Heard the one about the Mormon President?

Heard the one about the Mormon President? The shaky prospects of Mitt RomneyGerard Baker There are so many minorities now in the crowded field for the 2008 US presidential election that daily news coverage of the race is starting to sound like one of those politically incorrect jokes from the 1970s. You’ll recall the kind: A woman, a black man, an Italian and a Mormon are in a plane over the ocean . . .

We have Hillary Clinton, credibly promising to be the first female to be President, Barack Obama, the first African-American in the White House, Rudolph Giuliani, the former New York Mayor, the first Italian-American (and occasional transvestite) to be President, and Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts Governor, who launched his bid this week to be the first Mormon to get to the top.

Most of these potential firsts are lauded by commentators as representing great social and political progress. The exception is Mr Romney, whose potential breach of the infamous glass ceiling for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is regarded with considerable misgivings.

In fact, while the consensus seems to be that Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama can overcome sexism and racism, it is considered more or less axiomatic that Mr Romney is in for a very hard time on account of his religion. On the face of it, this seems odd. If you’ve been brought up on a diet of the usual liberal media stereotype of America as a nation of woman and black-hating religious maniacs, you have a right to be puzzled when you hear that a devout God-fearing white man faces bigger hurdles than either a feminist or a liberal African-American. But as with everything in the US, it’s more complicated than that.

Mr Romney should be a highly appealing candidate. He has just finished his term as Governor of Massachusetts, where in the most Democratic state in the nation, he was an effective and quite popular Republican chief executive. He is clever and good-looking, and has made a ton of money for himself. He is completely untainted by any attachment to the awful foreign policy mistakes of the Bush Administration for the past six years.

But his religious problem is that to win the presidency he must first win the Republican nomination, a contest in which evangelical Protestants, especially in southern states, have a disproportionate influence. Evangelicals are deeply suspicious of Mormonism, which they regard as a heretical sect, and not even Christian in any proper sense of the term. They find the whole story of how Joseph Smith is supposed to have received a new set of scriptures and refounded the Christian church in America, how his followers drove westward, with their many wives and their curious underwear, all a bit strange (this, by the way from some of the same people who want it taught as a scientific fact that God created the world in precisely six days, Adam’s rib and all).

Popular conceptions about the Mormons do not help Mr Romney or his fellow believers either. Though the church officially forbids polygamy, it will never be able to dissociate itself from past practice. Some of its rituals also invite a nervous scepticism.

Mr Romney is battling to shake off the religious doubts. He insists that Americans care less about which brand of faith you practise than that you are a good and decent person who lives according to religious principles.

He tackles some of the concerns with good, self-deprecating humour. He once said in a debate over gay marriage that he believes that “marriage should only ever be between a man and a woman . . . and a woman . . . and a woman . . .” Privately, he has enjoyed pointing out that he, the supposed polygamy-loving Mormon, has been married to the same woman for 37 years, while his principal rivals for the Republican nomination have — so far — been married an average of 2.7 times each — the Catholic Mr Giuliani (three times), the Episcopalian Senator John McCain (twice) and the Baptist Newt Gingrich (three times).

What is especially odd about the Romney problem is that it is only recently that Mormonism seems to have become a political burden.

There have been Mormon candidates for the presidency in the past and it hardly came up as an issue. Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah — a bishop of the Mormon Church — ran for president in 2000. Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat of Nevada, and the Majority Leader of the Senate, is a Mormon. Mr Romney’s father, George, a Governor of Michigan, was for a time the leading contender for the Republican nomination in the 1968 election. It was not his religion that felled him then, but an infamous remark in a radio interview that he thought he had been “brainwashed” during a trip to Vietnam in 1967: a comment that, given what some deemed to be his slightly vacuous intellectual qualities, caused one commentator to note that his experience could not have amounted to more than a light rinse.

Religious-political prejudices have been overcome before, of course. Many Americans were once much more suspicious of Catholics. But John F. Kennedy proved that it’s perfectly all right to have papists govern, less I think because of his declaration that he would not take orders from the Pope, and more because in his frenetic extramarital activity he was able to demonstrate that he was really, deep down, reliably indistinguishable from any other politician.

In the end, I suspect the Mormon issue will not be the largest impediment to a Romney presidency. He has suspiciously changed his position on critical social issues, for example — when he was running for governor of heavily Democratic Massachusetts, he was pro-abortion; now he is running for the Republican presidential nomination, he says he is anti-abortion.

Iraq, too, could hurt him. So far his approach seems to be the Basil Fawlty strategy — “Don’t mention the war!” He gives long campaign speeches without a reference to Iraq. But in what looks likely to be a foreign-policy dominated election, he will surely not be able to get away with that, and his inexperience in the national security field will not help either.

In the meantime, expect to hear a lot more about Mormonism in the next year or so than you will ever learn from those nice, smart young men who come and knock on your door.

"If you profess in Jesus as your Savior, you don't have anything to worry about ;). It's a good thing that our salvation doesn't depend on us!

