Posted on 12/07/2007 8:10:37 AM PST by ZGuy
The Reuters headline said: "Mitt Romney Vows Mormon Church Will Not Run White House." Unfortunately, this time Reuters got its story right. In his long-awaited speech designed to win over conservative evangelicals, Romney actually did say something to this effect, making many people wonder why he needed to make such a vow in the first place. It's a bit like hearing Giuliani vow that the mafia will not be running his White House—it is always dangerous to say what should go without saying, because it makes people wonder why you felt the need to say it. Is the Mormon church itching to run the White House, and does Romney need to stand firm against them?
It is true that John Kennedy made a similar vow in his famous 1960 speech on religion, and Romney was clearly modeling his speech on Kennedy's. But the two situations are not the same. When John Kennedy vowed that the Vatican would not control his administration, he was trying to assuage the historical fear of the Roman Catholic Church that had been instilled into generations of Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Kennedy shrewdly didn't say that the Vatican wouldn't try to interfere—something that his Protestant target audience would never have believed in a millions years anyway; instead, Kennedy said in effect, "I won't let the Vatican interfere." And many Protestants believed him—in large part, because no one really thought Kennedy took his religion seriously enough to affect his behavior one way or the other.
The Mormon church is not Romney's problem; it is Romney's own personal religiosity. On the one hand, Romney is too religious for those who don't like religion in public life—a fact that alienates him from those who could care less about a candidate's religion, so long as the candidate doesn't much care about it himself. On the other hand, Romney offends precisely those Christian evangelicals who agree with him most on the importance of religion in our civic life, many of whom would be his natural supporters if only he was a "real" Christian like them, and not a Mormon instead.
To say that someone is not a real Christian sounds rather insulting, like saying that he is not a good person. But when conservative Christians make this point about Romney, they are talking theology, not morality. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the Mormon creed will understand at once why Romney felt little desire to debate its theological niceties with his target audience of Christian evangelicals, many of whom are inclined to see Mormonism not as a bona fide religion, but as a cult. In my state of Georgia, for example, there are Southern Baptist congregations that raise thousands of dollars to send missionaries to convert the Mormons to Christianity.
Yet if Romney was playing it safe by avoiding theology, he was treading on dangerous ground when he appealed to the American tradition of religious tolerance to make his case. Instead of trying to persuade the evangelicals that he was basically on their side, he did the worst thing he could do: he put them on the defensive. In his speech Romney came perilously close to suggesting: If you don't support me, you are violating the cherished principle of religious tolerance. But such a claim is simply untenable and, worse, highly offensive.
The Christian evangelicals who are troubled by Romney's candidacy do not pose a threat to the American principle of religious tolerance. On the contrary, they are prepared to tolerate Mormons in their society, just as they are prepared to tolerate atheists and Jews, Muslims and Hindus. No evangelical has said, "Romney should not be permitted to run for the Presidency because he is a Mormon." None has moved to have a constitutional amendment forbidding the election of a Mormon to the Presidency. That obviously would constitute religious intolerance, and Romney would have every right to wax indignant about it. But he has absolutely no grounds for raising the cry of religious intolerance simply because some evangelicals don't want to see a Mormon as President and are unwilling to support him. I have no trouble myself tolerating Satan-worshippers in America, but I would not be inclined to vote for one as President: Does that make me bigot? The question of who we prefer to lead us has nothing to do with the question of who we are willing to tolerate, and it did Romney no credit to conflate these two quite distinct questions. There is nothing wrong with evangelicals wishing to see one of their own in the White House, or with atheists wishing to see one of theirs in the same position.
Romney's best approach might have been to say nothing at all. Certainly that would have been preferable to trying to turn his candidacy into an issue of religious tolerance. Better still, he might have said frankly: "My religion is different and, yes, even a trifle odd. But it has not kept Mormons from dying for their country, or paying their taxes, or educating their kids, or making decent communities in which to live."
Captain Underpants?
With his ‘religion’ speech, Mitt Romney showed the nation he has more forethought, courage and passion than all other candidates combined.
