Romney Defends His Religious Beliefs

Remove all ads!

linky

First, I agree that Romney should not be required to explain or justify his Mormon beliefs in order to run for President.

That having been said, I am coming to realize that the uphill battle Romney appears to be fighting is because most people in the US don't understand squat about the Mormon faith. I will admit that I'm no expert, but it seems like the typical person seems to think that Mormon's depicted on HBO's show "Big Love" are the mainstream, which they most certainly are not.

I've held this thought for a while now, but it was confirmed to me today at work in a conversation I had with some colleagues over lunch. These are college educated people mind you, who tend to be pretty well informed about current events in general and politics in particular, which what made their statements all the more surprising.

First, they all agreed that Mormons are not "true Christians". I tried to point out that the only benchmark to being Christian is belief in the divinity of Christ. To which the consensus answer was that Mormons don't really believe in the divinity of Christ - they just think he was a good person - but not divine. This floored me. I'm quite confident that Mormons believe in the resurrection of Christ just like all other Christians.

So what are other people's thoughts on this? There is no question that Romney's faith is something he is going to have to overcome to win the nomination, but do you think the problem comes from misconceptions and misinformation the general public has concerning the Mormon faith? Or more simply, do you think the people I have lunch with are not indicitive of the total population?

 

To be honest most churches don't consider mormons to be christian as they do not accept mormon baptism as valid, to them Joseph Smith was a fraud and they have a hard time accepting a baptism based on the teachings of what to them is a false prophet. So I see where they are coming from especially if they themselves are Christian.

I think Romney has a very heavy uphill battle to fight with the mormonism on his back and quite frankly I think that he won't have much of a chance unless some scandal drops a couple of other republican candidates out of the game. He will also surely alienate atleast some of the evangelicals which will be a heavy burden against any democratic candidate.

 

To be honest, I think that most Christian groups, on some level, consider others to be apostates. It is, after all, the principle difference between them as religious groups - if you claim that you are right, then the others are wrong. Religion, or at least monoteism, doesn't really leave a lot of room for several truths. They may eventually view their differences as not particularly important, but they are still likely to insist that only their own group does things exactly right - but, oh well, maybe the Lord in his mercy will forgive the others when Doomsday comes. Maybe. Yet if we go by the tenets of Christianity, which iirc included belief in God, the Holy Trinity, the death and resurrection of Jesus, and the coming of Heaven on earth (I hope I haven't missed any) then they would be Christians.

Of course, the Mormons afaik since their inception have been more distant to most other churches than normal - theological differences or no, accusations of apostasy are pretty big stuff in that area. On the other hand, I don't think anyone I know has claimed that they don't believe in God or Jesus, so technically they would be a Christian sect.

If anything, Romney will have to combat prejudices, not theological facts. Well, it's not like there have been many Catholic US presidents, either. Frankly, I don't care much about his faith if he limits it to his personal life.

 

I agree. But in today's GOP, that's simply impossible. Frankly it's largely impossible of many mormons, as well.

That actually goes to the crux of why Romney's speech today, eloquent as it was, is IMO going to hurt him and not help him. This was billed as his "JFK" speech, but what is distinctly different in this case is that Kennedy essentially made a case for the separation of church and state, and further stated that his Catholicism wasn't central to his being President. Romney did the opposite. He doesn't want church and state to be separate, or at least he says he does to appeal to the evangelicals. He says his Mormon faith is central to how he's going to lead, yet he isn't willing to discuss what about his faith makes him suitable to lead, and so he avoids talking about the specifics of his doctrine. I can't say I blame him - because I think even he knows no matter how devout a Christian you consider yourself, you can't go in front a sea of bible literalists, tell them that Lucifer is Jesus' brother, and expect them not to hate your guts, let alone vote for you. He can't have it both ways.

That - coupled with his constant waffling, his obvious pandering and the general bigotry towards Mormons coming from the very people whose votes he's desperately courting (the evangelicals), which I don't see subsiding any time soon - are going to be the doom of his candidacy. I know my track record for these sorts of predictions kinda sucks, but I'll stick my neck out here and say he's finished after this.

One last thing: I found this...
Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom....Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
...as absurd as it was offensive. I really can't believe our politics have gotten to such a point that a serious contender for the presidency is saying crap like that. Rovian politics have indeed born fruit.