As for Mitt Romney, he sounds impressive and much more decent than the alternatives. However the liberals don't appreciate anything or anyone who is decent. They want the 'anything goes' candidate."

Some of the folks commenting here seem to read the Bible a little differently than I do. Mormons (myself included)do believe that our salvation depends just a little bit on what we do; "Without works, faith is dead." Works aren't enough, can't be enough no matter how many works or how much work they are, but we see them as a necessary downpayment for the mercy and grace of God. If we do the best we can, he'll know that. If we don't, he'll know that, too.

Funny thing, while I'm defending my religion, and the specific system of beliefs it involves, I'm not too hyped on Mitt Romney myself. He's been too liberal for my taste, and his conservatism is a bit late in coming. Sort of like the death-bed conversion Mormons don't particularly like to see approved by Baptists. I know many of those are genuine, but I believe many are not, too. Glad I don't have to judge them, but I'm going to have to see some "works" before I change my judgement of Mr. Romney. For those who've said similar things, my only real comment is approximately "Well Said!"

We understand the scriptures differently. The Savior paid the price through His atonement. My life and my keeping His commandments because He has told us to do so, is my choice and my faith.

James 2:

17 Even so afaith, if it hath not bworks, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

>>Uh no, I as a Baptist do not believe that Baptists are the only one and true Christian
>>church. Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Catholics et al, do not claim to be the
>>one and only Christian church.

Lets test this a little bit, shall we?

From http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_true.htm
The Encyclopedia of American Religions 1 lists 1,588 religious denominations, sects, faith groups, organizations, etc. Most are currently operating in North America; a few are defunct but have been recently active. The vast majority of them consider themselves to be Christian. Some of these groups believe that they are the only true Christian church.

So, most churches have at one time at least claimed to be the “One True Church”.

From SRC FAQ Collection:
The major historical denominations have largely patched up their differences. While there are still some difference between the Arminian/Wesleyan, Lutheran, and Reformed traditions, you don't have the name-calling that was present in the 19th Cent, and these churches generally recognize each other as legitimate (except for issues of modernism). However some of the "non-denominational" churches continue to insist loudly that they are the only true church.

Lutherans: So Lutherans used to say they were the only true church, and while they don’t now, they don’t refute that they once said so, so it’s still technically a doctrine.
Catholics: Only one and true church (http://www.justforcatholics.org/a71.htm )
Methodists: I have relatives, who are Methodists, and in fact my parents converted from Methodism, and I have been told by Methodists that they are “The one true church”, all while they were damning me to hell for not belonging to their church, much like you have here.
Baptists: Only true church… (http://www.baptisthistory.org/baptistsandtheology.htm )
From Baptists, and their theology: At the heart of the Landmark movement led by J. R. Graves (1820–93) and others was a conviction that Baptists are the only true church in a New Testament sense and that it was a compromise of that fact for Baptists to enter into relationships with non-Baptists.

>>Mormons do. You do not even know what you believe.

Well, somebody here is indeed talking through their hat, but this increasingly theoretical person would not be me.

>>This is what Christians believe: A person can confess Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior on their death bed and gain entrance into Heaven.

Where is that written? or are you referring to the Thief on the cross next to Jesus? Jesus promised him that he would be with him that day in paradise, and paradise is where we wait to be judged. Jesus did not say “Today shalt thou be with me in heaven”

>>Not so with Mormons, you believe in different levels of Heaven

Degrees of heaven is a Biblical concept
Try 2 Corr 12:2 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_cor/12/2#2)
2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

How about 1 Corr 15:41 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_cor/15/41#41 )
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

So, the Bible speaks of Several degrees of Glory, which is what we believe.

>>and furthermore, you also believe there is no such thing as Hell.

Second Nephi 9:19
19 O the greatness of the mercy of our God, the Holy One of Israel! For he adelivereth his saints from that awful monster the devil, and death, and hell, and that lake of fire and brimstone, which is endless torment.

Do you really have any idea what we believe? Now Our concept of hell may be a little different then yours, but I’m willing to be there is diversity there among other Christians as well.

>>Mormons are blasphemers

I guess, if you say so, I’ll just have to take your word for it (baseless assumption)

>>just because Jews called Jesus a blasphemer does not make your blasphemy against him A-OK.

You would be correct were I actually blaspheming (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Blaspheme)
Blaspheme –
1. to speak impiously or irreverently of (God or sacred things).
2. to speak evil of; slander; abuse.
3. to speak irreverently of God or sacred things; utter impieties.

>>By the way, Ad Hominem attack is not simply name calling, it is attacking a person's character. You attacked my character. Therefore you attacked me personally rather than my position.

Ad Hominem (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Ad%20Hominem)
1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

I responded to your argument. I Questioned your logic. I did Question your conservative credentials as one who is not using logic. I stand by those characterizations as my perception of your arguments by me.