The speech not only kept pace with rock-ribbed conservative values, it elevated the national discussion on religion and politics.
And even more important for Republicans, I believe it attracted Democratics and moderates without insulting them.
In fact, I believe that many Democrats likely stood up and cheered Mitt Romney as a great leader (even as they were being unconsciously pulled into the Republican camp).
Religious values IS ONE OF THE TOP issues for conservatives, and I am perplexed as to why this small percentage of Republicans hate Mormons so much.
Yes, my friend. I believe Mitt Romney did the nation proud on Thursday, and I only hope that all the anti-Romney bashers will now cool their jets.
Thank you for the answer. Is that what ‘exaltation’ means? I think I may know a little bit about the American Massacre. I read Under the Banner of Heaven, but Krakauer didn’t get into all the theology. Mark Twain apparently also had some characteristically humorous things to say about the faith.
I would like to know about the “quirky beliefs.” That the precept of becoming a god only scratches the surface has my curiosity afire.
And if we all become gods, what is special about Jesus? Is Joseph Smith a god? Does that then make Mormons polytheists?
Is TCS your blog, and/or are you the author of this piece?
You are correct: Protestants believe Mary was a virgin only before Jesus’ conception, but then went on to have several more children with Joseph.
What a whiner. I’m glad he’s not my priest.
Are you so sure that “most regular folks” don’t care about his religion? How do you define “most regular folks?”
Maybe its the same kind of magic found in a clerical collar......
you sound like an athiest to me.
Amen, Starwise.
And, with utmost integity Romney stated that if his adherence to his faith cost him politically, so be it.
What is right for and about the Nation is most important.
Wow! I remember Kennedy’s speech and it did none of the things your priest said it should have done!
And I appreciate your candor in saying you don't care if he answers it or not. One follow up: Why do you think he won't?
I’d vote for Romney in the general. Maybe even the primary but that’s only because my primary vote is going to the one I dislike the least and has the best shot at keeping Rudy from the nomination.
I will not vote for him either. He is a liberal.
If you are a Mormon, please realize that CARM is not trying to attack you, your character, or the sincerity of your belief. If you are a non-Mormon looking into Mormonism, or if you are a Christian who is simply researching Mormonism, then this paper should be of help to you.
The reason Mormonism is not Christian is because it denies one or more of the essential doctrines of Christianity. Of the essential doctrines (that there is only one God, Jesus is God in flesh, forgiveness of sins is by grace alone, and Jesus rose from the dead physically, the gospel being the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus), Mormonism denies three of them: how many gods there are, the person of Jesus, and His work of salvation.
Mormonism teaches that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones (D. & C. 130:22) and that Jesus is a creation. It teaches that he was begotten in heaven as one of God’s spirit children (See the Book, Jesus the Christ, by James Talmage, p. 8). This is in strict contrast to the biblical teaching that he is God in flesh (John 1:1, 14), eternal (John 1:1, 2, 15), uncreated, yet born on earth (Col. 1:15), and the creator all (John 1:3; Col. 1;16-17).
Jesus cannot be both created and not created at the same time. Though Mormonism teaches that Jesus is god in flesh, it teaches that he is “a” god in flesh, one of three gods that comprise the office of the Trinity (Articles of Faith, by Talmage, pp. 35-40). These three gods are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This is in direct contradiction of the biblical doctrine that there is only one God (Isaiah 44:6,8; 45:5). See Trinity for a correct discussion of what the Trinity is.
Because Mormonism denies the biblical truth of who God is, who Jesus is, how forgiveness of sins is attained, and what the gospel is, the Mormon is not Christian — in spite of all his claims that he is.
The first spirit child to be born was Jesus. Second was Satan, and then we all followed. But, the Bible says that there is only one God (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5), that God has eternally been God (Psalm 90:2) — which means he was never a man on another planet. Since the Bible denies the existence of other gods (and goddesses), the idea that Jesus is the product of a god and goddess couple is rejected.
The Bible tells us that Jesus The Jesus of Mormonism is definitely not the same Jesus of the Bible. Therefore, faith in the Mormon Jesus, is faith misplaced because the Mormon Jesus doesn’t exist.
