All Comments for: What Evangelicals Heard in Romney's 'Faith in America' Speech | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2007 > December (Web-only)

Christianity Today, December (Web-only), 2007 |

What Evangelicals Heard in Romney's 'Faith in America' Speech

What the candidate said will largely be welcomed. But questions remain about what wasn't.

David Neff | posted 12/06/2007 01:34PM

It is no secret that Mitt Romney's Mormonism has so far served as a liability rather than an asset with important segments of the Republican electorate.

According to a Pew poll, 36 percent of evangelicals ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 28 comments.

Page: 1 2

Show All

DanS	Posted: December 12, 2007 9:11 PM

Mitt Romney continues to dig a deeper hole regarding his Mormonism. Be assured, Mormonism is a cult...and has always been a cult, by reason of their radical unorthodox position on the nature of God and the Person of Jesus Christ. Mormons are adept at parroting evangelical (biblical) language so as to mislead and deceive their audience, and thereby securing an unmerited level of acceptance with Christians. Criticism is most often deflected by redirecting attention to and emphasizing "family values." Over the past century, dozens of books have been written documenting the heterodox, polytheistic beliefs of Mormonism. However, it's their ability to look the public square in the face and lie about what they believe that should be of concern to everyone. If they'll lie about their religion, which they esteem so highly, what else are they willing to lie about?

Daniel Durham

Posted: December 12, 2007 2:04 PM

This article presents one of the worst arguments I have ever seen. Swenson is correct about the illogicalness of violent Mormons. That same Missouri mob violence was played out against abolitionist Kansas, most notably the sack of Lawrence. This brings up another point—the Civil War was a deeply religious war, specifically with regards to slavery (sing ALL the verses of the “Battle Hymn of the Republic”). As far as I know, no Mormon has EVER enslaved, beat, whipped, raped, or murdered another human LDS doctrine, particularly with temple ordinance, is not secret but sacred. Temples are not operated by the CIA! The “rejection of historic Christian truths” is a contradiction in terms. Historically, Christianity began in simple terms as an evolved form of Judaism, transforming in to the multitudes of wildly different Christian sects of today. My point is that principles unite and beliefs divide. Shame on us all for failing Christs teachings. Only he can judge-we can only forgive.

Nick	Posted: December 12, 2007 1:20 PM

It's not the interior theological beliefs of Mormonism that concern me. It's the historical inaccuracies that are easily disproven in the Book of Mormon. The inaccuracies that gave legitimacy to its mistreatment of fellow black citizens. Mormonism is a racist religion at its core, in contrast to racists who are Christian, that receive no such support from that belief system. The Book of Mormon is built upon plagiarized texts and easily-disproven historical narratives. It's nineteenth-century Scientology.

Raymond Takashi Swenson

Posted: December 11, 2007 10:36 AM

The paragraph trying to blame Mormons for a history of violence is illogical. Jackson County residents led by Protestant ministers demanded the Mormons, people from Ohio and New York accused of being abolitionists, abandon their homes in Jackson County in 1833. After resettling north in Caldwell County and unsuccessfully seeking redress through the courts, they were driven north to Daviess County, where they settled Far West. The Missouri militia massacred 17 men and boys surrounded in a barn at Haun's Mill. After the Mormons at Far West surrendered their firearms to the militia, their leaders went to a peace parley and were instead arrested and ordered to be hanged summarily. Only the bravery of Alexander Doniphan, a militia officer who refused to carry out the order, saved their lives. Since many of the Missourians promoting these years of attacks on Mormons were ministers, this is a history of "Christian" violence against Mormons.

P. W.

Posted: December 11, 2007 12:00 AM

Scripture urges believers not to walk in the counsel of the ungodly. While Romney may potentially be a born again Christian with the grossly perverted Christology of Mormonism, it seems more likely that Romney's adherence to Mormonism indicates he is an unbeliever. Romney has some nice sound bytes for evangelicals, which may indicate he is heading in the right direction, but his Mormonism is a definite liability for his spiritual credentials. Believers are urged to walk in the counsel of the godly. Huckabee seems more likely to be a better choice as a believer's "counselor" than Romney. While I hope Romney is headed to heaven, it seems to me his Mormonism makes his spiritual condition less likely that he is a godly man. I am praying for Huckabee whose spiritual credentials appear to me to align much more faithfully to Scripture. I am surprised that Christianity Today's featured writers seem to speak so little of the Bible's admonition to walk in the counsel of godly believers.

