How and Why Romney Bombed

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."

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.

I'm not entirely sure Romney did that... I'll have to think about that.

But one thing I am sure of, the author here is doing some conflating of his own:

He is conflating the issue of whether or not Romney said the Mormon church won't be running things and whether or not Romney said something like, if you're a Christian and you don't vote for me, then you're a bigot. The author makes an abrupt transition from the first assertion to the second without really proving the first one. It was pretty jarring transition to me. I kept waiting for him to make a connection between the two, which he never made, or to finish that first thought, which he never finished.

I found this whole piece pretty muddled. And I am NOT a Mitt supporter.

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 do agree with this. It's exactly what he should have said. Peggy Noonan said something much like it. Something like: look at the Mormons, look at their lives. They are all good, hard-working Americans. She said that was good enough for her. And that's good enough for me.

As to the weirdness of their religion (and I admit, it is weird), if an alien came down to earth to study human societies, it would probably think all our religions are weird.

You are very welcome.

Yes - Ravi Zacharias is a very powerful speaker. To every generation is given a voice. A voice of reason, and of clarity, and of truth.

I have had the honor of not only of hearing him speak, but of dining with him, speaking to him in private, and having him pray over my family.

He caught a lot of heat from the evangelical community for speaking at that Mormon temple. Ravi's motivation was to speak the truth in love to them.

Many feared that the LDS church would usurp his message and twist his speaking in Utah as an excuse to publically claim that Mormon theology is in fact Christian theology.

Sadly, and perhaps predictably, the Mormon church has done just that. Even on this thread we have seen that in reaction to Ravi's message.

In fact, Dr. Zacharias has condomned Mormon theology as the manifestation of adding to and perverting God's word. I have the sermon on tape.

Still - he tried. Like a physician that went to the sick, he tried.

Tantiboh, I believe you are not being entirely honest to hank

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam-ondi-Ahman

Adam-ondi-Ahman (sometimes clipped to Diahman) is a historic site along the east bluffs above the Grand River in Daviess County, Missouri. According to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), it is the site to where Adam and Eve were banished after being cast out from the Garden of Eden and will be a gathering spot for a meeting of the priesthood leadership, including prophets of all ages and other righteous men, prior to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

It was the proposed site for a Latter Day Saint temple (which was never built) and a flash point in the Mormon War to evict the Mormons from Missouri.

And from the LDS Articles of Faith (scripture)

We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisaical glory.

You said — “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.”

The more that the Mormons try to assert that they are actually teaching “Christianity” when they are not (*in no way, shape or form*) the *more deceptive* they have to become to assert this.

And this generates more complaints from Christians who do know the difference between basic, historic, foundational Christian theology and the cult teachings that come from the Mormon church.

Then the deceptive Mormons who continue to spout this get even more deceptive, more indignant and more insistent that they belong in the group called “Christians”... LOL!

You would think that these Mormons would get a clue, one of these days, and just “own up” to their own religion as having nothing at all to do with basic, historic and foundational Christian teaching.

They look more and more foolish all the time...

Regards,
Star Traveler

You were quoting —

“And from the LDS Articles of Faith (scripture)

The more information that comes out here, in this thread (and elsewhere, of course) shows without a doubt that Mormon teaching and doctrine is so radically different from Christian teaching and doctrine — you would think that Mormons would not like looking like being such fools for pretending that their teachings are actually Christian teachings and doctrines.

I mean, if someone is *that deceived* (within themselves) to think that they are actually teaching the historic, basic and foundational Christian doctrine that we’ve done over the centuries — then how on earth could such a person (who can be *that deceived* ever hope to be President of the United States). And that’s saying nothing about all the other posters, here, who are apparently that deceived within themselves to even think that these doctrines that they teach are the same as Christian doctrines.

Of course, the *much more unflattering viewpoint* to this “situation” is that they are simply “lying through their teeth” and are trying to get more cult members into their organization.

I’ll let the reader determine for themselves whether it’s massive self-deception or deceptive lying... (either way does not bode well for a Presidential candidate).

Regards,
Star Traveler

You were saying — “Judging by the amount of attention Mitt Romney gets on Freerepublic is proof of his power and also shows that he will most likely get the presidency.”

Well, he gets that much attention from me, personally, because he is a member of a non-Christian cult group — one of the “home-grown” cults (right here in America). This particular cult group is one of the fastest growing cult groups here in America and they do so by pretending to be teaching Christian doctrine.

And, of course, Christians have heard Jesus’ warnings about being deceived and the Apostles in their writings about the deceptions from demons, and Paul’s warnings about not accepting any other Gospel than what he has delivered, even if it’s from an angel — and so on. We’re well aware of the massive deception that goes on as the time nears to the coming of the Messiah of Israel to Jerusalem (that’s over in Israel, by the way...), as the Bible tells us.

