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."
Then you HAVE to claim the FUNAMENTALIST COJCOLDS as your fellows, for they can say the EXACT SAME THING.
And yet your loving leaders at headquarters have made them pariahs amoung their own brethren.
Pathetic!
And that just the ones going out on mission!!
Can you look a Colorado City FUNDAMENTALIST in the eye and say that they are MORMON?
But since no one HAS said that; what are you trying to hide?
Yup; some are.
I think that appelation should go to someone who CLAIMS a certain knowledge; and then, when asked to back it up, tries to blame the OTHER fellow, for missing it!
(Which the other fellow alREADY admitted to!)
In the schoolyard it's called:
Put up or shut up!
Yeah!!
Good call!!
--MormonDude(It's ALL nitpicking!)
Kinda HARD - ya Boob!
~”As typical of Mormonism Apologists you leave out the following verses”~
I left it out, MHG? I was using the verse you cited in #752. If you had included those verses, I would have happily discussed them. Yet, you were quite insistent:
“I don’t even need a ‘rhema’ beyond that to slice asunder the false doctrine of Mormonism.”
Evidently you did. You felt you needed two whole verses. Don’t blame your own oversight on the perils of Mormon Apologism.
So, since you brought them up, let’s reason together. I don’t expect you to agree; but as you are trying to discredit the LDS faith, I suppose a discussion of the LDS perspective is warranted.
For reference:
John 1:2-3
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
As the paraphrase according to LDS perspective has proven so useful, I employ it again:
2 Christ (the same, or the Word) existed in the beginning with God the Father.
3 The universe was made by Christ; and anything made in the universe was made by Christ.
Good, then. Since we’ve established that God the Father, in His physical form, preexisted the universe, then is stands to reason that His physical body was not made in the universe, and therefore was not made by Christ.
Where was God “made?” Well, that’s a point of rampant speculation in the LDS Church, but our doctrine does not address it. Since the time and eternity in which we live is part of our own universe, it remains accurate to say that, since God preexisted the time and eternity in which we live, He is timeless and eternal. But who is to say that our universe is the first, only, or last? The ways of God are wondrous, indeed.
Does this satisfy you? Or shall we move on to verses 4 and 5? As a Mormon Apologist, I feel a strange urge to leave them out, but we can go into them if you protest vehemently enough.
Oh bull!
Don't you believe your own CHURCH??
EVERYTHING can change!
All it takes is the "word of the Lord" coming to your Living Prophet® and the backup singers!
The BLACK priesthood thing CHANGED
The POLYGAMY 'Eternal Covenant' changed (after 47 years)
Hint: NEVER say NEVER.
An interesting post, greyfoxx; thank you. I agree that the MSM might try such tactics. But did you notice the bulk of the comments? I only bothered to read through the first dozen or so, but the immediate reaction was a powerful backlash from the readers - even readers who are vehemently against Romney’s nomination.
If the MSM tries this tactic in the general, it will only hurt their cause. This thread you’ve posted serves as fine anecdotal evidence of this.
Of course, the staunch anti-Mormons will never be swayed; but everyone else will find such tactics despicable.
I thought you said ‘let’s reason together’; then you set as an axiomatic, “Since we’ve established that God the Father, in His physical form, preexisted the universe ...”
~”The thing I was refuting tanti, was that it is an obscure teaching.”~
Very well, you have my apologies. Please, try to be more clear next time. You did, after all, speak of Adam-ondi-Ahman when the Garden of Eden was at issue - I think you can see where I became confused.
A scripture that inspired 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
“Although Romney’s campaign was technically proficient, had adequate funding, operated hundreds of home headquarters in operation and mounted an elaborate media blitz, it never caught on. One of his backers later moaned, “The minute George Romney lost his aura, they literally wouldn’t cross the street to meet him.”
This is what they said about his father in 1968.
~”OK then; for I’ve sure GIVEN you plenty to chew on.”~
I’m sorry, Elsie; I generally scroll past most of what you write. I simply haven’t time to read it all, and most if it is redundant anyway.
If you have a serious question about LDS doctrine, feel free to ask. Just remember that you may need to make extra effort to get my attention, as posts from you tend to get lost in the muddle.
~”And when we post THINGS THE LDS organization has PUBLISHED; you say, “We don’t believe that.””~
Sometimes we don’t. The Church and its members publish many things that are filled with wisdom, speculation, and opinion, but that are not scripture. Sometimes our people say things about our doctrine that aren’t true. For example, the first edition of Mormon Doctrine had several such errors. McConkie went back later and corrected them, to his credit, after he’d joined the Quorum of the Twelve; but we still see quotes from the first edition from time to time used to try and discredit us. No matter; we trust in the effectiveness of the discerning spirit to sort it out.
Where you go wrong, Elsie, is that you’ll use a single quote, say, that incorrectly explains a precept of LDS doctrine, and assume that it’s what we think. We have the advantage of having the context of the full body of LDS scripture and scholarship. It’s easy for us to spot the flaw, where it may not be so easy for you. That’s understandable. What boggles my mind is when you then say that we’re obfuscating because we don’t agree with your single quote - you present evidence to an expert, then disregard the opinion of the expert that the evidence is faulty. That would not be a reasonable approach in any academic exercise; you would do well not to apply it to Mormon theology. You would at very least find us less exasperating, and may well learn more.
~”Why would the TEMPLE LOT group actually own the TEMPLE LOT??”~
I’m not sure what you’re asking here. Would you please explain?
Also from experience, Tanti....I've been down this road with you and those who speak like you. You say one thing...then when called on it..claim that's not what you meant.
I've also been down the road..of excuses..as to why you won't answer a direct logical question...following one of your statements.
Will you answer post 750 or not?
~”Then you HAVE to claim the FUNAMENTALIST COJCOLDS as your fellows, for they can say the EXACT SAME THING.”~
I do not believe that the LDS Church has ever accused the Fundamentalists of not being Christians. We think their doctrines are wrong, and those who follow such doctrines are not allowed in our society unless they repent; but we do not, unlike some, go around claiming that -anybody- is not Christian who claims to be. It’s up to Christ to decide that.
~”Can you look a Colorado City FUNDAMENTALIST in the eye and say that they are MORMON?”~
No. But I can say they are Christian.
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.