Posted on 07/02/2011 8:10:08 AM PDT by Colofornian
When George Romney—former American Motors CEO, cabinet secretary, governor of Michigan, and Mitt Romney's father—ran for president in 1968, the candidate told reporters: "I am completely a product of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints." Four decades later, Mitt Romney isn't speaking quite as bluntly. But the 2012 presidential candidate is serious about his Mormonism, leading to serious discussion among evangelicals about whether they're willing to support a Mormon for the highest office in the country. Here are two views . . .
On Sept. 14, 2001, three days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush entered the pulpit of the National Cathedral and gave the country some idea of his religious beliefs. Seeking to comfort the nation, Bush assured Americans that "the Lord of life holds all who die and all who mourn." He finished his speech by saying, "As we have been assured, neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, can separate us from God's love."
Readers may recognize that last quote as a paraphrase of Romans 8:38-39. They may also notice that Bush left out five key words that end the passage: "in Christ Jesus our Lord." The speech and subsequent statements clearly implied that Bush did not believe faith in Christ is necessary for salvation. It turns out that President Bush, a favorite of evangelicals, was in public life a universalist. This observation provides some context for evangelicals as we consider whether to vote for a Mormon—such as Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman—for president. It shows that making sound theology a requirement for our vote will often leave us without any candidate to support.
Christianity, we should remember, is not designed to win popularity contests. A presidential candidate trying to appeal to the majority is unlikely to espouse crucial facets of a religion whose Messiah is a "stone of stumbling and a rock of offense" (1 Peter 2:8) and whose adherents are told to expect the world's hatred (John 15:18-19). Presidents seek to unite people; Christ came to divide them (Luke 12:51). Unbelievers, moreover, seem to be acceptable biblically to serve in public office. When Paul wrote Romans 13—which commands obedience to civil government—pagans were the chief government officials in Rome. This suggests that unbelievers can serve God's purpose for government, and that evangelicals, in good conscience, can vote for a non-Christian if he's the best-qualified candidate for president.
But is Mormonism a special case? Is it particularly disqualifying, as opposed to, say, the nominal Christianity that so prevails in America? Mormons deny the Trinity (which by itself makes false their claim to be Christians), but so have legions of mainline Protestants for decades. Mormons add to Scripture, but mainline Protestant luminaries subtract from it by dismissing the parts they don't like. At least Mormons still oppose abortion and same-sex marriage; many mainline churches don't have that going for them anymore.
The most persuasive argument against considering a vote for a Mormon is the idea that it could help spread Mormonism. The religion of Joseph Smith is so finely tuned to the desires of fallen man (you can become a god in the afterlife!) that it's amazing Mormonism hasn't grown faster. If having a Mormon in the White House would give cultural cachet to a false religion, then that might be a reason—the only one I can see—for evangelicals to vote against him on religious grounds.
Mitt Romney, along with every American, is free to believe whatever he wants, and religious belief—whether benign or bizarre—should not prevent anyone from running for public office. But that doesn't mean voters shouldn't take a candidate's religious views into account. Indeed, a person's religious beliefs tell us a great deal about both a candidate's character and the core principles that inform his governing philosophy. When we evaluate candidates for public office, religion matters—and should.
As for Romney (or Huntsman), I start with the understanding that Mormonism is not orthodox, biblical Christianity. If this understanding is true, then promoting Mormonism is promoting a false religion. So the real question is whether supporting a Mormon for president promotes Mormonism. My answer to that is yes. Electing a Mormon to the world's most powerful political office would dramatically raise the profile and positive perception of Mormonism. That is why I cannot in good conscience vote for Romney, despite agreeing with him on a good many social and fiscal issues.
Some argue that we elect a president, not a preacher, but this argument fails to account for a president's "bully pulpit." He is a preacher, apologist-in-chief for the American Vision. In this vital role, worldview matters. We have a right to expect the president to project a vision consistent with the beliefs, values, and ideals we've long held as a country.
I sometimes hear the related argument that we don't ask an airplane pilot his religion, only that he can fly the plane. But we do ask airplane pilots their religion—at least indirectly. A theologian friend is fond of saying, "There are no postmodern airplane pilots." He means that pilots do not merely push levers and twist knobs. They have a core set of beliefs and values about how the universe operates. They believe in the physical laws of the universe. Their behavior in the cockpit directly connects to their beliefs about the world.
