OOOH!
Now I'll have to get a new spinner for my selecting device!
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."
But then aren’t screeds usually written by that type of person?
Then a Mormon would believe it too?
Here is a quote from LDS Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland's talk in a recent conference:
Now, to anyone within the sound of my voice who has wondered regarding our Christianity, I bear this witness. I testify that Jesus Christ is the literal, living Son of our literal, living God. This Jesus is our Savior and Redeemer who, under the guidance of the Father, was the Creator of heaven and earth and all things that in them are. I bear witness that He was born of a virgin mother, that in His lifetime He performed mighty miracles observed by legions of His disciples and by His enemies as well. I testify that He had power over death because He was divine but that He willingly subjected Himself to death for our sake because for a period of time He was also mortal. I declare that in His willing submission to death He took upon Himself the sins of the world, paying an infinite price for every sorrow and sickness, every heartache and unhappiness from Adam to the end of the world. In doing so He conquered both the grave physically and hell spiritually and set the human family free. I bear witness that He was literally resurrected from the tomb and, after ascending to His Father to complete the process of that Resurrection, He appeared, repeatedly, to hundreds of disciples in the Old World and in the New. I know He is the Holy One of Israel, the Messiah who will one day come again in final glory, to reign on earth as Lord of lords and King of kings. I know that there is no other name given under heaven whereby a man can be saved and that only by relying wholly upon His merits, mercy, and everlasting grace can we gain eternal life.The recent annual LDS Christmas Devotional includes talks by the LDS Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley and his two counselors. It is also revealing about the LDS understanding of the role of Christ. You can listen here or watch here.
BTW, My current preference is #1: Hunter, #2: Thompson, #3: Romney. In my opinion, these are the only candidates who are right on "most" of the important issues.
The Tribe That Never Was
Lovely learning new things!
How did I ever miss THIS news??
Well, he was the Gov of all of MASS, I expect nothing else.
I was just wondering why so many folks trash talk about the man...he seems to be nice enough, and far better than the clintoons.
Oh well, thanks for the input.
I posted these few quotes the other day. There are plenty more where these came from.
BTW, if you are tempted to say these are very old LDS teachings, the most recent was published in 1966.
Apostle Bruce R. McConkie stated:
“Christ was Begotten by an immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers” (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pg.547).
“As far as this life is concerned, [Jesus] was born of Mary and of Elohim; he came here as an offspring of that Holy Man who is literally our Father in heaven. He was born in mortality in the literal and full sense as the Son of God. He is the Son of his Father in the same sense that all mortals are the sons and daughters of their fathers” (Bruce McConkie, Mortal Messiah 1:330).
Even their earlier Prophets said this:
“The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood - was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers” (Journal of Discourses, Brigham Young, 8:115).
“...I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, also my Saviour Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it” (Journal of Discourses, Heber C. Kimball, 8:211).
OOOH!
Now I'll have to get a new spinner for my selecting device!
You think the question was about the “national executive board”, but it wasn’t, it was about the Boy Scouts of America.
The BSA has an exclusionary policy banning gay members. It’s absurd to think they lady was asking just about the policy of membership on the national executive board, or about the board at all.
She only mentioned the board because Romney SERVED ON THE NATIONAL EXECUTIVE BOARD.
As you quote, Romney answered “I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.””
PARTICIPATE IN, not LEAD. If he wanted to say they could be leaders, he would have said so. He said he thought they should be able to participate.
If he had been asked about leadership, and had answered a question about leadership, you could argue he was talking about leadership.
But he was asked about membership in scouts, and answered saying they had a right to their policies, and he thought gays should be allowed to PARTICIPATE.
So it is you who are reading into the question and answer, not me. I’m restricting my understanding to what can be clearly ascertained from the question.
...I don’t know what’s magic about the underpants? Where did this term come from?
But:
"You must not love this passing world or anything that is in the world. The love of the Father cannot be in any man who loves the world...because the world, with all it craves for, is coming to an end..." (1 Jn.2:15-17).
""After I have gone and prepared you a place, I shall return to take you with me...""
(Jn.14:3).
sorry, no reign on earth. That has already happened through his church. New earth, new heaven, so scripture goes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMJvqBq_Qa8
I missed the interview where he was asked that question and refused to answer it.
Could you post a link?
Thanks. Many people have corrected me on this issue. My point in even bringing it up is that it is one of many things that people accept on faith yet aren’t asked to explain when running for President. As for as my preferences for Pres, I have property in both NH and MA but still vote in MA so I won’t have to really decide until later on. I’ll have to wait to see who is still standing at the time. I want to beat the Democrats and if I have to compromise on a battle to win the war, I’ll do it.
So in one case, he suggested Sheiffer go to the church authorities if he wanted to know details of church doctrine, and in another case he actually made a statement about the issue.
Doesn’t sound like he refuses to address it, or is hiding it.
If someone asks me what I believe, I generally answer. IF they ask what “denomination” believes, I suggest they look up the denominational creeds.
I was expecting a reference to Romney saying he refused to answer the question.
I wonder how a person who was BORN into a multi-generational Mormon family, RAISED in the church, has HELD various positions in the church from lowly missionary to esteemed Bishop, who obviously BELIEVES the LDS theology that states that there are numberless Spirit-Children just waiting a human body to inhabit, as soon as an earthly couple prepare a body for it; how could this person have EVER had a position on ABORTION that was NOT pro-LIFE??
Pithy!
LOL!!!!
Because long ago, Mormons believed an evil spirit could be born in one of those bodies being prepared.
Oh??
ALL of them?
I was wondering if you had misinterpreted what I wrote, but then I went back to post #160 & realized I had simply quickly wrote what I did minus the "didn't" --as in "didn't refuse" to answer the question.
My point in #160 was actually because he went ahead & addressed one such question, question #3, well, why wouldn't he go ahead & address the other two?
Fish don’t see the water.
Completely wrong. Where did you get that ridiculous spin?
It's better to make up lies about things that Romney hasn't publicly stated and admitted to.
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.