Posted on 10/14/2011 2:08:58 PM PDT by rhema
Predictably, Mormonism is in the news again. The presence of two members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints among contenders for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination ensured that it was only a matter of time before Evangelicals, along with other Americans, began to talk openly about what this means for the nation, the church, and the stewardship of political responsibility in the voting booth.
There are numerous ways to frame these questions wrongly. Our responsibility as evangelical Christians is to think seriously and biblically about these issues. The first temptation is to reduce all of these issues to one question. We must address the question of Mormonism as a worldview and judge it by the Bible and historic Christian doctrine. But this does not automatically determine the second question — asking how Mormon identity should inform our political decisions. Nevertheless, for evangelical Christians, our concern must start with theology. Is Mormonism just a distinctive denomination of Christianity?
The answer to that question is definitive. Mormonism does not claim to be just another denomination of Christianity. To the contrary, the central claim of Mormonism is that Christianity was corrupt and incomplete until the restoration of the faith with the advent of the Latter-Day Saints and their scripture, The Book of Mormon. Thus, it is just a matter of intellectual honesty to take Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, at his word when he claimed that true Christianity did not exist from the time of the Apostles until the reestablishment of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods on May 15, 1829.
From a Christian perspective, Mormonism is a new religion, complete with its own scripture, its own priesthood, its own rituals, and its own teachings. Most importantly, those teachings are a repudiation of historic Christian orthodoxy — and were claimed to be so from the moment of Mormonism’s founding forward. Mormonism rejects orthodox Christianity as the very argument for its own existence, and it clearly identifies historic Christianity as a false faith.
Mormonism starts with an understanding of God that rejects both monotheism and the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The Mormon concept of God includes many gods, not one. Furthermore, Mormonism teaches that we are now what God once was and are becoming what He now is. This is in direct conflict with historic Christianity.
Mormonism rejects the Bible as the sole and sufficient authority for the faith, and insists that The Book of Mormon and other authoritative Latter-Day Saints writings constitute God’s final revelation. Furthermore, the authority in Mormonism is mediated through a human priesthood, through whom God is claimed to speak directly and authoritatively to the church. Nothing makes the distinction between Mormonism and historic Christianity more clear than the experience of reading The Book of Mormon. The very subtitle of The Book of Mormon — Another Testament of Jesus Christ — makes one of Mormonism’s central claims directly and candidly: That we need another authority to provide what is lacking in the New Testament.
The Mormon doctrine of sin is not that of biblical Christianity, nor is its teaching concerning salvation. Rather than teaching that the death of Christ is alone sufficient for the forgiveness of sins, Mormonism presents a scheme of salvation that amounts to the progressive deification of the believer. According to Mormonism, sinners are not justified by faith alone, but also by works of righteousness and obedience. Mormonism’s teachings concerning Jesus Christ start with a radically different understanding of the Virgin Birth and proceed to a fundamentally different understanding of Christ’s work of salvation.
By its very nature, Mormonism borrows Christian themes, personalities, and narratives. Nevertheless, it rejects what orthodox Christianity affirms and it affirms what orthodox Christianity rejects. It is not orthodox Christianity in a new form or another branch of the Christian tradition. By its own teachings and claims, it rejects any claim of continuity with orthodox Christianity. Insofar as an individual Mormon holds to the teachings of the Latter-Day Saints, he or she repudiates biblical Christianity. There are, no doubt, many Mormons who are not fully aware of the teachings of their church. Nevertheless, the doctrines and teachings of the LDS church are there for all to see.
It is neither slander nor condescension to state clearly that Mormonism is not Christianity. Taking Mormonism on its own terms, one finds a comprehensive set of teachings and doctrines that are self-consciously set against historic Christianity. The larger world may be confused about this, but biblical Christians cannot make this error, for we are certain that the consequences are eternal.
So, how do we move from this knowledge to the question of our social and political responsibility? Can a faithful Christian vote for a Mormon candidate?
It is on this question that Evangelicals must think forcefully, faithfully . . . and fast. We need to recognize that we are asking this question from a privileged historical and political context. For most of our nation’s history, voters have chosen among presidential candidates who were identified, to one degree or another, with some form of Protestant Christianity. To date, for example, America has had only one Roman Catholic president and one Jewish candidate for vice president as a major party nominee.