Romney's strategy has been to talk about "values" and dodge questions about religion, as if they were somehow unrelated. He hopes that as America accepted John Kennedy's Catholicism, so too will America accept his Mormonism. But Kennedy gave a famous speech to the Houston Baptists about religion that explained his views and calmed concerns. Romney's problem is that if he really believes what the Mormon Church teaches, he dare not make that speech. The American people will say, "Really? Are you kidding me?" Or, if he says he doesn't believe what the Mormon Church teaches, fellow Mormons will feel betrayed and even those who have trouble with the Mormon Church will nonetheless wonder about a man who can't stand up for his own.
Yogi Berra famously said, "Predictions are dangerous, especially predictions about the future." That said, my prediction is that for Romney these problems are insurmountable and will ultimately bring down his bid for the presidency.
From the editorial: ...the real question is whether supporting a Mormon for president promotes Mormonism. My answer to that is yes. Electing a Mormon to the world's most powerful political office would dramatically raise the profile and positive perception of Mormonism.
Here we have candidates like Romney & Huntsman adopting a mask of “family values” when it reality they adhere to an ideological belief that it’s direct contradiction to “family values!”
So why are some Republicans putting such a person up on a POTUS pedestal? If you have on the one hand someone from a faith who claims to be a “Christian” yet whose foundational belief labels such “Christians” beyond their churches as “apostates,” then what you have is a contradiction: You have someone wearing the “Christian mask” to gain the good will of voters--all the while adhering to the ideology of Joseph Smith that all Christians had universally apostatized—which is an anti-Christian bashing belief. You have the inherent contradiction of being both pro-Christian and anti-Christian all wrapped up in one!
What Warren Cole Smith is getting at here is that postmodernists are prone to relativism -- and if they operated an airplane utilizing a "relativist" approach to the physical laws of the universe, hey, that just won't do.
What I have also noted about people who try to separate out these things is they quickly shift the subject to some job skill ("duties" -- ability). Yet a POTUS goes beyond administrative duties. What I focus on is character traits. For example, vulnerability to deception. Discernment is a very important character trait...and that's not listed as a POTUS "duty."
Why not? A non-NBC is one.
LOL...You took the words out of my mouth.
LOL
Mormon? Yes (or it doesn’t bother me).
RINO? Now we have a problem.
if a closeted Muslim can be President, then a Mormon can be President. That said, Romney & Huntsman (I believe he is Mormon) are RINOs and therefore neither will never get my vote.
The fact of claiming membership in the Church of Christ of the Latter-Day Saints by itself neither recommends or acts as a liability on the capability to serve in office, even as President of the United States.
Both Mitt and Jon Huntsman have other liabilities that may adversely their capacity to serve in the office, the worst being a willingness to compromise with liberal Democrats on matters of serious social concern to evangelical Christians.
While not trusted everywhere, Mormons have has a relatively high profile going back to the days of the Eisenhower administration. In adminitrative positions, they have acquitted themselves rather well, but in policy matters, they may be too agreeable to compromise, when the need is not indicated.
Mitt LOOKS Presidential, but he is also a quintessential RINO.
Well, because it's Mitt's "turn."
Duh.
I don,t think i would like to have some one who believes in Mormonism in the white house, at the same time what does the one we have in there now believe in? so i suppose i would vote for Romney just to get the Muslim socialist out, at least we have an idea of who Romney is.
But i hope to have a chance to vote for one of the tea party candidates.
What kind of look is that? A pasty faced used car salesman?
Romney’s Mormonism is an issue simply because it pervades his worldview and will affect how he does things as President.
Anyone who thinks Romney’s religion isn’t an issue needs to read “When Salt Lake City Calls” by Rocky Hulse.
Furthermore, I know to much about Mormonism to ever trust one as president.
So would you really vote for one filthy, detestable, seditious POS to replace another filthy, detestable, seditious POS?
Except for Dingy Harry,I know no evil Mormon.
- - - - -
I know several, most of them in leadership positions in the LDS church. (see tagline).
Anyone who can be fooled by Joseph Smith can be fooled by anyone.
But it would be preferable to someone who can be manipulated by Jihadists.
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.