Friday, December 07, 2007
Posted by:
Cisco Cotto
at
6:06 AM
by Cisco Cotto
Mitt Romney knew months ago (before his campaign began, really) that at some point he would have to make a “Mormon speech” and this was the best he could do? Romney had all this time to formulate a talk that would convert conservative Christians to his side or at least remove his Mormon faith as an obstacle and he failed miserably. There were several miscalculations that kept this speech from being effective.
Romney invoked the memory of JFK in saying the Mormon Church would not have a hand in his administration. In 1960 (also in Texas) Kennedy assuaged fears that a Catholic President would be nothing more than a tool for the Vatican. But JFK was addressing the real fears of Protestants in the electorate at the time. They feared the Pope would be calling the shots behind the scenes. The people who are uncomfortable with the idea of a Mormon in the White House are not fearful of a group of LDS elders holding court in the West Wing barking orders at President Mitt. Rather, evangelical Christians have very deep doctrinal differences with Latter Day Saints. Is there really a Trinity? Did Adam actually make the right choice in the Garden of Eden? Can individual Mormons become gods? Perhaps there was no speech Romney could have given that would have bridged this gap, but he needed to try. Many evangelicals believe if he deviates so radically from conservative orthodoxy on doctrine then they can’t hand him the keys to the White House. Whether that is fair or not is irrelevant because it’s their reality.
Also, in preaching religious tolerance in his speech Romney assumes the people who are gravitating toward Mike Huckabee are doing so purely because Mitt is a Mormon. Wrong! There are many evangelical Christians in the Republican Party that are heading to the former Arkansas governor because they view him as the authentic conservative (though this is open for debate). They view Romney as a recent convert to the pro-life cause (something he has all but admitted) and with at least two Supreme Court nominations waiting for the next President they don’t want to hand the choice to a guy they’re not sure they can count on. Orrin Hatch is a darling of these same conservatives, though he too is a Mormon. Why do they feel comfortable with him and not Romney? It’s very simple. He’s always been conservative on the issues that matter to them. It’s tough to get past that YouTube video of Romney during the Ted Kennedy debate.
I applaud Romney’s effort and the theater of making the speech at George Bush 41’s library. If you call central casting and ask for a guy to play the President, Romney would always fit the bill. He seems like a good family man and is exceedingly successful in business. He’d probably be a good President. If he gets the chance it won’t be because of this speech.
UPDATE: Steyn, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Medved approved of the speech, but don't forget "arch-conservative" Eleanor Clift .
|
to Mitt and Bush throughout his presidency has been one of perfection.Bush has virtually gotten no credit for anything throughout his 7 years,even though the economy has been great and we haven't been attacked again.The country made a smooth comeback after the worst attack in America history.The lack of objectivity has been appalling,basically because of the cynical MSM who wants a democrat back in the White House.Given this why should we expect fairness and objectivity towards Mitt? It seems like when it comes to a republican the narrative is how did they come up short and this article plays into that cynical mindset.The guy did the best he could with a touchy issue in an ever increasing thin skinned society. Every word in the speech was walking a tightrope of political correctness. Mitt showed tremendous guts addressing the issue,when no other candidate had to explain anything about their candidacy.This was pure leadership.Mitt would not have been in this position to begin with if Dick Morris,who is Guliani supporter,advised Huck to use he baptist faith as a wedge issue.Morris' hope was Huck would knock off Romeny in Iowa so Guliani's big state strategy would kick in in Fl. You know what,what goes around comes around.Guliani has been slipping in the polls as Mitt and Huck have taken on a higher profile.At the same time there's been more scrutiny on Huck and his hug-a thug policies while Gov. of Ark.This speech not only helped Mitt in the primaries but in the general election when he gets the nomination.So an ambush article like this has little meaning. |
|
|
Mitt Romney's speech was absolutely masterful! Did you watch the same speech, Mr. Cotto? Also, if his life has not been a testament to good living I don't know what is! Why must you belittle a good man? Is that Christian? |
|
|
I agree that for many the rise of Huckabee was due to the fact that he had until now received very little negative coverage and very few bigots will change their views based on words from the devils own mouth. The speech gives Romney the benefit of a future excuse to turn down questions on the issue and a great deal of individual press. So I say no harm done. |
|
I am not sure how the LDS view of God will make a difference in how a tax package will be passed?
>Rather, evangelical Christians have very deep doctrinal differences with Latter Day Saints.
Yep. Otherwise we would be evangelical christians.
>Is there really a Trinity?
