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."
Sure. Also use your head.
Fact: Christians existed before the Traditional Trinity was formulated by conflating Greek Philosophy with biblical theology in the fourth century. Sure, the effort began in the second century with the Apologists, but it certainly wasn’t completed until the fourth century.
Fact: If a standard developed for defining who is and who is not a Christian did not exist prior to the fourth century, then logically, anyone who did not subscribe to said formulation, ante Nicene, cannot possibly be a Christian. That includes Paul, Peter, James, John, and Christ himself.
Really smart, eh?
I appreciate your opinion, In my opinion, evangelicals, have painted themselves into a corner and if what they want comes true, the entire country will pay the price of their... remaining comments self censored.
I chuckled he was so stereotypically responsive. Good thing the Internet, the modern printing press, isn’t burnable.
The true one or damnation is it?
“A demon can profess Christ is his Savior and God?” That was not on your list worded in that fashion. And with this example you’ve shown once again the innate deceitfulness necessary to continue in LDS blindness. Scripture records (that would be ‘in the Bible’ and not Joe Smith’s rewrite of the Bible) a man possessed and under the control of ‘legion’ falling down at Jesus’s feet and worshipping to beg to be sent into pigs rather than to hell. In Paul’s presence, a demon possessed girl proclaimed Paul the messenger of the Most High God and the proclaimer of how to be saved. You seem to be a most startling example of the message ‘ever learning never coming to a knowledge of Christ and Salvation.’ Perhaps it is due to your original goal in your learning, kind of like the twisted admonition to ‘pray and ask God if the B of M is not true’ when it contains whole passages taken right from the King James translation of the Septuagint.
Oh, boo hoo Elsie. You were duped by anti-Mormon propaganda and instead of recognizing it for the lies and deception it is; you’ve allowed it to warp your soul into hatred of everything Mormon.
I have no problem with non-Mormons. I respect and admire righteous people of any or even no religion. I even have no problem with those who reject Mormonism as long as they honestly disagree and do not lie or misrepresent it.
I call it like I see it. I’ve seen you repeatedly distort my religion. I’ve seen you lie about me and my faith. Over and over for many months and even years.
And you have the NERVE to call yourself a Christian and a follower of Christ!?
I understand. But again, the evangelicals who are supporting Mitt (I don’t have a dog in this fight) are praising the speech, but yet don’t see what it is really saying. They are blinded by their faith in him. Mitt essentially said that faith, non faith, or the type of faith isn’t important. It’s whether they seek the greater good of the US. Frankly, I agree with this. Evangelicals, typically don’t.
Funny. I respect and admire Robert Millet - he was absolutely right in what he said (and thanks btw, for the video clip). Milk before meat.
What I find remarkable is how you think what he said was “Lying for the Lord.” Are you absolutely nuts?
FYI, Robert Millet is very knowledgeable and can wipe the floor with just about any anti-Mormon in a debate. He’s a much better person than me because I won’t hesitate to condemn and ridicule you if we were to have a debate on stage.
FOREVER? PROMISE??? ;)
Hey, I can’t stop you from making a fool out of yourself but for your sake, please study first before posting.
That is SOOOOooo true!
Well, I’m not Fonzy baby.
Why don’t you go ask them? How should I know? Brigham Young said lots of things - I happen to think he was a man of his time and it’s plain dumb to demand he conform to modern sensibilities. Frankly, no religious leader in the past, from ANY religion, would be considered credible today. I’m just thinking of how Baptists and other Protestants would treat the leaders on the 19th century who went to war to keep blacks as slaves. Or Calvin and Luther’s intolerant teachings.
To: Edward Watson
??? Typical dishonesty Elsie. Tsk, tsk. The Journal of Discourses is not authoritative over Mormons - only the Scriptures. You of course know that.
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?
****
Ed we been through that a thousand times with the same critics of the LDS, yet they act like they never heard the answer so why even bother with those who’s memories are either too weak or they really did not want an answer!
These Journals are called Discourses NOT doctrine for none of these have been gone over by the presidency for accuracy it is only so the many who were unable to attend have informatioin of the talks.
****
Journal of Discourses
Letter from the First PresidencyGreat Salt Lake City, Utah Territory, June 1, 1853,Elder Samuel Richards, and Saints abroad.Dear Brethren—It is well known to many of you, that Elder George D. Watt, by our counsel, spent much time in the midst of poverty and hardships to acquire the art of reporting in Phonography, which he has faithfully and fully accomplished; and he has been reporting the public Sermons, Discourses, Lectures, &c., delivered by the Presidency, the Twelve, and others in this city, for nearly two years, almost without fee or reward. Elder Watt now proposes to publish a Journal of these Reports, in England, for the benefit of the Saints at large, and to obtain means to enable him to sustain his highly useful position of Reporter.
You will perceive at once that this will be a work of mutual benefit, and we cheerfully and warmly request your co-operation in the purchase and sale of the above-named Journal, and wish all the profits arising therefrom to be under the control of Elder Watt.Brigham YoungHeber C. KimballWillard RichardsFirst Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Like this? ;)
“To the Marshal of said City, greeting. You are here commanded to destroy the printing press from whence issues the Nauvoo Expositor, and pile the type of said printing establishment in the street, and burn all the Expositors and libelous handbills found in said establishment; and if resistance be offered to your execution of this order by the owners or others, demolish the house; and if anyone threatens you or the Mayor or the officers of the city, arrest those who threaten you, and fail not to execute this order without delay, and make due return hereon.
By order of the City Council,
Joseph Smith, Mayor”
But it is illegitimate to ask a candidate, “Is Jesus the brother of Lucifer?”
One could ask why, when the Biblical answer is obvious.
Expert on early, first millennium Aramaics, but on Brigham Young...you take a pass. How convenient.
Are you point being?
The original post was concerning what beliefs do Christians have based on the Scriptures.
I pointed out that according to the Bible, a Christian is someone who believes Jesus is God and Savior and numerous other things.
Then YOU interject demons into the discussion - as if it’s even relevant. Why? Can demons be considered “Christians” just because they acknowledge Christ as the Messiah and Son of God? What say you?
No? Then the entire ‘demon as believers’ issue is spurious. I COULD’VE told you something else - IOW, I could’ve criticized your sanity or brain power. I didn’t. And because I abstained from doing so, I’m now beaten on the head with it?
Rich.
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.