Ron Boto

Posted: December 09, 2007 10:31 PM


Mormonism is not Christianity and therefore is not the Word of God. The Bible is very clear on men adding to, or taking away from, its truth. I don't believe we are in a position to second guess our Lord.

LJ Rivera

Posted: December 08, 2007 6:06 AM

The Mormon Church services are very Christ centered. I have attended many of them.It's true that Mormons don't follow post apostolic creeds regarding the deity,which came 325 years after the dead of Christ(1st Council of Nicaea)It make one to think;why is that the word Trinity is totally absence from the Bible and why we still believe and follow doctrines formulated at councils given by a church that the Reformers denounced, protested and actually separated from.Creeds that defined and established as official doctrine the personality and substance of God.Councils that established doctrines outside the scriptures,because the Bible was already written.We have to remember that 325 years are way too many years to wonder about the physical or spiritual attributes of God and or His substance. It may be the reason why Mormons definition and understanding of God is not so strange after all.And also maybe why Mormons use the term Godhead instead of Trinity when when referring to God.

Doug Indeap

Posted: December 08, 2007 2:58 AM

Romney says: “Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests.” Our constitution, though, does not rest on a foundation of faith. Sure, some founders professed a belief in god. So what? Others did not profess, or denied, any such belief. In any event, they drafted documents founding the government on the power of the people (not a deity). Lest there be any doubt, the U.S. soon entered into the Treaty of Tripoli declaring “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” Treaties are the law of the land. Romney says: "Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government.” So, a person who does not acknowledge god is not American? Romney says: “We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.” We? Again, atheists are not Americans, not among the “we” a President Romney aims to serve.

paul	Posted: December 07, 2007 6:27 PM

I did not see Romney's speech, but I now feel informed enough. Although I can't agree with some Mormon beliefs, I think Romney and mormons in general are good americans. I clicked on the article's link for the mormon's reasoning behind their trinity doctrines. I found the link to be interesting and sincere, but I question the truthfulness of the existence of a 4th or 5th century council that decided modern christian doctrine of the trinity.

Gene	Posted: December 07, 2007 6:12 PM

I do believe that a man's character should be the ultimate determiner. I did not vote for Bill Clinton because of his general lack of character. If a man doesn't hold sacred his personal oaths and vows, how can he hold anything else sacred. At this time in our history, with all that is good is under attack, we need a man that will hold strong to traditional values. I find it interesting that as we have allowed our values to be eroded in this country so has our economy slipped against the rest of the world. I will be voting for a man that truly believes in Jesus Christ and our Hevenly Father. In this day of politicians that say what they need to get elected/re-elected, I want someone that will consult with the Lord on a regular basis, religion aside. The further we allow our nation to be removed from the Lord, the farther His protecting Hand will be from us.

Gene	Posted: December 07, 2007 5:58 PM

I am a member of The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, many call us the Mormons. I first want to thank you for your attempt to be unbiased in this story. For the most part you did a good job with it. I would however question some of your statements. Since when did a church of approaching 6 million members in the U.S. become marginal? You also questioned how much Mormons believe in Jesus Christ. I will tell you this, "It is only by and through Jesus Christ that a man may be saved. We are called the church of Jesus Christ for a reason. He is the Author of our salvation. He paved the way for all men to return to His Father. Calling the mormons racist based upon solely a doctrine without giving the whole context is a bit irresponsible. If you think Mormons are racist you should take a look at the various welfare programs Mormons have set up around the world. You should also note that the Mormons Church has donated over $705million worth of aid since 1985. Mostly to 3rd world nat

Brenda

Posted: December 07, 2007 3:21 PM

Throughout the entirety of Holy Scripture, leaders had to be in fellowship with the Lord. Whenever they went about leaning unto their own understanding, their enemies overtook them. When they were obedient to God, they were victorious. Our nation must have a leader who will seek the Lord for every single decision they make. In addition, they must surround themselves with godly counselors. Only The One and Only Living God will do...not many gods called by various names. Some things are true wheather you believe them or not. A house divided against itself cannot stand. We must have a Christian leader who is wholely commited to the Lord and will not add to nor take away from His word. Anything less than that is perilous for us all, as well as disobedient to the Holy God we serve, Who is a jealous God by the way. Jesus Christ is not merely Savior, but He must be Lord as well. Read the book of 1 Sam. One must obey who one serves...do everything as unto the Lord! Brenda

