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."

[SkyPilot]

History shows your cult's true colors.

Meanwhile, I look forward to the 'hounding' and 'condemnation' from you and other gentle Mormons.

[MHGinTN]

This should instruct as to what you face when trying to get truth of Mormonism from a Mormonism Apologist. Enjoy and have another cup of good joe.

As to you, Ed, I would enjoy having a long discussion on cosmologies over a delightful lunch someday/some where-when. If you're not too many hundreds of miles away, perhaps I'll make the drive one week and we can hash these things out ... so to speak. Keep your sense of humor, man. The whole universe isn't really like a Chessboard, despite the apparent Aristotelian logic in the portion we sense now.

[greyfoxx39]

It seems that most of the secular conservatives were turned off by the speech and the secular progressives were scared by the eloquence of delivery and the suggestion of a return to traditional dependence on religious underpinnings of governance. Listening to both sides, I was struck by the rather condescending attitude of “tolerance” toward religious belief as long as it remains hidden behind closed doors.

I get the feeling that secular conservatives would like to exploit the religious conservatives the way the secular progressives exploit the minorities, for their votes.

I have heard differing views on the delivery. I think that deliberately making a comparison to JFK was unwise, in view of the stil inexplicable love for "Camelot" by many progressives.

What is your take on what the Evangelical community may have heard in this speech? I agree with some who saw an insinuation that "you are a bigot if you consider my religion when in the voting booth." Of course, having been called that for months for the same reason, I may be a little biased. ;)

[Edward Watson]

Ask the scholars at FARMS, FAIR, or another LDS apologist. There are hundreds, if not thousands - just Google some.

No, I do not believe we should “lie for the Lord” and neither did Bro Millet say that in the video on YouTube. All he did was advocate the biblical teaching of giving milk before meat.

As for why missionaries are so unprepared, what do you expect from ordinary young members? They are taught the basics during two and a half weeks in the MTC (8 weeks if they have to learn a new language) and then sent out into the mission field. They are NOT going to devote their lives in a ministry. They are only serving for 1.5 to 2 years. If they are to be properly trained, they will have to study in a comparable manner to how ministers are trained in other faiths, and how long will that take? Anywhere from 4-9 years.

Sorry, much as I don’t like it, the LDS church doesn’t operate like that.

[Edward Watson]

Stick to the Scriptures if you want official Mormon doctrines. Is that too much to ask?

I reference my own work because I trust it and know it intimately. Since you’ve never been able to refute a single chapter or argument in my writings; perhaps it’s time to find another hobby.

[Gurn]

So many mainstreams are so indoctinated that to ponder questions might make them see there is more to the scriptures than the tight little senario that has been passed down throuhg the ages!

Of course, you have no idea what I've studied, pondered, etc., do you? You don't know what I've read, or what I studied in college. You don't know my denomination. I've pondered plenty, my friend.

You really don’t know why you should believe it just that is the way its always been done!

Wow. Again, you know nothing about my upbringing, when I came to know Christ, or when I came to an understanding of the Bible. I will answer any question asked by anyone about what I believe and why I believe it.

In fact, let me prime the pump a little: I believe the Resurrection of Christ is a historical fact. Thousands of eyewitness saw the risen Lord.

I've seen the Dead Sea Scrolls with my own eyes.

Where can I see the Golden Tablets?

[greyfoxx39]

They are not Kids they are Missionaries in training on the Questions that should have been asked!

The ones in the video? How can "the questions that should have been asked" be an answer to the real "questions that ARE asked"?

So many mainstreams are so indoctinated that to ponder questions might make them see there is more to the scriptures than the tight little senario that has been passed down throuhg the ages!

Isn't it true though, that the contacts these people are being trained to answer are mostly those who know litte or nothing of the "tight little senario that has been passed down throuhg the ages". How can a "tight little scenario" be assumed to be the basis of questions from such a diverse group?

You really don’t know why you should believe it just that is the way its always been done!

Thanks, resty.

[Edward Watson]

Wrong again!

Geez, don’t you know the difference between created and an offspring?

Car? Child? Hello?

Jesus is the prototokos with us as his adelphos. What do they mean?

Why is the Father greater than the Son in one sense but equal in another?

I’m looking forward to your provision of olam passages to prove God is aseitical. That should be interesting.

Lastly, God is “unchanging”? You mean the God that “changed” into having unity with mortality 2000 years ago and has now “changed” into having an inseparable union with humanity today? Wow, this should also be interesting.

[Edward Watson]

Well, if you lie and misrepresent my religion; I sure will.

So try to act like a good Christian and don’t do these nasty things. Then you’ll have nothing but respect from me.

After all, isn’t that how a true follower of Christ SHOULD act?

[x]

You have to take into account that a lot of these commentators are already committed to one side or another. Hewitt’s been very favorable to Romney, Podhoretz to Giuliani. IIRC, Podhoretz’s father is on Giuliani’s team.

