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."
But I thought Brigham Young was a "prophet" with the power of "revelation."
Edward,
Child = has a beginning
Car = has a beginning
Offspring = has a beginning
Created = has a beginning
Not the Jesus Christ of the Bible. Perhaps the mormonism
Jesus had a beginning. I do not begrudge you this belief in
any way.
It is not, however, remotely Christian.
“Why is the Father greater than the Son in one sense but equal in another?”
When mormons read a word in scripture, it never includes
meaning of context. It only means what they can point to
and see. Then they see the same word elsewhere and point
and say. The mormonism assumption is that if you see a word
two places, it means the same. Nothing of meaning in the
original languages. Nothing of historical context. Nothing
but see and say.
I suggest you read the post from MGH before you post
further.
ampu
Hey SkyPilot? Are you xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?
I just can’t say it.
What is WRONG with you?
Quoting the Journal of Discourses simply makes you look foolish.
Stick to the SCRIPTURES! That’s the only official Mormon doctrine I’ll accept.
Geez, Journal of Discourses ... WWJD?
That was exactly what Romney was saying, that religious beliefs should not be part of the criteria for judging a presidential candidate.
Frankly, I could care less about what liberals “feel” about the comparison to JFK. The liberals are really more concerned with the fact that JFK made such a speech at all and that if he were alive now, they wouldn’t be voting for him.
Do you dispute what Brigham Young said in the quoted text? Do you dispute that he said it?
I hope these aren't "trick questions."
Stick to the SCRIPTURES! That’s the only official Mormon doctrine I’ll accept.
What would WMR do...?
~”Evangelicals are still focusing on his liberal record.”~
If that’s true, then why are Evangelicals flocking to Huckabee (from Thompson, mostly) in droves? You say they are avoiding Mitt because of his liberal record, so what is so attractive to them about Huckabee? Anybody but a Mormon seems to be their clarion call - even if that anybody is a fiscally liberal, socially mixed nanny-stater like Huckabee.
If Huckabee wins IA because of this Evangelical myopia, then they’ll deserve exactly what they get.
If the evangelicals in IA were serious about supporting a conservative, then Hunter would be tied with Romney, not Huckabee.
LOL!
I don’t doubt he said it, but surely, the man is entitled to his opinion?
Brigham Young was an incredible character - molded in the milieu of 19th century Protestant America. He believed passionately in Joseph Smith and in the rightness of the church. Who else but he could’ve convinced the thousands of dispirited Mormons to make a final trek across the plains? What made people listen to him in creating over 400 towns and cities mostly in the desert heartland? I know how incredulous I would’ve been if told I had to settle in a friggin desert when California’s Central Valley’s just on the other side of them mountains.
No, I will always give Brigham Young a pass. I understand what he was trying to convey, but there were better ways of teaching Joseph Smith’s importance.
In addition to the detractors of the LDS Church, of which we see a sample on this thread, and who are wrong on LDS doctrines as often as they are right, I suggest you go to the source for a description of LDS beliefs. Here’s a basic overview:
~”Uh, Rush isn’t Mormon....is he?”~
No, Rush is a Methodist, if I remember correctly.
Glenn Beck is a Mormon, though.
Being neither Christian or Mormon, but having dear
friends who are both, I am not at all opposed to Mitt because of his Mormonism. I am opposed to him because it is damned near impossible to discern what he really believes and where he really stands on the issues.
Thus the What would WMR do...? tag. Who really knows WHAT he would do!?
Love your tag line.
Some people have stated, without any foundation whatsoever, that the talks reported in the “Journals” were inaccurately recorded and reported.
But all the evidence that is available goes to show that those chosen to make a record of the talks, did so in an extremely accurate manner, and had the complete confidence of the leaders of the Church in giving a faithful and reliable record of that which was said.
In fact, Brigham Young once stated:
“I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy. The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve.” (J.D. 13:95)
he also said this:
“I say now, when they are copied and approved by me they are as good scripture as is couched in this Bible, and if you want to read revelation read the sayings of him who knows the mind of God,…”
Obviously, Brigham Young approved and supported the Journal of Discourses and anybody who reads them with the Spirit of God as their guide “will know for themselves, and not for another,” that the talks contained therein are truly the word of God to all who have “ears to hear.”
In fact, in the preface to the index, produced and compiled at Brigham Young University in 1959, the statement was made:
“…In most cases it appears that the speakers depended almost entirely upon inspiration from the Holy Ghost, and the subjects discussed were intended for the greatest benefit of the Saints.” (Paragraph 2, Preface. Journal of Discourses Index.)
From above...it would appear that B. Young most surely disagrees with you...
I think Mr. Young was saying his sermons are most surely Holy Ghost inspired....Scripture.
Do you disagree with that?
tant (nice to see you around),
you wrote... “Anybody but a Mormon seems to be their clarion call - even if that anybody is a fiscally liberal, socially mixed nanny-stater like Huckabee”
I don’t think it is that clear cut to voters.
Sure, they are conservative. They also are trying to figure
out how to make their vote count. There are no Ronald Reagans
to vote for.
That leaves them voting for something less... and weighing
how to cast their vote to get the most similarity to their
values with the flawed choices available.
Romney is not perceived as conservative and has the added
issue of a Christian voter dealing with their feelings about
his mormonism and his recent conversion to some conservative
issues. And many have said he measures his words and they
do not know if he is authentic.
Huck clearly has a history of being pro life. He too is flawed,
but he is what he is and when he speaks, he just says what
believes. You can argue whether you believe he believes it,
but he comes across as authentic to many people.
Guiliani is perceived to be good on terrorism, but socially,
a mess for these voters.
Thompson ruined his own chances. Federalism may be a good
position, but no one is running around saying, “if only I
could find a good Federalist!”
McCain. No need to write anything.
The others are perceived as having as much chance as Ron Paul.
So the voter has to sift through all this. I think that in
primaries, voters vote their hopes and dreams. They try to
find a candidate they can “get behind”. Not much of that
to choose in any 100% way.
They have to LIKE who they vote for.
They have to think they are authentic.
They have to share their values to some degree.
That candidate has to be perceived to be the
“one for this time”, to deal with the challenges
the country is facing.
They are clearly conflicted and anyone could still pull
ahead. There is no clear choice for most. Apparently,
when all that is weighed, Huck is slightly ahead... but
still less than 50%.
Merry Christmas to you tant,
ampu
Lots of FReepers whine and moan over the shedding of light on mormon doctrine here at FR....If he IS nominated, those doctrines will be on "Meet the Press", "Good Morning America", etc., etc. and they won't have any mods to whine to then. Heat....meet kitchen!
Then, the MSM has the additional goodies of his RINO past, his Colombian gardener ;), his "Sons are serving the country by campaigning for me.
He simply isn't going to be able to speechify his way through the general election.
No kidding. I completely agree with you. If Huckabee wins Iowa, Mitt is finished but at the same time Hilary is GUARANTEED to win the election since the vast majority of Americans will shudder in fear at the thought of a Southern Baptist MINISTER as POTUS.
Time to head for the hills and stock up in the cabin.
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.