 

DR, I don’t think Romney was exactly trying to appeal with the masses with that last quote you pointed out. His statements about religion and freedom going hand-in-hand were meant to appeal to the “in God we trust” and “don’t take ‘under God’ out of the pledge” kind of people. So, you found the statement offensive. I can empathize with that viewpoint. But I doubt he had your vote (of anybody else offended by that statement) up until that point, anyway.

 

The Main criticism of Mormons is the line of authority issue. If they do not accept Joseph Smith as a prophet of God, then they will not recognize our priesthood authority for what we preach it to be. Joseph Smith seems attacked more heavily than the line of Papal Authority or any other ministry however.

Actually, a degree of seperation between church and state is written in the Standard works. Basically, no religion should have the right to make the laws, and the state has no right to edit religious doctrine. However, the people ought to seek politicians they believe will bring the most good to the nation. Depending on how Romney takes the teachings of the Church into his leadership strategy, it could work well or blow up in his face. If he puts more focus on the "Thou Shalt Not" side of the church, then he will alienate many voters. If he looks at the council given for running a household, and ultimately a nation, he could sway voters towards his views...

 

I doubt that I would vote for Romney but then I doubt I would vote for any Republic. I may end up voting for Mickey Mouse. Religion and State should be separate.

 

I agree, but it seems that Mormons are treated way differently than how other Christian groups treat each other. For example, while an Evangelical Christian may not completely agree with the way a Catholic practices his faith, I do not think that they would go so far as to say the Catholic was not a Christian.

Actually, I didn't find that offensive - just absurd. I find it hard to be offended when the words spoken are so foolish that they can't be taken seriously. I read the words first, but then had to find the video on the internet to find out if the sound of those words came from Romney's mouth or his ass.

I think we all agree with that - but that wasn't the purpose of this thread. It really was more to discuss how a canidate's religion in general - and Mormonism in particular - effect his canidacy. I also find it odd that the only canidates who have their faith questioned are the ones who are NOT evangelical christians - the Catholic and in this case Mormons. It wouldn't be surprising if the vast majority of people living in the US were evangelical christians, but the thing is, they comprise only 30% of the nation. So why is it such a big deal if the other 70% doesn't particularly care in you're an evangelical?

 

I disliked Romney for a long time before I knew he was a Mormon, based on what he was trying to do to the state of Massachussetts.

Actually, I expect him - and all the other candidates, too - to be loyal to the tenets of their professed religion. I WANT them to uphold those principles, or stop using the religious label entirely. It would be hypocritical to do any less.

...wait a minute, we're dealing with politicians here. Let me take off my rose-colored glasses...

 

@ Aldeth, Giles, etc.,

The reason I was offended was because he essentially said that you don't appreciate your freedom, respect the rule of law, have a conscience, care about the less fortunate, etc. - essentially aren't a good American - unless you're a religious person, which is bullsh*t. Given that this was a carefully crafted speech with a lot of build-up and preparation, I can't possibly think that was an unintended sentiment. Kennedy at least threw a bone to those who choose "not to go to church" and didn't discount them as patriotic Americans. Not so with Romney.

You're right, Giles - he didn't have my vote in the first place, but it wasn't because of his religion. He lost my support when he - in a statement so stupid that he made Bush look like an MIT professor - said "We don't need to close down Guantanimo...we oughtta DOUBLE it!" I'm a Mormon (sort of) and was raised Mormon, so I have far more respect and admiration for Mormons (though, not necessarily Mormonism) than you're average Joe Bumpkin. I've taken great interest in his candidacy because from day 1 he was going to bring Mormonism to the main stage in the country in a non-negative light. And I understand the audience this speech was intended for. But that doesn't mean that telling me my voice doesn't matter unless I'm down with G-O-D is any less intellectually insulting, not to mention patently absurd.

 

DR, like I said, I empathize with your point that what he said is absurd/insulting to those who don't agree with the idea that God is what is holding this nation together. I guess Romney feels that he's got to go strong and hard after the Christian right and if in doing so, he alienates people that don't agree with that ideology, so be it. I think he's screwed all around because the people he's courting are the same people stabbing him in the back religiously, so to speak.