So, when someone runs for the office of the President of the United States and is a member of a deceptive cult group — yes, he gets a lot of attention from me (and a lot of other people, too).

However, your assertion that this attention translates into “vote-getting power” is humorous... LOL!

Regards,
Star Traveler

Dude really that question has already been answered and I’m fairly positive IN THIS THREAD and I know in other threads. But since the thread is 700 posts long I’m sure you just don’t want to find it.

My answer from a previous thread:

Given that the Great Flood covered all of the Earth, and everyone except Noah and his family and all the animals they gathered were destroyed, and the book of Genesis was written after the fact, the Garden of Eden could have been pretty much anywhere on Earth (except the frozen poles) and still compatible with the Bible.

The real question is how does the believed location of the Garden of Eden change the relationship and belief of the LDS Church to Jesus Christ? It doesn’t really.

CC, I believe you don’t entirely understand what you’re talking about.

According to revelation received by Joseph Smith, the Garden of Eden was located in Jackson County, MO. I’m afraid the neighborhood’s gone downhill since then.

Adam-ondi-Ahman is a different place. As the snippet you excerpted explains, “it is the site to where Adam and Eve were banished after being cast out from the Garden of Eden.”

It is where Adam and Eve went -after- being cast out of the Garden of Eden. It is a different place.

1.) Please be mighty sure of what you’re talking about next time before you accuse me of lying, or, as you put it, “not being entirely honest.”

2.) Why would I lie about such an obscure point? What purpose would it serve to mislead somebody about which -county- we’re talking about? If anything, it would have been a mistake, or I would have been misinformed. WHY would you assume that I’m lying? WHAT have I EVER done or said to deserve such mistrust, besides being a Mormon, Colorcountry? Particularly when the -very- source you quote contradicts your own accusation?

Best regards.

Note to Hank: Hank, this is the sort of maligning we face from our opponents repeatedly. I’m not trying to play the victim card here, particularly since such people are so easy to refute. What you must realize, though, is that Mormons on FR have been conditioned to expect attacks, so many of us have come to assume that even an honest question is somebody trying to entrap or discredit us. It’s unfortunate, but it’s a manifestation of human nature. Please keep that in mind in your future dealings with Mormon FReepers - some of us have become reflexively defensive. It’s not right, but it is often reality.

ST, we are Christians, whether you like it or not.

Problem is, we are looking at two different definitions of the word “Christian.”

You claim that to be a “Christian,” one must ascribe to the traditional, creedal claims of Christianity - for example, the doctrine of the Trinity. This, we are not. We don’t want to be, because we don’t believe the doctrine of the Trinity is correct.

We claim that to be a “Christian,” one must accept Christ as his or her Savior and strive to follow His teachings. This, we try to do. Therefore, we claim to be Christians. And you cannot take that treasure from us.

We are proud, incidentally, to make the distinction: we make the claim to being Christians. We are NOT -mainstream- or -traditional- or -orthodox- Christians. Frankly, with the behavior of some of the self-proclaimed Christians I’ve encountered bashing my faith, I’m pleased as punch that the distinction exists.

It is sad to me that our detractors see fit to engage in this ecclesiastical parochialism - no matter that we worship, cherish, and love Christ and our Christian heritage, if we don’t believe exactly as they believe, we cannot be one of them.

Here are the lyrics to one of our most beloved hymns. It’s a beautiful message, and I thought you might appreciate it:
“I Believe in Christ”
Bruce R. McConkie

I believe in Christ; he is my King!
With all my heart to him I’ll sing;
I’ll raise my voice in praise and joy,
In grand amens my tongue employ.
I believe in Christ; he is God’s son.
On earth to dwell his sould did come.
He healed the sick; the dead he raised.
Good works were his; his name be praised.

I believe in Christ; oh, blessed name!
As Mary’s Son he came to reign
‘Mid mortal men, his earthly kin,
To save them from the woes of sin.
I believe in Christ, who marked the path,
Who did gain all the Father hath.
Who said to men: “Come, follow me,
That ye, my friends, with God may be.”

I believe in Christ - my Lord, my God!
My feet he plants on gospel sod,
I’ll worship him with all my might;
He is the source of truth and light.
I believe in Christ; he ransoms me.
From Satan’s grasp he sets me free,
And I shall live with joy and love
In his eternal courts above.

I believe in Christ; he stands supreme!
From him I’ll gain my fondest dreams;
And while I strive through grief and pain,
His voice is heard: “Ye shall obtain.”
I believe in Christ; so come what may,
With him I’ll stand in that great day
When on this earth he comes again
To rule among the sons of men.

***

It is not for you or any earthly being, StarTraveler, to take from us our joy in our Savior. It is His exclusive province to judge who is Christian and who is not. I am Christian. The LDS Church is a Christian faith. No matter how you rail against the claim, it stands true and independent.

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.