A Vote for Romney Is a Vote for the LDS Church: One evangelical explains why he cannot support Mitt

In the prevailing wisdom of polls and pundits, Mitt Romney is a "top tier" contender for the Republican nomination for President. The prevailing wisdom also says that Romney's Mormonism will not be, or should not be, a factor in the election. Romney's Mormonism is purportedly like Kennedy's Catholicism: interesting, perhaps troubling from a theological point of view, but irrelevant to his governing philosophy.

I believe this prevailing wisdom is all wrong. His religious worldview will be vital to his governing philosophy, and will ultimately be the issue that undermines his candidacy.

Let's begin by noting that several prominent social conservatives supported Romney during the last election cycle. Conservative icon Paul Weyrich said about Romney during the last election cycle: "If we were endorsing Mr. Romney for head of the Southern Baptist Convention . . . the objections of these Evangelical Christians [to Romney's Mormon faith] would be wholly appropriate. But we are not." Fundamentalist Bob Jones III and Reformed theologian Dr. Wayne Grudem also supported Romney in 2008, using much the same argument.

Romney's Christian defenders often say that while the theology of Mormonism is very different from orthodox Christian theology, its social teachings on abortion, same-sex marriage, and a range of other issues are very similar. They sometimes cite Francis Schaeffer's concept of "co-belligerents." In pro-life battles and other battles, Schaeffer said, evangelicals should fight alongside Catholics, Mormons, and others who do not agree with us on theological particulars but do agree with us on social policy positions.

Weyrich ultimately repented of this view. Before Weyrich died in 2008, one of his last public appearances was to a small group of conservative leaders who were discussing whether to endorse John McCain for president after it became obvious that he would be the GOP nominee. Weyrich, though frail and bound to a wheelchair, said clearly and emphatically that he had made a grave mistake endorsing Romney, and essentially asked the social conservatives in the room to forgive him. For many of us, it was the last time we saw Weyrich alive.

What Weyrich understood was that you can't have it "both ways" when it comes to Romney's faith. You can't say that his religious beliefs don't matter, but his "values" do. The Christian worldview teaches that there is a short tether binding beliefs to the values and behaviors that flow from them. If the beliefs are false, then the behavior will eventually—but inevitably—be warped. Mormonism is particularly troubling on this point because Mormons believe in the idea of "continuing revelation." They may believe one thing today, and something else tomorrow. This is why Mormons have changed their views, for example, on marriage and race. Polygamy was once a key distinctive of the religion. Now, of course, it is not. Mormons once forbade blacks from leadership roles. Now they do not. What else will change?

Even if a Mormon social teaching happens to concur with orthodox Christianity at this point in time, it is unreliable and subject to alteration. It's tempting to say that "continuing revelation" has defined Romney's career, who has changed his positions on same-sex marriage and abortion and just about every major "culture war" issue.

For evangelical Christians, Romney has some additional explaining to do. On such essential doctrines as the Trinity and the role of Jesus in salvation, there are major differences between orthodox (biblical) Christianity and Mormonism. But the real problem is that Mormons believe and teach an American history that is in many particulars completely unsubstantiated and in others demonstrably false. Mormons believe that the "lost tribes" of Israel actually ended up in America, and that Jesus visited America and these tribes during his incarnation. These are just a few of Mormonism's highly idiosyncratic views of history.

Does Mitt Romney believe these views? Why or why not? Does he believe historical facts are matters of personal opinion? More to the point, does he really believe that, if he were to become the GOP nominee, he would not have to answer these questions before the world? Romney will face a Hobson's choice. He will either affirm certain beliefs about reality and American history that most Americans will find false or flimsy, or else he will reject them be thereby "outed" as a hypocrite or traitor to his own belief system.

