CommerceComet wrote:
“However, there is a difference between someone who isn’t a friend of the cross and someone who is an enemy of the cross.”
I see. Jesus notwithstanding? “He who isn’t with Me is against Me.” Your categories are just that, your categories.
As far as the hostility of the Mormons go, yes, I’m quite convinced of it. I have read a great deal of Mormon literature, that is, what their leaders have written in the last hundred and a half years or so, spent quite a lot of time in Utah, and know quite a few of them. Hence my characterization of Mormonism as neo-pagan and post-Christian.
However, voting for president is not about who is a Christian and who is not. It is about who will govern according to the Constitution, follow the law, and not go against natural law/conscience. Jimmy Carter claimed to be a Christian. He even taught “Sunday School” regularly. Yet he was a disaster as president. If we get both a Christian and one who governs by the Constitution, then, yes of course, that would be the best.
Mitt Romney was my last choice (except for Ron Paul). Nevertheless he is not as bad as Obama. That is my analysis. It is far from a hearty endorsement. But that, for me, is the bottom line.
Two things are true: First, a vote for some other third party candidate at this point in history or a non-vote is a half-vote for Obama. I will not give Obama a half-vote. He acts contrary to the Constitution and the principles on which this nation was founded. Obama must go. Second, a Republican president, however lacking in conservative principles, can be pressured by conservatives into doing the right thing. Obama cannot be. Obama must go.
Maybe you don't see. Jesus also said "he who is not against us is for us." (Mark 9:40) Which principle to use obviously depends on the context. You seem to agree that Mormonism is opposed to true Christianity and since Mitt is a true believer, he would fit in the "he who isn't with me" rather than "he who is not against us". Maybe they are my categories but I believe they have Biblical support - sometimes neutrality is an issue, sometimes it's not. I'm still waiting for the compelling Biblical argument that it is okay to vote for an enemy of the Cross to such a high position of power and influence.
However, voting for president is not about who is a Christian and who is not.
I think that you're arguing in circles. I have already stated that I don't require theological purity in the candidates. That's what started the whole "enemies of the cross" discussion.
First, a vote for some other third party candidate at this point in history or a non-vote is a half-vote for Obama.
A non-vote for Romney is not a vote for Obama. As Revel points out, if that argument is true, I'm also giving Romney half a vote by withholding my vote from Obama, so they cancel out.
Second, a Republican president, however lacking in conservative principles, can be pressured by conservatives into doing the right thing.
You mean just like George W. Bush? Dubya was far more conservative than Romney. If the Republicans in Congress won't fight the unpopular President from the other party, what makes you think that they'll stand up to a President of their own party? The GOP-e is going to be pressuring the Republicans in Congress to go along with the President because "we can't afford to have a failed Republican Presidency." I'm very skeptical that Mitt Romney can be pulled right when his every instinct is liberal.