It can be argued that our contemporary political context puts greater emphasis on the religious identity of candidates at all levels than has ever been experienced in American history. Both major political parties have sought various elements of the religious electorate and have developed strategies accordingly.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Evangelicals stating a desire to vote for candidates for public office who most closely identify with our own beliefs and worldview. Given the importance of the issues at stake and the central role of worldview in the framing of political positions and policies, this intuition is both understandable and right. Likewise, we would naturally expect that adherents of other worldviews would also gravitate in political support to candidates who most fully share their own worldviews.
At the same time, competence for public office is also an important Christian concern, as is made clear in Romans 13. Christians, along with the general public, are not well served by political leaders who, though identifying as Christians, are incompetent. The Reformer Martin Luther is often quoted as saying that he would rather be ruled by a competent Turk (Muslim) than an incompetent Christian. We cannot prove that Luther actually made the statement, but it well summarizes an important Christian wisdom.
Furthermore, Christians in other lands and in other political contexts have had to think through these questions, sometimes under urgent and difficult circumstances. Christian citizens of Turkey, for example, must choose among Muslim candidates and parties when voting. Voters in many western states in the United States often have to choose among Mormon candidates. They vote for a Mormon or they do not vote at all.
Furthermore, we must be honest and acknowledge that there are non-Christians or non-evangelicals who share far more of our worldview and policy concerns than some others who identify as Christians. The stewardship of our vote demands that we support those candidates who most clearly and consistently share our worldview and combine these commitments with the competence to serve both faithfully and well.
In a fallen world, political questions are always contextual questions. With fear and trembling, matched with faithful biblical commitments, Christians must support and vote for candidates who will most faithfully and effectively meet these expectations. We must choose between real flesh-and-blood candidates, and not theoretical constructs.
Given all this, we would expect that, under normal circumstances, Mormon voters will support candidates who most fully represent their worldview and concerns. Given the distribution of Mormons in the United States, this means that many Mormons (who would probably prefer to vote for a Mormon candidate), often vote for an evangelical or a Roman Catholic candidate. The reverse is also true. Evangelicals in many parts of the United States vote eagerly for Roman Catholic candidates with whom we share so many policy concerns, and this is true also in reverse. In an increasingly diverse America, we will be faced with very different choices than we have faced in the past.
None of this settles the question of whom Evangelicals should support in the 2012 presidential race. Beyond this, those who support any one candidate for the Republican nomination must, if truly committed to electing a president who most shares their worldview and policy concerns, end up supporting the candidate in the general election who fits that description.
We are facing what are, for America’s Evangelicals, new questions. These questions will call for our most careful, biblical, and faithful thinking. We need to start thinking urgently — long before we enter the voting booth.
Oh good heavens, this is medieval. We’re still dividing from one another over religion? It’s the 21st century folks, not 16th century England! There are probably dozens of reasons to oppose Romney, but the religion aspect is the lamest and most unAmerican. Romney is running for president, not national preacher. Vote for him or don’t based on his stand on the issues, not something as backwards as this. Come on. We’re a better people than this nonsense.
I disagree and maintain that Mitt's Mormon beliefs are a critical election issue. I raise following arguments in support of this position:
It is not right to say doctrine doesn't matter at all. Take Islam, for instance. It would be dangerously naive to assume, as American civil religion does, that all religions are pretty much the same. It's true that most religions share core ethical teachings, but orthodox Islam also teaches unambiguously that there is to be no separation of religion and state, that non-Muslims are to live subservient under law to Muslims, and in some sects that Allah commands a jihad or "holy war" be waged against non-Muslim "infidels". To the extent that a Muslim wishes to preside over our pluralist liberal democracy, he will have had to break radically from his faith's fundamentals.
Liberals who insist that religion has no place at all in American politics have to account for the Christian roots of many social reforms. Consider for example the abolitionism and the civil rights movement. When faced with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and other black clergymen explicitly appealing to Christian scripture against Jim Crow, Southern segregationists groused that religion had no business in politics. You can't praise religion's role in political discourse only when it advances causes of which you approve or is practiced by constituencies blacks, say, that vote Democratic.
If God doesn't exist, then by what standard do we decide right from wrong? If a society recognizes no independent, transcendent guardian of the moral order, will it not, over time, lose its self-discipline and decline into barbarism? The eminent sociologist Philip Rieff, who was not a believer, said that man would either live in fear of God or would be condemned to live in fear of the evil in himself.
Mitt, himself, has placed his Mormon faith under scrutiny. In his famous speech on Mormonism, Mitt said that a person should not be rejected . . . because of his faith. His supporters say it is akin to rejecting a Barack Obama because he is black. But Obama was born black; Romney is a Mormon because he accepts the beliefs of the Mormon faith. This permits us, therefore, to make inferences about his judgment and character, good or bad.
