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."
It's subtext. Romney's too clever to lay it out in stark terms, but the whole gist of the speech is "if you don't vote for me, you're an anti-Mormon bigot". In fact, that's the only reason the speech was given at all, so that Romney could try to play the "victim card" of religious persecution.
I also fail to see what was so "amazing" about the speech (perhaps because I only read the transcript as opposed to hearing it). Romney says in it basically what at least half the field has been saying for much longer, and he never seems to really address the fundamental misgivings some people seem to have about his religion, preferring instead to insinuate that anyone who dares take his religious beliefs into account is a bigot.
Couple that with a totally specious "Article VI" argument that dishonestly tries to conflate prohibitions against a government proscription of a religious test with the right of the individual to use whatever criteria he sees fit to evaluate a candidate, and I consider the speech a total failure.
Perhaps folks are responding on an emotional level to the delivery rather than the content. I can hardly expect objectivity from the Romney cheerleaders, but I am surprised to see other observers taken in by the presentation without seriously reviewing the content and meaning of the speech itself -- this article is one of the few that does take a hard look at what Romney actually said rather than just rave about how good it sounded, and his analysis agrees with mine.
So perhaps I'm biased too -- after all, we always give more credit to those who agree with us -- but I stand by my analysis.
You'd be surprised. :)
You've probably been the most relentless, but the small cabal of "Mittwits" (my nickname for the obnoxious, tasteless, and hypocritical subgroup of Romney supporters) has been far "harder", and unfairly so.
OK. I think the speech was to give evangelicals a reason to support him, not to club them over the head for not doing so.
The fact that James Dobson didn’t see an attack on evangelicals in the speech tells me that at least it wasn’t an obvious one. Dobson is known to be pretty in tune with that sort of thing, to a fault according to some members here :-)
Given that the media and the democrats are truly attacking evangelicals (just look at the questions about “creation” and the smirks about the answers to that and the “is the bible true” question), I think we should focus on the real attacks, not perceived ones.
The religiosity of the democrat candidates is never questioned because the Old Media know that it means next to nothing to them. I’m reminded of the weekly Sunday video of Bent Willie leaving church prominently carrying a large bible. Everyone knew he was as religious as my tomcat, but the charade was important.
Are you KIDDING me? Mormonism teaches that Jesus is the first creator? I guess it depends on the meaning of the word first.
The Temple ceremony covers this. Mormons believe the gods created earth, but then too, they believe the earth was fashioned by the gods from material that existed previous to the creation.
THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM
TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS, BY JOSEPH SMITH
CHAPTER 4
The Gods plan the creation of the earth and all life thereon—Their plans for the six days of creation are set forth.
1 And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the aGods, borganized and formed the cheavens and the earth.
2 And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate, because they had not formed anything but the earth; and adarkness reigned upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of the Gods bwas brooding upon the face of the waters.
I forgot the link http://scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/4/1#1
I don't know how you can be so ignorant about this issue.
This was a huge hot button topic for the better part of a decade and Mitt clearly stated that he thought gays should be allowed to be troop leaders. The Boy Scouts were under heavy pressure at the time and they had to go to the Supreme Court defending their policy of excluding gays as troop leaders. Scout masters are participants; that's what the Scout policy was about, that's what the whole issue was about.
Why you would pretend it was anything other is beyond my understanding. Maybe you're really young and weren't following the news in the 90's? Maybe you are delusional? I don't know. But to continue to deny long-establish facts is bizarre. Go google Mitt boy scouts gay, read up on it, and then come back and tell me how dumb you are.
Obviously the other FReeper was wrong about the executive board thing.
Dobson is losing credibility with me by the day. His obvious fawning over Gingrich was the first sign that he has taken his "position" too seriously, and it's just gone downhill from there.
I do think however, that the Churches theology is messed up and leading them down the wrong path, into error.
Ultimately, it's up to them as an individual to discover the Gospel Of Christ as the Lord urges every Christian to do. Failing to do so leads to fatal error.
Jesus did not do away with ministers because without them there could be no baptism and no spread of the faith. But He made their authority subservient to the Gospel. Jesus has made two things abundantly clear: First, obedience to the Gospel comes before anything or anybody. And second, there is no salvation in the Law (i.e., there is no salvation in theology). The ministers can baptize us, but their philosophies cannot save us.
Eternal life comes only to those who put the word of Jesus into practice in their lives. (Mk.3:35). Except for baptism, life after death does not come from any legal principle or theological premise.
Again, I will not discuss anything beyond the specific charge of the original poster, and my specific response.
You are appealing beyond the words of the question and answer to set up a “context” in which you wish to interpret those words. I will not discuss whether your context and interpretation has any merit, as it has no bearing on the original poster’s claim and my response to it.
