Posted on 10/04/2012 11:46:59 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Mormon issue is rearing its head again in this campaign.
An online article in the latest issue of US News (9/27/2012) notes that some political phone calls have raised the Mormon issue. The article refers to Deal Hudson, "the president of the Pennsylvania Catholics Network and an expert on Catholic outreach," and says that he is alarmed after finding out "that a group calling itself Catholics for Obama had been making push poll phone calls in support of the president's re-election bid. Among the questions being asked, he said, was 'How can you support a "Mormon" who does not believe in Jesus Christ?'"
The article mentions that this type of thing (bringing up Romney's Mormonism) is "something the Obama campaign has repeatedly promised it would not do."
Furthermore, I've been talking to a few conservatives lately who claim they will vote for a third party candidate for president. They would be inclined to vote for a conservative, but because the most conservative majority party candidate is a Mormon, they say they will opt out and vote instead for Joe Shmoe of the True Blue Conservative Party or someone like that.
Some have even said they will sit out this election, rather than vote for a Mormon. And yet this election could truly be the most important one of our lifetime. There is so much at stake.
Note that the Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing a religious test for candidates. But, of course, we the people are free to choose the government leaders we wish.
Without a doubt, there are real and substantial differences between historic Christianity and Mormonism. I have heard some people refer to Mormons (members of the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints") as if they are simply members of another Christian denomination. That's a mistake. By their own admission, Mormonism and historic, creedal Christianity differ on some key doctrines, many of which I enumerated in a previous column. There are huge differences between them in theology, even down to the very understanding of who God is. These differences should not be papered over. But to vote for a member of a particular religious group (whether for a Mormon, a Christian, or something else) does not mean one supports that group per se.
Sure, it would be great to vote for Jesus Christ, but He's not on the ballot.
In a bill that he wrote in 1777, (which was later passed in 1786), Thomas Jefferson alluded to Jesus as the model of our liberties for Jesus gave us a choice, even though He could have imposed His way on us. Jefferson wrote:
"Almighty God hath created the mind free…all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments…are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet choose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to exalt it by its influence on reason alone…."
Jefferson later wrote that he intended this bill to have universal application-so that "within the mantle of its protection [would be] the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
The Bible records that Cyrus, the great leader of the Persians, was a friend to the ancient Hebrews. Also, the great Christian reformer Martin Luther said famously that he would rather be governed by a competent Turk than a dumb Christian.
On this point, noted evangelical theologian Wayne Grudem, author of the massive, Politics According to the Bible, recently wrote, "Can evangelicals support a candidate who is politically conservative but not an evangelical Christian? Yes, certainly. In fact, it would demonstrate the falsehood of the liberal accusation that evangelicals are just trying to make this a 'Christian nation' and only want evangelical Christians in office."
What a great country we live in, where people of all faiths or no faith are free to practice their religion, within reasonable bounds.
No doubt some people object to the religions represented by the two frontrunners. But neither candidate is running for bishop. They're running for president. One of the two will win.
From my perspective, what counts is this: Which of the two candidates stands overall for biblical positions? Where do they stand on issues of critical importance to us as Christians, like abortion, traditional marriage, religious freedom, and the threat of radical Islam? Thus, the question gets back to this: Regardless of church affiliation, which candidate is most likely to govern according to biblical standards? That's the question to be decided by the conscientious Christian and by all people of good will in this election.
-- Jerry Newcombe, D.Min., is co-host of and spokesman for Truth that Transforms with D. James Kennedy (formerly The Coral Ridge Hour). He has also written or co-written 23 books, including The Book That Made America: How the Bible Formed Our Nation and Answers from the Founding Fathers. Jerry co-wrote (with Dr. Peter Lillback) the bestselling, George Washington's Sacred Fire.
Note to the anti-Mormon crowd. The author points out above how a Christian should vote.
So by default, they'd rather have someone who believes a child who survives an abortion should be left to die? They'd rather have someone who is vocally supportive of homosexual marriage.
What a bunch of dunces.
Try as they may, that dog won’t hunt.
Mormonism is not the issue.
The economy is the issue.
In poker you only get to play the card once.
Note to the anti-Word crowd: God speaks to His Own through His Word.
How about Catholics for Abortion?
Or Catholics for Partial Birth Abortion?
Or Catholics for Killing The Newborn Who Survive Abortion?
Or simply Atheists Calling Themselves Catholics?
“Note to the anti-Mormon crowd.”
There is a difference.
The media can try but not successfully because then obama’s ‘beliefs’ come into question and that is what the video was about - him praising Wright when he previously denounced Wright’s black theology, hate whitey and his G*d damn America church.
Now Christianity is no longer just Christianity, recently, more and more it is becoming a 'type' of Christianity, "traditional" Christianity, like "traditional" Marriage.
Catholics concerned about Mitt’s mormonism yet support Barack’s pro-Islamist, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual secular humanist worldview where Jesus is merely a historic figure.
does not pass the smell test.
I have to disagree with you, the author points out above how he thinks a Christian should vote, or perhaps how he wants a Christian to vote. Christians tend to not do so well when they allow one man to think for them.
Neither man has a history of supporting Biblical standards; both have worked to ease the destruction of innocent life and the family. One is now actively pushing these things and the other says he has changed (most of the time) on them. Whether a Christian believes Romney means what he says seems to be the only way to discern what to do in this election. Romney did come across as earnest last night. It is too bad that the so called social issues that most Christians will use to decide were off the table.
Good point.
Neither man has a history of supporting Biblical standards;
True but when one examines legislation Reagan signed into law, he too could be lumped into the same category you place Obama and Romney.
How so? Reagan was fooled once on abortion by an exclusion on the health of the mother. He even commented later that he never expected them to use that as an excuse for wholesale slaughter. In both private writings and public speech, he honored God and Country. If you have other examples, as someone who lived in that time and worked for him in the primaries, I would love to hear them. Feel free to use private reply if you wish.
A politician can say anything, what's arguably more instructive is what the politician signs into law.
Perhaps Reagan was tricked on abortion, perhaps not. Whatever it was, he signed it into law.
If you have other examples, as someone who lived in that time and worked for him in the primaries, I would love to hear them.
Reagan said he was a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, until he signed additional gun control legislation into law in 1986.
Last night’s Presidential debate should settle the issue once and for all.
Not surprised that the social issues were not on the table. The only real social issue there was on the table was the issue of Obamacare or healthcare. The rest was on the economy.
They are not real Catholics to begin with if at all.
While I do not agree on a number of doctrine issues with Mitt in regards to his Mormon faith, this upcoming election is going to be very important because the life of this nation is at stake.
>> “While I do not agree on a number of doctrine issues with Mitt in regards to his Mormon faith, this upcoming election is going to be very important because the life of this nation is at stake.” <<
.
Unfortunately there appear to be about 20 freepers that don’t seem to understand that.
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.