Yes, just not the one defined by the creeds of 4th century + christianity.
>Did Adam actually make the right choice in the Garden of Eden?
Did he make the wrong one? Really, what would have happened if God tossed Eve out and left Adam in the garden alone? Besides, what was God doin' leavin' those evil trees around the garden? Isn't it really his fault? He knew what we were like.
>Can individual Mormons become gods?
Technically, no. We have to get there with our spouse. And technically, what would you call heirs of God that are like him, judge like him, live with him...? Really, what would you call them? Are we God's pets? He gave his Only Begotten for us. That looks pretty good for us. And it isn't just mormons that believe this. Theosis is doctrine by the majority of Christianity. RCC and EOC have versions of it, which only differ in minor details and by their definition of the nature of God.
>Many evangelicals believe if he deviates so radically from conservative orthodoxy on doctrine then they can’t hand him the keys to the White House.
So...evangelicals are catholic? I mean, aren't they deviates from the older established catholic church, the orthodoxy of the middle ages? What gives them the perspective of the ages?
|
|
You are wrong about Mitt needing to do a Mormon apologetic speech. What possible reason was there for him to do that? He has stated that he is, in fact, Mormon. Most people know we Mormons have some peculiar doctrine:
The Trinity is three distinct personages rather than the Creedal Christian belief of Three-in-One.
Adam's choice in the Garden allowed mankind to exist and while he sinned in making that choice, the outcome (that we are here) was ultimately making lemonade out of lemons.
We do believe in the principle of eternal progression.
These are just the few of the doctrine that your column mentions. There are many others as I am sure you are aware. But why would a speech from Mitt about those things be worth of a Presidential candidate. How many times does he have to say it? He is not running for Pastor-in-Chief. The only purpose of a speech like that would be to try and convert to Mormonism, those who would listen and that is not what he was trying to do.
Should Rudy give a speech about the differences in his Catholic faith and the Protestants faith so you can decide if the peculiarities there are acceptable? NO! This whole line of questioning is, frankly, ridiculous and those who keep clamoring about it are doing so with less than pure motives. Really, what they want is for Mitt to state some of his peculiar doctrine in order to make some people say: "That Mormon religion is too strange I'm not voting for Mitt" It really is that transparent and shameful. Have we not gotten beyond these types of bigotries? Has the civil rights movement and the tumultuous '60s not taught us that these type of attacks are embarrassing and low. We should be better than that. I hope and pray we are.
Romney’s speech was wonderful on many planes. That speech may just go down as one of the great historical political speeches. I encourage you to re-read it with an open mind.
|
|
Cotto - The questions you've insisted that he should have addressed again touch upon the need for a candidate to pass a religious litmus test before they can become eligible for office. I assume that since you are a seminary student you may feel that as long as the candidates beliefs are found acceptable by you they then pass the test.
From where I'm sitting that sounds pretty intolerant almost bordering on bigotry. But then again in your snippet of an article I do not read where you indicate that bigotry among Evangelical Christians may actually be wrong or unjustfied. Hmmm
Secondly, being a recent convert to prolife. I'm not quote sure what you mean by that. Wasn't it the first time as a public official - as Governor of Mass - when he had to decide between a pro-life or pro-chice he came down in favor of life. And he did so when any other Bill of that ilk came before him. I believe this was 5 or 6 years ago. Now if you are saying he's less pro-life because of this it would be equivalent of saying I'm less of a Christian than you because I've only been attending Church for 5 or 6 years. I don't think that's how the Almighty views things.
|
|
Cisco Cotto wrote;
---------------
"Many evangelicals believe if he deviates so radically from conservative orthodoxy on doctrine then they can’t hand him the keys to the White House."
---------------
Yes !
It's good to see you're being honest about the bigotry toward Mormons which is being practiced by evangelicals.
As you admit, when it comes to MORMON candidates, evangelicals are more concerned with theological doctrine than they are with a candidate's political record, leadership, and values.
Ironically, Jimmy Carter and John Edwards share similar theology as many evangelicals, but I suppose most evangelicals would reject Carter and Edwards for their far left-wing political views.
So, in truth, evangelicals do care about a candidate's politics---except in the special case of a Mormon.
And that's why it amounts to religious bigotry.
Cisco Cotto also wrote;
---------------
"Also, in preaching religious tolerance in his speech Romney assumes the people who are gravitating toward Mike Huckabee are doing so purely because Mitt is a Mormon."
---------------
Are you kidding ?!
How on earth do you know what Romney assumes ?
