Well, back in the 1800's, the Mormons were bat-sh#t crazy. The Mountain Meadows Massacre comes to mind.
In the 1900's, they became as vanilla ice cream as Donny & Marie. .... and, most importantly, their votes help keep flaming liberals out of the White House and Justices that believe in "penumbras" out of the Supreme Court.
At the same time, I can’t get my head around the fact that Mormonism is a kooky cult that has no basis in reality.
By definition, the other guy's religion is always "a kooky cult that has no basis in reality."
Comparison of Christian Denominations' Beliefs
The way I interpret Matthew 22:21 is ....
When you are electing a Pastor or a Pope, pay attention to his religious beliefs.
When you are electing a secular leader of a Secular State, pay attention to his secular political positions.
The problem with that line of thinking is that it rejects the fact the Founders never intended the US to be a secular state:
"Our CONSTITUTION was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams (First President to live in the White House)
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ." (Patrick Henry)
Thanks for your insight.
I was talking about contemporary Mormonism, not the one of the past.
I guess anybody can make the same judgments about another person’s religion from their perspective.
There are aspects of every religion that have some mythical characteristics, which can’t be proven.
I just see no plausibility in the revelations of Joseph Smith, especially in relation to Christianity, where the alignment between the two religions is tenuous.
I've dealt with this Q numerous times on FR (mostly latter part of '07 when Romneybots were everywhere on FR).
Here's how I would frame it: Question A at hand: Are we voting for a 'pastor-in-chief' or commander-in-chief?
Principle (a): This question addresses not only the role and identity of the POTUS, but the perceived 'self' identity of the candidate. If a given candidate thinks he's a 'god' or 'would-be' god, he exposes himself as deceived on one of the most basic elemental identity issues you can think of.
If a candidate doesn't even know who he is fundamentally, and inwardly lauds himself as 'divine,' why would we want to reinforce such an idolater who steals glory from the One True God?
Principle B also deals with Question A, but from a distinct angle: Is a POTUS a 'minister' of sorts?
Apparently, Polybius might say 'no.'
I say 'yes,' and here's why:
Even non-religious people tend to at times honor the Bible. The Biblical record shows that true successful leadership in public office is done by those who fear the TRUE Lord -- not by some low-level Mormon god who is part of a great number of Mormon gods...
And these Biblical leaders did not -- or were not to -- worship false gods/idols. The OT is replete w/ such examples. The Israelites had secular kings, not "pastors in chief." But that didn't mean that these kings' ministrations were any less a "ministry." Romans 13 makes it clear that public office is also a "ministry." Those who contend against this are openly militating against this Scripture.
It doesn't mean that public officeholders administrate in a parochial way; it just means that public office is a "ministry of service" like the soup kitchen down the street. History (biblical & otherwise) shows that the more pagan or counterfeit god that a leader adheres to, the more trouble that leader's "exhaust" settles on the people-at-large. Kings & presidents need all the grace, mercy, & guidance possible, since God gets more credit for preserving & directing leaders than we care to give Him credit for. Therefore, one who worships a false god & has no true relationship w/the living God is stifling access to God's resources; & a nation may suffer for that.