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."
Catholic, Orthodox, and the great Protestant reformers (Luther, Zwingli, Wesley) all agreed on Mary's perpetual virginity. More recently, Protestants have moved away from this belief.
“because you are making a supposition, based on nothing”
Pardon? Based on nothing? We’re not talking ancient history here. Joseph Smith was an admirer of Muhammad. So the question I have is rather simple. Does Romney feel the same? If so, would it blind him to political jihadists in our own country?
He also said...
Mitt Romney
Not to worry, for the LDS organization has convinced hundreds of missionaries and their families to spend a lot of THEIR money to convert Georgians, too.
No. The answer is in the bible. read it. 2. Why do you practice theological cannibalism when taking the Eucharist?
That's not what it is. Read the bible to find out why. start with: "Do this in remembrance of me" I am the bread of life, He who comes to me will never by hungry; he who believes in me will never thirst....All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I shall not turn him away...Yes, it is my Father's will that whoever sees the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and that I shall raise him up on the last day." (John 6:34-40). ""My food is to do the will of the one who sent me, and to complete his work." Jn.4:34, " etc. etc.
" 3. Do Jews go to heaven even though they explicitly REJECT Jesus as the Son of God and God incarnate?
No. Jews don't believe in heaven. Mosaic law condemns every jew to death, since no Jew can be perfectly sin free. But they will go to heaven one day. You have to read the bible to understand why all this is.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/19#19
17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.”
Why?
I think some Jews do believe in Heaven. Others don’t.
Thank you for the response. It seems that there’s lot to be studied about Mormonism if one is so inclined.
“Um... ok “seem to” and “should”... so it would be safe to also add “in your opinion”?”
No, not at all. You “should” know that but you don’t, and I used the word “seems” in the other statement, because I have not yet been able to find a church that accepts Mormonism as Christian.
You could save time by not always trying to be so slippery.
That’s one of the dumbest anti-Catholic screeds I’ve ever read. Perhaps someone with a passing acqaintance of theology should handle the apologetics in the future.
Uh...
'cause he's a LIBERAL-lite flip/floper?
Sorry I’m not trying to be “slippery”. I’ll try to be more plain. The things you “seem” to believe in aren’t good enough proof for me that someone who wants to be called a Christian should be questioned. If they are good enough for you, that’s fine we’re done talking and I’m not convinced. But statements like “you should know” don’t seem very open minded to me... but hey, that’s just me. I do try my best to avoid telling people what they should know or believe. I’m not perfect but I try to avoid such things.
Uh...
do we have permission to 'back away' from Mormonism because it isn't orthodox Christianity?
You said — “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.’ “
You know, it’s interesting that many “use” the name of Jesus and also the name of “God” to give their belief and/or religion some credibility (in relation to Christianity). The problem is that they are simply using a “name” and not the “real God” and the “real Jesus” — as we are taught from the Bible (and as Christianity theology and doctrines help us understand and organize in our minds).
It’s like the many names we have for people in our society and culture. You’re going to find many people with the same names. It’s inevitable. But, that doesn’t mean that they are the same person.
For example, many people have been talking to another person and found out that they’ve had a “friend in common” that each of them didn’t know that the other knew. So, you start sharing “details” about this “common friend” and making sure that you are actually talking about the same person.
Of course the “name” is the same, but you’re still not sure if it’s the same person. So you “compare notes” and you say he lives in this town, he is about this old, he has this colored hair, he likes this sport, he acts in this certain way, he has this kind of occupation. After a while, you finally determine — one of two things.
Either you both are talking about the same person — or else — you both are talking about a *completely different person* who happens to have the same name (and maybe a “few” of the same characteristics).
That’s how we tell that “Allah” is not the same being as “God” (of the Christian faith). They have completely different characteristics and identifiable “markers” as to make them completely separate beings.
Likewise, with Jesus, we find that people also have chosen a “Jesus of a completely different character” than the one that we learn of in the Bible, the one that we have been helped to understand through our theology and teachings of the Christian faith.
Now, if we really want to know if we are talking about the *same Jesus* or a *different Jesus* — all we have to do is start comparing notes about *who* this Jesus is and what His characteristics are and what He will do and/or says and so on. We need a complete analysis of this Jesus (with the other person) to see if we are really talking about the same person.
What we find out with many cult groups is that we’re talking about a *different Jesus* (only using the same name but having completely separate characteristics).
For example, I’m sure that many Christians would be surprised to find out that the Jesus of Mormonism (it’s teachings and doctrines) that Jesus had a brother before he came to earth — Satan (yep, Satan was Jesus’ brother).
Also, many Christians might be surprised to find out that just as they are right now (as a normal and average person) that “god” was once like that, and you can also “progress” to the point where you “become a god” in your own right (in Mormon theology), over your own world.
Now, just on two points — right there — we almost *immediately* discover that we’re using the *same names* — but — we’ve discovered that we’re actually talking about a “different Jesus” and a “different God”.
So, the question is — if someone has faith in a “different Jesus” — is that a saving faith.
I mean, if I have a friend who hands out $1,000 every time someone comes over to visit him at his house and I tell someone (who says he knows of someone by that same name) — will he be able to get that $1,000 by visiting that person “of the same name” — if — he really isn’t the same person?? You see what I mean.
If you choose the same name — but you’ve actually got a *different person* — you’re going to get *different results* — i.e., you might not be choosing a “saving faith” after all.
Anyway, I hope that clears it up for a lot of people...
Regards,
Star Traveler
True enough. Some ultra othadoxies believe they can attand an spiritual equality, they just need to say the magic words.
I don’t know how widespread that is though.
But yes, the messiah brings a resurrection.
You get an A for honesty, so if any flames are coming your way, they'll be for another reason.
| The virgin birth is not exclusively Catholic...it's Christian, gospel truth in the Bible Then a Mormon would believe it too? Sorry rhombus, I don't know the answer to that. I only know Biblical Christianity, and some of my former Catholic lessons. Maybe someone else on this thread can help.. |
All of our candidates have failings, let us just admit that. None of them, however, come close to creating a state like she or B. Hussein Obama would try to institute.
Sounds almost like a Mohammad experience, except Mohammad went home and hid under a blanket, and later knowing he was possessed by Satan, almost jumped off a cliff.
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.