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."
I mean, just what the heck is there to disagree with?
And you are threatening to WHACK someone?
You said — “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.”
I think I saw those particular questions that you’re talking about, but those are not the types of questions that I’m referring to. I’m referring to basic theology issues, that would come from a study of “systematic theology” at some seminary (for Christian pastors), like — for instance — Dallas Theological Seminary. Or another one that I’m also familiar with is Western Seminary. One is in Dallas (by the name indicated) and the other one is in Portland, Oregon. There are many others, too, which could be mentioned.
Now, if you take someone through a Christian seminary education and they graduate, having studied the Bible and the Christian doctrines in a systematic fashion and going through all the different categories that these things are grouped in — I’m confident (*absolutely so*) that a Mormon Bishop would be totally rejecting what was taught there.
And likewise, if a pastor/graduate of one these Christian seminaries were to go through the training which is involved for those leading the Mormon church, they would totally and completely reject what was being taught there.
In fact, I’m sure that *each* on both sides (the Mormon and the Christian) would each reject, out of hand, what the other was being taught — and recognize each being very radically different from what was being taught by and from those teachers (in each setting, as each was getting the others’ kinds of doctrines (that is, the Christian getting the Mormon doctrine and the Mormon getting the Christian doctrine).
It’s just so *totally amazing* that it’s only the Mormons who cannot *distinguish* their *very own doctrines* as being different from historic and basic Christianity — much less even admit that they have *other* authoritative sources — which those of the Christian faith would reject totally out of hand.
I mean, how can the Mormon be either (1) so deceived (in their own mind), or (2) be so deceiving of others (that they cannot let them know the radical differences), or (3) be so ashamed or their own doctrines that they cannot voice them publicly.
It’s got to be one of those three. The Mormons are either deceived themselves, or deceiving towards others, or are totally ashamed of what they know. Otherwise, they would be completely open as to the radical differences that they have, which shows that they have absolutely nothing in common with basic, historic and fundamental Christianity as taught over the centuries and understood from the Bible.
You were also saying — “The Doctrine of the LDS Church is actually fairly simple and easily found.”
I would agree 100% there. There’s ample evidence and much written material from the Mormon church to document all the Mormon belief system — their doctrines and teachings — very much so.
That’s why it’s so ridiculous to say that they’re Christian in their teachings. Nothing could be further from the truth, just from their own materials. And, you know..., there are even Mormon missionaries who will privately acknowledge that very thing and that they must not say some things (up front) for fear of repulsing potential joining members of their church. They know very well that there are some things to say and others to leave until much later, when the person has been a member for a bit longer of a time.
That’s just plain deceptive. That’s another reason why some Christians are so vocal about the whole thing about Mormon teachings and doctrines being so radically different from the basic, historic and fundamental Christian doctrines and teachings. They see it as massive deception, and of course, that fits exactly into what the Bible says will be happening on a large scale in these latter days, before Jesus, the Messiah of Israel returns again.
Regards,
Star Traveler
I guess that this writer has not been doing much lurking on Free Republic.
You were sayings — “No, the problem is you create a definition for what a “Christian” is that is designed to exclude Mormons from the term DESPITE such a criteria is ABSENT in the Bible.”
Well, I would agree that Christians have created definitions from what they have gotten from the Bible, which are designed — very specifically — to *exclude* certain others from being called “Christian”. That is very much so, the actual truth.
They call it separating truth from error in the teachings and doctrines of Christianity. And it is done in a systematic way — like “systematic theology” that one would get in a Christian seminary.
They have “separated out” — by definitions and theological precision being assigned to certain words in Christian theology — which endows them with certain and precise meanings. So, what you have (with some) is a loose usage of terminology, mean to “slide into” a vocabulary which “sounds” good — but — when analyzed for the *distinct meanings* — one find completely and radically different meanings attached to those words.
And thus, the resulting “theology” is radically different. Systematic theology as taught in many Christian seminaries around the country bear *absolutely no resemblance* — in the slightest degree — to *anything* resembling Mormonism.
