Yes, Romney needs to answer questions about his religion

Salt Lake Tribune ^ | August 7, 2007 | Dick Polman

[greyfoxx39]

Mitt Romney's own Republican Party has made religion fair game, and Romney will be asked how his faith would affect his policies.

-SNIP-

But Mitt Romney is a serious contender in 2008, rich and disciplined, and he's running in an era when presidential candidates are virtually expected to parade their religiosity. This is particularly true in the Republican camp, where religion and politics are now routinely intertwined; indeed, candidate George W. Bush upped the ante in 2000, when he said that his favorite philosopher was Jesus, ''because he changed my life.''

So it's no surprise Romney is facing questions about his lifelong devotion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the breakaway theology that considers itself humankind's ''one true church.'' He had hoped to stonewall this issue, insisting in a TV interview 18 months ago that ''I'm never going to get into a discussion about my personal beliefs.''

But today word is circulating that Romney will discuss his faith in an autumn speech - and seek to disarm the skeptics much the way John F. Kennedy in 1960 dampened fears that a Catholic president would take orders from Rome.

Romney is dealing with potential hostility, fair or not, on several fronts. Many Christian fundamentalists, particularly southern Baptists, dismiss Mormonism as a cult (thereby imperiling Romney in the GOP primaries, particularly in pivotal South Carolina). Many secular voters are uncomfortable with the church's passion for proselytizing and its superior attitude, particularly its scriptural insistence that all nonbelievers are worshiping ''the church of the devil.'' Pollsters say that at least 30 percent of voters won't back a Mormon.

Romney's biggest problem is that skeptics are simply weirded out. They cannot quite envision having a president who believes that a man named Joseph Smith dug up a book of golden plates, long buried in a hillside, with the help of an angel named Moroni in 1827; that these plates, written in Egyptian hieroglyphics, spelled out the precepts of the true Christian faith; that Smith translated these hieroglyphics by wearing decoder glasses and burying his head in a hat; that Jesus visited North America after the resurrection; that the Garden of Eden was really in Missouri.

-SNIP-

Some questions do seem appropriate. First, the Mormon faith puts a high premium on ''faith-promoting'' information, sometimes at the expense of unpleasant facts. As a high-ranking Mormon leader said in a famous 1981 speech, ''Some things that are true are not very useful.'' Would Romney be able to assure swing voters that he would not merely perpetuate the faith-based thinking, and the rejection of empirical reality, that has trapped us in a ruinous war?

Second, since the Mormons consider themselves stewards of ''a quintessentially American faith'' (Romney's words), and since Mormons believe Jesus will return and rule the world from U.S. territory, does this suggest that a President Romney might wave the flag a bit too fervently, at a time when we need to repair our relations around the world? The Mormon faith is heavily rooted in what is commonly called ''American exceptionalism,'' the belief that we are special and we know best. Would Romney govern accordingly, and, if so, would that be a help or a hindrance in the war on terror?

-SNIP-

What matters, in other words, is not whether he really thinks Joseph Smith met an angel in 1827. The crucial issue is whether, or how, a devout Mormon would apply his faith on the job in 2009. His supporters have suggested that any such questions are symptoms of religious bigotry, but it is the Republican Party, over the past several decades, that has put religion front and center. They have made Mitt Romney fair game.

[DelphiUser]

This is going to be fun.

Doing missionary work for a FALSE religion should be way down on the list; compared to serving your fellow man in the Armed Forces.

If you are in the armed forces and choose to serve a mission, the armed forces have a special program where you sign up for an additional two years and get a leave of absence to Go (several buddies of mine on my mission were doing just that) it's not mutually exclusive and the military loves it.

The Mormons all but enslave young men to go and do non- optional missionary work.

I had to ask to go, pass a series of interviews, and show how I was going to pay for it. I have a brother who chose not to go, he is now in a bishopric, I never have been. Ergo you are sadly mis-informed.

They are put in missionary schools against their will and sent out on these unpaid trips.

Um see my note above about what it takes to be accepted, and it's not just unpaid, I paid for my mission, and lived off of savings for two years so I could go preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to those who had not had an opportunity to hear it. It's not a bad thing for a teenager to work toward.

They even get a “draft” notice by mail from the president of the church telling them where they are assigned.