The vast majority of Americans won't care about these theological implications. Indeed, Americans are generally tone-deaf to theological nuances. But to all American voters—religious or not—I would ask this question: Do we want a person who believes that history is something you can "make up as you go along" negotiating the outcomes of conflicts with real histories that go back thousands of years? Conflicts in the Middle East, in Asia, and elsewhere require an understanding of history and human nature that are not fabricated out of whole cloth.

Again, I do not want to diagnose Mormonism book, chapter, and verse. But let me be plain on this point. At its core, Mormonism is—by Christian standards or by reasonable secular standards—an a-historical (and at times anti-historical) worldview. Evangelicals and others who argue that you cannot dismiss Romney based on his religion either miss or ignore this critical point. The boat of Mormonism is not tied to the anchor of either historical Christianity or even commonly accepted historical facts. Because the boat of Mormonism has been cut loose from that anchor, and is adrift in a sea of philosophies and ideas, any similarity between Christian and Mormon is historically temporary and not a reliable gauge of how Romney will govern.

My final point may seem minor to most Americans, but I think it should make a significant difference to evangelicals: As Theodore Roosevelt said, the presidency is a "bully pulpit." Indeed, it has become the bulliest pulpit in the world. The entire planet hangs on what the occupant of that pulpit says and does.

Placing a Mormon in that pulpit would be a source of pride and a shot of adrenaline for the LDS church. It would serve to normalize the false teachings of Mormonism the world over. It would also provide an opening to Mormon missionaries around the world, who could start every conversation: "Let me tell you about the American president." To elect a Mormon President is to advance the cause of the Mormon Church.

Non-Christians likely don't care much about this point one way or the other. But for the Christian, this is a vital issue. One of the strongest warnings Jesus issues is to those who "lead little ones astray." He said it would be better for that person if a millstone were put around his neck and he were cast into the sea. The validation of the false religion of Mormonism would almost certainly have the effect of leading many astray. Evangelical Christians should have no part of that effort.

No person is perfect. That's a theological reality. No candidate perfectly represents the people, or even his core constituency. That's a political reality. There's a lot about Romney I like. He seems to be a competent manager, he's a fiscal conservative, and his positions on some social issues—while problematic in the past—seem to have genuinely changed.

But certain qualifications make a candidate unfit to serve. I believe a candidate who either by intent or effect promotes a false and dangerous religion is unfit to serve. Mitt Romney has said it is not his intent to promote Mormonism. Yet there can be little doubt that the effect of his candidacy—whether or not this is his intent—will be to promote Mormonism. A Romney presidency would have the effect of actively promoting a false religion in the world. If you have any regard for the Gospel of Christ, you should care. A false religion should not prosper with the support of Christians. The salvation of souls is at stake.

For me, that alone disqualifies him from my vote. Because Mormons believe in continuing revelation, it is possible that in the future the LDS church will renounce its heretical beliefs and come fully into the fold of orthodox Christianity. Many theologians and church historians believe the church is on such a trajectory. But if that happens, it is an event still well in the future. The Mormon Church of today is, by the lights of biblical evangelical Christianity, a false religion. If Mitt Romney believes what the Mormon Church teaches about the world and how it operates, then he is unfit to serve. We make him our President at great peril to the intellectual and spiritual health of our nation.

“let me put it this way. The Jews are Israelis and are gathering in their land of inheritance. This being Palestine or Judea. I’m not aware of any other teaching on the gathering in any Mormon Doctrine.”

How about we say Judea & Samaria, then? I don’t like Palestine as it’s derived from the Philistines, enemies of the Jews. I honestly don’t understand Reaganaut’s claim of anti-Israel bias, as I’ve never encountered it, but I’ve never lived in Utah, either. I’ve been associated with Mormons off and on, in several other southern and western states, and in Germany, Baptists likewise, and Catholics, also likewise, and not run into anti-Israel sentiment except among liberals.

Maybe this will help you see why I’m uncertain where he’s getting his info...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism_and_Judaism

At a quick glance, it seems a fair comparison to me.

