Skip to comments.Mitt Romney - The Christianist Candidate
Posted on 11/22/2006 10:11:01 AM PST by Deut28
The Christianist Candidate
In case you were unaware, it's Mitt Romney. As with most Christianists, the idea of allowing different states to try different solutions to the same problem is dispensable when moral absolutes are involved. In other words, the fundamentalists have no interest in federalism. If federalism means that California can have marriage equality and medical marijuana, today's GOP base wants none of it. Here's Romney's discussion of John McCain's approach:
Romney was less charitable to McCain, who on Sunday told ABC News: 'I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states.' McCain also said, 'I believe that gay marriage should not be legal.' Romney seized on the remarks. 'That's his position, and in my opinion, it's disingenuous,' he said. 'Look, if somebody says they're in favor of gay marriage, I respect that view. If someone says like I do that I oppose samesex marriage, I respect that view. But those who try and pretend to have it both ways, I find it to be disingenuous.'
It's now disingenuous to have a position on a matter but believe it should be decided by indidividual states rather than by federal control? Disingenuous? Of course, Romney knows better. He's smart, he's aware of the important principle of federalism - but he's going for the Christianist wing, the wing that only supports states' rights when states support Christianist policy prescriptions. And so another conservative principle gets inverted by the allegedly "conservative" candidate.
To paraphrase him:
"Look how close you can be and still have it make all the difference. Consider the gays. They are only about an inch and a half off the mark, but look at all the difference it makes."
It depends on what your definition of 'Accepting Jesus as...Savior' is.
That's where most non-LDS folks, including myself, get tripped up. Your definition of grace seems to be a bit...difficult. And in the eyes of most Protestants and Catholics, that's absolutely key to recieving salvation, the realization that it cannot be earned, and is not tied to anything we do beyond acceptance of our own inadequacy.
Feel free to explain how I'm wrong if you want. I'm not an ignoramous on the subject, I've read a few books and articles on Mormonism. The one that informed me the most was 'A Different Jesus?' by Robert L. Millit, who is a professor of ancient scripture at Brigham Young University. He convinced me that much of the anti-Mormon hysteria is untrue, he also convinced me that we have much, much more in common then not.
He failed to convince me, however, that the Mormon definition of grace wasn't ultimately substantially different from the concept that Protestands and Catholics give it, and I have a lot of difficulty with that one, because I believe it is key to accepting salvation.
That said, as I've said in this thread, I'd rather leave that up to God. I'm making no judgements myself, I'm just explaining the difficulty as I see it and what I think is the root cause of the conflict.
Now you're being disingenuous or perhaps...
You Can't Handle The Truth!
Has anybody ever told you that just because you say something, it doesn't make it so?
I learned that when I was 4.
You should learn it too. Either back something up with some facts or logic, or shut up.
I mean, good grief, Jerry Falwell of all people said he finds McCain's stance on Gay Marrage acceptable. You don't even have the fringe on your side on this issue.
Pray tell, how do you 'know' what the court will decide?
why even give them an opportunity to screw it up
romney threads in the last week have deteriorated into battles in which some freepers say they will never vote for romney because he isn't a Christian, and that the country will never vote for a mormon, and discussion of details of LDS, etc, etc, etc. They must be away from their computers now. I am glad he seems to have a good moral back ground. I like Mormans. I am pro Romney. I think he has the best chance at this point.
Because it should be a states issue, and I see no reason to make it a federal issue if it can be handled at a state level.
If it can't, fine, but it probably can. I think we have at least 5 votes against gay marriage on the SC.
If the Supreme Court ruled tomorrow that all states must recognize gay marriage, do you think Andrew Sullivan would be upset?
He's in favor of federalism when it suits him, not otherwise. But see, that's better than "Christianists" having the same attitude, because, uh, they're meanies.
Muslims are monotheists, unlike Mormons.
Calling gay marriage a states rights issue is flat out wrong. To support the right of individual states to marry same sex couples, forces the federal gov't make a ruling, one way or the other. You can't have it both ways. Sure you can allow gays to marry in VT, but they won't be married in the eye of the federal gov't. Now, do you think that would make Andrew Sullivan happy?
It's a stupid issue, and is only really important as a power play for those who would like to denigrate conservative, Christian thought and culture. I don't really care what gays do, I don't want to hear about it, and I don't think that children should have to hear about it.
No, it doesn't, Read DOMA.
You can't have it both ways. Sure you can allow gays to marry in VT, but they won't be married in the eye of the federal gov't.
The federal government doesn't make those decisions. The individual states do.