 

OK, I will admit that I have not read the entire speech and so do not know the entire context of this quote, but I want to speak in defense of it. If you count "religion" as "beliefs about the fundamental nature of the universe", as opposed to lumping it into merely organized religions, then this statement makes more sense. I would argue that freedom requires that religions (note the plural) be permitted to exist peacefully, and in my mind that includes the religion of atheism. If all religions do not support the idea of freedom, we will have less popular ones "perishing alone", along with the the freedoms of those practicing those religions.

As for the Romney question, I think what many people mess up on is the idea of how much a person's personal beliefs should influence his public behaviour. In this sense, I see religion as a facet of ideology. When you elect a feminist, you expect her (or his, God forbid I should be sexist!) to vote and act according to her belief in that ideology. The same thing goes for when you elect an ardent capitalist, or an ardent communist, or a firm supporter of any other system of thought. To expect anyone to simply leave their beliefs at the door and act like an automaton, completely tabula rasa only governing by polls, is utterly moronic. If Romney is a faithful Mormon, he is going to act according to those principles.

Now some will say that by acting by those principles he infringes on the rights of others. That's simply not true. It also does not follow that he will take orders from the church leadership and merely be their puppet. It simply means that the things that he believes are important will affect his behaviour. I find very little solid evidence that religious freedoms in Mass. were screwed over during Romney's tenure as governor. THAT is the track record he should be judged on.

 

Whell...before bothering to read anyone eles' posts...

I agree. However...there a *lot* of idiots out there who have the 1850's mind set towards mormons. (i.e. "Hey! Don't you mormons have more than one wife?")

They did a survey here of a few thousand people of how they feel towards a mormon running for president, and 50% of the people said they have a bias against mormons *more severe* than against women and blacks. Gee...how suprising.

By all means, hate mormons all you want...but at least hate them for the right reasons and not because of something you heard from your buddy's sister and her bff.

BTW, Where is Gnarf? His soapbox is getting cold...

 

Unfortunately, religious beliefs are a major factor. First of all, I do believe Romney will be somewhat of a puppet for the Mormon church. The Mormon church is far more controlling than any other church, I'd say very close to the Catholic church of ~400 years ago. Mitt has very, very strong ties to the leadership of the Mormon church -- many of whom were close friends with his uncle, Marion Romney (who was an apostle for 46 years and a promanant leader of the church).

This is not like Kennedy and the Catholic church. Kennedy was never a priest or a bishop. Mitt Romney held the equivalent position in the Mormon church of priest and bishop as bishop and stake president, respectively. Kennedy was willing to go against the Catholic church if necessary, Romney will never go against the Mormon church.

I'm not necessarily against the Mormon church playing a role in politics (at least an advisory role), unless they try to make alcohol illegal again (and coffee -- they better take away my right to own a gun first...). If you look at how the Mormon politicians vote (e.g., Hatch and others) you will see they vote almost exclusively along religious beliefs. Politics is Utah was very much controlled by the Mormon church through the 80's while I was living there, it may still be controlled by the Mormon church.

This started back with Brigham Young -- he certainly did not believe in a separation of church and state. Most Mormons I know believe the country would be better run by Mormons (who would of course follow the urgings of the prophet). Of couse, that's only a sampling from the few thousand Mormons I've known in my life.

I may be biased in this....

 

The argument regarding Romney and his membership in the Mormon Church does remind me of the arguments regarding electing a Roman Catholic. I remember those arguments and it did contribute to candidates not being elected especially to national offices. Kennedy was charismatic and had a good power base which helped to overcome the fear of a RC being controlled by the Vatican. In my opinion Romney's membership in the Mormon Church should not be a factor in whether or not he should be a candidate. We should look at his track recorder and see how he has behaved in the past.

 

But this story says more bad things about Americans than it does about Mormons. I mean, how many Americans don't care enough about the truth and cling to the inaccurate and outdated information that surfaces about the church. Please tell me that Americans are smarter than this thread makes them seem...

I doubt that. Sure Romney will vote according to what he believes best for the nation, but I don't think policy will come from the First Presidency if he gets elected.

Um, they don't have members looking over your shoulder 24/7. My posts would be a lot better if that was the case (as I could bounce opinions and jokes off them to see if they were as good as I thought they were). The Church asks more of it's members than most other religions, but it does so by way of covenant. I could theoretically go out and get bombed. I'd have a long talk with the Bishop coming afterward (especially if I did more than just drinking that night), but I have that opportunity. The church asks us to use our agency wisely, not taking it away from us.