It’s just *too amazing* to hear a Mormon, who supposedly knows these things, actually making a kind of claim that one would actually recognize Mormon doctrine inside of a Christian seminary. That’s an absolute “laugh a minute” if you really expect *anyone* to believe that. LOL!
And speaking of “sticking to the Bible” — that’s just plain deception on your part, because a lot of the Mormon doctrine does *not* come from the Bible — at all. You’re using your other authoritative sources (that y’all recognize but no other basic, historic and fundamental Christian school, seminary or church does.
If you go just on the basis of that *one thing alone* — that you accept several *other* sources of authority for your theology — that alone would totally disqualify the resulting theology from being considered “Christian teaching” in any shape, manner or form.
I still don’t know why y’all cannot be honest enough to admit your own theology. What is the matter with your theology such that you cannot admit to it? That fact alone — that y’all cannot admit to your own theology puts a big question mark on it.
Regards,
Star Traveler
You were saying, “Watson, Are you lying on purpose, or are you simply an uneducated on Mormon beliefs?”
That’s what I simply cannot understand. How can so many Mormons be so ignorant about what has been “studied to death” — about all the radical differences between Mormon teachings and doctrines — and Christian teachings and doctrines and theology.
It’s got to be something of one of these — (1) they’re ignorant of their own doctrine, (2) they’re ashamed of their own doctrines, (3) they’re deceived (themselves) of their own doctrines, or (4) they are deceiving others about their own doctrines.
It’s just too unbelievable, with *any one* of those possibilities. It just boggles my mind...
Regards,
Star Traveler
I got curious about the New Jerusalem/ Missouri thing, and started asking about it on these threads, after about a month of having either no answers or misleading answers, I am still not certain if Christ is supposed to return to Missouri or the Middle East.
Christians would have answered a question like that about their faith quickly and clearly.
You said — “Traveler, you have made my day, perhaps my year! This is the most concise, clear description I have yet seen. Thank you.”
Well, thank you for your kind words. It’s encouraging to me.
I want to say something about the god of Islam, here — the one that we hear is the same God that we Christians pray to. I know it’s a bit off the subject of this particular thread, but this methodology works for the Mormon “god” too.
If one goes down the list of characteristics for Allah (supposedly “God”), what he’s like, what he does and commands others to do, how he views Israel and the Jews and Christians, and and so on — one must come to the conclusion that even though he is called Allah and is supposedly “god” — he *most closely* resembles Satan, in all the things that he does and is and commands.
That’s the best way to look at these kinds of situations, when similar names and terminology is used. It’s definitely that way for Islam and it fits for Mormon teaching and doctrine too — about their “god”.
Regards,
Star Traveler
I very much like the “Way of the Master”....they have a great way of explaining to the searching, and the lost.
And what has any of that got to do with the running of the country and the preservation of Christian values??????By your lights you could not vote for someone who is not a member of your particular congregation because the other congregation with the same name as yours’ pastor has a slightly different emphasis.
You were saying — “I got curious about the New Jerusalem/ Missouri thing, and started asking about it on these threads, after about a month of having either no answers or misleading answers, I am still not certain if Christ is supposed to return to Missouri or the Middle East.”
Well, there’s a marker in Missouri, stating that Christ is supposed to be arriving there. That’s what I read. I’m right next door to Missouri and I was thinking about going over there and finding that marker and taking a picture of it... LOL! It’s really supposed to be there (and I’ve seen the picture of it, too — but I want my own picture).
And then you said — “Christians would have answered a question like that about their faith quickly and clearly.”
You’re right about that. I’ve had no problems stating certain things about what I read in the Bible and what it says will happen — even when they seem to go against what some people may find comfortable or even when it doesn’t necessarily “sit well” with them. I have to. It’s absolutely mandatory for the Christian to “tell it like it is” from what the Bible tells us — no matter how uncomfortable or squeamish one may be about it.
And so, likewise, if the Mormons *really think* that their teachings are right and true — they should lay it all out just like it is and just like they understand. But, no — they don’t. That leads me to believe that they are ashamed or squeamish or deceiving about the whole thing.
It’s like all those civilizations that are outlined in their own authoritative source materials. If those civilizations existed, as it’s stated that they did in their authoritative religious materials — then they should be able to prove it — just like Christians work to prove the details of the Bible through archeology and historical documents.
