Romney Won’t be President
In one of the all time stupid moves, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has decided to give a speech about his Mormon faith.
While Jack Kennedy gave a speech about his Catholicism and it helped him, Mormonism is not Catholicism.
The edge many Republican candidates have held over their Democrat opponents is the support of the Evangelical Christians of the nation. Highlighting the differences between LDS beliefs and those of Evangelical Christians can only hurt any Mormon candidate.
While Mormon teaching is, in many areas inline with mainstream Christianity, however, it is not the same. The Romney campaign’s best option was to gloss over these differences until after Mitt was either THE Nominee or, preferably, the President. They blew that. His campaign will not survive the loss of the Evangelical Christians.
Wow, you got that right. Mormonism isn’t the same as Catholicism. Catholics don’t raise their hand and swear an oath of allegiance to their church!
See Mitt Romney is no John F. Kennedy at romneyforpresident.townhall.com
Like Mormonism, the blog isn’t what it seems.
(Funny photos too!)
I don’t think he is going to discuss the tenets of Mormonism but rather the effects of religion on political decisionmaking. He’ll draw parallels more than perpendiculars, I can promise you that. All other Christian denominations consider LDS a cult. A cult is defined by four things if I remember my class on the subject *authority other than the Bible (Book of Mormon) *spawned by a person given supernatural abilities (Joseph Smith) *secrecy in rituals (Melchizedek priesthood, sealing ceremony, new names) *exclusion of outside literature/leadership (approved lists of reading material/authors) An authoritative book on the subject is The God Makers by two ex-melchizedek priests. All of this will not be part of Romney’s discussion. That said there is no religious test for the presidency. If evangelicals vote for Guiliani and say no to Romney over religion they are practicing a horrendous double standard. The fact is neither will get a significant amount of the religious vote and it isn’t because of religion. Romney is an effective leader and I believe he would do a good job as president. I would vote for him and yes I am an evangelical. I have studied LDS and find it to be a counterfeit religion, but that is my own right, not my right to impose it on another. It goes to the critical thinking of someone if they are involved in what amounts to be a cult, and on that score it isn’t about the religion anymore. If your faith won’t stand up to outside critical review a warning flag should go up. However I believe that there should be no religious test. I’m a Thompson supporter, but I would vote for Romney if he was nominated, and I believe he’d do a better job than Guiliani, Huckabee, or McCain. LDS is based on works – meaning he believes that he must be a good person to meet the goals of salvation. I’ve argued this several times with Mormons but it always boils down to performance. That said, it would enhance his performance as president not detract from it. JFK was a Catholic.… Read more »
Turns out that it was a great speech. I think Romney should achieve ground with it – if people will look at him with an open mind. He went up in my estimation by several notches.
I don’t think evangelicals would be/were unaware of the differences LDS and say…the SBC. They don’t need Mitt Romney to explain it to them. Knowing what they believe and the difference from other denomonations/faiths is part of what makes one evangelical. If they were passive they would not be evangelical they would be an evangelical, they’d be um.. episcopal.no. just kidding. 😉 You get my point, tho.
Big Smiles.
I think i stuttered in that posting…sorry.