Mormonism teaches that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross itself (and receiving it by faith) is not sufficient to bring forgiveness of sins. It teaches that the forgiveness of sins is obtained though a cooperative effort with God; that is, we must be good and follow the laws and ordinances of the Mormon church in order to obtain forgiveness.
Consider James Talmage, a very important Mormon figure who said, “The sectarian dogma of justification by faith alone has exercised an influence for evil,” (Articles, p. 432), and “Hence the justice of the scriptural doctrine that salvation comes to the individual only through obedience,” (Articles, p. 81). This contradicts the biblical doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; 6:23; Eph. 2:8-9) and the doctrine that works are not part of our salvation but a result of them (Rom. 4:5, James 2:14-18).
To further confuse the matter, Mormonism further states that salvation is twofold. It maintains that salvation is both forgiveness of sins and universal resurrection. So when a Mormon speaks of salvation by grace, he is usually referring to universal resurrection. But the Bible speaks of salvation as the forgiveness of sins, not simple universal resurrection. Where Mormonism states that forgiveness of sins is not by faith alone, the Bible does teaches it is by faith alone. Which is correct? Obviously, it is the Bible.
This means that when the Bible contradicts Mormonism, the Bible isn’t trustworthy.
The interesting thing is that Joseph Smith allegedly corrected the Bible in what is called The Inspired Version, though it is not used by the LDS church.
Though they claim they trust the Bible, in reality they do not. They use Mormon presuppositions to interpret it instead of letting it speak for itself. For example, where the Bible says there are no other gods in the universe (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8), they interpret it to mean “no other gods of this world” - which is not what those verses say. They do not trust the Bible and they often state that the Bible is not translated correctly.
CARM does not deny that Mormons are good people, that they worship “a” god, that they share common words with Christians, that they help their people, and that they do many good things.
But that isn’t what makes someone Christian. Jesus said in Matthew 7:21-23, “ Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name? And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!” (NKJV).
Becoming a Christian does not mean belonging to a church, doing good things, or simply believing in God. Being a Christian means that you have trusted in the true God for salvation, in the True Jesus — not the brother of the devil, not the god of Mormonism, not the gospel of Mormonism. Mormonism is false and cannot save anyone. Return to Mormonism
CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS AND RESEARCH MINISTRY
Copyright Matthew J. Slick, 1996 - 2006
Which evangelical group believes that “you get your own star or entire universe?”
Challenging Romney’s faith is dirty politics, nothing less and nothing more.
Before he said he was doing a speech, I had said (not here) that he was caught in a bind, because without a speech he’d be ducking his religion, and with a speech he’d be highlighting it, and neither would work all that well for him.
His speech was great, and that’s helpful, but in the end he’s still a Mormon in a country that may not be ready.
I can’t tell whether he’s helped or hurt himself, he’s only got a narrow ledge to play with anyway. He may not do anything short term, but might have positioned himself better should Huckabee fall, because as much as he will be remembered for being Mormon, he’ll much more so be remembered for being willing AND able to talk about the importance of faith.
Something the only other front-running conservative not only can’t do, but actively refuses to do.
No. Only temple-worthy Mormons. The one estimate I've seen is that about 20% of LDS are considered "worthy" enough to be admitted to LDS temples. (Bishops periodically interview LDS to ascertain such "worthiness"...Mitt himself was a former 2-time LDS bishop)
LDS believe that most folks will eventually reach one of 3 degrees of God's kingdom (post-death)...only those in the highest level--the celestial kingdom--will reach godhood status.
The Deity of Christ and the Virgin birth are fundamental tenants of Christianity both catholic and protestant, not debatable doctrines.
None of which makes Mitts liberal positions okay. I will not be distracted from Mitt's willingness to insist the boyscouts put young boys in the care of homosexual men while traipsing around in the woods, or his longstanding recently recanted support for abortion. or his equivocating on the right to bear arms. The problem isn't Mitt's theology, any more than Hillary's problem is her theology. The problem is Mitts demonstrated principles of government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.