Dale	Posted: December 07, 2007 3:16 PM

The article was very balanced, describing the impressive comments given by Mr. Romney during his speech. Frankly, I was surprised that his views were so close to my own. The points he made were right on point. His sentiments should cause us to re-think our prejudices toward people of religions that are different from our own. If we evangelicals would live our religion the way we should, then we would start taking the higher ground as Jesus would have us do---which is to look inside the person as to his values and integrity, and judge the person by those values and not by the name of his church. As I look within the man called Mitt Romney, I now see clearly a person with great faith in our Lord and a man whom I can trust to lead this country. He now has my vote.

EH	Posted: December 07, 2007 3:15 PM

The LDS faith does not practice secret rites, but some of its ordinances are sacred and reserved for worship within the temples. This is entirely consistent with Jesus's admonition to not cast "pearls" before those who are unprepared or who would ridicule the doctrines of Christ. Although Neff suggests that Mitt's avoidance of any discussion of the particularities of Mormonsism doesn't help those that are suspicious, ill-informed or confused, Mitt's approach is the only prudent one. "No political candidate should be a spokesman for his religion." For those who are sincerely interested, it has never been easier to find out what we believe. Although most people are content to stick with what they already know and fear to add unfamiliar (but readily available) knowledge to those truths, there are a few who hunger enough for truth, beauty, and Christ to find out for themselves if it is true. In any event, there are much better resources than a politician for this information.

david

Posted: December 07, 2007 1:53 PM

Mr. Rommey may have been able to respond with political savvy to the issue of his religious beliefs, but that is not the whole story. The question needs to be asked: are evengelicals in this country prepared to vote for a non-evangelical candidate? Are we slowly coming to the place where the evengelical conservative right will use a religious test to determine whether a candidate is worthy of the white house or not. ? I fear that this trend slowly but steadily creeping to tho the national political culture. And Mr. Rommey may be a victim of his own approach: by constantly harping about his religion, by trying to show that his religion is so legitimate and authentic, by essentially conveying the impression that he is "God's man". and that he has the religious and biblical bona fides, he has given the evangelical community the right to use a religious test as the chief determinant as ones worthiness for public office. Is this what the founding fathers wanted?

John	Posted: December 07, 2007 12:47 PM

As one of those "liberal Christians" that Evangelicals are apparently afraid of, I was not pleased with Romney's speech. To quote John Adams, a Unitarian, about the need for a religious population in a speech aimed squarely at the fundamentalist evangical wing of Christianity certainly radically changes the message meant by Mr. Adams at the time! "Religion" in the Founder's day generally spanned the spectrum from Episcopalians to Deists, so a call to a religious population was more a call to a population that had concern and care about their fellow man and not an invocation to censor television, demand Christmas displays, or wag "Holy Wars" in far-away lands because our God is bigger then their God. When Romeny said "religion" he meant a particular brand of Evenagelical-Neocon holy warrior. To say that no one is fit to lead without those credentials is just stupid.

Derek

Posted: December 07, 2007 11:37 AM

Very good review. The opening paragraphs highlight a very important issue for conservatives, evangelical conservatives in particular. I quote: "36 percent of evangelicals say that they are less likely to vote for a candidate who is a Mormon." Now, you don't have to be a bigot to vote in a religiously bigoted way, and according to this poll evangelicals are saying for themselves that they vote in a religiously bigoted way. Evangelical conservatives, and conservatives in general, have an opportunity to show the country and the world that we don't allow religious bigotry to influence our voting habits. We should choose our candidates based on their conservatism, not their religion. I agree with Jim, vote for the person, NOT the religion.

Secret Religion?

Posted: December 07, 2007 10:56 AM

Nice Article besides the comments like "many Americans will feel discomfort with the mainstreaming of a marginal faith that a Romney presidency would represent.", "Mormonism's history as a secret religion", "Because Mormonism continues to practice secret rites, it is a religion not well adapted to a society that thrives on transparency." Marginal Faith? Secret Religion? Secret rites? Are these just your opinions? Easy to make these assumptions when you are not educated in what you write about. Do you live your Religion? I don't know if I can read another article by you because I have this weird feeling in my gut because you believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are the same person. Too many questions about that remain. I would like you to distance yourself from that part of Christian History, then perhaps I will read another articles of yours. Sounds silly doesn't it?