But, as I understand it — no trace of these civilizations in the Americas can be found at all. There are serious problems with the reliability of the Mormon “authoritative material” that forms the basis for their doctrines.
By the way, here is some reading material about Jesus going to Missouri to meet with some Mormons...
http://www.lds-mormon.com/adam_ond.shtml
http://www.lds-mormon.com/60min.shtml
(about 3/4 of the way down in the interview)
Regards,
Star Traveler
P.S. — I’ll guarantee you that this is one you will *not* find in any Christian theology anywhere in the entire world... LOL!
In your earlier post it sounded like you were trying to sell Romney as a Christian to the Christian voter, I thought that link would help clear up the Christian question. Posts 316 and 318 are for you also.
I don’t know what the rest of your new post is about with the congregations mention.
In answer to your questions, they are all yes — according to Mormon teachings.
The “god of Mormonism” had a father and he was born at one time. That’s definitely not the God of Christian theology and teaching. So, right there, we know that they are using the same “word” but a different meaning.
And according to Mormon teaching, Jesus and Satan were brothers before Jesus came here to earth (I guess spirit brothers...). There’s another one where the Mormons use the “name” of Jesus, but obviously have a different kind of person actually being described. It’s *definitely* not the teaching or theology of Christianity.
In Mormon teaching, the Garden of Eden was in Missouri. That’s true (at least for “them”, it is...). But, as far as Christian theology and teaching is concerned, it says *no such thing at all*. So, we come across another radical difference, too.
In three easy questions, we’ve got a difference in the “god of Mormonism”, a difference in the “Jesus of Mormonism” and a difference in the location and/or place of the Garden of Eden.
The more you go into *every aspect* of Mormon teaching and doctrine, it’s just so mind-boggling how any Mormon can actually say with a straight face (without bursting out laughing) that Mormons actually teach Christian doctrine and that there is no difference at all... LOL!
Regards,
Star Traveler
my worthless input has brought much comment......and anything you view as insults are nothing more than honest observation.
the comment, "my counter point was Christianity's acceptance of the miraculous (magical) absolution of sin that Christ paid for on the cross." .... is an honest recognition of the price paid for our sinful nature.....this comment was not made sarcastically or lightly. It is my proclamation of my faith. .....although mystical would have been a better word than magical.
“Do I ask questions over and over of them? Yes, it is the only way to expose the heresies if they will answer truthfully. For a couple of weeks, several months ago, they tried to deceive. Then they began being truthful, then they went back to being openly deceptive, almost as if they had received warnings from someone/somewhere that discussing the peculiarities of Mormonism on an open forum was not to happen!”
For those of us that watch you guys that challenge Mormonism, it was fascinating and we were shocked by what we learned, but you are right, that window didn’t stay open very long.
The window of angry openness closed, and they went back to their previous stone walling and bland practice of canned obfuscation methods that they seem to learn during their training.
What we learned from them and those of you that faced them when they were speaking openly, was a life altering event for some of us.
We owe you a lot, to all of you that take on the difficult duty of facing up to such brutal insults as all of you do.
Sorry I don’t know the forum names of everyone on that list of warriors.
I make a lot of sins everyday. Of course no one is 100% obedient. It is the effort and repentance Christ wants to see. We are continually sanctified when we partake of the bread and water that represent the body and blood of Christ.
We are justified when we are born of water and of the spirit - for us, at baptism and receipt of the Holy Ghost.
Why are we into attacking religions now. The US was founded on the idea that we wouldn’t. People actually fled Europe to escape this. Did you even listen to Romneys speech? I am amazed that you don’t even get it.
Sure, whatever.
FYI, I’m no longer involved in apologetics - got bored, but I fail to see how my disinterest invalidates my words. lol! I’ve long ago lost patience turning the other cheek - I know too well those who actively lie and misrepresent Mormonism will never change and have no interest in becoming honest and true followers of Christ.
Pleople fled Europe to escape the type of criticism you are promoting to found this great country to be free of religious persecution....yet you are still doing it.
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.