I had wondered about that, but forgot to ask anyone when I saw them. I knew that Elder Romney was a GA (At least I don't think he was ever in the First Presidency).

Rather heavy callings there. The experience would serve him well in politics.

That is as far as the Church will take any position. They will never officially be advisors. Mind you, some General Authorities have held cabinet positions in the past (before being called as apostles of course).

Was that the Church the first time? And if my history is right, it didn't work out too well.

If I remember rightly, Utah was originally founded on the principles of the Gospel...

That's what might ultimately sink him. I believe he was the Governor of the first state to legalize same sex marriage. If he was governor at the time, then the Evangelicals will crucify him...

 

I think I've changed my mind. A candidate's religion should absolutely be fair game.

 

Gnarff, once again your lack of knowledge of your own religion is showing.

Marion G. Romney was ordained to the First Presidency in 1972. He served as 2nd Counselor to Harold B. Lee, Joseph Fielding Smith and Spencer W. Kimball. He was served as 1st Counselor to Spencer W. Kimball upon the death of N. Eldon Tanner. When when Ezra Taft Benson became president of the church, Romney was the senior Apostle and rightfully became President of the Quorum of the Twelve.

By the way, unless a recent General Authority has served in a cabinet position, only Ezra Taft Benson has served as a presidential advisor. Benson was Secretary of Agriculture under President Eisenhower. Not "some general authorities have held cabinet positions" -- only one.

Gnarff, you should know better than to argue Mormon history with me; it would only have taken you one minute to find any of this information with a simple search -- instead, you chose to spend five minutes denying the truth. But this is the way you always argue.

I seriously doubt the experience as Bishop and Stake President would ever prepare someone to take charge of the executive branch of the largest government in the world.

As far as controlling.... The Mormon church is the only church I know of that claims its leader (the prophet) speaks directly with God and Jesus Christ on a regular basis. In the flesh, face-to-face. Mormons believe the Prophet directly receives the Word of God. And anyone who believes in the Mormon church would NEVER question the word of the Prophet. That is controlling.

 

Nak - I agree with you 100%. However, that will never happen. People are too biased in their uneducated opinion, and too stupid to actually learn a little. And until that changes, there will never be a Mormon president.

And as for the high positions held in the church by Romney (i.e. the Bishop and Stake President), I'm inclined to believe these things would help him if he were to somehow manages to become president. While I haven't called myself a Mormon for several years now, I'm still friends with my former Bishop who as chance would have it, is now a Stake President. He used to tell me how overwhelming being a Bishop could be, and knowing that Romney has dealt with the problems of an entire ward on a personal level is excellent experience for a presidential candidate.

As a side note, If I were to vote for him, it would be because of the way he ran the 2002 Olympics here in SLC, his experience as a governor, and the fact that he's not a Clinton. Not all Mormons are "puppets" of the Curch...many of the people that actully kept me going to church for the last years that I was going took their religion seriously only on Sundays. They still lived the Mormon standards, but they were *much* more relaxed about them.

 

When I was baptized, Howard W. Hunter was President of the Quorum of the Twelve. I had never heard of him refered to as "President Marion G. Romney", which explains that misunderstanding.

That's the one I knew about, but I thought I had heard about others that had been cabinet members. This was called upon at a moment's notice on a night when I didn't have time to check any other sites for more information.

The timeline puts teh post at about midnight when I had to get up at 5:30 am (Having to leave for Church at 7 am and meetings going 4 hours of a 4 and a half hour stretch. You have obviously never been on the Ward Council).

I'm hearing an increasing number of discussions between people I am assuming to be honourable members over the difference between actual doctrine and opinion of General Authorities. They question where the line between Revelation and simple wisdom by experienced priesthood leaders is drawn.

I'm seeing that in my own ward. In the last year, I've had to attend an extra meeting before the regular meetings start. In seeing more of these problems, even just in a small ward, I have a greater appreciation for what our Bishop does for us. That and a greater re-assurance that I will never have that job myself...

That's pretty much the way it is here too. On the big things we stand fast, but the lesser things we just can't be bothered. My stance on Language is simple: If there be any among you who hath not sinned, let them cast the first bar of soap. Nobody sees me reaching for the Irish Spring either...