I am neither being “ignorant” about the issue, or misrepresenting anything. I have clearly laid out the timeline of this subthread, and why the debate question and answer in fact disprove the original assertion.
If you have a reference to Romney saying he wanted to force Gay Scoutmasters in the Boy Scouts, produce it. Don’t just wave your hands around and say “everybody knows it”.
All scout masters are participants. But only a few participants are scout masters. ROmney’s quote does NOT specifically address leadership. There may be quotes that do, but this isn’t one.
I appreciate that you have a larger scope of contention, but I’m not making assertions in that larger scope, nor am I going to debate you on it. This one quote does NOT provide evidence of the original claim nor does it directly address leadership.
That was all I asserted (other than my mistaken focus on “membership” being “boys” which I have said was a mistake on my part).
I hope you see the difference between support for a change in policy, and forcing a change in policy. I know a lot of people who fully support the BSA policy, and I know a few who fully support BSA’s right to have the policy but personally wish they would change the policy.
Watson, Are you lying on purpose, or are you simply an uneducated on Mormon beliefs?
If Jesus is the The Paraclete/ Advocate/ Comforter.
Then who is the third member of the Godhead?
1 the person of God
2 the person of Christ
3 the person of the Holy Ghost
Three seperate and distint being with one purpose:
Godhead
The Church’s first article of faith states, “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” These three beings make up the Godhead. They preside over this world and all other creations of our Father in Heaven.
Additional Information
The true doctrine of the Godhead was lost in the apostasy that followed the Savior’s mortal ministry and the deaths of His Apostles. This doctrine began to be restored when 14-year-old Joseph Smith received his First Vision (see Joseph Smith—History 1:17). From the Prophet’s account of the First Vision and from his other teachings, we know that the members of the Godhead are three separate beings. The Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bones, and the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit (see D&C 130:22).
Although the members of the Godhead are distinct beings with distinct roles, they are one in purpose and doctrine. They are perfectly united in bringing to pass Heavenly Father’s divine plan of salvation.
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you”
Comforter
See Holy Ghost
from lds.org
That being said, I am suspicious b/c I think Romney is full of it, not because of his religion.
Oing to a tremendous essay, fellow Inmans!
ping to an excellent essay
Ping, if you haven’t read this most excellent analogy.
I didn’t know that was what you were asking, especially because I did post the catholic link in post 55 and post 82.
http://www.catholic.com/library/noncatholic_groups.asp
Here is Southern baptist http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.3471385/k.6CD7/Are_Mormons_Christians.htm
Lutheran http://www.lcms.org/pages/print.asp?
NavID=12308&path=%2Fpages%2Frpage.asp&print=1
Assemblies of God http://pentecostalevangel.ag.org/Articles2002/4579_spencer.cfm
United Methodist http://archives.umc.org/umns/news_archive1999.asp?story=%7B3BE161B2-8603-4B32-A64F-0C9D2CBFAF85%7D&mid=3368
Presbyterians http://www.pcusa.org/interfaith/study/lds.htm
The topic of this thread is Romey's speech , Mormonism vs Orthodox Christianity.
There isn't any "bigotry" here, just people who feel some responses are because they question Mormon theology.
Your input is worthless, so far all I see is you getting your kicks by tossing in insults to BOTH party's.
"my counter point was Christianity's acceptance of the miraculous (magical) absolution of sin that Christ paid for on the cross."
Since you have no faith, no belief in the spiritual nature Of God, no clue what all aspects of "sin" are, it's no wonder you can't grasp the concept. That is simply because of your own ignorance however.
Do you even understand what "born into sin" means? This whole universe was "born into sin" Does that mean it stole a cookie or something? Maybe some day you will open up that weak, underused (if at all) minds eye, and try learning about who and what God is. In the mean time, try be at least respectfull of other people and their religous faith.
After all, you do believe you can be a good moral person without anything to base that morality on, right?
Here is the Greek Othodox position on mormonism as Christian.
http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7101.asp
cults in America http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7075.asp
Not one thing on your list is beyond the reach of a demon to profess. What you failed to list was that Salvation is ONLY by the unmerited favor of God to deliver the human spirit from Sin and transform the individual soul from sin and death. Faith ing daily in His deliverance of you means you don’t get any merit badges for ‘all that you can do’ however, which might just make the eye of that needle hard to squeeze through for you Mormon zealots.
Rudy? pro abortion, pro gay rights, gun-grabber. McCain? Proud co-sponsor of the "No Illegal Alien Left Behind" bill. Thompson? Won't sign the No New Taxes Pledge, obviously does not want to be President. Ron Paul? Well...My God! Tancredo? Like his stance on illegal immigration, but he seems pretty one-dimensional to me.
Newt Gingrich would rather sell books than be President and with his "negatives" would be a very hard sell.
That leaves us with the two best men in the race; Mitt Romney and Duncan Hunter.
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.