Good for Mitt.

I just hope the rest of the “Conservative Christian” group won’t keep trying to force LDS people out of the conservative party. It’s really hard to work with people who seem to think that bashing their allies faith is a good way to keep them onboard.

Or do the “conservative, Mormons are not Christian” crowd want the republican party to do the OTHER plank of the platform from the 1800’s: Anti-Mormonism. That little issue made the LDS people primarily Democrats for probably 100 years. Don’t do it again, please.

Vanceone on November 5, 2007 at 1:54 PM

yep–here is Hollowpoint. I know it seems impossible, Hollowpoint, but maybe–just maybe–Weyrich endorsed Romney on (GASP!) the ground he actually believes what Romney says and stands for?

Or is that concept one that would make your head explode–that someone could conceivably like Mitt Romney because, you know, they think Romney is a good candidate?

Vanceone on November 5, 2007 at 1:58 PM

Well, ThackerAgency, I was hoping to provoke a discussion about why so many Evangelicals are determined to bash Mormon beliefs BEFORE I read 30 posts about how Mormons are not Christians.

I personally think this is great news. I just expect there to be some whining about Mormons again in this thread–there always is. Maybe I headed it off at the pass. If not, it kind of proves my point. It’s good news that Romney is getting evangelical leader endorsements. What I’m waiting to see is whether it trickles into their followers.

Vanceone on November 5, 2007 at 2:11 PM

Interesting links, jdog.

Immensely frustrating, though. “Angel worship?” What the heck? If both those writers believe Mormons worship angels, they are smoking something fierce (assuming they’ve studied any LDS beliefs at all).

I am really, really sick of people who claim to know better than I do what I believe, and just casually toss it off.

Still, I’m glad that there are some who are willing to take a chance.

Vanceone on November 5, 2007 at 2:32 PM

The problem with the slick argument is that when you actually listen to the guy–he actually IS that way.

Seriously, the only thing keeping Romney from running away with the nomination is the religion thing. The slick bit comes from “he can’t possibly be that good, can he? No one is that good” running through people’s minds.

The guy’s resume is fantastic, he clearly is the most accomplished candidate on any side running, he’s at least a decent debater (unlike Bush) and he has the right positions.

The flip flop charge isn’t true. What IS true is that his positions have become more conservative. He’s not gone back. I think it is only the “mormon” thing that is keeping him from having a lead as big as Hillary’s is. Which is really sad, because if he were Jewish, I doubt a single person who is now complaining about him would still do it (aside from the inbred anti-semetics, but I honestly think most of them have gone to the Dem party anyway).

Vanceone on November 5, 2007 at 2:50 PM

Well, Vizzini, here is the fundamental differences:

1) Most other Christians require you to believe the 4th century and onward Creedal definitions of God (and if you don’t, you aren’t “Christian”). Mormons claim that their definition of God is more 1st century Christianity. For that, we are not “Christian–” or, more accurately, we are not traditional Christianity. I agree we are not traditional, creedal based Christianity.

2) All other major religions (including most non-Christians, such as Muslim and Jewish) claim the canon of scripture is closed. God does not speak, nor does He call new prophets. Each of the major religions put the time of the closing of the canon differently (Jews after Malachi, Christians after John the Revelator, and Muslims after Mohammed). The LDS church states that God is still interested in us, and still speaks, and has called a living prophet. I.E. we have new scripture, and may yet receive more scripture (indeed, we expect to). The principle is “God did not teach Adam how to build the Ark, nor did He tell Joseph how to defeat Jerico.” Different times, different needs, different messages from God. This also is where complaints about the Book of Mormon come in, as a replacement for the bible… which it isn’t, any more than the New Testament replaces the Old Testament. It is just more of God’s word.

This point number two is, I think, the real stumbling block. All the other ones could be handled and written off as just our particular beliefs, but point two is the biggie.

3). Authority. The LDS church claims to have the priesthood authority from God (just as Catholics and Orthodox do). This tends to offend Protestants in general (who as a whole I think don’t generally believe in an ordained Priesthood in the sense of actual authority of God that is passed down). And Catholics and Orthodox don’t look very kindly on our exclusive claims to authority either.

Much of the rest of the differences are, I think, based off of those three. I hope that helps.

Vanceone on November 5, 2007 at 3:08 PM

Thanks, Sunny and WasatchMan! And Vizzini (as well as pedestrian): Yes, we do believe Christians need to be perfected. Since we call ourselves Christians, that applies to us first and foremost. In fact, that’s the whole point of Christ’s mission: to make us perfect. Just like C.S. Lewis said, too. We can prevent Christ from making us perfect, but that is the goal, and is what we strive for. It is also impossible without the grace of Christ, too.

But we’ve veered wildly off topic here. Back to the point of the post by Bryan: I’m glad some evangelical leaders are realizing that being Mormon doesn’t automatically disqualify someone from being president.

Vanceone on November 5, 2007 at 4:40 PM