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."
No, it's made-up magic devised by a goofball named Joe Smith.
you sound like an athiest to me.
Because I disdain made-up "scripture"?
Whatever.
it's interesting how you seem to focus on it so much.
I think Fr. Jonathan is great. One of the few conservative priests I know. Mine runs around with “Save Darfur” and “Proud Member of the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy” tee shirts.
The purpose as much as a pre-emptive strike against this inevitable tactic as it was an attempt to "win over" evangelics who may be leaning towards Huckabee or someone else.
And a poor understanding Of Christian scripture, and of the Mormon Church's teachings.
Maybe you're just one of those "religion, it's just all too confusing so I won't bother to figure any of it out" types.
No one church has it right. Their purpose is only to lead you to the Gospel of Christ. Ultimately, it's up to you to get it right, so says the lord.
""There is a way that some think right, but it leads in the end to death." (Prov.16:25).
"The priests teach whatever they please and my people love it! But when the end comes, then what will you do?" (Jer.5:31).
""I know quite well that when I have gone, fierce wolves will invade you and will have no mercy on the flock. Even from your own ranks there will be men coming forward with a travesty of the truth on their lips to induce the disciples to follow them. So be on your guard..." (Acts 20:29-30).
"Remember the maxim: 'Keep to what is written." (1 Cor.4:6).
Let God judge the priests, ministers and pastors, just worry about yourself .
magic bread and wine
magic crosses
magic baptism
The absolute greatest example: Magic Forgiveness of Sins.....BWAAAAHA HA HA Ha.
True colors quote right there. Sorry Father Morris but should have left that paragraph out.
I’t not about “anti-mormon bigotry”. That’s as wrong as those who claim that Huckabee’s commercial citing his Christian roots is an “attack” on Romney.
Romney is saying to evangelicals NOT that they are bigots for not supporting him, but that they can feel comfortable supporting him.
That’s why he had to throw in the line about Jesus. Not because he wants to answer questions about his religion, but that for 90% of those who say they are Christian and want to vote only for a Christian, that belief is the only one they really care about.
Those who approach this as if they are trying to choose a church won’t be swayed, but most voters are not doing so, or thinking like pundits and bloggers.
The thought process of average people isn’t reflected in most of what we read — that’s why Huckabeee is grabbing so much of the social conservative vote.
You might find this interesting, further winnowing down of who is and isn’t Christian and an interesting tangent to the comparison between Kennedy’s speech and Romney’s speech:
http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0436.htm
Is Catholicism Christian?
by Dean Robinson
Some time ago Presidential candidate George W. Bush made a campaign stop in
South Carolina at a prestigious and well-known Christian university known as Bob Jones University. Soon thereafter Bush was “raked over the coals” by the liberal news media for making an appearance at such a right-wing, conservative, narrow-minded, fundamentalist school. One of the issues that was brought up during this time was BJU’s teaching on the subject of Roman
Catholicism. It was reported that the school taught in their classroom that Catholicism was a cult. This seemed to irritate many in the media and were demanding from Bush a response to such a position. That which perplexed the media was how anybody could think or believe that Catholicism was not
Christian? While I do not endorse everything that BJU believes or teaches, I would have to stand in agreement with their position on the Roman Catholic church.
Due to the ignorance of the average person regarding Catholicism, there is a very tolerant attitude today. Protestants are having dialogue with Catholic leaders and a reunion is more than a possibility. The fact that those who claim to be practicing Catholics are ignorant of the true nature of the system is evidence of its own deceptiveness. Catholicism claims to be Christian. It
claims to be the true church of Jesus Christ when in fact it is anti-Christ and anti-Bible. This can be proven from their teaching on the following points.
1. What They Teach About The Pope
The term “pope” was a title claimed by Boniface III in 607 A.D. The word comes from a Latin word “papa” which means father.” Other terms are used such as “pontiff” which means: bridge builder, the link between this life and the next. Then there is title “vicar of Christ” — a person authorized to perform the functions of another; substitute in office. Here is what is taught,
according to the Texas Catholic Conference, Department of Religious Education,
1988: “The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, successor of St. Peter and visible head of the church. He takes the place of Christ.”
The pope cannot be the “vicar of Christ,” i.e. His substitute as Head of the church because the Bible plainly declares Jesus Christ to be the Head of the church and no one else: Eph.1:22; 4:15; 5:23; Col.1:18. Even Peter, whom the Catholics claim was the first pope, was not confused as to who was the Head when he wrote: “Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto
them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner.” (1 Peter 2:7)
The term “pontiff” is also unscriptural because “there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5).
