Mormon Romney faces questions of beliefs
9:57 p.m. Monday, June 18, 2007
Many of the same conservative evangelical Christians whom former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is trying to woo have concerns about his religion, Mormonism.
And two rival campaigns have sent out emails in recent weeks questioning different tenets of Mormonism
Emma Nemecek, a paid field director for the presidential campaign of Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, sent out this email from her personal account, questioning whether Mormonism is truly a Christian religion, asking more than a dozen people if any factoids about the Church of Latter Day Saints in the email were inaccurate.
"The LDS Jesus is not the same Jesus of the Christian faith," it said. "The LDS church has never been accepted by the Christian Council of Churches."
A campaign staffer for former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani sent out an email containing a news story about a controversial Mormon prophesy that a Mormon
will save the US Constitution.
Both campaigns have apologized for bringing faith into this debate.
But Romney himself has opened the door for some questions, seeming to blur the distinction between his church and mainstream Christianity.
"In your faith, if I understand it correctly, it teaches that Jesus will return probably to the United States and reign on earth for 1,000 years," ABC newsman George Stephanopoulos said.
"That doesn't happen to be a doctrine of my church. Our belief is just as it says in the Bible, that the Messiah will come to Jerusalem, stand on the Mount of Olives and that the Mount of Olives will be the place for the great gathering and so forth. It's the same as the other Christian tradition," Romney said.
But a Mormon church official told a Utah newspaper columnist that, "We believe in multiple appearances of the Savior", in both Jerusalem AND Jackson County, Missouri. "Brother Romney is playing a little bit of a political game with his answer."
It seems likely more games will be played on this sensitive subject in the coming months
Comments
Note: ktka.com does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor vouch for the factual claims made therein. Nor do we review every post.
Jun. 19, 2007 at 2:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)HiveRadical (anonymous)
Romney is being assaulted for a botched question on Stephanopoulos's part. The way George phrased it has it sounding like he thinks that LDS theology holds that Christ will reign for a thousand years from the Americas or that his Second Coming will be in the Americas and thusly at variance with the Bible accounts. We believe Christ will come to the Americas, but that such a meeting will not involve his feet touching the earth and thusly will not be his 'second advent' but rather a prelude to the power and burning and world transforming event that will occur in Jerusalem.
I'd take exception to the way he phrased his question. I know a great deal of LDS theology and I'd be rather full of shagrin if Romney capitulated to a question like that because such would be a public misportrayal of what we believe.
I really wish people would look at this as they would scrutinize someone who screwed up alot of the details in their faith while claiming to be a reporter that knows something.
Give Romney a break on this one, it was Stephanopoulos that screwed it up.
Jun. 19, 2007 at 2:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)HiveRadical (anonymous)
An added note--The comming to the Americas that Christ is set up to do in our theology's eschatological scheme is something that our prophets have said will not be privy to the world, nor to much of our own church, when it occurs.
Jun. 19, 2007 at 2:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)HiveRadical (anonymous)
Here's an attempt to give an example of an equivilant botching of a question to a theoretical Christian candidate--
"In your faith, if I understand it correctly, it teaches that Jesus will suck up probably righteous individuals and have a bunch of virgins with some kind of thing on their face telling everyone that they are all going to be damned"
If you see both biblical references and botched attempts at the portrayals of such in that statement, and if that statement would make you cringe if it was presented as an accurate portrayal of your beliefs as a Christian, then you might have an idea as to how frustrating George's screwy question seems to myself.
Jun. 19, 2007 at 6:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)Eveningsun (anonymous)
HiveRadical, at least give Stephanopoulos credit for beginning his question with the qualifying phrase, "if I understand it correctly." He thus admitted that he might not have a very good understanding of the theological point at issue, and to that extent did not "botch" his question. Not only that, he implicitly invited Romney to clarify that theological point. But instead of clarification, Romney gave us obfuscation. He gave viewers the impression that LDS belief about Christ's return is "the same as the other Christian tradition," when it's not. LDS theology says that Christ WILL return to the Americas, even if, as you correctly note, he will not do so in the way implied by Stephanopoulos. Mainstream Christian tradition says nothing at all about Jesus coming to the Americas. There really IS a difference there, which is fine--all one asks is for Romney to be completely honest about it. Instead, he replied as if there were no difference, and certainly left viewers with that (wrong) impression. He's not being criticized because Stephanopoulos botched the question. He's being criticized for his dishonesty. He had an opportunity to clarify a point of LDS belief, but he chose to obfuscate it. He had to choose between straightforward honesty and obfuscating dishonesty, and he CHOSE to be less than fully honest. (I would say that if he intentionally left viewers with the wrong impression, then he lied.) I can't help but think he might be a little better at exercising his agency if folks like you would stop covering for him. The fact that he's LDS doesn't mean we should hold him only to the usual politician's low standard of truth. If anything, we should hold him to a higher standard.
Jul. 11, 2007 at 3:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)theOtter (anonymous)
I think the worst part of this whole article is that they don’t seem to be able to figure out what Church Romney is a member of. It’s The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Too long? Too bad. Jesus Christ Himself named it that, and I think He knows what He’s doing. (And if that’s too long to say over and over again, please feel free to call it The Church of Jesus Christ, in subsequent references. He seems to be okay with that.)
Seriously, though…. Calling the Church of Jesus Christ “the LDS Church” or “the Mormon Church” is extremely offensive—not only to the Savior, who is essentially being crucified anew by those who are ignoring Him with such nicknames, but also to the members of His Church (who are called Latter-day Saints, hence the appellation). If there were a church called “The Church of the Jews in America,” would 49 News refer to it as “the Yid Church”? What if somebody founded a church called “The Church of Jesus Christ of African-Americans”? Would they call it “the N¡gger Church”?
I know this probably comes off as extremist, but I’m frankly sick of the media treating the Church of Jesus Christ and its members (including the Savior Himself) like second-class citizens. Religious (or racial) slurs have no place in serious journalism.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)