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."
Compared the Fredheads, I have taken it very easy on Mitt.
Wide stance much?
Rock&Roll, your special friend is looking for you!
Then what are you doing on these threads, what value is your opinion on anything? As far as you are concerned, the world was a better place when it was ruled by the slave whipping dictator of the day.
I guess you cannot see the points that I make. The points that so many "Pharasitic Christians" make on these Romney threads amazes me....."Not Christian"..."Magic Underwear"....."Cult" ....and they are Embarrassingly bigoted.
These threads would be much more engaging if the focus was on the issues, rather than all the chest-puffing that Super-Christians practice.
To be clear....the point: [ "The absolute greatest example: Magic Forgiveness of Sins.....BWAAAAHA HA HA Ha." ], was made to respond to the denigrating comment regarding magic underwear, and my counter point was Christianity's acceptance of the miraculous (magical) absolution of sin that Christ paid for on the cross.
I never said anything different
Moral relativism.
Pffft.
On this we can agree: 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.
and I think most churches agree with this:
Is [any church other than mine] Christian? Not according to [my interpretation of] the Bible. To be Christian one must be a follower of Christ and His teachings. There is no such thing as a “Christian [member of another church].” Do we hate [members of other churches]? 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 [members of other churches] 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).
Oh, that Larry.
He actually did something good in the Senate the other day to block some Dem measures.
There’s a thread here somewhere...
Come on now; you are confusing me.
Do you ACCURATELY know, or is it just GOD who knows?
Is this a primary or GOP picnic?
Mittsters attack Fred
Fredheads attack Mitt
Mittsters and Fredheads and Hucksters attack Rudy
Everyone attacks Huckster and Paul
Dunacanistas attack all of them
Why the selective outrage? If you like Mitt, vote for him.
Part of my house is SAGGING because of them!
When I found out that ANYONE could get these mags (and NOT just Doctors and Dentists) I signed up as soon as I had my own job.
I’ve got the dvd set of ALL the old magazines, too!
Mitt Romney is the only "firewall" we have between us and another Clinton administration. Let's not repeat 1992 and "stay home" or "go third party" and let the Clintons back into the Oval Office and all that would mean to the future of this country.
We expected MR to hit a home run with his speech on religion. I can't wait to see the first of the Iowa polls that measure voter reaction to Romney's address.
I bet Mike Huckabee has that sinking feeling in the pit of his stomach right about now.
I’ve dealt with a specific claim, and a specific youtube video.
I’m not Mitt Romney, so I can’t speak to what he believes. I can quote what he says now, which I did previously, and I can point out that a poster is wrong about a question from 1994.
If you want to change the parameters of the conversation, do it without me. This has been a waste of time enough already.
IF you want to argue that the 1994 youtube video is a question about gays joining the Boy Scout Executive Board, I’ll discuss it with you. That was the original claim, and it is in my opinion clearly incorrect.
As to the piece you quote, it is the truth. I do NOT know that. I don’t know under what authority you choose to call me a liar about something I say I don’t know, when you don’t know me and have no idea what I know.
Heck, even the entire question here is a misdirection. It is stated as if Romney is “attacking” the Boy scouts. But he clearly said in 1994, and clearly says today, that they have every right to make their own rules.
His opinion on whether he would have chosen those rules is completely independent of any “attack”.
At the time he was asked the question, he was on the executive board, which is a SUPPORTING position, not an attacking position.
Look, I know people who are ATTACKING the Boy Scouts. The Mormons on the other hand are STRONG supporters of the Boy Scouts.
I was just at a camp run by a guy for the Boy Scouts, and he was praising the local Mormons for all they do for him and his place, and noting the close tie between Mormon congregations and the Boy Scouts.
The were a couple of boys (now in there 70's and successful owners of a gravel company) that wrote a book about it that live near here. They were basically the spawn of Satan in their step fathers eyes.
The name of the book escapes me for the moment, but it was a good read, not just because of that, but of the general hardship these boys endured just because things were hard growing up on a farm in those times.
I can look it up and freepmail the title to you later (it will surface from my rusty memory sooner or later) if you like.
There are a others true story books out there as well if you look for them, and are interested in reading that sort of stuff.
I can't remember if it was a mormon thing or not, but there was also a believe along the east coast, -Newfoundland, New Brunswick area- of a sort of 'dapple ganger' type thing that would switch their evil little baby for a good human one shortly after birth. Some women would actually kill their babies. Early (late 17th and 18th) accountings of post-natal depression I suppose.
"If I ever pass into heavenly courts, it will be by the consent of Prophet Joseph"
--Brigham Young
(JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, vol. 8, p. 224).
They succeeded in killing Joseph, but he had finished his work.He was a servant of God, and gave us the Book of Mormon.He said the Bible was right in the main, but, through the translators and others, many precious portions were suppressed, and several other portions were wrongly translated; and now his testimony is in force, for he has sealed it with his blood.As I have frequently told them, no man in this dispensation will enter the courts of heaven, without the approbation of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jun.Who has made this so?Have I?Have this people?Have the world?No; but the Lord Jehovah has decreed it.If I ever pass into the heavenly courts, it will be by the consent of the Prophet Joseph.If you ever pass through the gates into the Holy City, you will do so upon his certificate that you are worthy to pass.Can you pass without his inspection?No; neither can any person in this dispensation, which is the dispensation of the fulness of times.In this generation, and in all the generations that are to come, everyone will have to undergo the scrutiny of this Prophet.They say that they killed Joseph, and they will yet come with their hats under their arms and bend to him; but what good will it do them, unless they repent?They can come in a certain way and find favor, but will they?
That’s funny. You have got to be careful with book collection addiction. In a few decades we’ll be reading of you and how this crazy person had tunnels of publications through their house.
On the other had they make great insulation.
The question spoke to membership, not leadership, and the answer spoke to participation, not leadership.
However, someone has pointed out to me that adults to “join” the boy scouts and therefore are considered “members”. I was thinking of “members” as being the boys who are part of scouting, not the adult volunteers.
The membership form seems to indicate you can be an adult member without being a leader.
But the point wasn’t that it was limited to boys, but that the question and answer did not deal with leadership.
Funny... I posted essentially the same thing (though not as well-worded) yesterday and I was called a LIAR for presenting the same opinion and analysis.
Who is outraged?
I just pointed out specific facts.
And, you know better than many that FReepers do not get away with attacking Fred.
You can disagree, but Mormonism is not secretive. You can read their scriptures, their church order and other church documents are on their public web site. I’ve never had a question that I’ve asked of my mormon friends go unanswered.
I’ve never heard of anybody ever being sued for statements about Mormon doctrine.
Scientology is secretive.
Well, this statement belongs to the other 1.2% then.
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.