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."
Mitt's just throwing up smokescreens.
Takes attention away from his illegal immigrant problems, and the liberal gets to play victim again.
Why do you need to know who supports whom in order to answer a simple question? My question has to do with Romney. If you support him, then you should be able to give me some sort of answer about whether or not Romney’s faith could interfere with national security.
If I remember correctly, we’ve had anough problems trying to figure out whether President Bush was naive about various American Muslim groups.
Exactly, and thank you. Hopefully I won't be jumped on for wondering how much of that Wahabi early schooling influenced Obama. My tolerance ends when it gets to Wahabism.
If Fr. bases his political preferences on the theology of the candidate, then it appears that a candidate who calls himself Christian yet does not attend church is preferable to a Mormon.
He’s not so conservative after all.
1. Does Jesus Christ currently have a penis?
I don't know. It has never occurred to me. I don't think he has a physical body now, but I'm clueless as to the physical attributes/appendages of spiritual beings, particularly the risen Son of God.
2. Why do you practice theological cannibalism when taking the Eucharist?
I don't take the Eucharist. Furthermore, I fundamentally reject the doctrine of transubstantiation. I think Christ was speaking metaphorically in the Scripture verses on which Catholics base that doctrine.
3. Do Jews go to heaven even though they explicitly REJECT Jesus as the Son of God and God incarnate?
That is something I've wrestled with. Short answer: I don't think so, based on Paul's writing in the letter to the Romans. Two of my best friends are Jews, and I regularly pray for them to accept Christ.
You are asking questions designed to paint Mormonism as weird.
Actually, I was asking three fairly straightforward questions about what I believe are precepts of the LDS church. Your reticence to answer says more about your perceptions than mine.
WOW, and thanks. That was an eye-opener for sure!!
You said — “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.”
In case you didn’t notice, that was a quote from an article. I was agreeing with it, of course.
Now, in terms of being intolerant and/or a bigot, it is neither — for someone to definitively distinguish Christian theology and it’s teachings and doctrines from Mormon theology and its teachings and doctrines.
The problem with Mormons stem primarily from the fact that they have not wanted to admit that their doctrines and teachings depart from Christianity — when they are drastically different from Christianity and its doctrines and teachings that it’s impossible to reconcile the two.
You see, having said that, it’s no problem to me and/or a lot of other Evangelicals for someone to pick (for their own “religion”) any religion they want to (it’s the prerogative that the God of Christianity gives to humanity) — even if those same people (including me) think it’s totally wrong (i.e., it’s “error” instead of “truth”).
You see, exposing “error from truth” is one of the primary activities of Christianity and exposing others (i.e., faiths and religions) that depart from Christianity is absolutely essential for those who do adhere to those teachings and doctrines of Christianity. “Deception” is something that God has warned believers of, in the Bible and that one has to check everything (whatever doctrines and/or teachings which are presented) with what is told us, in the Word of God (the Bible, those 66 books from those 40 authors that God chose), which is His final word to us, today and until the coming of Jesus, the Messiah of Israel).
So, the Bible is full of admonitions to check against error, to oppose error to expose error and to hold firm to the doctrines and teachings which are given.
Doing so — is in no way a bigoted and/or an intolerant activity. You can simply think of it as a very careful and precise “analytical activity”. And it is — very much so.
Now, if someone *cannot tell* through this analytical analysis that the doctrines and teachings of the Mormon church depart radically from the teachings and doctrines of Christianity, then I really have to question that person’s ability to analyze anything — at all. I mean, it’s so clear and so plain that they are do much in difference with one another — someone must be totally brain-dead not to know and understand that, after looking at all the facts.
Therefore, for someone who has purported to have “studied” these things (which I would assume you have) to have you say that such an analytical process (such as I’m saying that anyone can do) is a “bigoted” process and is an “intolerant” process — is so disingenuous a statement as to make me question whether you are truly interested in anyone *really knowing* the true teachings and doctrines of the Mormon church.
I have no idea why the Mormons seem *so ashamed* of their doctrines that they do everything in their power to disguise and hide them, and not admit to them, and then say that they are actually espousing the true Christian doctrines — when it can be shown (by the ample research that is already out there) that this is false (i.e., there is absolutely no correlation of Mormon theology with Christian theology).
Don’t be ashamed of your own doctrines, if you really believe them. Stand up for them. Don’t hide behind Christianity and its doctrines and theology (when they don’t agree with you). Stand up for your own doctrines (even if I and others think they are wrong). I mean, there are plenty of people who think Christianity is wrong but that doesn’t make Christians run around and say “we are really atheists”... LOL!
