The “Speech”
http://www.regent.edu/new…t_announce.html
With all the talk in the discussion topics about the famous “Speech” that some believe Romney has to give, while others do not got me thinking.
For a while now I’ve believed that this weeks commencement address at Regent University would be that “speech”. What better way of doing it. He’ll have the debate this week, he’ll have a little more name recognition, and he’s going to have an Evangelical Christian audience to speak to. If he’s going to give this famous speech, why not now and why not at this place?
I welcome others viewpoints on the subject.
Ann Marie
April 29th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Ann, I think you are right. I have been wondering the same thing since it was announced he would speak there. There has been a lot of speculation whether he needs to give such a speech or whether he ever would.
Personally, I think he should give such a speech and that it should be as powerful as the one given by JFK.
I think you are right. What is the date and time of that speech?
April 29th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
I agree that the consensus among the political analysts is that he needs to give the “JFK” speech, and if he is to do it, then yes, this would be an ideal place to do it. However, I think that it is still a bit too early in the election. I mean, if he is trying to get the evangalicals behind him, then this is definitely the place and time to do, but if he is doing this to reassure the general public, he may want to wait a bit.
April 29th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
I think he should give The Speech now and then refer back to it or restate it when needed during the general election. Remember, his goal is the Primary right now and both Giuliani and to some extent McCain have offended the Christian Coalition. Romney needs to address their concerns and pave the way for their support. Their hang up is not in his policies, it’s in his potential influence from the church and if they “believe” he will stick to what his campaign promises currently are.
April 29th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
As I have said before in this forum, it is important that Romney distinguishes Mormonism from Christianity if he is to give this speech. Indeed, in giving this speech Romney will exude Kennedy in that it will remind Americans of the similarities between he and Kennedy, which always helps. In fact, the media continues to assert that Romney’s Mormonism will be a problem. This is will be so only if Romney associates Mormonism with Christainity rather than an unique faith.
In general, I believe Romney’s Mormonism is a net plus, because it only helps Romney’s name id problem. If Romney doesn’t distinguish Mormonism from Christianity (as Judaism is distinct from Christianity), he will not only have liberals who disdain faith in general to deal with, but unending theological and doctrinal questions from evangelicals to deal with. I concur with Richard Land, when he says at best Romney should have evangelicals view Mormonism as the “fourth Abrahamic religion” rather than a sect of Christianity.
April 29th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Steven,
While I agree with the spirit of your post (yes, a lot of evangelicals refuse to accept mormons as christians), I, as a mormon, have to respectfully disagree with the assertion that Mitt needs to distinguish his religion from christianity. By stating that mormonism is as distinct from christianity as judaism is from christianity is untrue and unfair. Even to call it the fourth abrahamic religion is a misrepresentation, since mormonism claims its roots with jesus christ and his apostles, just like catholicism and protestantism (but unlike Judaism and Islam). You see, whether some like it or not, Mitt and all mormons call themselves christians, and always have. Claiming to be christian is not some polical ploy to try to make himself appear more acceptable to evangelicals. So to expect him to draw a clear distinction between his beliefs and “christianity” would be impossible, as he sees his beliefs and genuinely christian, though some of his doctrinal beliefs may not be the same as many other sects. It would also be the epitomy of political opportunism, since he would be denying his core beliefs to appease a particular political base. I don’t think we want to go there, do we?
April 29th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
No speech. There should be no religious test. The public is not asking for “the speech”, only the MSM. No speech sez I, what - just to temporarily placate the propaganda machine? Let the MSM go online to the official LDS website if they have questions.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:03 am
He might have to go there, though I don’t think that it diminishes his faith. I think Mormonism is quite unique and distinct from Christianity and merely emphasizing that difference without explicitly stating that Mormonism stands on its own, would alleviate the inevitable questions about Mormon doctrine, that could potentially sink his candidacy. Now Romney does have other issues that threaten his candidacy, but none greater than this question of his faith and how to deal with explaining his beliefs which are not familiar to most Americans.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:17 am
I appreciate Liz’s comments, but I think that Mitt does need to give a one time separation of church and state speech. I think that “Mormon Doctrine” and “Mormon = Christian” are red herrings. Mitt is right when he directs people to the church’s representatives when issues of doctrine come up. He needs to continue doing that. But, anyone who looks at Mormonism will inevitably ask the question, does the Mormon Prophet or Apostles have any secular influence on Mitt Romney?
We all know the answer is NO, even Harry Reid can answer that one. But, many people who are suspect of Prophetic Influence, need to be assured that Mitt is focused on values. His religion has helped to shape those values, but the leadership of the church does not and will not affect policy. This is about the influence of the Church’s leadership over Mitt, not doctrine, just as JFK’s speech was about the influence of the Pope over his policy.
I also agree with Ann Marie, his speech at the Regent University is the perfect place to give such a speech!
May 6th, 2007 at 2:30 am
For me, a Mormon, the Mormon-Christian question is a matter of definition. The word “Christian” is not “owned” by any set of churches any more than the word “choice” is owned by the pro-abortion crowd.
About three hundred years after Christ, diverse Christian leaders gathered in a council and “defined” by voting, what the basic tenents would be of a unified “Christian faith” as “they defined it”. The several Catholic churches and thousands of protestant churches–all different–spring from that same council about 1700 years ago. Some call this set of diverse Christian churches “traditional Christianity”.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS),(Mormon) does not come from that source so is not part of “traditional Christianity”. We have never claimed that we were.
We believe that God restored the Church of Jesus Christ to the Earth in these, the last days, through working with prophets and apostles like He did during Old and New Testament times. We totally believe in Jesus Christ; that He was miraculously born of Mary; taught the people to live as He lived; healed many; established His Church; suffered for our sins in the Garden; died on the cross to atone for our sins; was resurected the third day; appeared to hundreds; ascended into heaven to join His Father; promised to return again. We believe in Christ; we seriously try to live as he taught; we repent when we sin; we rely on His grace to save us. We have unique, similar but different, LDS definitions for these concepts which we feel are completely harmoneous with the Old and New Testament.
Of course we are Christian! But we make no claim to be “traditional Christians” or to use the definitions of concepts agreed to for the “Christians” of 300 AD. LDS might call the LDS Church “restored Christianity”. But non-LDS would probably quibble about that term also.
I would like to see Mitt explain the basics of his faith in Jesus Christ and his adherance to (pick an adjective)”restored, unique, different, new and improved, LDS, not the same as yours, Biblical, Christianity”; refer people to the Church website LDS.org if they want more details; explain the proper role of Churches in the U.S. of encouraging public policy as they wish; explain that the LDS Church has sometimes spoken up on issues that it feels will benefit citizens, encouraged citizen participation in government, but does not endorse candidates or dictate policy to LDS politicians.
One major difference in definitions is what it takes to be “saved”. LDS and Mitt believe that we are “saved by the grace of Christ–after all we can do”. This is somewhat like the faith and works debate in “traditional Christianity”. We do not believe we are saved by our works but that God expects us to learn to be honest, true to our spouse, raise a good family, not use drugs or alcohol, not swear falsely, not steal, not murder or have abortions, not covet, etc. Our obedience plays a major role in His decision to save us by His grace.
Now, I know that is heresy to many “traditional Christians”; but look what you get out of the deal —– perhaps a President that actually lives his “unique Christian” values rather than just giving lip service to them. If what is wrong with Romney is that he lives his unique religion which expects him to obey Christian commandments —isn’t that a virture instead of a vice?