How and Why Romney Bombed

TCS ^ | 12/7/6/7 | Lee Harris

[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."

[colorcountry]

The thing I was refuting tanti, was that it is an obscure teaching.

Then you go off like a rocket on your poor persecuted me rant.

It’s okay, all this discussion is simply bringing to light the inanities of Mormonism.

[apocalypto]

Some people are bias against Mormons or any religion other than their own and lump them together.

[pray4liberty]

Is this some kind of ‘divide and conquer’ tactic against people of (Christian) faith? This whole thing smells like a setup.

[Radix]

"Dang!

I sure missed it!

Can you post a link??"

 

Sorry, I do not save FR thread links unless the content is rational and of interest to me.

There are a plethora of  posts (concerning evangelicals who will not ever vote for a mormon ) out there, and if you missed them all, then you are either not paying attention, or you are being disengenuous.

 

t

[Elsie]

I went to Catholic school for 12 years, taught by priests and nuns. NEVER in any of our studies of other religions were we told that Mormonism was a cult.

OK; but what IS the RCC position on the LDS organization?

[Elsie]

Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life.

SEEN by WHOM?

[Elsie]

Google® is our friend!

---

Any good Mormon knows that the followers of Joseph Smith inhabited Missouri until the extermination order of Governor Boggs forced them to flee the state. Despite the portrayal of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints of it being purely religious persecution, the saints were not wholly innocent. In the time the early followers of the movement spent in Jackson County, Missouri, the prophet declared that temple should be built on a certain spot - now known as the Temple Lot.

The land, now owned by the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) has been the site of several unsuccessful attempts to fulfill the prophecy issued by Joseph Smith back in the 19^th Century. Smith himself may have laid down the first stone, but the Mormons were forced out of Missouri shortly afterwards. After his assassination in Carthage, Illinois the newly formed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints broke off into several groups. The largest of these, the Community of Christ (formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) maintains own the temple in Nauvoo.

The question may be why the temple lot itself is important. Since Jackson County Missouri is, according to Mormon theology, a temple being built on this site would usher in the second coming. Although the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) owns the property, both the LDS, the CoC, and the Temple Lot group have filed various lawsuits over the years to prove which group really owns the property, so far it remains in the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) or Hendrickite hands.

Since 1844 various attempts to build such a temple on this site have been unsuccessful or met in disaster. The largest attempt to build a temple on the temple lot was ended when the Great Depression caused the backers to go bankrupt. The most recent attempt ended in the 1990s when a former member of the Hendrickites claimed he had received a revelation from God that war would soon come to the United States and burned the building down. Instead of starting a new building, the current owners of the lot simply planted trees, perhaps indicating that they do not think Jesus will be returning to the Earth any time soon.

 

 

(From -->  http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/328231/an_obscure_mormon_prophecy_and_the.html )

[tantiboh]

From experience, OO, I can only assume that you’re engaging in your regular MO of carefully trying to lead me into some rhetorical trap.

I’m not playing your game. If you have an actual, substantive question about my faith, then ask it. I’ll answer it. I will not address any nitpicking on your part. I will not engage in ecclesiastical forensics.

[Elsie]

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.

Kinda have to 'prove' a negative; ain't it!!

[Elsie]

That’s funny.

The funny part is that you HAVEN'T mentioned any. Kinda like that ""disprove the BoM archeological"" thingy.

[Elsie]

. In fact, the burden is on you to prove the places mentioned ante-deluge are the same post-deluge.

Why??

You seriously expect me to believe ...

I don't expect you to believe anything.

What does your organization say about it?

Fact or fable?

[Elsie]

You have made it you life’s work to demonize and lie about the true beliefs of Mormons.

I have??

Amazing; and I don't even have any books published yet!

Say Mr. Scholar; just WHAT was so bad about the Presbyterians that your founder said they were not true?

[Elsie]

So, according to you, anytime a supernatural visitor appears that radiates bright light; he automatically is the devil and not to be trusted.

So, according to the BoM, anytime an assumed supernatural visitor appears; he automatically is not to be trusted unless it shakes your hand and y'all feels bone.

Poor ol' Mary; Mother of our Lord failed to shake the angels hand; so just HOW did she know she wasn't being conned?

Did JS shake either of the Personages hands?

It's not recorded...

[Elsie]

You spelled weird wrong.

[Elsie]

(in fact, I’m more likely than not to take the opportunity to expand on them);

OK then; for I've sure GIVEN you plenty to chew on.

[tantiboh]

~”Your church describes a “god,” in very specific ways, that is *not* the “description” of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (the description of the God of Christian teachings and doctrines).”~

No, my church describes a God who is not the God agreed upon in the Council of Nicea. But that God doesn’t fit the description of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. That’s why restoration of that truth was necessary.

If the definition of Christian is adherance to the decisions of the great councils of men, then we are not Christians. If the definition of Christian is acceptance of Christ as the Savior and striving to follow His teachings, then we are Christians.

~”And then, your church describes a “Jesus,” in very specific ways, that is *not* the description of the Jesus of Christian teachings and doctrines.”~

Once again, it is true that we do not acsribe to the derivative doctrines of men. Our claim is that the truth of these principles has been restored. The fact that this restored truth is at odds with the traditional theological philosophies of mainstream Christianity is not our lookout.

~”So, the most generic and unobtrusive thing that we can say about this — is that you believe in a different Jesus and a different god than — the Jesus and God — of historic, basic and foundational Christianity.”~

I acknowledge that our perception of them is different than that of historic Christianity. I have never denied this. Still, when we refer to Christ, we refer to the same Man as you do, the same Savior of mankind. We simply disagree as to His nature.

~”We are talking about *completely different beings* — totally.”~

I reject that. The God I pray to is the same as the God you pray to. The Christ I accept as my Savior is the same as the Christ you accept as your Savior.

I just think I have a more accurate understanding of Their nature.

If you take that assertion as fundamentally threatening, heretical, or cultish, then there is nothing we can say to one another to reconcile the divide - but I will never concede that I am not Christian, as to do so would be false. Christ is my Savior. I simply do not ascribe to the man-made dogmas of traditional Christianity.

Take it or leave it. That’s the Mormon position. It will not change.

[Elsie]

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?

Like this:

Since you can't say for sure where the Ark started from, it could have been anywhere...

THEREFORE...

Then they can add ANYTHING after the THEREFORE and they think that somehow, logically, that will be sufficient.

[Elsie]

...then you don’t understand the LDS Church or its doctrine.

And when we post THINGS THE LDS organization has PUBLISHED; you say, "We don't believe that."

[Elsie]

Why would the TEMPLE LOT group actually own the TEMPLE LOT??

[tantiboh]

It was a great brainwashing session, by the way. We spoke of the birth of the Savior, of bridling our passions, of revelation, and of election as described in first and second Peter.

One passage of scripture that particularly stood out to me today:

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: Having a good conscience; that whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ. For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.
-1 Peter 3:15-17

I must admit, it was a reminder to me to try to become more meek.