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."
By reading what some consider to be 'obscure' it appears that it is taken to mean unimportant.
My point was, "Do you consider the prophecy of the re-building of the Temple to be unimportant?
Do you consider it to be an unfulfilled prophecy or a false prophecy?
Once more, just what IS it's 'original form'?
Yes, that's what you organization claims, but, as Clara would say, "Where's the BEEF?"
Where is the PROOF that the Bible does NOT contain 'saving knowledge'?
Just what IS this 'knowledge' that the LDS organization has 'restored'?
Strange...
It does NOT say that when all the links are chased down:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/1998/06/06/MN78538.DTL
|
Deneen and Tiedemann, both of whom came to the Marin seminary from South Carolina, have been in Salt Lake City for four days, learning about Mormonism and how to convert the Latter-day Saints to evangelical Christianity.
Most of the Baptists' door-to-door crusade will take place today. Called ``Crossover Salt Lake City,'' the $600,000-evangelical blitz also includes TV and radio spots and a direct mail campaign to reach 400,000 homes in the region. The annual Baptist convention, which is being held at the Salt Palace Convention Center, begins Tuesday and concludes Thursday. |
SALT LAKE CITY -- Government may have dropped the ball in modern American society, but religion dropped it first, Gov. Mike Huckabee told Southern Baptist pastors Sunday night. Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister, addressed his contemporaries at the two-day Pastors' Conference, which continues today. The three-day Southern Baptist Convention begins Tuesday here in the heartland of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the city in which the Mormons have their world headquarters.
Huckabee and his wife, Janet, left Salt Lake City immediately after his speech, and the governor did not hold a book signing at the convention. In fact, Huckabee didn't know the books had made it to the convention, said editors of the biweekly Arkansas Baptist Newsmagazine who visited with the governor shortly before his speech.
The fact is, I do not.
For the record out here, and I have said (posted) it before: I happen to think that the LDS/Mormon theology is simply ridiculous. I also happen to think that about a number of other denominations and religions.
I do not come out to FR.com in order to discuss religion. I think that it is a place about politics.
IMO Mitt Romney is one of the coolest politicians to ever come along. He is not really a politician, but he got elected here in Massachusetts anyhow to Governor.
He nuanced his way to get the State House. I never once believed that stuff while campaigning that he said about believing in abortion or certain other positions. The man is a freaking mormon. Mormons do not believe those things.
He out politicized the politicians. He missed the vote by running against Kennedy in 1994, but he got his literal “act” together when he ran against that rank amateur Shannon O’Brien in 2002. It was brilliant.
I’d love to see someone such as Duncan Hunter become President next year, but it simply ain’t going to happen.
Even though Mitt’s team is spinning like crazy over the mandatory health care bill here, it was an egregious error on his part. Probably the killer for the Republican nomination in my opinion.
On the other hand, unless rational thinking people get together over a realistic and serious candidate with true Conservative principles, we will get the PIAPS next year, and then we will all be sorry.
The nomination simply has to be for Mitt Romney.
By the way, I did not feel that you were snippy. Apparently you have not seen those anti-mormon posts out here. There have been quite a few, I assure you.
~”Where is the PROOF that the Bible does NOT contain ‘saving knowledge’?”~
That, my friend, is a matter of faith. But, then we were discussing LDS beliefs, weren’t we?
~”Once more, just what IS it’s ‘original form’?”~
That which is taught by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
The missionaries can fill you in on the details.
~”Good point, but just what ARE these ‘doctrines’ to which you refer?”~
For one example, the doctrine of the Trinity.
I should ammend: the LDS Church does not claim that “the Bible does NOT contain ‘saving knowledge’,” as you put it. What we claim is that mainstream Christianity has lost it, ignored it, changed it, and misinterpreted it.
The Bible is a great font of truth. Our understanding of it is enhanced by context given in modern revelation. This different light leads us to different interpretations in several instances.
Enjoyed reading your post!
Do you think Romney will get any bounce this week from the speech? He did a very good job today in the debate. The focus grop that Fox had on was simply effusive about him.
~”Do you think Romney will get any bounce this week from the speech?”~
I don’t know. The optimist in me says yes, but I’m having a very tough time reading the situation lately.
Another question that could be asked: If Romney does lose IA to Huckabee, are there any credible scenarios whereby he could still win the nomination?
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.