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."
"Answers have not only been given using LDS scriptures, including but not limited to the Holy Bible, King James Version, and thought but ALSO from...."
"That being said many other questions are not actually question of doctrine, but questions of individual belief. The Doctrine of the LDS Church is actually fairly simple and easily found....."
-------
Dude....really....Garden of Eden in Missouri.....yes or no?
Hank
~”He reached out to the Mormons - they basked in his intellect - and did nothing with it.”~
Goodness, SkyPilot, I saw people of several different denominations on that stand with him. Could it have been an inter-faith meeting simply hosted by the LDS Church?
And since what he spoke about was generally in agreement with the LDS Church, just how exactly would you expect the LDS Church to change in response?
It was a good sermon, though. Christ-centered and passionate.
~”There are civilizations spoken about that have absolutely no existence at all in history or any artifacts or cities or anything like that.”~
You need to study a little more about American archeology, my friend. Whether the artifacts and archeological sites that exist can be tied to the Book of Mormon is a debatable thing; but their existance is most well-documented, and there has not yet been found any disproven evidence among them.
~”Please be more specific when mentioning them; ok??”~
That’s funny.
~”What percentage of LDS organization members meet those requirements??”~
Couldn’t tell you, I’ve never seen those statistics. Probably less than a majority. Of course, it’s open to any who repent and do what they should be doing.
If you got after it, you could probably be in there in 18 months or less. Of course, you’d need a testimony of Joseph Smith first, which might be a bit of a challenge.
Hmmm... I think you hit a nerve, Sheena.
I stand by my original assertion. In fact, the burden is on you to prove the places mentioned ante-deluge are the same post-deluge.
You seriously expect me to believe eight people, from a local region where distant travel was virtually nonexistent, were such skilled cartographers and geographers that they could accurately identify mountains and the terrain of where they landed after floating upon the water for 150 days? Did they have an anchor? Were the earth’s ocean and wind currents non-existent during the flood?
Hmmm, let’s see. A typical ocean current can move a floating object anywhere from 7-120 km in one day. This means the ark could’ve been pushed by the current anywhere from 1050-18,000 km from its original location during the 150 days it was floating on the water.
Sure, it’s believable it just went up and down - NOT!
Regardless, I don’t believe in a literal flood that covered all the earth, so I don’t really care.
~”Ravi Zacharias is brilliant.”~
Agreed. I found this presentation quite inspiring. I’ll have to dig into his work some more.
Of course I agree with Bro Millet. He’s right - even though they couldn’t teach deep doctrine, they already knew more than non-members because they knew Heavenly Father had a physical, three-dimensional, immortal body. They already knew they were offspring of God and have the divine spark within them that allows them to become exalted by inseparable union with the glorified Christ.
But, of course, I already know you Elsie. You have made it you life’s work to demonize and lie about the true beliefs of Mormons. I’ve repeatedly caught you but you don’t have the decency to apologize for your shameful behavior.
How sad - I’m sure Christ is very proud of you - NOT!
~”But I question that bit about the Garden of Eden being in Missouri. I don’t think they believe THAT.”~
Actually, that’s one of the few beliefs attributed to the LDS Church by our detractors that is accurate. Jackson County, MO, to be precise.
It is, however, a rather obscure point; I’d bet that most Mormons don’t even know it about our beliefs.
Pitiful.
So, according to you, anytime a supernatural visitor appears that radiates bright light; he automatically is the devil and not to be trusted.
Wow! The fundamentalist know-nothing strikes again!
Why are people more concerned with Romney’s Mormonism than they are with Obama’s Muslim background, or even his alleged Christian background?
Why would you want to try to force Romney to explain his beliefs? You have seen the way he governed Mass. Do you see any Mormon priest hiding behind the curtain in Mass.?
Huckabee is running on his religion and he openly declares that his religion defines him, Romney says his religion does not define his politics, that his politics and his religion are separate areas of his life.
Did Jesus (The Word) make God the Father’s physical body?... Have you read John’s Gospel, Chapter One?
It was said 50 churches were attending.
I watched the whole video and at the end they asked Bob Millet, if they could make it a yearly thing and return next years!
The closing prayer was inclusive they even quoted from Joseph Smith!
The man is wired to the devil and don’t know it!
Interesting, thanks. That kind of dialogue can do nothing but good.
------
And yet the Christians here have answered these supposed "trick" questions, while no Mormon has yet answered the three posed to them.
I have not been anti-Mormon, but I will be honest: watching Mormons here is making me so.
I would respectfully disagree if Mormons would just say "we believe the Garden of Eden was in Missouri...we believe that there were these civilizations here in North America centuries ago.....we believe that Joseph Smith wore special glasses and transcribed all these plates written in a weird symbol language...."
But you don't do that. Rather than proudly assert what you believe, you use weasel words, and insist on placing yourself within the Christian fold when clearly you don't belong there.
Gods on your own planets? You believe this - but you deny it. Three levels of heaven? You believe this- but you deny it. God had a father? Jesus is Satan's brother? A Grand Council of Gods?
On and on it goes. It isn't that you believe things Christians regard as strange. It's that you work so hard to HIDE it. THAT makes people think you are dishonest. And it's really getting old.
Hank
"Actually, that’s one of the few beliefs attributed to the LDS Church by our detractors that is accurate. Jackson County, MO, to be precise.
It is, however, a rather obscure point; I’d bet that most Mormons don’t even know it about our beliefs."
------
Oh, OK. Obscure, maybe.....but really peculiar.
At any rate, I thank you though for being honest about it. If more of your fellows would exhibit the same forthrightness in owning up to your beliefs, I wouldn't be feeling the increasing antipathy towards Mormonism its adherents are awakening in me here.
Hank
~”If more of your fellows would exhibit the same forthrightness in owning up to your beliefs...”~
Here’s the problem: we are so often accused of believing things we don’t believe. Personally, I don’t mind being beaten over the head with my genuine beliefs (in fact, I’m more likely than not to take the opportunity to expand on them); but I am quite offended when people accuse me of denying what I believe because they are just so sure that I actually do believe it but that for some reason I’m covering it up.
Usually this happens because they read some website that has some quote from an early LDS leader that they take out of context and construe to mean something or other. For example, by this method, it’s quite plain that Mormons believe that Adam is God. It’s right there, in Church history; Brigham Young said it, according to the LDS Journal of Discourses. Never mind the fact that he contradicted that statement on many occasions, and other LDS leaders have never said anything to ratify it. Never mind that it is therefore probably a misspeak or mistranscription. Mormons must believe it, so when they say they don’t, they’re obviously lying!
Generally I and the fellow Mormons I’ve encountered around here try to be very frank about what we do and don’t believe. We own our beliefs; we’re proud of them, and we’ve no reason to be ashamed of them. We can’t really help it if people are so blasted determined to discredit us that they refuse to listen to anything we say that tends to show that we really aren’t a bunch of kooks. I chalk it up to ecclesiastical penis envy.
Personally, I find it a pleasure to correct the record; if a person is willing to ask with an open mind, I will always to the best of my ability help them understand what is fact about my faith and what is fiction. Feel free to do so in the future.
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.