Besides, you have already ADMITTED that evangelicals don't want to give the keys to the White House to a Mormon, primarily based on theological differences.
Additionally, religious tolerance is a virtue, and it stands exclusive from the horse race among GOP candidates.
I wish more evangelical Christians would see religious tolerance as a virtue.
Cisco Cotto also wrote,
---------------
"Orrin Hatch is a darling of these same conservatives, though he too is a Mormon. Why do they feel comfortable with him and not Romney?"
---------------
The evangelicals accept that Hatch is a good Senator from Utah, but when Hatch ran for President, he got ZERO support. But the truth is, Hatch is well-known for making too many appeasing bi-partisan deals with Democrats. Incidentally, Hatch's closest friend in the Senate is...Ted Kennedy.
|
|
|
Your article says much more about you than it says about the speech. You are one of the relative few for whom the speech went completely over the head. Your article is more than a misstep. It's a full stumble. |
|
|
As you usually are on the radio. Mitt's speech was magnificent and as an evangelical I applauded it. My approval rating for him went up tremendously. Although I am keeping a careful eye on Huckabee, should Mitt get the nomination I would not hesitate to pull the lever at the polling place for him. Why should he dissect and explain every Mormon point of doctrine for us when no other candidate has to? Oh, and as for assuming that you know what Mitt assumes, you assume too much. Are we as voters to assume that because Romney and Huckabee have made their denominations public that all the other candidates are Godless? A quick search by anyone semi-competent will get one all the answers they need on Mormonism. Mitt Romney is a fine American and will make a good president, should he get the nomination. He has explained enough on this subject. Seems like we like someone to be religious, just not too religious. Kinda ride the fence, so to speak. Just like you do every day on the radio, Cisco. |
|
Based on my criteria, you cannot be trusted as an analyst. Plus your name is not Steyn or Limbaugh or Medved or Hannity - so you don't matter.
Regards
Hugh |
|
Cotto,
I can't honestly judge your craft on one article but this is just too simple and shallow.
You seem to not have even contemplated the fact that Mormons have been voting for Evangelicals and at least one Catholic for the last 150+ years w/out any real hangups on doctrinal differences.
Notwithstanding the fact that the man's religion should really play NO PART on his capacity to preside over our country - any political or religious skeptic would have to tip their hat to Mitt Romney yesterday for what may have been the most elegant "American" speech on the subject of religious freedoms which I might added spoke to me much more than JFK's.
What Mitt said yesterday was pure courage under undeserved fire! It was bold heck - it was noble!
Seriously - either you really didn't capture the spirit of what Mitt Romney said or perhaps we really don't come from the same frame of reference.
Your article just didn't hit the mark w/ me. |
|
|
As a convert to the church I struggled with the concept of us becoming "gods". I thought how egotistical it was and how the thought seemed to demean God. As I learned more about the church I came to realize a more personal relationship with God, which is why members of the LDS faith refer to Him as Heavenly Father. Also my father-in-law ask me if my earthly father loved me and if he did was there ever a time when he told me he wanted me to grow up and become a man but one that wasn't quite as successful as me. I of course said no, my father wanted me to become even a better man than he was. So, if my earthly father can want more for me, why is it so hard to believe that Our Heavenly Fathers wants less for us? Why does that lesser the importance of God? It seems to me that is just shows how much He loves us! |
|
"Many evangelicals believe if he deviates so radically from conservative orthodoxy on doctrine then they can’t hand him the keys to the White House."
Why not? In God's name I ask. |
|
He illustrates in his speech that he would protect religious freedom of all people.
If evangelicals don't vote for him, then they deserve their own kind, the Clintons or Jimmy Carter's of the world.
Or hey, they deserve Huckabee, who is a liberal in sheep's clothing. |
|
We dont want or need mitt the flipper to "protect" our freedom. We Christians trust the true God- not some wannabee god who thinks he's in training to become a god in the celestial kingdom and collect trophy wives.
We also dont care to hear some pompous egotistical windbag lecture us on religion from the bush presidential library. Who does this blowhard think he is??
Why cant we just hand him the WH keys?
glad someone asked:
I will not be voting for Mitt for the same reasons I would not vote for a Wiccan, a Voodoo practitioner, a Muslim, or a person who believes he has been abducted by Aliens.
Why? Because any man who could believe all the weird mormon teachings, and not intellectually question it is not someone who has the judgment necessary to be President of this nation in a time of crisis.
Read Walter Martin’s “Kingdom of the Cults for a revealing expose of this bizarre religion.