Ken	Posted: December 07, 2007 10:30 AM


I was impressed with Romney's speech, his sincerity and direct affirmation of his convictions. He is a man of faith who openly espouses the place for religious thought in our society. We may not believe the doctrine of his church; but we cannot, in good conscience, state that his values are less than ours. I am now reassured that he would represent my principles and values as president.

Iowa Resident

Posted: December 07, 2007 9:46 AM

Neff's article was well written overall. Romeny made a very crucial assertion by highlighting the fact that ALL religions in this nation (yes, I'm talking specifically about "Christian" religions), have significant differences among their doctrinal teachings. This is true even within the same denomination--you could go to one church in any given state then go to another that proclaims itself as being the same denomination in another state, and you will hear significant inconsistencies in Biblical interpretations. Besides, if Romney had used this as an "opportunity" to "address the specifics of his religion," he would have shown is inability to not use his high profile position to recruit me to become a member of his faith. Isn't that what the Evangelicals are affraid of?

Chad	Posted: December 07, 2007 9:41 AM

Good article! The nation's eye is not only on Mormons, but on Evangelicals, since their concerns necessitated Mitt's speech. The article supports many valid reasons why "what the candidate said will largely be welcomed." As for the "questions (that) remain about what wasn't (said)," those questions can remain, but should be left in the theological realm not in the political. Besides, those are issues of the past, not the present. Mitt actually spared Evangelicals and all other faiths, by not approaching the history of those subjects. Mormons would actually have the least explaining to do when it comes to slavery and oppression. And explaining the prejudice of Missouri that led to an extermination order on the Mormons, further vilifies so-called Christians. Mormons were the ones driven from the state (Their homes and belongings taken or burned) by illegitimate fears. Can Mormons and Evangelicals go forward more enlightened, and let the past be? Mitt is openly asking for it.

Jim	Posted: December 07, 2007 9:15 AM

As an evangelical christian, I appreciate this viewpoint. I like the lack of bias in David's review of Mitt Romney's speech, but I am still deeply troubled by our own faith's inability to let differences go. This is perhaps best embodied by David Neff's statement above that "But among those who are most suspicious or ill-informed or confused about Mormon belief and history, that does not help. They may want him to be a robust sort of believer, but they also need to hear him distance himself from key elements of Mormon history." Why must we continue to demand this? Why do we need Mitt to debate all of the key differences between his religion and the Evangelical dogma? Would we demand that any other faith do the same, or is this demand fueled by our own inability to allow others to worship the details of their religion and still be considered good people? Otherwise, I loved this review. But come on, let the differences go! Let's vote for the person, not for the religious details.

Richard M.

Posted: December 07, 2007 8:55 AM

I appreciate this article. I am a convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I have a Jewish father, an Armenian mother, I went to Notre Dame law school and I have many friends and relatives who are evangelicals. I have always been treated kindly and understandingly by my evangelical firends. We have agreed to disagree on doctrinal issues, because in the end we share a common desire to be more like the Savior. Although I believe with all my heart that my Church is true, I know that our daily efforts to love our neighbors, battle pride and apathy, and serve others will say more for what we truly believe, than the doctrines themselves. Thanks again for this well-written article and continued kindness.

Runr	Posted: December 06, 2007 11:57 PM

As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I find Mr. Neff's article to be very well written, although the one assertion in particular I don't agree with has to do with the "Extermination Order." A naturally curious person myself, I did my own research into this. I suggest others make their own examinations, as well. As for Mitt's speech, I enjoyed it. Since it seemed to come from his heart, I actually felt the stirrings of patriotism as well as gratitude for this great country we live in. Now that I think about it, I've voted in every single presidential election since I was old enough to vote in 1988, and the fact that not one of the candidates were LDS didn't bother me a bit. :-)

John	Posted: December 06, 2007 7:48 PM


Romney could be a Martian for all I care. All I know is what I saw on my TV today was one of the most inspiring and moving speeches I've EVER seen delivered by a "politician." I think Romney is the real deal and he has my vote. John (a FORMER Thompson supporter)

Page: 1 2

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment