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."
Elsie, why lie? And which of the DOZENS of passages I cited in the Latter-day Scriptures PROVES we’re not Christians? http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id108.htm
This is just typical of your MO. The Latter-day Scriptures teach EXPLICITLY and using language that is much CLEARER than the Bible that Jesus is God. For example:
2 Nephi 26:12 And as I spake concerning the convincing of the Jews, that Jesus is the very Christ, it must needs be that the Gentiles be convinced also that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God./ Mosiah 3:5-8 For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay, and shall go forth amongst men, working mighty miracles, such as healing the sick, raising the dead, causing the lame to walk, the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear, and curing all manner of diseases. And he shall cast out devils, or the evil spirits which dwell in the hearts of the children of men. And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and abominations of his people. And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary. / 3 Nephi 19:18 And behold, they began to pray; and they did pray unto Jesus, calling him their Lord and their God. / D&C 18:33 And I, Jesus Christ, your Lord and your God, have spoken it. / D&C 66:13 Verily, thus saith the Lord your God, your Redeemer, even Jesus Christ. Amen.
Elsie, why lie? Is that a sign of a true Christian and a true follower of Christ?
Third of Five and SevenOfNine might agree with you!
NO!!
I'm am SHOCKED!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMJvqBq_Qa8
MIND READING ALERT!
Nope...
The US was founded on the idea that we COULD!!!!
Whaaaa!!!
I'm being CRITISIZED!!!
If Jesus has no penis, then YOU won’t have one either!
(Bet your wife for eternity will NOT be happy for long!)
So, according to you, JESUS LIED!!!!
Ask and ye shall receive. Seek and ye shall find.
Ask the Father in my name ...
Why bother praying to God then if you refuse to LISTEN and OBEY HIM when he answers?
FYI, when Paul told the Bereans Christ was the fulfillment of OT prophecy; what were they supposed to do? Weren’t they supposed to examine the OT passages to determine if Paul’s claims were accurate and interpreted correctly?
Different situation, different message, different methodology.
Of course, I know you and your MO so it’s not surprising you will once again twise the Word of God to suit your bigotry.
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.
How many secrets are you unable to answer?
How exactly can you possibly misunderstand the simple declarations of these statements?
Oh... little things like THIS!
"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?
The VOICE OF AUTHORITY has spoken...if you don't believe it, just ask him.
Well, since you are obviously not a genuine seeker of truth and you really don’t seem to have the intestinal fortitude to find out the truth for yourself (I mean, come on! How hard is it to Goggle and read???); why continue this exchange?
All you’ve done is throw mud - prove something or get out of the kitchen.
I have NEVER; did you hear that?; NEVER told by ANY pastor anything about MORMONS!
But I have read a LOT of the LDS organizations writings!
Then I am just confused.
So many posters to keep straight....
HA Ha ha!
??? Typical dishonesty Elsie. Tsk, tsk. The Journal of Discourses is not authoritative over Mormons - only the Scriptures. You of course know that.
Typical Elsie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMJvqBq_Qa8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMJvqBq_Qa8
Right off the bat, censoring. Very telling. Who made you God? Oh, never mind.
You jumped the shark, Sweety!
Here's a question for you:
Why hasn't ANY LDS organization leader since BY said his statements were false?
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.