It's a mission call, and you have to have asked to go and been approved before your call can come from the first presidency, it usually takes four to six weeks for the call to come, then you have anywhere from a month to six months before you are supposed to show up at the MTC (Missionary Training Center).

The church is a disproportional influence in the lives of the members.

Isn't a church supposed to influence the lives of it's members? I mean why go to church if it's not going to make you a better person and bring you closer to Christ? This is the main thing that characterizes a cult from a religion.

No, an inability to leave is the main thing that separates a cult from a religion. The church will fly you back home at any time all you have to do is go into the mission home and tell them you are done and to ship you home.

It becomes all about serving the church rather than the church aiding in your salvation.

It's about learning about Jesus by doing his work. I have found that you come closer to Christ by doing his work. Nothing will increase your faith like working with those who are discovering God's truth for the first time.

This is the problem with Mormons who aspire to public life; the president is not paid to advance his religion.

So? neither are Baptists, Methodists, or Catholics, you really are being paranoid here, I'll bet you know a few Mormons and don't even know they are Mormons, it's not like we wear a sign all the time.

Thats what you will get what a Willard Romney in the WH.

I think you will see lest "Evangelizing" than if we elected a Born again Christian. Mitt will be worrying about it, they won't.

[curiosity]

Jesus’ message is so perfect, that it NEVER needs restoration from the likes of men.

So the reformation was a mistake, right? Everything was fine (doctrinewise) before Martin Luther, right?

I actually believe that, but I suspect you don't.

[meandog]

respect and thank you for your service to this country. Many men stayed in college to defer their draft call. They are physicians, surgeons and other successful professionals today. Was it right? That’s for the individual to decide. However, there is more to the office of the Presidency than military service. Duncan Hunter served and his sons currently serve. He isn’t moving in the polls. Military service is only a fraction of what most Americans consider as qualifications.

Well, I didn't really do anything spectacular...but, thanks anyway. Mitt was on Hannity's radio program just a while ago, saying how he was for "a strong military" to defend against "the jihadists". To me, this rings as hollow...as I pointed out in previous posts, I can remember a lot of Mormons the same age as Mitt and myself who joined during Vietnam. A lot of them probably could have begged for a deferment from their church like he did and go on a mission (to France of all places), but apparently felt that their country needed them more. Why are they any different?

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

I think you will see lest "Evangelizing" than if we elected a Born again Christian. Mitt will be worrying about it, they won't.

There is a paradoxical dynamic at work that the Mormon haters don't see (it's happened with the Catholics). The more the media and the fundamentalists attack Mitt and Mormonism, the more inquisitive people will check it out to see what the fuss is about. So the bigots who are so worried about the Mormons increasing their numbers are doing exactly that for them.

[restornu]

Ezra Taft Benson
LDS Apostle serves as Secretary of Agriculture
http://www.footnote.com/page/443/ezra-taft-benson

[Colofornian]

I want to let your post stand as the example of nearly every other post you've made for the last 6 months on this conservative political forum.

First of all, I was responding to your claim that the same folks were invading "EVERY" forum. Not true. Not even close in my case. (The "every" forum claim sounds like a kid who whines, "I ALWAYS do EVERYTHING. Why do you ALWAYS ask me?" I never claimed that I'm attracted to all issues across the board; certain topics interest me more than others--and that won't be unique to me).

Your posting history and constant harassment...

Typical liberal tactic. Reduce forum points of contention to the "harassment" level. (Please rise above this less-than-flattering stooping).

... marks you as a religious bigot and a troll.

Notice, all, how Spiff doesn't really address ANY of the content issues in my last post. He takes one issue of me as the poster and neglects any of the substantive content of the posts, focusing on the messenger & not the message. No, I haven't "marked" myself a "bigot" and a "troll," you have. And if you're satisfied that the "representative" way you want folks to know LDS is by a slew of labels & name-calling, so be it. Call me what you like. I will not respond in kind. <

This kind of behavior is inappropriate for a political forum or any other forum...

Aside from your self-appointed role as thread policeman (could I see your badge, please?), please show me exactly what standards you're appealing to as to what is "appropriate" or "inappropriate?"

