political persuasion would be a factor with regard to affirming this resolution. It makes the SBC look like a pawn of the Republican party. We should be about the Kingdom and Kingdom business as this resolution suggests ; not Republican or Democratic politics.

Dwight

119 Walt Carpenter June 15, 2012 at 3:23 pm

Then you admit that you don’t care if Obama is re-elected? We are ambassadors of a higher power. The purpose of an ambassador is to counsel the entity he is assigned to that they are doing something that displeases his king and will pay the consequences. You are aiding and abetting the re-election of a man who wanted babies who survived abortion attempts to be left to die. How you deem this could conceivably be pleasing to your King simply baffles me.

120 Dwight McKissic June 15, 2012 at 3:52 pm

Walt,

You missed my point. This has nothing to do with the upcoming election. Since I don’t plan to vote for either, I’m perfectly fine leaving the outcome of the next election up to the sovereignty of God–where it is going to be no matter what we do. If you think the actions of the SBC in an annual meeting can swing a Presidential race, I believe that you have way over-estimated the influence of the convention. I am aiding and abetting no one. My goal is to advance the Kingdom of God.

Dwight

121 Dave Miller June 15, 2012 at 4:14 pm

Walt, I’m stepping in here without an invitation, but I think you are way off base here. I am no Obama supporter – wouldn’t even consider voting for him and I hope for his defeat.

But the job of the SBC is to take moral stands, not to support or oppose political candidates or parties. We have made our stand on abortion clear for many years at the SBC, and I am glad of that.

But here is my question: Dwight has made the case, and others I respect have indicated that his information is solid, that the Mormon church’s governing documents are racist.

Would you actually want to suppress this information to aid the election of a Mormon for our highest office? Are we to conform ourselves to the needs of a political party?

122 Walt Carpenter June 15, 2012 at 4:17 pm

Dave: I am suppressing nothing. Mormon theology is well known without the SBC becoming known as a denomination of condemners and meddlers in secular politics..

123 Frank June 16, 2012 at 9:18 pm

Dave,

I think you may be missing something. You seem to indicate that one of the most important things we should do at the next convention is to “inform persons of the former racist teachings of the Mormon church.

What some object to it seems to me, is that Dwight is suggesting his motive is simply to “put Mormonism in check.” The suspicion by some seems to be that Dwight’s motion is NOT to give “solid evidence of the Mormon church’s postion,” but to further his “political agenda” of dealing with racism.

It seems to me part of the objection people have to Dwight’s proposed motion is that he is not being forthcoming with his agenda. The racist issue of Mormonism is older than Dwight, so why now?

Why now bring up Romney’s alleged racism in a time that it will benefit Obama, and make the argument it is just because of our concern with Mormon doctrine.

It just seems wrong to some people to play the Mormon race card at a time when doing so benefits one of the worst Presidents in history from nearly any way of measure.

I object to Dwight’s motion for two reasons: 1) It is directed at Romney, at least indirectly, who has never given any indication he is racist in any way; and 2) it benefits Obama, the worst president in modern history.

I think it is fair to ask: is the greater good of the country more important than Dwight’s personal grievances? This is why some people have been forced to choose between supporting Dwight’s motion that would have little affect on racism, and choosing to support Romney that would have a GREAT affect on the number of babies that will be killed.

Some do not see Dwight’s motivation to be sincerely the checking of the spread of Mormonism in Africa. I, myself am skeptical of that declaration.

124 Walt Carpenter June 15, 2012 at 4:23 pm

Dwight: Is your defense of your actions that they won’t be effective so it is acceptable? You missed my point. Despite your best intentions your action IS about the next election as that is how it will be perceived by the great majority of both unbelievers and Christians. If I thought I was doing anything that would aid and abet Obama, regardless of how effective it would be, I would recoil in horror. As it is clear that you cannot be dissuaded from your intended action I hope and expect that wiser heads will reject it and prevail. You will undoubtedly deem them not to be concerned about Kingdom matters and your statements will cause division and strife in the body. That is another unintended consequence to where you are rushing. You are letting your zeal override your wisdom.

125 Walt Carpenter June 16, 2012 at 2:36 pm

Debbie:

I don’t understand your point unless you think Romney is the Antichrist.

126 Dwight McKissic June 16, 2012 at 3:05 pm

Walt,

The facet of Mormon theology that I mention in my resolution is not “well known”(comment # 107). That’s why it is important to bring this information to the SBC and the public’s eye. You have to admit that this information interfaces with missions, evangelism, race-relations, apologetics, discipleship, anthropology, and yes–politics. Politics is simply an unfortunate by-product of this discussion.

