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."
BLASPHEMER ALERT!!
You BOZO!!
LDS.org is not SCRIPTURE!!
--MormonDude(They never learn; do they Old Mountain Man?)
A sin of OMMission!
Looks like SOMEone didn't check for that BURNING before they so stupidly prophesied!
FALSE PROPHET ALERT!!!
So, has Jehovah, as a NAME, been abandoned when He became Incarnate?
Your posting incorrectly implied that we do not use the Bible. You should know that is not true, and if you repeat it I will consider it slanderous.
While the Bible proclaims how darned IMPORTANT it is!!
Not according to the Book.
Hebrews 9: 27
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Boo Hoo!
No, I said you don't use your BRAIN or EYES!
E>So, has Jehovah, as a NAME, been abandoned when He became Incarnate?
I did not make the quoted statement
Love it!
I shall make it a point in the future to ping you to the posts I find of so called evangelicals who blatantly state that will not vote for a Mormon, particularly Mitt Romney.
As for shut up....well then that may be your wish, but I understand that FR.com is a place for ideas and exchange.
I have read quite a number of posts that express exactly what I "claimed."
No offense intended but I believe that you are being silly about this.
~”If you want a humorous and factual look at it...”~
Humorous? Yes. Factual? Well... not so much. Maybe about 40% of the descriptions about Mormonism found in that episode are factual.
OK, so your question is:
“Why would the TEMPLE LOT group actually own the TEMPLE LOT?”
I must admit to some remaining confusion as to the substance of your question, but I found an answer to what I think is your question in the following page:
http://www.churchofchrist-tl.org/history.html
Please let me know if that doesn’t cover it.
~”What do you MEAN by: “the fullness of the Gospel”?”~
The Gospel of Jesus Christ, as taught in its original form by Christ and His apostles. Not the modified, redacted, edited, and misinterpreted forms that we see in mainstream Christianity today. There are many similarities between the two, but saving knowledge has been lost from orthodoxy along the way.
To the extent that the false doctrines of men lead us away from Christ, they are an abomination.
That does not mean that we should go around saying that you aren’t a Christian, or that you are deceptive or delusional. It just means you’re missing parts of the truth.
We learn from latter-day revelation, which confirms the teaching in the Bible, that the Aaronic Priesthood has authority to baptize with water, whereas the Melchizedek Priesthood has power to baptize not only with water but also to confer the Holy Ghost (D&C 13; JS-H 1: 68-72). We note also that John the Baptist, who had the Aaronic Priesthood, recognized this distinction and used it to illustrate one of the differences between his mission and the mission of Jesus, who had the priesthood of Melchizedek (Matt. 3: 11; Mark 1: 8; Luke 3: 15-16; John 1: 25-33; cf. Acts 8: 5-25).
Baptism is not optional if one wishes the fullness of salvation. Jesus said a person must be born of water and of the Spirit (John 3: 3-5). When he sent the twelve apostles forth to teach the gospel he told them that whosoever believed and was baptized would be saved; and whosoever did not believe would be damned (Mark 16: 16). Jesus himself was baptized “to fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. 3: 15; 2 Ne. 31: 4-11). But the Pharisees, being unwilling to accept the gospel “rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized” (Luke 7: 30).
Baptism is a most sacred ordinance, which a person, having received it, can remember throughout life as a reminder of the personal commitment to Jesus Christ. Its symbolism is beautiful, and its consequences ever so desirable. John the Baptist had the signal honor among all men to take the Son of God into the water and baptize him, after which he saw the Holy Ghost descend upon Jesus. By being baptized Jesus obeyed the law himself, and set the example for all mankind.
News flash CC neither has the Temple in Jerusalm been build yet!
This is true I have had them tell me to my face often!
There is a even Mike Huckabee attened an anti Mormon meeting to talk to them to take back the country for Jesus!
MyManMitt: Huckabee Spoke at "Anti-Mormon" Convention
The statement surely was not inclusive!
"No evangelical has said, "Romney should not be permitted to run for the Presidency because he is a Mormon."
And you post this:
I shall make it a point in the future to ping you to the posts I find of so called evangelicals who blatantly state that will not vote for a Mormon, particularly Mitt Romney.
All I wanted, was to be shown a statement, made in the PAST, on these threads, which you indicated you had seen, to be referenced.
Your present statement is a WIDER grasp than your first one:
I shall make it a point in the future to ping you to the posts I find of so called evangelicals who blatantly state that will not vote for a Mormon, particularly Mitt Romney.
While I appreciate that you will ping me to these statements, that may or may not appear in the future; I STILL would like a reference to those that HAVE been made.
My "put up or shut up" WAS too snippy to you.
I'd been dealing with other frustrating folks and I took it out on you. Sorry.
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.