BTW, by your definition of "troll" (someone who discusses spiritual matters on political forums), I guess that makes all LDS missionaries "trolls." Why do I say that? Well, obviously homes are family forums, not intersections for "Missionary Brown" lessons taught at LDS Missionary Indoctrination Schools. Let all see your consistency. Come on, address this directly: Say after me, "For Colofornian to discuss spiritual matters on a political forum, I must also concede that any time an LDS missionary discusses an LDS doctrinal lesson in, let's say, a secular home that wasn't constructed for the purpose of LDS doctrinal lessons, that both of these things are inappropriate and troll-like and that anytime an LDS missionary brings up total apostasy in a non-Mormon, Christian home that it's just a two-year 'screed and attack' against non-Mormons and their religious faith. LDS missionaries' visitation history and constant harassment of and attacks on conservative Christians marks them as religious bigots." Since these phrases integrate your own exact words applied to another venue, how consistent are you in applying your carefully-defined boundaries?

You are the poster boy...

More labels, eh? (If I wanted to be the target of label slams I could introduce myself to the DU community for that).

... for the religiously intolerant anti-Mormons that pollute this forum.

Ah, the consistency issue again. Dare I say doesn't your position make you religiously intolerant of those you perceive as "anti-Mormons?" (Please explain how your religious intolerance of others trumps the "religious intolerance" of others? So judging by all the labels you hurled at me, since I'm such a lowly "bigot" you are perfectly sanctioned to be religiously intolerant of me? Please explain why you hold this elite position on this matter? Yes or no, is "tolerance" a two-way street or are you the street cop who decides where all one-way street markers are placed?) Oh, and "Polluter" implies a threat to purity. What exact purity are you trying to protect?

...lost all sense of tolerance and charity."

And your last label-filled, name-calling post was an exemplary post of tolerance, patience, acceptance, compassion, etc. representative of LDS church members who will one day be gods? (Where do I not sign up to emulate?) Tell you what, can you put together a post that doesn't rest upon name-calling tactics such as "basher," "attacker," "harasser," "religious bigot," "troll," "poster boy for religiously intolerant," "polluter," "hard-core, anti-Mormon basher?" OR would that mean you wouldn't really have much left to say & might have to actually address the content issues I raised in my last post?

(Except for my direct consistency challenges, I would actually rather you addressed my last post than this one)

[Osage Orange]

fwiw...I'd be interested in your reply Spiff...as I think Colofornian has addressed your post in a very debatable and adult way.

I cannot say the same...for you.

IF, I was a noob here...I'd look at your post..and be embarrassed for you.

FWIW-

[Old Student]

“Please refer to Post #53 for a real picture of Romney...he makes Bill Clinton’s cowardice and loathing of the military pale in comparison.”

I must have missed something in the translation here, FRiend. For starters, nothing Romney said indicates he should be classed with BJC. His sons didn’t serve. They are supporing their father in his run for office. That is hardly the same as dodging the draft, and BJC did dodge the draft. Romney did not get drafted, and his serving a mission is IMHO a valid reason. So is his college. Lots of people did that.

I served under Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton. My retirement certificate is signed by BJC, and I do not display it.

I’m not voting for Romney (unless he’s the only opponent to a Democrat candidate) because of his stance on abortion and my perception that he flip-flopped on the subject far to recently to really be pro-life. Also because I’m still not satisfied about his 2nd Amendment stance. This despite being Mormon. You’re going to need considerably more evidence than your link provided to make me equate him with Clinton.

[Old Student]

“I’m more than willing to give Mitt (or Fred Thompson or anyone but McCain and Guilani) a fair look once the process is further along, but I’d really like to see a discussion based on real issues like border security, the war on terror, the Balkanization of America or things that really matter to the entire country, not to a handful of religious zealots.”

Thank you. That is all anyone could ask. I think you’ll find Romney lacking, too, but he’s marginally better than Guilliani & McCain.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

You suspect? I believe in Bible-based Christianity. In other words, it is easiest for me to get closest to God, when I follow his Word. I may or may not agree with someone’s philosophy about how best to study or understand God’s teachings. But I do know that I can find the answers if I read His Bible and study what is written.

[colorcountry]

The First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and freedom of religious exercise. It protects the right to debate and persuade others on all intellectual matters, including matters of religion. Obviously, if voters are free to debate and persuade, then they remain free to consider the results of such debates in their personal voting decisions.