[Edward Watson]

Perhaps one day and a good day to you too. In the meantime, why not print out my chapter on Mormon cosmology http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id76.htm ? It’ll give you an accurate idea of Mormonism’s cosmology.

[restornu]

No because have received a witness from the Holy Ghost to get a testamony for themselves!

[restornu]

Where can you get the original scriptures of Noah or Enoch?

As far as the Golden Plates they were return to the Lord God!

You believe the resurrections because of other testamonies how about your own which I do have by the power of the Holy Ghost!

[MHGinTN]

Thanks, I already read it, understood it fully and don’t need a printed copy. Perhaps if the luncheon ever happens I’ll print a copy upon which to pen my responses to the things I do not agree with. I used to know the Lopez through the first 68 moves and all credible variations, but alas I’m older and not as interested in the game as I once was. If I ever want to run it on a board, I know where to find the entire finished game without having to keep it in memory.

[Balding_Eagle]

I agree with you. This coming from someone who isn’t a big fan of Romney.

[Edward Watson]

Ok then. I actually have around 70 pages of new materials for that chapter as well as Section 1 Chapter 16, that will be included whenever I get around to printing a revised edition of the book.

Should be interesting ...

Also, I used to be nuts about chess but after lying in bed for three hours every night envisioning chess moves, I decided to quit and get on with my life.

Then Risk came along ... lol!

[colorcountry]

Are you daft, man! I posted from lds.org it doesn't come any more official than that.

BTW all post to you regarding scripture contained links to lds.org. I guess you don't know how to follow a link, but you know how to link to your own vain opinions. You think YOU are official. Even resty pointed out that your interpretation is just that - you OWN interpretation. Certainly not official in any sense of the word.

For reference to my posts you are condemning see:

Post 391

Post 311

Post 305 and 306

All official LDS doctrine from lds.org. These are the basis of our discussion. Somehow, your great intellect is interfering with your ability to follow a conversation. But I have to give you kudos for trying to fool the readers of this thread. BTW, I don't think they buy it for one second, and now they see what it is that nags them about Romney, the obsfucation, the lies, the deception. All seem to be typical of LDS adherants.

[Gurn]

I'm not worried about the Scriptures of Noah and Enoch. My point was, I've seen first hand evidence that supports the existence of the Torah. The scrolls are a thousand years old, roughly.

As far as the Golden Plates they were return to the Lord God!

Oh. Well, then there's no way Joseph Smith made the whole thing up!

You believe the resurrections because of other testamonies how about your own which I do have by the power of the Holy Ghost!

(Pssst. A comma would be helpful now and then.)You're twisting my words, or at least making an incorrect inference. I made the statement about the resurrection because you earlier said that I didn't know why I believed what I believed. And you made that statement having no clue about my upbringing, scholarship, faith, denomination, etc.

I offered that starting point, because I've used it before when asked by non-believers what the basis of my faith is.

I believe Christ was born of a virgin, walked as a man and led a sinless life. He died on the cross to save me from the penalty of my sins, because no matter what I do, "There is not one righteous, not even one." He rose on the third day and appeared before thousands over the next forty days. He ascended to heaven and sits at the right hand of God.

That is my "testimony," to use your word. How else did it come to me but by the Holy Spirit?

I don't believe in the word of one man from New York who stole other men's wives, any more than I believe the words of a murdering pedophile named Mohammed.

[SkyPilot]

Well, if you lie and misrepresent my religion; I sure will.

That is what every Mormon always says - everyone is a "LIAR!"

Meanwhile, you never acknowledge the facts regarding the faults of Mormonism vis a vis Biblical scripture.

Then, you used that "lie and misrepresent my religion" phrase to go off on people - and (what was it?) condemn and hound them.

Here is just one example of Mormonism teaching being in violation of the holy bible (which you all claim to read) and heed:

"No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith...every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are... [Joseph Smith] reigns there as supreme a being in his sphere, capacity, and calling, as God does in heaven. Many will exclaim—"Oh, that is very disagreeable! It is preposterous! We cannot bear the thought!" But it is true." - Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.289-91

That statement is pure Bovine Scatology.<p>This meglomanic from the 19th Century had a messianic complex, and tried to steal the true glory from Christ himself (the Son of God).

Here is why that Mormon statement above is wrong.

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).

So, who do you really follow? Not my God. You might as well worship the Muslim Allah. I still won't agree with what you are selling - because it isn't the truth.

[Edward Watson]

Then what seems to be the problem then? Just stick to the Scriptures for official LDS doctrines.

All you did was link to the lds.org website but then ... nothing substantive. No references or arguments as to why the LDS references and/or interpretations were wrong.

Get “substantive” man!

Lol!

Sorry bro, I thought you were referencing the JD instead of the Scriptures - I’ve had so many opponents today that I got you confused with someone else.

Sorry.