See http://www.waltermartin.org/whatsnew.html
The Book of mormon reads like something out of Grimm's Fairy Tales.
|
|
|
|
I have very definite views about Mormonism (but I also have very definite views about Catholocism, Methodism, Penecostalism, and why not? The General Association of Regular Baptists, among others) Whatever Mormonism is, it's an American religion. It was founded in America, and while Mormons suffered harsh persecution from the U.S. Government and non-Mormon citizens, they still seem to be proud, America-loving good citizens. Romney won't sell us out to the terrorists, he's got business sense and proven administrative ability, and I'd vote for him over any Democrat Party nominee.
I think, though, that Romney hurt himself by being "too good". From all I know about him, he's gone from success to success. Has this guy never made a bad decision in his life? Has he never gone into some project, taken some risk or other, and come out looking like a buffoon? Guys who can never go wrong creep me out. |
|
You sound like a broken record with the 'oh, its more than mere bigotry, there are deep doctrinal differences that make the bigotry ok and then make up some differences than show your utter lack of any knowledge whatsoever.
Thanks once again cornpone for the thoughtful remarks.
If searching for the right church, look for the truly inclusive one that welcomes all and disrespects no other. WWJD. Just a thought. |
|
|
Yes, ladies and gentleman, we all watched the same speech. Thank you Mr. Cotto for bringing a little sanity to the responses. The problem we evangelicals have with Mitt Romney is not that he will be guided by his faith. We assume that and we expect it. We think it is only appropriate that we be guided by our beliefs. Thus, Governor Romney's assurance that his faith would not play a role in policy decisions sounds odd to us. Our problem is not that he will be guided by his faith but that his faith is misguided. Kudos Cotto for pointing that out. |
|
While I am LDS and have yet to see why I should vote for Romney. (I'm not fond of his flipping) I should say that I have voted for catholics, protestants and probably one or two agnostics. I have deep theological differences with them and might think their faith is misguilded. I don't see how that matters. I have never used a religious litmus test and have voted against LDS candidates in the past because they start using religion as a campaign tool.
I think that there is some bigotry involved but probably not as much as some might think. I mean, to not vote for someone because their ideas about God are a bit different...I'm in the LDS church and I venture to guess that my ideas about God are a bit different than my fellow church members. It makes one wonder how they get along in life, trying to determine if people are like them or not.
LDS believe in not mixing religion and government as a matter of doctrine. That doesn't mean it sometimes doesn't happen, but we are told not to as a matter of scripture.
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/134/
9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.
|
|
"Read Walter Martin’s “Kingdom of the Cults for a revealing expose of this bizarre religion.
See http://www.waltermartin.org/whatsnew.html"
And follow that up with a shower to get the filth off and read John K. Wise's "Clouds Without Water, Zeal Without Knowledge"
A review of The Kingdom of the Cults, by Walter Martin.
|
|
John K. Wise's "Clouds Without Water, Zeal Without Knowledge"
A review of The Kingdom of the Cults, by Walter Martin.
http://www.fairlds.org/Reviews/Rvw01010.html |
|
I predict that Romney will win both the nomination and the presidency. Why? Because he is the slickest of all candidates, either party, and the American people always go for slick. They love slick. Never mind knowledge of the law, international affairs, diplomacy, domestic policy, and economics: none of this is as important as slick. Never mind experience, a pretty face, a likeable manner, and speech-writers who know how to shape opinion---all important, but slick is the essential element. And Romney is as slick as a big gulp of Mazola oil.
He gave a speech to, what, explain his Mormon religion to Americans---then barely mentioned Mormonism, and you can be sure this was done by design. He has five healthy adult sons NOT in the military and somehow has slicked this by the American war-hawks, who didn't burn down his house when he said that working on their father's campaign was a good way for his sons to serve their country. He has flip-floppped on just about every major issue, but, man, he did it all so slick that nobody got too upset.
This guy is a pro at slick. Prepare to be slicked.
|
|
Lilly, Your masachusetts liberal fellow traveller isnt going to win anything except a sympathy card from "Reverend" Al Sharpton, who is the patron saint of all victims of "bigotry?
look up the word *bigotry*-parapharsed it means a stubborn refusal to consider the opinions and beliefs of others-which can sometimes be a very good thing.
For instance, I also stubbornly refuse to even consider the claims of liberals, Marxists, Muslims, Jehovah's Witneeses, Wiccans, Hare Krishnas, scientologists, as well as mormons.