I don't want to hear about it, and I don't think that children should have to hear about it.
Then don't listen and vote for gay marriage bans in your state. Simple.
I'm not concerned with whether Romney is a Mormon but with whether he's really a conservative, or only plays one on TV.
Federal tax laws are not administered by individual states and should be applied equally across the country. Frankly, I can't imagine why gays would want to get legally joined in the first place, except for the benefit of federal tax laws, which aren't really much of a help. It just complicates your life.
This little book about gay penguins has really got me thinking. It made me realize just how primitive and barbaric homosexuality really is. It's just plain uncivilized, animalistic sexual gratification. So why complicate their lives with civil legality?
Since Mormons are not Christians, his basic premise goes bad before he even begins his argument.
It's not working.
Some posters here think that the Republican Party only exists south of the Mason-Dixon line. These are the same people who supported George Allen despite all his faults. We saw what happened when a Northern Republican tries to be ultra-conservative in Pennsylvania this month.
"That is superficially true, but breaks down when we observe that the LDS notion of God's nature is different from the Christian notion of God's nature."
Not so. Being Christian doesn't require accepting orthodox views, it only required accepting that Jesus Christ is the Savior.
"The canonical definition of Christianity is a person who believes that God is a consubstantial, coeternal, immuted and immutable spiritual Trinity, the second Person of which entered into an hypostatic union with Jesus of Nazareth."
Who's cannon? What you have described is what defines orthodox Christianity, something rather different than ORIGINAL Christianity IMHO.
"An LDS believer maintains that the Trinity is a mixed entity and that the persons of the Trinity are not coeternal, not consubstantial and not immuted."
Not entirely correct. We believe that the Father and the Son are both eternal. Christ is the Jehovah of the Old Testament and our Doctrine & Covenants refer to Christ as 'Alpha and Omega' and 'from all eternity to all eternity' more times than the Bible does. Christ's brief time as a mortal doesn't change that.
There are many verses in the Bible that draw a clear distinction between God the Father and Jesus Christ, showing them to be separate beings.
And God said, Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness....
...I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
So who is Christ's Father and God? Did Christ want the apostles to meld into a being of one substance? How can the Father be greater than Christ or how can Christ go to the Father? I'm sure you have some way of fitting those verses to the doctrines you accept, but don't call me a non-Christian for disagreeing you your interpretation of scripture.
"It depends on what your definition of 'Accepting Jesus as...Savior' is"
If someone can say 'I accept Christ as my Savior' and mean it in their heart, they are Christian.
"Your definition of grace seems to be a bit...difficult. And in the eyes of most Protestants and Catholics, that's absolutely key to receiving salvation, the realization that it cannot be earned, and is not tied to anything we do beyond acceptance of our own inadequacy. "
We believe that because of the atonement of Christ all mankind is saved from death. Because of His grace all people will be resurrected. We believe that all but the sons of perdition will be saved from their sins as well, but we also believe that people will receive different degrees of exaltation (or glory) based on their obedience to God. I admit that there is a tendency for us to use the term salvation when exaltation should be used and I can see how that would be easily misunderstood by non-members, but the same thing was done in Philip. 2: 12 when he said "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling".
We teach that any personal righteousness doesn't obligate God to reward us in any way, it isn't quid pro quo or some debt God owes us. Obedience is a token, but it is a required token and the reward we get for it is far beyond the intrinsic value of the token.
The Book of Mormons say:
"I say unto you, my brethren, that if you should render all the thanks and praise which your whole soul has power to possess, to that God who has created you, and has kept and preserved you, and has caused that ye should rejoice, and has granted that ye should live in peace one with another I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to anotherI say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants... And now, in the first place, he hath created you, and granted unto you your lives, for which ye are indebted unto him. And secondly, he doth require that ye should do as he hath commanded you; for which if ye do, he doth immediately bless you; and therefore he hath paid you. And ye are still indebted unto him, and are, and will be, forever and ever; therefore, of what have ye to boast? And now I ask, can ye say aught of yourselves? I answer you, Nay. Ye cannot say that ye are even as much as the dust of the earth; yet ye were created of the dust of the earth; but behold, it belongeth to him who created you."
You might find this helpful in understanding our position better as well
What a queer statement from a normalphobe..
That's precisely what it does require.
Joseph Smith was well aware of this, which is why his doctrine required an entirely new revelation and an entirely new set of Scriptures.
LDS belief is irreconcilable with historic Christianity, unless one believes as Smith did that historic Christianity was later supplemented by a new revelation.
it only required accepting that Jesus Christ is the Savior
Oneness Pentecostals call Christ their Savior, yet they believe that the Son and the Father are just aspects of a indistinct Unity, and not Persons of a Trinity.
Therefore, OP believers have rejected historical Christinaity in favor of a novel teaching.
We believe that the Father and the Son are both eternal.
Eternal according to the LDS definition of eternal.
LDS believers also believe that there was an era before eternity when the Father was a man of flesh like we are, just as LDS believers hope that they themselves will become an eternal deity in the future.
When Christians say eternal, they mean that no being ever existed before God and that God was always as He is now.
showing them to be separate beings
Those passages show them to be distinct Persons, not separate beings.
So who is Christ's Father and God?
The first Person of the Trinity, God the Father.
Did Christ want the apostles to meld into a being of one substance?
No, he wanted the Apostles to be as united with God the Father as the soul and body of the man Jesus of Nazareth are united with the Father - in perfect charity.
How can the Father be greater than Christ or how can Christ go to the Father?
The Christ is two natures united hypostatically in one person.
Jesus the Christ has a body and a soul, like you or I. Unlike you or I, his body and soul are inseparably united to the divinity of the second Person of the Trinity.
And so, insofar as Jesus the Christ is a man, he is inferior to the Father and he needs to be brought to the Father. Insofar as the Christ is the second Person of the Trinity he is coequal and coeternal with the Father and omnipresent with the Father.
I'm sure you have some way of fitting those verses to the doctrines you accept, but don't call me a non-Christian for disagreeing you your interpretation of scripture.
The LDS is a non-Christian faith not so much because it disagrees with Christians in the interpretation of the Christian Scriptures, but because it has introduced a new revelation with new Scriptures - both of which offer a system of belief completely foreign to historic Christianity.
I cite Galatians 1:8, which is not a mysterious verse open to numerous interpretations but a rather plainspoken statement:
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
It does not say: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, unless the being claiming to be an angel says that his name is Moroni, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
Christianity is a fact of history. The LDS faith is a new faith, distinct from Christianity, with a new scripture, a new revelation and a new prophet unknown to any Christian who ever lived before Joseph Smith made his alleged discovery.
Not the way Christians do.
How in anyone's mind they can try to figure out a guy who maybe thinks he's really a girl.....I'll never know.
"That's precisely what it does require."
Check a dictioinary, orthodoxy is not required, only an acceptance of Christ as the Savior.
As for the 'other gospel' thing, we consider orthodox Christianity to be another gospel that evolved into existance after the apostolic age. We believe that apostacy is what requried a restoration of the fulness of the original gospel though a prophet. Time will show who is right and I'm content to leave it at that.
As I said before, according to the dictionary, one does not even to profess Christ as Savior to meet the dictionary definition of a Christian.
According to Merriam-Webster, a Christian is simply one who "professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ" and according to the OED a Christian is "one believing, professing or belonging to the religion of Christ."
That's far vaguer than your definition.
Fortunately for those who care about precision in such matters, the Church has given an authoritative definition.
As for the 'other gospel' thing, we consider orthodox Christianity to be another gospel that evolved into existance after the apostolic age.
Fascinating theory, but not grounded in historical fact.
We believe that apostacy is what requried a restoration of the fulness of the original gospel though a prophet.
Unfortunately, the Gospels teach that there will be no completed apostasy, but that the gates of Hell shall never prevail against the Church. And the Scriptures also tell us that there will be no new Gospel or teaching of any kind.
Time will show who is right and I'm content to leave it at that.
The facts of history already disclose who is right, and time will serve only to confirm the consequences of those facts - not their already manifest reality.
"the Church has given an authoritative definition"
Churches only have authority to define their own teachings. Words have meanings, and if you call someone who belives Jesus is the Christ a non-Christian you are wrong. Even the definitions you cite do not require conformity to orthodox views of Christianity.
"Fascinating theory, but not grounded in historical fact."
Actually, early Christian history shows it pretty well. Most of the NT is a record of the apostles fight to hold off apostacy. When they were all gone, things went downhill and the church in the 4th century hardly resembled the original church. This gave rise to the reformers. They had no divine authority to restore the church, but they helped prepare the way for the restoration to take place.
"the Gospels teach that there will be no completed apostasy"
When Christ was dead and in the tomb it certainly appeared that Satan had prevailed, but it was not so. Likewise with the apostacy. The scriptures predicted there would be a 'falling away' before the second coming, and that Satan will have power 'to make war with the saints, and to overcome them'. They also said that an angel would come 'having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth'. There would be no need for an angel to come and bring back something that was still here.
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.