Elsie gets it!
(Stealing your post to archive.)
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."
Matthew 15:16
"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them.
Mark 7:26-27
26. The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.
27. "First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
George Nelson withdraws!!
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/19#19
17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.”
Then why are you continually doing the opposite. Give it a rest.
And, it would cruel to expect them to know somethin' about somethin'...
You should read some of the fanmail I get!
Do you then retract THIS statement?
Elsie. You were duped by anti-Mormon propaganda and instead of recognizing it for the lies and deception it is; you’ve allowed it to warp your soul into hatred of everything Mormon.
For thirty-four years Ravi Zacharias has spoken all over the world and in numerous universities, notably Harvard, Princeton, and Oxford University. He has addressed writers of the peace accord in South Africa, the president's cabinet and parliament in Peru, and military officers at the Lenin Military Academy and the Center for Geopolitical Strategy in Moscow. He has been privileged to bring the main address at the National Day of Prayer in Washington, DC, an event endorsed and co-hosted by President George W. Bush, and at the Pentagon. Additionally, Mr. Zacharias has spoken twice at the Annual Prayer Breakfast at the United Nations in New York, which marks the beginning of the UN session each year, and at the invitation of the President of Nigeria, he addressed the delegates at the First Annual Prayer Breakfast for African Leaders, held in Mozambique.
At the invitation of Billy Graham he was a plenary speaker at the International Conference for Itinerant Evangelists in Amsterdam in 1983, 1986, and 2000. Mr. Zacharias has been a visiting scholar at Cambridge University, where he studied moralist philosophers and literature of the Romantic era.
Impressive.
Sigh....
You should have 'studied' more stuff than your religion texts!
All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts, His acts being seven ages. At first the infant, Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms. And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel And shining morning face, creeping like snail Unwillingly to school. And then the lover, Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier, Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard, Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel, Seeking the bubble reputation Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice, In fair round belly with good capon lined, With eyes severe and beard of formal cut, Full of wise saws and modern instances; And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon, With spectacles on nose and pouch on side, His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice, Turning again toward childish treble, pipes And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all, That ends this strange eventful history, Is second childishness and mere oblivion, Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.
Elsie gets it!
(Stealing your post to archive.)
PARANOIA ALERT!
Sure!
Romans 9:14-18
14. What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!
15. For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
16. It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.
17. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
18. Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
Jeremiah 18:1-6
1. This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD:
2. "Go down to the potter's house, and there I will give you my message."
3. So I went down to the potter's house, and I saw him working at the wheel.
4. But the pot he was shaping from the clay was marred in his hands; so the potter formed it into another pot, shaping it as seemed best to him.
5. Then the word of the LORD came to me:
6. "O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter does?" declares the LORD. "Like clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel.Isaiah 45:9-12
9. "Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, `What are you making?' Does your work say, `He has no hands'?
10. Woe to him who says to his father, `What have you begotten?' or to his mother, `What have you brought to birth?'
11. "This is what the LORD says-- the Holy One of Israel, and its Maker: Concerning things to come, do you question me about my children, or give me orders about the work of my hands?
12. It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.Isaiah 64:8
Yet, O LORD, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.
You disagree with the very foundations of mormonism...and only accept self-serving Scripture.
Wow..!!
Go to this thread and link Romney: Cap Medical Malpractice
You need to check out posts 7 & 128 and following on the same thread.
If you checked my posting history you'd find me supporting Romney in a number of areas....except in his recent conversion to conservative policy positions.
By the way, I liked your tagline better when it mentioned Duncan Hunter, mormonism, and xzins.
LOL!
Zing! LOL
How can you miss the point that was made: that I HAVE worked with Mormon Religious Supervisors and that they have done a fine job. And that, therefore, I have no problem with a Mormon as a superior....even a president....based on my personal experience.
Therefore, my statement that it’s Romney’s recent conversion to conservatism that is the sticking point with me. Life is too critical an issue with me to put it in the hands of someone who too recently was in favor of killing babies.
I applaud your support of our troops. I don’t applaud your misunderstanding of my previous post. But, perhaps I wrote it poorly.
The Jews killed Christ and the apostles? Hey bigot. You ever heard of Romans?
We were discussing tenets of faith, but even your example is not kept secret like Scientology is.
It was silly for a poster to try to compare Scientology and Mormonism as both being “secretive”.
What is more impressive, however, is his humility. He is without a doubt a genius (and not a McStudies) genius.
He speaks several languages, and his rhetoric alone has driven men of great power to their knees. He has spoken to the UN, Harvard, Yale, Cambridge, Princeton, and on and on. He not only has reached out to the thinkers of our age - but to the humble and meek.
Ravi tried to get through to the LDS church.
Ravi Zacharias "Postures of the Mind
He reached out to the Mormons - they basked in his intellect - and did nothing with it.
They accepted the accolades of someone of his stature - and rejected his biblical words.
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.