By the way, Peter could not have been the first Pope because he was married (Matt.8:14), he refused to be worshipped (Acts 10:25-26), and he was rebuked by the apostle Paul (Gal.2:11). Neither was the N.T. church built upon Peter.
It was established and founded by Jesus Christ, according to Matthew 16:18, who is the Rock (petra). Peter was the “petros”: a little stone, pebble. Peter was but one among many building stones made alive through Christ from which He built His church.
2. What They Teach About The Priest
With in the Roman Catholic system their priests are referred to as “Father So & So” which is in contradiction to the teaching of Matthew 23:9, “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”
We don’t need any priests on earth to be our go-between or representative before God. The Bible teaches on the priesthood of the believer (1 Peter 2:5,9; Rev.1:6). As believers in the Lord we have direct access to God. In fact, we have Jesus Christ as our High Priest (Hebrews 2:17; 3:1; 4:14; 8:1; 9:11-12).
It is believed that as the Catholic priest offers the mass, the wafer literally becomes the body of Christ and the wine literally becomes the blood of Christ by or through the hands of the priest. This is idolatry where the Catholics worship a god made by human hands. The mass is central to Catholic worship. It is not a memorial to remember the death of Christ but instead it is a sacrifice of Christ again and again by the priest on the altar. The problem with this is that the Bible teaches that there is to be no continual sacrifice. The sacrifice of Christ as offered once and for all (Hebrews 7:27;
9:25-27; 10:10-12). According to 1 Cor.11:25-26, the observance of the Lord’s Supper was to be done in remembrance; it was to show His death, not repeat it.
Another practice of the Catholics is that they go to their local priest to confess their sins which is in violation of 1 John 1:9 and 1 John 2:1 Only Jesus Christ the righteous, our Advocate, has the authority and the ability to forgive us of our sins.
3. What They Teach About The Penance
Penance is one of the seven sacraments taught to be practiced as a means of obtaining salvation. To quote from one Catholic catechism: “Penance is the means by which sins committed after baptism are forgiven through the absolution of the priest.”
The Bible teaches that only God can forgive sin (Mark 2:5,7; Luke 7:48) and that salvation is only by the grace of God (Eph.2:8-9).
4. What They Teach About Purgatory
Catholics claim that the purpose of purgatory is to punish an individual fully for his/her sins before he can enter heaven. To quote from their own writings: “The pains of purgatory are very severe, passing anything endured in this life. According to the Holy Fathers of the Church, the fire of purgatory does not differ than the fire of hell except in point of duration.”
The truth is, the Bible never mentions a place called purgatory. It does talk about “a great gulf fixed” (Luke 16:26) and about “paradise” (Luke 23:43), but
no place of suffering called purgatory. The only place that is taught in the Bible that is described as unbearable torment and suffering is hell. For the believer, 2 Cor.5:8 teaches that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. Even in Phil. 1:23 the apostle Paul mentions about his desire to depart and be with Christ. No such hint of a place called purgatory. In fact, if a person is really born again, saved by the grace of God, he will never have to suffer for his sins because One suffered for him on the Cross of Calvary (1 Peter 3:18). Thank the Lord for Hebrews 10:17 which says, “And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.”
5. What They Teach About Their Praying
Most Roman Catholics practice what they call the “Rosary.” They are supposed to repeat this prayer 50 times and keep count by using beads.
The words of the prayer are as follows: “Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee, blessed art thou amongst women, and blessed be the fruit of thy
womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of death. Amen.”
Calling Mary the mother of God and praying to her started as far back as 431 A.D. The Bible never exalts Mary to a position higher than everybody else. Luke 1:28 makes reference to her as a woman blessed among women, not above. She even admitted to the fact of her need in life of a Saviour (Luke 1:47). Mary had to be saved the same way as any other lost sinner — through trusting in the finished work of Christ on the cross.
We don’t need Mary to intercede for us as believers because we have the Lord and His Spirit interceding on our behalf (Romans 8:26-27,34; Hebrews 7:25). The Bible teaches that when God’s people pray, they are to pray to the Heavenly Father, not Mary (Matthew 6:7-9). When God’s people pray, they are to pray in the name of Jesus, not Mary’s (John 14:13-14; 16:23-24).
Conclusion
The only defense against the damnable heresy of false doctrine is a solid grounding in the Word of God. As a tree without roots is easily blown over in the slightest breeze, even so a Christian without a foundation of
knowledge established upon the Word of God is susceptible to being moved about by whatever direction the current doctrinal wind is blowing.