That’s what Mormons are doing, running around, so ashamed of their true teachings and doctrines, they are hiding behind Christian doctrines and theology, until they can get someone in the Mormon church and then start slipping in more and more of the Mormon teachings and doctrines, none of which accord with the Bible and Christian theology.
And finally, I said nothing about Romney and any statement that he made about Jesus Christ. What I said was basically that if Romney adheres to Mormon teachings and doctrines that this is not Christian theology and doctrines and that he is not accepting the God of basic, historical and foundational Christian theology. And I assume that Romney does adhere to the doctrines and teachings of the Mormon church.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Pithy!
Moslems recognize Jesus as a prophet, and demons know He’s the Savior. They even fall down and worship Him to get what they want and not be sent to Hades. But the issue is ‘does He know them?’ You can put His name (the English version) in your cult’s name, but that doesn’t force Him to set His Grace aside to allow exaltation based on ‘all that you can do.’ Grcae is unmerited favor, not something you ‘merit’ from ‘all that you can do.’
And perhaps the best warning of all to learn the Gospel of Christ
"This is the covenant I will make with the House of Israel when those days arrive: Deep within them I will plant my Law, writing it on their hearts. Then I will be their God and they shall be my people. There will be no further need for neighbor to try to teach neighbor, or for brother to say to brother, 'Learn to know God!" No, they will all know me, the least no less than the greatest since I will forgive their iniquity and never call their sin to mind." (Jer.31:33-34).
And make no mistake, this applies to everyone who believes. We are all from the house of Israel, the scattered 12 tribes. (and all were scattered)
According to Byron York, who has been riding around with Romney for National Review, it's working, as well. Most journalists have tacitly agreed that it's off-limits to ask the former governor about the tenets of the Mormon cult. Nor do they get much luck if they do ask: When Bob Schieffer of Face the Nation inquired whether Mormons believe that the Garden of Eden is or was or will be in the great state of Missouri, he was told by Romney to go ask the Mormons! However, we do have the governor in an off-guard moment in Iowa, saying that "The [Mormon] Church says that Christ appears and splits the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. … And then, over a thousand years of the millennium, that the world is reigned in two places, Jerusalem and Missouri. … The law will come from Missouri, and the other will be from Jerusalem."
URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2178568/
"I have let my views be known," said Romney. "I have been to one board meeting now of the Boy Scouts of America board (as of 1994). I believe that the Boy Scouts of America does a wonderful service for this country. I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue. I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."
Nothing in either the question asked, nor in Mitt's deer in the headlights responce supports your attempt to claim the question only regarded the children. You don't get to add to the responce to try to change what was said. Here it is again for all to hear. You can try to claim he really meant something else all you want, and in the days before a politicians actions were preserved on video for all posterity it might have worked. But this is now, and a man who would sacrifice little boys on the alter of gay rights is not going to fly in this forum, and people who want to look the other way are going to see this repeated again and again. this wasn't some simple mistake. This was a cold, calculated political offering - and Mitt revealed who he was willing to serve.
“Here’s a question for you or anyone else who REALLY believes there is unity of Christian thought”
My post had nothing to do with any “unity of Christian thought”
My post stated that all churches seem to have arrived at the same conclusion about Mormonism not being Christian.
” Whether we are Catholic or Greek Orthodox or Southern Baptist or whatever, we should know that the official position of our church is that Mormonism is a non Christian cult.”
I also asked a simple question. If you don’t have a preferred candidate, then fine.
Shall we proceed? What was your question again..oh yes, because you are making a supposition, based on nothing, that Romney’s faith would interfere with national security, I cannot answer your “question.”
However, I would say that a “tyranny of theocracy” is just as much a possibility or aim of the far religious right in this country as islam in the Middle East. So, be careful of the company you keep.
Most Christians (probably not some liberals these days) believe that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus. It's in the Creed.
Exactly how ignorant of Christianity are you?
My post had nothing to do with any “unity of Christian thought” My post stated that all churches seem to have arrived at the same conclusion about Mormonism not being Christian.
Um... ok "seem to" and "should"... so it would be safe to also add "in your opinion"?
Thank you for the response. It was informative.
Just enough to drive the thumpers nuts. ;-)
I don’t think Fr. Jonathan does base his preference on theology, although it seems he does not care for Mormonism. It appears Fred Thompson goes to church sometimes and sometimes he doesn’t. But his stance on the probable futility of the HLA, the desire to appoint justices to overturn Roe, and banking on the citizens to make the right decision for life may have something to do with it.
Believe me, if you ever actually listened to Fr. Jonathan, you’d know he is conservative.
placemarker
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.