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."
LDS are not ashamed of their doctrines. When someone asks an honest question we'll answer. There were three questions asked earlier in this thread but all three questions have been answered many times to the same person that asked those same three questions.
Answers have not only been given using LDS scriptures, including but not limited to the Holy Bible, King James Version, and thought but ALSO from early pre and post Council of Nicae Christian and Catholic leaders, including Popes on what they thought of the issues.
Obviously the questioner is not/was not looking for honest answers from an LDS as even though answered the questions are still asked regularly as if they were never answered in the first place.
Then there are questions answered but the questioner responds by saying something to the effect of "no you don't believe this, this is what you believe" then links some information from an obvious anti-LDS website and claims that is LDS doctrine. How dare someone tell me or anyone else what I believe. I and Jesus make the judgment and decision on what I believe, not anyone else.
That being said many other questions are not actually question of doctrine, but questions of individual belief. The Doctrine of the LDS Church is actually fairly simple and easily found.
There are admittedly many beliefs in the church held by individual members. These individual beliefs are not doctrine and should not be construed as such.
So the problem isn't that we are "*ashamed*" of our Doctrines, nor do we hide our Doctrines. The problem is that people do not honestly want to know what our Doctrines are, claim Doctrine that the LDS Church does not actually hold, and confuse individual LDS members belief with official LDS Doctrine.
I disagree. Both Scientology and Mormonism were made up by one guy and are very secretive.
CharlesWayneCT, why are you still lying about this?
This is one of the more bizarre lies that Romney supporters have come up with.
It's a widely publicized and admitted fact that Mitt Romney supported (supports?) gay Scout leaders.
Your denial of widely publicized and documented fact is bizarre.
Where can I read about this?
See post 222.
olivia3boys wrote: The official position of all Christian leadership—defining what is and what isn’t orthodox Christianity—goes back to the Council of Nicaea in AD 325!
My understanding is that churches who believe in the Nicene Creed don't consider Mormons as Christians. The Nicene Creed was defined by Councils in Nicaea (A.D. 325), Constantinople (A.D. 381), Ephesus (A.D. 431), and Chalcedon (A.D. 451).
The differences between the god defined by the Nicene Creed and the Mormon understanding were discussed by Mormon leaders in their October 2007 conference. You can read their teachings directly here (all links open in a new window):
The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent, by LDS Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland: HTML Text, MP3 Audio, or WMV Video.Other formats and languages and other LDS General Conference talks are available here.The Stone Cut Out of the Mountain, by LDS Church President Gordon B. Hinckley: HTML Text, MP3 Audio, or WMV Video.
There will be many who will share their opinions about LDS doctrine from a non-LDS (or anti-LDS) perspective. If you have questions about Mormon beliefs, Mormon.org offers the ability to research or ask a Mormon directly about their beliefs by email or anonymous online chat.
Okay...
But I TAKE National Geographic - have for decades.
I remember the first articles about the 'tasadays', but i have NOT seen any thing that said they were a hoax until your homepage pointed that out. (You get extra credit for being a MC fan!)
Is that you, Larry?
I read an article several months ago that said many in the LDS Church were concerened about the scrutiny their church would get if Romney ran. I thought that was puzzling since my church (Christianity) would WANT such scrutiny and publicity.
It seems the fears are waxing true. On talk radio yesterday in Seattle they were talking about “holy underwear”. Most people are not aware of that or think it is a joke and not real. It is, and the scrutiny is bringing that into the common discourse.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, outside the scope of the actual election.
People are figuring out that he’s a liar just like Huckabee and Rudy are.
All three need to be “bombed” right out of the race and party.
Then can you inform me about what goes on in your Temple Rites®?
I've looked in your Scriptures and on the official LDS website - LDS.org - but I cannot find out anything.
I disagree. Both Scientology and Mormonism were made up by one guy and are very secretive.
|
Scientology is a newer religion than Mormonism...
  |
|
|
Don't make fun of them,
they have a right to have
their moronic beliefs respected.
  |
|
What’s the frequency, Kenneth?
There is a huge amount of apologetics written by knowledgeable theologians, and surely reasonable people can disagree on various interpretation.
Posting an error-riddled screed isn't helpful or relevant, and doesn't refute the reasoned theological argument that Mormons are not Christian due to several of their beliefs. It's a fact, even if some people have contrary opinions. Some people think Bush was responsible for 9/11. That just makes them crazy or stupid.
That is the "technique" they are using on all the blogs, not to mention the predictable spam. I've seen posts on other blogs and forums that are identical word for word to the ones here.
Those sincerely wanting answers can take a religious education course or visit the nearest temple and ask questions.
I've asked these questions a couple times on this thread, and non of the LDS freepers seem to want to answer, or otherwise find the questions offensive:
Does God have a father?
Are Christ and Satan brothers?
Was the Garden of Eden in Missouri?
We would be very happy to welcome you as a Mitt Romney supporter if, in your judgment, it's time to move on and throw your support to Mitt.
Please click on over to Blog.ElectRomneyIn2008.Com and join in the discussion. Sorry I couldn't provide the link, as you can see I am technologically-challenged!
Heh, a generalization, of course, but to my understanding, an accurate one, at least regarding Mary's perpetual virginity. God only knows what all of the tens (hundreds) of thousands of non-Catholic/Orthodox Christian churches and congregations teach.
Tell that to pissant and to Hunter; they are both attacking Romney. Bad move, because up until that I agreed with you that Hunter would be a good VP choice for Romney. But, think about it, with Hunter consistently at 1 percent in the polls and no upward movement, he's not much of an asset.
So do you not want the answers or do you just keep insisting the questions have not been answered?
If the answer is yes to either one you are not honestly asking those questions for an answer, but to further help disparage and besmirch the LDS faith.
Even considered myself part of the ‘Society’ at one time. Never got the phone call for an Artic expedition, though I doubt my mom would of let me go. :(
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.