We are warned in Colossians 2:8 to not be “spoiled” (seduced, carried away) with philosophy, vain deceit, tradition of men, and rudiments of the world.
Roman Catholicism is involved in all four of these areas. It has incorporated the philosophy of paganism, the vain deceit of fabricated fables that have no Biblical basis, the traditions of men that have been exalted to the position above the Bible, and rudiments of the world are evident to the extreme in the sacramental system and human effort to obtain God’s saving grace.
Is Roman Catholicism Christian? Not according to the Bible. To be Christian one must be a follower of Christ and His teachings. There is no such thing as
a “Christian Catholic.” Do we hate Catholics? No. Our hearts go out to those who have been blinded by the god of this world, lest they see the Light and believe in the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ, which is able to save their souls. Our prayer is that for all Roman Catholics to be delivered from the power of darkness and be glorious saved through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ for “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
I won’t put words in his mouth. What I think doesn’t matter, and may not be correct, so why speculate.
I will say I think we should return to the actual issues of this campaign. We’ve allowed ourselves to get into a national debate on religion instead of addressing terrorism, immigration, and the economy.
I didn’t see the speech so I don’t know how it was delivered, but I did read it. The transcript is impressive. I was also struck that if any other candidate had given it, FReepers would have loved every sentence. I find it sad that they won’t look beyond their own prejudices to see what was said.
That said, i should disclaim that I am not a Romney supporter. He’s on my list, but so are most of the candidates at this point. I haven’t committed to anyone.
News flash.
I don’t feel at all like anybody is making me out to be a religious kook on the basis of Romney’s speech.
Except for atheists and agnostics, who are upset Romney seems to exclude them.
So devout Buddhist and Baha’i are christian. Got it ... their fruit is very moral, as moral as Mormons’. [You sound like the typical liberal.]
ahem, are you sure you can be so open and intolerant at FR and remain unattacked by the Mormon Romney brigade?
You know, you pretend to be this great expert on the failings of Mormonism, but all you’ve done is come across as an intolerant bigot.
Romney said he believes “Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.”
Who do you think you are to disparage this? Are you privy to information that is lurking in Romney’s heart and mind that disproves this?
You remind me of a Baptist pastor I encountered when I was a Mormon missionary. He approached us while we were giving out free copies of the Book of Mormon on a street corner and yelled, “You Mormons are not Christians! You do not believe Jesus is God!”
I then flipped open the Book of Mormon to Mosiah 3:5-8 and asked him to read it out loud. He did. Here’s the text:
Mosi 3:5-8 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases. And he shall cast out devils, or the evil spirits which dwell in the hearts of the children of men. And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and abominations of his people. And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.
I then asked him read out loud 3 Nephi 9:15, which states,
3 Ne 9:15 Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. I was with the Father from the beginning. I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and in me hath the Father glorified his name.
I then asked him, “Based on the Book of Mormon, do we or do we not believe Jesus is the Son of God and is God incarnate?”
After hemming and hawing, he finally admitted we believed thusly. So, I added, what do you call a religion that believes and teaches Jesus Christ is the Son of God and is God incarnate? Are we not then “Christians?”
I now ask you the same question and await the display of your integrity or lack thereof.
But somehow by God's divide powers, another leg of the church was born and helped to spread Christ's gospel to all ends of the earth, at a time when the Catholic church was stagnating. That is ultimately the job of the church, to bring people to the Gospel of Christ, after that, it's up to the individual to read and follow it.
In what way would Romney, as president, impose his Mormon beliefs on the populace? Can you be specific?
Romney didn’t lose voters to Huckabee. I don’t think Fred Thompson did directly either — Fred lost them first, and then they wandered around before going to Huckabee.
Romney knows that he NEEDS those wandering voters to come to him. Thompson was counting on it, but blew it, and Romney hoped he’d get them, but then Huckabee did well at that FRC conference and he got them.
Romney is now playing to get them back if Huckabee loses them. They aren’t going to Giuliani, and probably won’t go to Fred as he keeps telling them their faith is of little interest to him.
Their other choice among candidates who can win is John McCain, and they may end up there, even though they abandoned him in 2000 after he used them for a “Sister Soldiah” moment in Virginia.
I don’t think Romney’s speech demeaned anyone (except the aforementioned atheists and agnostics, particularly since it was a good slap). If anything I thought is was very mainstream.
How and Why Romney Bombed
TCS ^ | 12/7/7 | Lee Harris
and no, I am not Lee Harris.
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.