Mitt has promised to fully obey Mormon teachings without hesitation and without question.
In his February 26, 1980 speech at BYU titled Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet, LDS President Ezra Taft Benson maintained the Mormon Church President spoke with inerrant authority on "any matter, temporal or spiritual " and was "not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time."Mitt either intended to honor his promises to follow another man's instructions, or he lied. In the case of the former, we are entitled to know where these directives lead, and in the alternative, we should be concerned about Mitt's honesty.As a Temple Mormon, Mormon Bishop and Stake President, Mitt has sworn among other things, he recognizes the President of the LDS Church as a "prophet, seer and revelator," and will "obey the rules, laws, and commandments of the gospel" as proclaimed by Mormon Prophets.
Mitt made these solemn vows with the understanding they effect "time and all eternity."
For these reasons, among others, I assert Mitt’s beliefs are indeed a legitimate issue for determining his qualifications for elected public office.
When someone who is supposedly intelligent like Romney adheres to a religion of sorts like Mormonism without researching the details of it then wants to run the US with the same intelligence is scary.
All of that is REALLY reaching frankly and a huge leap of logic. The same claims were made about JFK that he’d just be a puppet of the pope. That proved to be absurd too. We’re a better nation than this to prey on peoples’ fears and ignorance of one another’s religious beliefs.
Evangelicalism is a Protestant Christian movement which began in Great Britain in the 1730s and gained popularity in the United States during the series of Great Awakenings of the 18th and 19th century.
Its key commitments are:
The need for personal conversion (or being "born again");
A high regard for biblical authority;
An emphasis on teachings that proclaim the saving death and resurrection of the Son of God, Jesus Christ
Actively expressing and sharing the gospel.
And now they would assume the mantle of deciding who is and who is not a Christian?
His flip flopping is BECAUSE of his Mormon faith, not in spite of it.
And on what basis do you claim to know he's not researched his religion? He served a mission in France--you kind of have to know what you believe in order to teach it to others for 2 years. Just because what YOU THINK Mormons believe doesn't match the reality of what Mormons believe doesn't mean he doesn't know what his fatith entails. The ignorance is yours, not Romney's.
Ungh....Mohler. Just who does he represent?
Oh yes, those who want to play nice with the Mormons. How many Mormons has he converted? Not one single one that I know of, and I know many if not most of the ex-mormons who are now Christian in the Salt Lake area.
He is a cheek-kisser with a hidden agenda of Mormonism promotion.
I hope I haven’t been to forceful in my opinion.
I’m voting for the most conservative. Right now, that appears to be Cain. I don’t even know what religion he is and I don’t care.
There are probably dozens of reasons to oppose Romney, but the religion aspect is the lamest and most unAmerican. R
- - - -
It is not unAmerican or lame to stand up for your beliefs. As a Christian, I cannot vote for Romney. As a Conservative, I cannot vote for Romney.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says *I* can’t have a religious test for office.
And as I have said before, Mitt’s policies are a result of his worldview, his Religion.
Mitt aside, the article is accurate and well written and something more Christians need to consider. Mormons are not Christians, no matter how much they claim. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.
It is not what I >THINK< Mormons believe, it’s what >I’VE< read what Mormons believe. If Romney believes that anti-Christian crap then he has no business running the US. I don’t care how many years he was a so-called missionary spreading that stuff, he still is an un-educated dolt in my opinion. I bet he spent more time investigating his latest car or stereo or HDTV that he had in investigating Mormonism.
Excellent post, and well worth reposting over and over again every time the subject comes up.
MissesBush meet colorcountry who believes that Mohler's essay is a "cheek-kisser"'s attempt to promote Mormonism.
All: See how clear thinking we conservatives are? See how we can each read the same text and come to completely different conclusions? We are so much more intelligent, rational and logical than our liberal foes.
Coincidentally(?) exempting him from the war in Viet Nam.
He was married in the Temple. He knows what his religion believes and he lives by it - and lies about it. That’s the problem.
The same claims were made about JFK that he’d just be a puppet of the pope. That proved to be absurd too.
- - - - -
Typical response and also incorrect. It assumes that LDS Prophet = Pope and that is not correct.
Catholics don’t ‘sustain’ the pope publicly (vote on him) every year, they aren’t commanded by encyclical to follow the Pope even if he tells you to sin or commit a crime, they don’t take blood oaths in Cathedrals promising to use everything they have (which would include money and power) to the building up of the the Pope’s coffers. Also, there is no evidence that JFK met with the Pope before he decided to run for office the same cannot be said about Romney.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.