The question you must answer is this: Is it the duty of the SBC to look out for the best interest of a political party–namely in this case, the Republican Party–or should the SBC be looking out for what’s in the best interest of the Kingdom of God? If the SBC follows your logic as you predict, and indeed they might–wouldn’t that decision be documentation of an an unhealthy relationship with the Republican
party , or proof that the SBC is at the very least an ally of the party? Walt, please answer?

Dwight

127 Walt Carpenter June 16, 2012 at 3:22 pm

Dwight: I responded but the software misplaced it. Please see above.

128 Walt Carpenter June 16, 2012 at 3:26 pm

Dwight: I am repeating my comment above and correcting typos.

Dwight: I must object to the “have you stopped beating your wife” question you posed as it assumes facts not in evidence. By overtly engaging in secular politics and denying that you are doing so when it is patently evident that this is precisely what you are doing will cause people to just shake their heads and question our veracity. If you are concerned with our “unhealthy relationship” with the Republican party you should honestly admit that this is your motive that you are intentionally engaging in secular politics. The Republican party has many faults but one thing they do is morally oppose the party of late term abortions, same sex marriage and hatred of religious liberty. As Jesus said, “He who is not against us is for us.” http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+9%3A50&version=NASB

129 Dwight McKissic June 16, 2012 at 3:49 pm

Walt,

What facts have I assumed that are not in evidence?

I have no problem with persons questioning my “veracity”. This is not the first time, and I’m sure it will not be the last. There are many in the SBC who feels as if there veracity is systemically questioned for various reasons.

My concern is not with the “unhealthy relationship” with the Republican party. You sir, are the one who keeps dragging politics into this Kingdom discussion. In comment #112, I just thiught I would oblige you.

Would you admit: (1) It is not well known that Mormons recognize three additional books as equally as authoritative as the Bible? (2) Two of those books contain explicit racist statements? (3) Setting politics aside, wouldn’t it be in the best interest of the SBC and the Kingdom to expose this information?

Dwight

130 Walt Carpenter June 16, 2012 at 4:16 pm

Dwight: See comment 85 above.

131 Joe Blackmon June 16, 2012 at 8:12 pm

You sir, are the one who keeps dragging politics into this Kingdom discussion.

No, acutally, that would be you. You are putting forth this resolution for merely political reasons. The timing of it proves that.

132 Christiane June 16, 2012 at 10:09 pm

” . . . . choosing to support Romney that would have a GREAT affect on the number of babies that will be killed.”

FRANK,
what is your reasoning?

133 Dwight McKissic June 16, 2012 at 11:02 pm

Frank,

…”choosing to support Romney”? Really? The SBC would really opt to “support” Romney, over against exposing theological error, and euipping belivers to defend the faith(1Peter 3:15)? This has been one of the most revealing discussions into the mindset of many Southern Baptists that I’ve ever had. No one raises biblical, theological, historical, or factual objections to my resolution; only political objections. This is utterly mamazing to me.

Dwight

134 Dwight McKissic June 16, 2012 at 11:05 pm

Joe,

The “timing” simply proves I recently discovered these Mormon racist text(s) while preparing for a message; nothing more or nothing less.

Dwight

135 Frank L. June 17, 2012 at 12:45 am

“””No one raises biblical, theological, historical, or factual objections to my resolution”””

Perhaps it is because the motivation for your resolution has more to do with your personal views on racism than the theological perspectives of Mormonism.

Your response to me indicates I was right in my assessment. You lose credibility with me when you make this a “Mormon” issue all of sudden instead of the “race” issue you have consistently harped on.

Though you find my point of view ignorant and distasteful, I feel it is a legitimate ethical choice not to do anything to increase the number of babies slaughtered because of an imaginary issue with someone’s beliefs about race.

You’ve lost considerable ground in regards to credibility with me. My comment was you switched horses in mid stream and now its all about stalling the onward movement of Mormonism as opposed to a complaint about a possible racist view of a candidate.

I find it amazing you do not see this confusing of the issues in your own posts.

Which is it: you want to make a statement about “race” or you want to make a statement about “theological error?” If it is the latter I’d ask: why now and why Romney? Obama’s theological errors were well studied in the last campaign. I don’t remember your posts condemning Obama.

I don’t remember your resolutions in regard to Obama’s views especially in regard to Jeremiah Wright.

I’m not buying that you are so “amazed” that people don’t want to jump on your political (not theological) bandwagon at a time when to do so would possibly put the worst pro-choice president in decades back in office.

That. I find amazing.

136 Walt Carpenter June 21, 2012 at 8:07 pm

Great, let’s become known as the denomination of denouncers. We won’t have time to proclaim the faith because of all the well known heresies that will have to be denounced but we must establish priorities. We can even change our name from Great Commission Baptists to Great Denouncer Baptists.

137 Walt Carpenter June 21, 2012 at 8:30 pm

The above post was in response to Nicolas who stated that Mormon heresy “had to be denounced.”

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: