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 have always said I love the JoD but I also know many things said in there is not doctrine.
The things that are doctrine can be found in the in the standard works Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenant, Pearl of Great Price
Sure. I’ll give you the short answers and you can study up on why I believe thusly by examining my writings where I explain why I believe as I do. Deal?
1. Does God have a father?
Yup. An aseitically static deity cannot suddenly change into a dynamic God. http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id76.htm
2. Are Jesus and Satan brothers?
Yup. So are we. We are all God’s spirit offspring with Christ as the Firstborn (prototokos). http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id154.htm
3. Was the Garden of Eden in Missouri?
Don’t know. Mormons have very different beliefs on the literalness of the first chapters of the Bible (I certainly don’t - I think the entire Garden of Eden and global deluge are myths designed to teach important spiritual messages). Many early Mormons and leaders believed it was in Missouri despite the lack of a specific revelation explicitly stating such.
All we have are the “Adam-ondi-Ahman” passages in Daviess County Missouri and the future placement of New Jerusalem in the area.
The ONLY revelation linking the place to the Garden of Eden is D&C 116:1:
Spring Hill is named by the Lord Adam-ondi-Ahman, because, said he, it is the place where Adam shall come to visit his people, or the Ancient of Days shall sit, as spoken of by Daniel the prophet.
The issue is, what does “it” refer to? Does it refer to Spring Hill or to Adam-ondi-Ahman, the land where the Garden of Eden was located (D&C 107:53)?
Spring Hill (Missouri) was named “Adam-ondi-Ahman” AFTER the valley where Adam dwelt where he is supposed to return in the future. Kinda like Toledo Ohio is named after Toledo Spain or London Ohio is named after London England. Thus, “it” more than likely refers to the original Adam-ondi-Ahman and not to Spring Hill (IMO).
The early Mormon leaders ASSUMED the original Adam-ondi-Ahman was in Missouri but the revelation doesn’t really say that. (Kinda like the Word of Wisdom’s “hot drinks” which was interpreted to mean coffee and tea whereas that’s not what the revelation says. I happen to think “hot drinks” is in reference to the temperature of the beverages - which HAVE been proven to be very harmful to the linings of the stomach and throat. Despite this personal belief - I still don’t drink coffee or tea).
Still, if there really was a global flood (despite the lack of any physical evidence), there’s no way the ark would’ve stayed in the same region of the world, given global currents and wind patterns. Where did the ark ORIGINATE? We know it landed in the Near East, and the survivors named the region after places they knew. Isn’t it then possible they could’ve originated in ancient America?
Like I said, I do not believe in a literal Garden of Eden or global flood, but it certainly is possible for the Garden of Eden to be located in Missouri where it floated to the Near East during the Great Flood.
Fair’s fair. Will you answer my questions now?
“Mormons believe Jesus is the Son of God and God incarnate. We believe he’s our Savior and the only way to heaven.
How exactly can you possibly misunderstand the simple declarations of these statements?”
Edward, you ask, yet no doubt you know that mormonism
identifies Jesus as a different Jesus than Christianity
does. When mormonism says “God the Father”, they mean
a someone who is very different than the God Christians
mean. You are no doubt very aware of this.
The God the Father Christians worship was never a man. Doesn’t
have a physical body. The mormonism God the Father used
to be a human who has now risen to being God.
The mormonism Jesus is a created spirit being who came to
earth to get a body and then became god. The Christian Jesus
Christ was never created and was always God, second member
of the TriUnity of the Godhead.
To use the same words does defacto mean that mormonism and
Christianity mean the same thing. Of course, you probably
know that, since you know what mormonism means.
ampu
Sorry, took a while to compose the post.
Mr Millet wasn’t teaching deception, he was advocating a very wise biblical principle - feed with MILK before feeding with MEAT (1 Cor 3:2; Heb 5:12-14).
Also, look at who he was addressing - young Mormons of missionary age. The same group who are INCAPABLE of teaching “meat” doctrines since they simply do not know, understand, and have never been taught “deep doctrines.”
Just look at how he couched the scenario - a guy coming out of the blue asking a question that requires a complicated response. It isn’t sufficient to just give a “Yes” or “No” answer; one must explain and elaborate as to why.
Imagine, if you will, a person you do not know, approaching a Catholic and asking, “Is it true you Catholics believe you are literally eating the body and blood of Christ during mass?”
What’s the Catholic to do? Just give a yes or no answer?
LDS Missionaries simply do not have the capability or the knowledge to provide a full answer. Thus, the smartest thing for them is to “bring everything back to the Book of Mormon.”
??? Funny, I thought the “foundational principles of Christianity” was God’s Son dying on the cross to save us from sin and death.
... I wonder when this changed to the fourth century Traditional Trinity ...
Where? All you do is allege but you don’t provide any proof. I provide numerous scriptural passages from OFFICIAL MORMON DOCTRINE TEXTS whereas you merely lie and misrepresent it. Who’s the liar?
The link at #1 in the pinged to post you might find interesting to read. You will quickly see why I use a more ‘geometric’ explanation for dimension Time, Occam’s razor being so sharp and all ... don’t tell Timothy though sister birds, he might awaken that pesky frog.
They love to distort our message
here is the full talk from the clip they try to make “lying for the lord”!
the real title
The Question that should have been asked!
http://newsnet.byu.edu/video/18773/
Nice.
But then again, the Mormon following has a history of clashing with those who do not agree with it. Historically, there has even been terrible violence, death, and murder associated with the movement going back to the 19th century.
Whenever this is brought to light, however, the facts of history are spun faster than a post CNN Democrat debate.
Mormon Fundamentalism and Violence: A Historical Analysis by Garn LeBaron Jr.
You should make it clear this is your own understanding!
If I were a Catholic and believed in transubstantiation, I imagine I would say, "Yes. Now let me tell you why." I don't think I would say, a-la Robert Millet, "Well, let me tell you about a Pope. This pope's name was....."
Seems to me if one is secure in his beliefs, he doesn't need to hem and haw.
The Dead Sea Scrolls exist. Where are the Golden Tablets?
WHO DOES have the capability or knowledge? Rank and file members? Returned missionaries? Bishops? Stake Presidents?
Does not your post, in effect say to the members who are "not in the know" that it perfectly acceptable to "Lie for the Lord" because you can't always spew the church-approved answers"?
Also, why are these missionaries sent out without the requisite knowledge? They are the "face of the church" to the contacts they make. Are there so MANY contradictory teachings in LDS doctrine that they can't be prepared beforehand?
Baloney.
You said: Edward, you ask, yet no doubt you know that mormonism
identifies Jesus as a different Jesus than Christianity
does.
Oh really? Well, the Mormon Jesus was born of the virgin Mary 2000 in Bethlehem. He died on the cross for the sins of mankind and rose from the dead three days later. Who’s your Jesus?
You said: When mormonism says “God the Father”, they mean
a someone who is very different than the God Christians
mean. You are no doubt very aware of this.
Let’s see.
You said: The God the Father Christians worship was never a man. Doesn’t have a physical body.
Well, since the Bible does NOT say what or who God was PRIOR TO creating the universe AND neither does it provide an exposition on his nature and physicality; I’d say any difference in perceptions of God will always be “unbiblical” - meaning they cannot be supported either way by the Bible which means it’s stupid to use such differences to exclude the other from being “Christians.”
THUS, I think you guys are nuts to believe in a three hypostasis in one ousia nonmaterial, formless, ontologically omnipresent deity; but such belief does not preclude me from accepting you as “Christians” and belonging to the overall Christian family. Are you similarly charitable?
You said: The mormonism God the Father used
to be a human who has now risen to being God.
Stick to your own religion - don’t try to tell me what I believe. Your description of the Mormon “God” is incorrect. In LDS theology, God was ALWAYS God by nature PRIOR TO experiencing mortality.
You said: The mormonism Jesus is a created spirit being who came to earth to get a body and then became god. The Christian Jesus Christ was never created and was always God, second member of the TriUnity of the Godhead.
Wrong again and just stick to explaining your own religion, ok? The LDS Christ was always God by nature (just like the LDS Father) PRIOR TO experiencing mortality. He was God before becoming human 2000 years ago. Also, he was not a “created spirit being” he is a “spirit offspring” of the Father. There’s a HUGE difference between the two descriptions.
It seems that most of the secular conservatives were turned off by the speech and the secular progressives were scared by the eloquence of delivery and the suggestion of a return to traditional dependence on religious underpinnings of governance. Listening to both sides, I was struck by the rather condescending attitude of “tolerance” toward religious belief as long as it remains hidden behind closed doors.
I get the feeling that secular conservatives would like to exploit the religious conservatives the way the secular progressives exploit the minorities, for their votes.
Oh sure, just because I’m relentless in exposing those who lie and demonize my religion suddenly is taken to mean we’re violent for our faith?
Nice try ...
They are not Kids they are Missionaries in training on the Questions that should have been asked!
So many mainstreams are so indoctinated that to ponder questions might make them see there is more to the scriptures than the tight little senario that has been passed down throuhg the ages!
You really don’t know why you should believe it just that is the way its always been done!
I thought I was ;^)
Nice to see you again my fellow-card carrying member of the magic flying underwear rhubard eaters club.
Not fair - you are assuming the Catholic CAN answer the question to the satisfaction of the questioner. This is definitely not the case with the young Mormon missionaries or with those who usually ask those kind of questions. BTW, it has been my experience not one in a hundred Catholics can explain transubstantiation.
I posted exclusively from the lds.org site. You on the other hand have linked to your own vanity ramblings that have no authority whatsoever from the LDS hierarchy.
Obfuscating much?
Spirit Offspring = Created
If you cannot own what mormonism professes, I cannot
have a discussion with you about the difference between
that teaching and Christianity.
Christian Jesus Christ = Never Created. Not an offspring.
From the post of yours I am responding to, you do not know
what basic theological words mean, or how they are derived
from Scripture.
If God is eternal, unchanging, immutable, then He has never
been different than He is and will never be different than
he was. Mormonism teaches He was different.
Anyone else like to share some basic mormonism quotes with
Edward, to help him understand mormon heresy? You guys seem
to have mormonism quotes at your fingertips and obviously,
Edward is unfamiliar with the writings of his mormonism
leaders in these matters. Thanks.
Edward, I’ll wait until they share some quotes that show
what your church actually teaches, and then I’d be glad to
discuss how that differs from the Bible.
best,
ampu
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.