(I clicked on the original link to Newsbusters, and read the portion Shepherd cited Prothero...which was 11 of Prothero's 15 paragraphs...so I read most of it)
Apparently Mr. Prothero thinks that Christians endorsing Romney are going against their own beliefs by doing so, that they are endorsing Mormonism and forsaking their own religion for political purposes (he calls them shills for the GOP). That is what I'm objecting to: his intimation that endorsing someone whom is of beliefs that your own religion condemns is somehow apostasy.
#1...re: "endorsing" Mormonism...I don't see most of the Christian groups or individuals openly endorsing Romney giving any qualifications or caveats re: his Mormonism, do you? (So what else do they leave others to conclude?)
Analogy: If you endorsed a pro-abort candidate because they were semi-conservative on a lot of issues, and the other major candidate was even worse abortion wise, if you endorsed that candidate without acknowledging at least some problems with their abortion stance, aren't you embracing/elevating/endorsing pro-abortionism to some extent?
*************************
#2 Allow me to use this other analogy (from the Old Testament):
Saul was Israel's first king (they had "judges" before then, but were clamoring for a king to be like the people groups around them).
The Lord relented, and Saul, who eventually fell out of kilter relationship-wise with both God and David, became that first king.
A Biblical commentator notes in 1 Samuel that the writer of 1 Samuel's narrative "show[s] the people's and God's initial approval of him. Saul is presented as Israel's deliverer, remarkably similar to the judges. While all Israel cowered at the threat of the Ammonites, Saul rallied the tribes and defeated the enemy. Just as during the time of the judges, the Spirit of God came upon him and he had victory in the battle. At the conclusion of the story, we see again that Saul's mighty deeds were known and acknowledged by the people. It is in light of these narratives that the subsequent failure of Saul is explained. A valiant and mighty leader is not necessarily a godly one...Saul failed as king because he did not provide the spiritual leadership for the nation." (NIV Compact Bible Commentary, p. 225)
So, just as the Israelites cowered at the threat of the Ammonites of that time, today's conservatives cower at the threat of another four Obama years and the threat of Muslim terrorists. Just as Saul alleviated some of that threat, "King Romney" is likewise seen as a threat alleviator.
And, just as Saul failed to provide spiritual leadership, so will Romney, whose beliefs are closer to polytheistic paganism than to Christianity.
Somehow, Christian voters for Romney don't seem to mind that they are openly endorsing -- without qualification or caveat -- a man who...
...(a) like 15-20% of all Mormons, believes he is a competitor to THE God as a rival god [otherwise known as open idolatry];
...and (b) would "feature" a man in the White House...as THE Leader of the Free World...praying -- in a crisis situation -- to a foreign god who is no god at all.
What kind of "leadership" is it when a nation forgoes the ONE AND ONLY TRUE God as its Ultimate Leader?