It isnt personal, and unlike several Mormon posters in this thread, I have never personally insulted individual mormons on this board-only their lds beliefs-which mitt has made fair game.
.
|
|
Sorry to all the screechers out there, but I agree with the author, except more so. I don't think the sentence "Many evangelicals believe if he deviates so radically from conservative orthodoxy on doctrine then they can’t hand him the keys to the White House" needs any qualification, except to point out that there are many non-evangelicals that feel the same way. (In my case, I'm Orthodox.)
The sentence doesn't need to be explained because it is what it is. Christians seem timorous to say out loud that they wouldn't vote for a Mormon, but I'm not. I probably wouldn't vote for a Mormon Congressperson or governor, and I would never vote for a Mormon for president under any circumstances.
Why, you ask? Simple. Because I'm a Christian first and a conservative second. Romney isn't our last best hope of a truly conservative candidate (Thompson or Huckabee are closer to that mark) but even if he were, there's a cost to his presidency that's too high to pay.
The Mormon Church has been in mad pursuit of the *title* of Christian -- while being completely out of alignment on many of the central tenets of the faith -- for decades now, perhaps as long as that heretical sect has existed. It strains credulity to imagine that they won't use the occasion of a Mormon presidency to propagandize and bring in converts. And gullible and theology-challenged as many people are, they will likely succeed. If anyone has met any of the damaged people who try to make it out of the hellish Mormon church alive, I defy you to try to tell yourself that having a somewhat-conservative president is worth the price.
To lend a hand to a possible PR coup by the Mormons would be unconscionable. Many, many Christians already know this, which is why Romney's Big Speech didn't give him a bounce. He's not going to be president. Get over it. |
|
|
Man Coneprorn, et al, you "conservatives" certainly don't have a problem applying a litmus test to the Presidency do you? Any true conservative abides by the constitution first which strictly forbids it. Reread your new tetement about casting the first stone and be careful what you wish for or someone will demand you explain some of the weird beliefs in your religion - - starting with virgin birth and resurrection for example. What makes them so sane? As a Christian I believe those things but I am open minded enough not expect anyone else should, and ceratinly wouldn't withold my vote from a candidate didn't bnecause he didn't share them - - to do so when he is qualified in every other measure, whether you've the guts to admit it or not, is sheer unmitigated bigotry. It is every bit as shallow and superficial as voting on the basis of skin color or gender. The poster above has it right anyway, in the scheme of things when Pat Buchanon and Eleanor Clift agree the approval is all but universal. |
|
Romney hasnt seized the debate by identifying himself with some issue or theme that has resonance with conservatives. Before he decided to run for president he wasnt looked on by anybody as a conservative. He needed to come out for some theme that rings a bell with Republican primary voters.
He should have done something like stood outside on the steps of the Capitol and demand that the Democrats threat General Petraeus with respect. Now the only thing anybody says about him is that
he's a Mormon. Who cares what these ambitious lizards do on Sunday? Whichever one of these geniuses stops strategizing and starts leading,showing people that they understand in their hearts what we all know, that will be the one who gets the nomination. |
|
|
Romney's religious institution of choice "the latter day saints" has a very strong seperatist view of people. While they consider themselves to be "saints", others are considered to be "not equal" to them because they are "not saints" as defined by becoming a member of the Latter Day Saints Institution. Membership to the Latter Day Saints Institution is what comes first and everything else is secondary. When Romney says his religious institution will not have any influence in his presidency - this statement is unbelievable because HE IS A MORMAN FIRST ( I MEAN SAINT) AND A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SECOND - AND THIS ORDER WILL NOT CHANGE! Also, Romney is not just a member of this "seperatist" organization, he was a BISHOP of this fine institution of saints. This seperatist view held by Mormon's should not be entrusted to lead this great nation. Plus - why does he get a pass with all the flip flopping? If a person's moral values keep changing that much are they to be trusted?? A mormon in the white house, ALL AMERICANS WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN SEPERATING PEOPLE BETWEEN "SAINTS" AND "NON-SAINTS" OUGHT TO SAY - NO THANK YOU!.....we the humble "non-saints" ought to say.......NO THANK YOU TO ANY PRESENT AND FUTURE SAINTS IN THE WHITE HOUSE BECAUSE WE NEED A REAL PERSON WHO IS NOT A SAINT WHO THINKS HE WILL BECOME GOD SOMEDAY - TO LEAD THIS GREAT NATION ON EARTH. |
|
|
find it difficult to trust a person who believes that "he is a saint" and that "he will become a god someday" - in God's name, we say NO to such a person becoming president and making decisions that affect our daily lives. What is more arrogant is calling oneself a "saint"! |
|
You're gonna pop a vein there, girl . . .
