Two posts in the comment box capture what I was talking about in my item about Romney and evangelicals:
“You are right, Evengelicals (which I am) would vote for a non-Evangelical Christian. Remember Ronald Reagan?
“But when it comes to a heretical and thoroughly false religion attempting to pass itself off as part of the Christian body . . . WHEN IT HAS ATTACKED EVERY SINGLE DENOMINATION AS BEING EXPELLED FROM THE CHURCH from the lips of their faith-founding “Prophet” . . . they are going to have a problem when it comes to wanting to join those that they reject from the foundation of their new American religion.
“Mormons (and Mr. Romney) should have just been honest from day one. They certainly are fine conservtive Republicans. No problems there. But please no pretense of a Christian connection.”
Donny
“Latter-day Saints study the New Testament regularly, pray in the name of Christ, and have pictures of him all over our buildings. We celebrate Christmas and often send our children to Protestant preschools, where they fit in just fine. Others may wish to define “Christian” in a way that excludes us, but amongst ourselves, we have no doubts we are Christian. It ought to be to Romney’s credit that, amidst so many allegations of inauthenticity, he talks about Jesus Christ the way Mormons usually do.”
Nmstx
There you have it. Romney’s campaign reopened wounds that have been present in the evangelical and Mormon communities for a long time. The problem for conservative evangelicals is not tolerance; it’s theological consistency. On Beliefnet, we often take the view that people get to decide for themselves whether they’re Christian, and God can sort out who’s right. But orthodox Christians can’t really do that. If they were to say it’s up to each person to define his or her own Christianity, it makes a mockery of, well, a couple of thousand years of theological warfare. If they say that Mormons espouse just a different interpretation of Christianity, then they would really need to say the same thing about, say, liberal Protestants who don’t believe in the resurrection. It’s a slippery slope toward pure relativism.
Update: Rereading my post a few days later, I don’t like my phrase “a couple of thousand years of theological warfare.” A better phrasing would be “theological warfare and basic Protestant doctrine.” While certain aspects of Christianity have indeed been fought over for centuries, there are some core elements of doctrine that are universally held and conflict with Mormonism.
posted February 8, 2008 at 4:15 pm
There you have it? As an evangelical and a Republican Romney’s mormonism has nothing to do with why I could not support him. I think what we are really looking at in this election is a three party election with only two names.
posted February 9, 2008 at 10:01 am
“If they were to say it’s up to each person to define his or her own Christianity, it makes a mockery of, well, a couple of thousand years of theological warfare.” Not to mention what the Bible actually says about God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ (you know, the whole Trinity thing).
posted February 9, 2008 at 10:42 am
“Not to mention what the Bible actually says about God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ (you know, the whole Trinity thing).”
I thought “the whole Trinity thing” was something that had to be inferred from the Bible, not something ever explicitely outlined. Am I wrong?
posted February 9, 2008 at 10:57 am
As for the rest, I think Romney’s Mormonism became a factor only because the media decided it should be. Reporters seized on an imagined parallel to Kennedy’s Catholicism and ran with it. As is all too often the case in modern “journalism,” the media failed to report on what really mattered to most voters.
Sure, you can find people to quote who did believe it was an issue, but most people simply didn’t care and were, frankly, tired of hearing about it. They wanted to know where Romney stood on the Iraq war. They wanted to know what his plans were for the U.S. economy. They wanted to know, in short, his positions on issues that actually affected their lives and the future direction of the country, not on the religious tension between Evangelical Christians and Latter Day Saints.
Romney failed precisely because he did not resonate with voters on those issues they cared most about, not because of his Mormonism. That was just a phantom created by the media because they felt it was a story that could sell.
posted February 12, 2008 at 11:14 am
Romney failed, not because of the Mormon thing alone. He got hit by the Yuck Factor. It was simply very hard for people to take one look at him and not think, Yuck.
There are a number of factors that can really screw up a campaign, among them are the Yuck, Yawn and Yeeeech! factors.
Yawn is obvious. The candidate just puts everyone to sleep.
Yuck is when the candidate looks like the loan officer at the bank.
Yeeech is when you get endorsed by a Kennedy.
posted February 21, 2008 at 7:32 pm
finally someone posts my beliefs
posted February 22, 2008 at 12:28 pm
I thought Romney’s plea was thoroughly upatriotic in that he basically disinfranchized every law abiding American citizen who doesn’t believe in any god, gods, goddesses, great spirit, allah, when he made the comment that freedom requires faith or some such nonsense while pleading for people to accept his particular choice of indoctrination. It also let me know that he doesn’t understand, nor can respect, that our Constitution, our Bill of Rights and our Declaration of Independence is bible-free and almost supernatural free altogether. There’s only one reference to anything that could possibly be construed as religious/superstitious/supernatural and that’s the one diestic reference to a Creator (not mormon, not christian, not jewish, not muslim). I think it’s time we all return to our American heritage of secular government; a neutrality toward religion, and start having politicians “swear” on a the Constitution or not “swear” on anything at all……..after all, shouldn’t they be telling the truth at all times and not just when they’re under oath?