I did not attack you personally that would be something like “You mother wears army boots” or some such drivel. An “Ad Homonym” attack is looked down upon on this forum as it usually takes the form of “Name calling” if I am not allowed to question your logic when you are clearly being illogical, such a ban is ridiculous. If you feel that I have broken the rules, please bring in the Admin Moderator, if not then you complaint is hollow posturing. You attacked my religion first, and the Admins tend to look on that with a jaundiced eye.

I believe anyone reading our posts would realize that I have substantively responded to your arguments, and not just called you names. If such responses by me include questioning your logic, and therefore your conservative credentials, those statements should be taken in that context.

That said, humor is also important since you said we were similar to musims (I don’t see many suicidal Mormons, but…) I offer this link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLyyO6Wp1ig

Let me be clear about this,
1-you DO acknowledge that Jesus and Satan are brothers right?
2-Even though Lucifer was an angel and not human nor divine?

You really should show me "Distorter of truth" Vindibudd that Lucifer just an angel?

Lucifer was a Light bearer or morning star who among all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Job.38
7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Lucifer
Literally the Shining One; also Light bringer or Son of the Morning.

Isa.14
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

He was at one time part of the sons of God but because of pride he rebelled and was thrown out of heaven.

STOP WITH THE BUZZ WORDS Vindibudd

The name Lucifer appears only once in the Bible (Isa. 14: 12, but cf. Luke 10: 18).

Luke 10
18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

After the war in Heaven Lucifer was known as Satan or the devil.

Rev. 12
7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceived the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

So every time you or any others want to repeat this distortion remember 1st before Lucifer was the Devil he was also the once one of the sons of God!

....." he was also the once one of the sons of God!"......

He was an Angel, like Michael and Gabriel, but Jesus is God, the Creator. It's all for Him and BY HIM!

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS GOD. A little later it says the Word became flesh. Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit are a triune, complete, single God. Jesus said "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father. He said "I and the Father are One".

Anyone making Jesus out to be less than God will have some trouble on Judgment Day. He has the keys to Heaven and Hell.

The thief on the cross was not a Mormon, wasn't baptized, didn't do any good works, and yet was saved while nailed to a cross, not because he went to a certain church of a certain denomination, but for what he confessed with his mouth.

I have never heard the Mormon explanation for the murder of the wagon train men, women, and children out west. If the wagon train people had been allowed to live, there wouldn't be a Mormon church today. The whole religion is based on a massacre to cover up other crimes.

Thank you for trying to work with scripture in most we will have to agree to disagree but I will back up my answer with the scriptures!

1- .." he was also the once one of the sons of God!"......

....." he was also the once one of the sons of God!"...... He was an Angel, like Michael and Gabriel, but Jesus is God, the Creator. It's all for Him and BY HIM!

Lucifer/Satan was one of the morning stars that sang among the sons of God, unless you want to deny the scriptures! Job 38:7, Isa.14:12, Luke 10: 18, Rev.12:7-9

2- In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS GOD. A little later it says the Word became flesh.

Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit are a triune, complete, single God.

I believe the Godhead are one in Mind and 3 distinct personages!

Jesus said "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father. He said "I and the Father are One".

I believe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in mind.

Anyone making Jesus out to be less than God will have some trouble on Judgment Day. He has the keys to Heaven and Hell.

I believe if they are all one mind in the Godhead how does that make another less than God

3- The thief on the cross was not a Mormon, wasn't baptized, didn't do any good works, and yet was saved while nailed to a cross, not because he went to a certain church of a certain denomination, but for what he confessed with his mouth.

The theif resides in paradice where all of God's children go after they die to wait judgement day unless they are caught up into spirit prison than they reside there.

Now the theif on the cross was saved but which degree of glory he would reside in we don't know because we don't have all the scriptures so we do not know the final out come, but he was saved!

4-I have never heard the Mormon explanation for the murder of the wagon train men, women, and children out west. If the wagon train people had been allowed to live, there wouldn't be a Mormon church today. The whole religion is based on a massacre to cover up other crimes.

What is known was a few members took upon themselves without authorizations from the Church.

1- It is Doctrine, not Scripture. The point is, it is the centuries old canon of the Church and is a simple summation of the ESSENTIALS of the Christian faith. Theologically, doctrinally, and ecclesiologically speaking, if you do not accept the tenets of the Creeds, you are a SECT or CULT.

I understand your belief of this but by whose authority did this become doctrine? and who's doctrine is it?

This may have been agreed upon and practiced for centuries, but can you show me where Jesus or Apostes received this in revelation?

2- You can whine all day about what is or isn't specifically in Scripture. That isn't the point.

It has nothing to do with whining etc it has to do with what is the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

3- It is about doctrine, tradition, and belief.

Most of what Mormons believe not only isn't in Scripture, it isn't even in good science fiction.

That may be your position but it has no substance too it!

By your own words I know you really don't understand LDS belief because one cannot use the natural man reasoning to have understanding of things which are of the Spirit of the Lord, it is also the language to receive things which come from the Lord!

Cheers!

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.