Blogotional
One of my seminary professors, Trygve Skarsten, gave us this definition of what constitutes a cult from a Christian perspective. A cult...
1. doesn't believe in salvation by grace;
2. repudiates the deity of Christ; and
3. repudiates the doctrine of the Trinity.
By these terms, Mormonism would be considered a cult.
But the issue of whether a person who is a Mormon should be elected the presidency or to any other public office is altogether different from how one views his or her religion.
People of all faiths must be committed to not using their public offices to give preferred treatment to the doctrine or the adherents of their faith. I see no reason why a Mormon could not serve as president or be considered as a candidate for the presidency. Many Mormons have served in other public offices, including Eisenhower's Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson, who also was a luminary in his faith group.
I don't think that someone should be blocked from consideration for the White House just because they're Mormon.
More specific to Mitt Romney, the Massachusetts governor who occasions so much of your posting on this subject:
Romney appears to be gaining traction in his bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination and seems to have gotten the tacit endorsement of Jeb Bush. Romney might well take the nomination.
But Romney has decided liabilities as a candidate, none of them having to do with his faith.
His father ran in 1968, you know, and at one point was considered one of the top contenders. But following his famed "brainwashed" gaffe, he was out of the field. The son seems paranoid about making the same mistake as his father. Mitt Romney appears to be scripted. When one adds to this what looks like a natve woodenness, there is an air of detached inaccessibility about him, not unlike that of John Kerry.
As he continues to campaign though, Romney may shed some of his obvious fear and become a more relaxed, likable campaigner. That would enhance his prospects.
Another thing that may hurt him is a mood is that appears to be taking hold of the American people, a mood to no longer reward political dynasties. It's one reason among many, for example, that Hillary Clinton will probably not run for the 2008 Dem nomination or have it denied to her if she does. Bush, Clinton, Gore, Taft, Kennedy, Romney: They've been important political names for anywhere from thirty to more than one-hundred years. But, even if the latest members of these dynasties are qualified to be president, the American people are presently in no mood to elect them.
The big advantage that Romney does have is in being from Massachusetts. No matter what he does in the Iowa caucuses, he'll have a fighting chance for the nomination because he will likely perform well in the New Hampshire primary. Massachusetts pols, because of their proximity to the Granite State, have always fared well in NH. Consider the list that immediately
comes to mind. John Kennedy, Henry Cabot Lodge (on an unauthorized write-in campaign), Ted Kennedy, Michael Dukakis, Paul Tsongas, and John Kerry.
If Romney fails to win the presidency in 2008, it won't be because of his religion.
Mark
I should add that Skarsten's definition of what constitutes a cult references those groups claiming to be Christian.
Mark:
This is the first of a series. You will see that I draw a distinct between academic definitions and common discourse.
Academics are capable of using the word "cult" without value judgment, dsimply descriptively, however, it is not used in this fashion in common discourse, it is almost always pejorative.
My arguement is against the pejorative use fo the term as it applies to Mormons.
I should add that you are right by the defintiion you give, and a Mormon would agree with you, but....the word is simply too "loaded" in most cases of public discourse for any Mormon to let it stand and then rightfully so.
Forexample the typical "brainwashing" imagery the word conjures up for most people.
Your points are correct, from my vantage point, John.
Mark
Dear John and Mark:
I loathe religious debates, but I do want to add some context to the three-part Trygve Skarsten test Mark references. It's just not as simple as it might seem.
Here goes:
1. doesn't believe in salvation by grace;
[Mormons believe it is by grace we are saved, after all we can do. I know that doesn't pass muster under your view of grace, but it makes the issue a little more nuanced, doesn't it?]
2. repudiates the deity of Christ; and
[If you're saying this applies to Mormonism, that claim simply cannot stand. You would need to parse the word "deity." Using the plain meaning of the word, no fair-minded person can say we repudiate the deity of Christ.]
3. repudiates the doctrine of the Trinity.
[If you are applying the creedal Christian definition, then Mormons will cheerfully concede this one. We believe the Father, Son, and HOly Ghost are separate beings, but one in purpose. That takes us out of creedal Christianity, of course, but it doesn't put us in the same category as David Koresh.]
Thanks--
Lowell
Commenting by HaloScan