You can give it a rest now. We all know that "Mormons have cooties."
http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010955 |
|
|
breath when well educated conservatives begin to get smitten by a presidential candidate who has flip flopped only 5 years ago on the issue of abortion and gay marriage (two strong conservative issues) and in addition a person whose idea of religious freedom does not extend to members of the Latter Day Saints who decide to worship elsewhere.... AMERICANS OUGHT TO FIND OUT HOW THE FINE INSTITUTION OF THE LATTER DAY SAINTS TREAT PEOPLE WHO DECIDE TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO WORSHIP ELSEWHERE.....what religious freedoms was Mitt talking about??? and what shared values are these smittened conservatives talking about? Lets review - some members of the latter day saints institutions marry multiple wives and some are as young as 13 - will President Romney pardon those convicted of these crimes? okay, he is not worth popping a vein over so I will go to sleep now and give peace a chance without a mormon in the whitehouse. |
|
I can explain your confusion. You are thinking of the Fundamentalist Mormons. There are over a hundred religious groups that have split off from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints since its inception. One notable group is the Community of Christ who until recently was called the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The group you refer to who allows polygamous marriages and marriages of thirteen year olds is called the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is headed by a Man named Warren Jeffs who recently went to prison for the crimes you are referring to. The Fundamentalists split from the Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints over a hundred years ago. It has no relationship whatsoever in membership or leadership to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints there beliefs have veered far from the . I hope that clears up some of your confusion. I understand how you can be confused since there is a lot of bad information out there.
|
|
|
I will correct one other area where you have gotten some bad information. As Christians, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-Day Saints believe in treating everyone with the respect and dignity they deserve as children of God. The title saint in the LDS vernacular belongs to all those seek to do God's will and does not imply that any individual is at the same spiritual level Peter or Paul. Sarah, in that sense, I hope you are a saint as well. I hope that clears up some of your confusion there is a lot of bad information out there from people who have an ax to grind against Mormons. One reason is that Mormon hold themselves to high moral standards. I have known several people who have left the church bitterly when they committed serious sins. One such individual who is a film producer has made films that portray the church in this negative light. Many churches rely on his film as authoritative material. What he fails to mention is that he was excommunicated not because of his views but because he had multiple affairs while his wife was at home raising their children. I tend not trust people like that. |
|
I am a Christian (the biblical kind) and I would vote for Mitt should he be nominated.
However, reading through the posts, I get a little weary of Mormon talking points. They are always the same: Christians (Evangelical) were born out of some council in the 300's/. Leave that sort of nonsense to Dan Brown the author of the Davinci Code.
We believe what we believe because we read the Bible closely and we don't stamp our meaning into the text. We give the authors (inspired by God) the privilege of determining meaning as all good readers should do.
We do not throw out texts (because translations messed them up) another talking point.
The Bible is a magnificent unified, supernatural book that is very able to speak for itself if read without the lens of Mormonism.
If Mormons arrive at their beliefs throrgh the pronoucements of prophets, I really do wonder at the shifting sands of Mormon foundations. Now a prophet, now dismissed as a prophet. I would recommend building your foundation upon the Rock, the rock of Ages as brilliantly recorded in the only book you can stake your eternity on! |
|
rather: Most people cannot trust someone who has to dissemble the main tenets of his religion in order to make it palatable to the theologically impaired, to borrow a posters phrase, I like to say biblically impaired. How can one be moral who has to keep secret the secret beliefs for fear of horrifying the populace--
Instead Vox dei vox populace
The issue isn't that they call themselves Saints, just an appelation; actually the Bible calls all believers Saints, Kings and Priests. |
|
Evangelicals will never accept Mormons as Christians - that is followers of Christ - a Christ described in the Bible. They also reject any Mormons extra Biblical books. For an evangelical the only way to salvation is through the Biblical Christ. If we consider this, it is possible that a Mormon president would legitimise Mormonism as Biblical Christianity which it is not. This would from the evangelical point ofview put in danger many seekers that may end up in Mormonism rather than Christianity. This would send people to hell.
If you follow this reasoning, then it is easy to understand the misgivings that Christian Evangelicals have concerning Romney. Legitimizing Mormonism at home and abroad would be worse than allowing Clinton in office because it would have adverse eternal consequences for many.
As an evangelical, I am really worried about this election.
|
|
|