To short-circuit all of this with a mindless incantation of “bigot” demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of the free market of ideas. It is simply casting the “dirty bomb” of the bigotry charge in place of a meaningful engagement on the substance of the matters at hand. Such insubstantial name-calling in lieu of serious debate has increasingly tainted public discourse over matters of personal morality, ethics, values and beliefs in this age of “political correctness.”

[Spiff]

What exactly is your agenda on this political forum dedicated to supporting conservative causes and candidates with your constant, hate-filled screeds against Mormons and the LDS Church? How does it support the mission of this site? How do you explain 6+ months of almost 100% anti-Mormon posts (except for a 1 sentence post about bee stings and another 1 sentence post about a lobster) in the context of the mission of this website? Is it your desire to drive the Mormons out of Free Republic and the conservative movement just like your charcoal-faced forebearers-in-spirit did in driving the Mormons from Jackson County, Missouri?

Shouldn't we avoid divisiveness and focus on our similarities and common conservative goals despite our religious differences and work together to support conservative causes and candidates? Or do you desire, as your posting history demonstrates, to continue to foment divisiveness among conservatives because of your pet religious war against Mormons?

If anyone else believes that Free Republic is no place for religious wars of the kind that Colofornian has been fomenting for the past 6 months (review his posting history) please pipe in here. I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that the purpose of this conservative political forum was pretty clearly defined.

[curiosity]

So do you, or do you not think that the reformation restored true Christianity?

[fproy2222]

Since this post is talking about Mormons, and Army, and Following ones Beliefs, I would like to add this.

Way back , before telephones and radios, the men in the army would follow a little flag into battle. When the commander wanted his troops over there, he would send the little flag over there and the troops would follow.

The little flag was called a “Standard” and the other side would spend a lot of time and effort to remove or destroy or confuse the standard.

As a ‘Mormon” I have followed this discussion with interest. I see that a lot of people still do not know what the standards of this church are. Much of what has been said here is miss leading, if not out right lies. Most of what I have read here is partial truths, with miss direction added. If you want to know dig it out for yourself, find what is true and what is not. Please donot just repeat these remarks as real.

Mitt Romney has his standards out where we can see and judge them. Learn what his standards really are, Take the time to see if what is said about his standards are true. Then see if he is living by his own standard as he defines them.

Also, do the same to the others.

[Spiff]

Such insubstantial name-calling in lieu of serious debate has increasingly tainted public discourse over matters of personal morality, ethics, values and beliefs in this age of “political correctness.”

Constantly trashing a mainstream American religious faith by calling is founder a grifter and other terrible things, dragging its sacred doctrines and such through the mud, and endlessly mocking its beliefs is NOT debate. It is bigotry. You would certainly agree if it was your specific religious faith that was being constantly belittled and assaulted.

And what is the point of such religious "debate" on this conservative political forum anyway? Is this a religious debate forum? Does such "debate" serve to support the mission of this website, or does it cause divisiveness, scare away your conservative allies who happen to be Mormon, and distract from this sites intended purpose? You're not going to convince a single member of the LDS Church on Free Republic that their religion is false. They're not going to prove to you that it is true. It's pointless and neither one of us should be engaging in either activity on this conservative political forum if it doesn't fit in with the whole reason that this forum is here in the first place.

Stick to the issues, support conservative causes and candidates, and leave the religious wars elsewhere. If you don't like Mitt Romney because he's not conservative enough for you or you don't think he's honest or something. Fine. Discuss it. But if you're going to use every mention of Romney to continue your own personal war against the Mormon Church (you've discussed your LDS past a number of times) is that really appropriate for News/Activism threads or a conservative political forum?

[greyfoxx39]

Excellent post. Copied and saved.

[Spiff]

Tell you what, can you put together a post that doesn't rest upon name-calling tactics

Can you?

[Osage Orange]

I think you’ll find Romney lacking, too, but he’s marginally better than Guilliani & McCain.

Pretty much agree with that statement..myself.

[greyfoxx39]

[CheyennePress]

There are now more Mormons in this country than Episcopalians or Jews. At what point does cult status end?

It’s very easy to argue that Protestants (including non-demoninational Christians) are little more than cults of the Catholic Church. What should we say about their decision making capacities?