Thank you for the replies. Per Old Student, I did some more digging and determined that submission of a W-2 is not a standard requirement -- but neither is it unprecedented. Several Mormons and former Mormons online have stated that their bishop requested to view their proof of income.

I'm still disturbed by the "Tithing Settlement" process, by which each person (or family) must come before the bishop, be shown the tithing records, and state whether their tithing is truly a "full tithe" (10%). I know of no other church that puts this kind of direct pressure on its congregants to tithe; every other church considers tithing not only voluntary, but private (I know many people who tithe anonymously, under the principle of Matthew 6:2-4, which would not be possible in your system). Tithing is between the congregant and the Lord, and shouldn't be subject to clergical guilt-trip.

But even more disturbing is the fact that Mormon tithing is enforced to the extent that those who don't tithe will have their temple recommend revoked, which is not only publicly humiliating, but according to Mormon doctrine can have eternal consequences:

And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.

Verily I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of Zion shall be tithed of their surplus properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you.

And I say unto you, if my people observe not this law, to keep it holy, and by this law sanctify the land of Zion unto me, that my statutes and my judgments may be kept thereon, that it may be most holy, behold, verily I say unto you, it shall not be a land of Zion unto you.D&C 119:4-6

This is as egregious as the Catholic sale of indulgences in the middle ages. Mafia "protection" rackets dream of having such leverage!

In short, I maintain that Mormon tithing is not voluntary, but is performed under duress of punishment both on earth and heaven. I further maintain my position that no one from such an environment should be trusted to any claim of fiscal conservatism.

Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.

And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God’s house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee.

I understand the biblical principle of tithing. I also understand the spiritual aspect, as described in the Malachi verse you cited.

Show me one biblical passage which indicates that the tithe is to be enforced by guilt-tripping from the clergy.

You can't. This is a Mormon doctrine (actually the LDS implementation of the D&C passage, which doesn't even specify that earthly punishment is to be doled out), not a biblical principal. All other churches teach that tithing is a private matter between each person and God, and leave it to the congregant's prayers and conscience to lead them. Most sincere believers are willing to give without strongarm tactics, which is why non-Mormon churches/synagogues/etc survive. But at least now we know why the Mormon cult has $50B cash in the bank: Mafia tactics.

I'll say it again: a Mormon politician is steeped in the mindset that "charity" is compulsory and "giving" is involuntary. That is totally anathema to fiscal conservatism...but completely consistent with Mormon politicians like Harry Reid and RINO Romney.

I never had to present my W2 for tithing (and I have never said I did), however SVCW’s family (iirc) DID have to and I have heard it from other places as well.

My bishop called my boss (also LDS) and asked how much I made. My boss refused to answer him.

And you are also correct that it is not truly voluntary. In Utah, I have had non LDS friends or friends who are not ‘active’ LDS have 12-14 yr old boys come around their house once a month to gather ‘offerings’ or find tithing envelopes in their mailbox.

Tithing is used a spiritual blackmail, and if you want to be ‘worthy’ to go to the Temple, or if you want to be ‘worthy’ to have a decent calling (non paid church job that is also expected), or if you want to get back to God, then you HAVE TO PAY YOUR TITHING.

I’m so glad God is not really that petty or greedy. I give as I am led and where I am led and no pastor is going to call me in and question my donations. And, gee, our church has more than enough to cover expenses. God provides, not member who are treated like slaves (like Mormonism).

“I'm still disturbed by the “Tithing Settlement” process, by which each person (or family) must come before the bishop, be shown the tithing records, and state whether their tithing is truly a “full tithe” (10%). I know of no other church that puts this kind of direct pressure on its congregants to tithe; every other church considers tithing not only voluntary, but private (I know many people who tithe anonymously, under the principle of Matthew 6:2-4, which would not be possible in your system). Tithing is between the congregant and the Lord, and shouldn't be subject to clergical guilt-trip.”

You do know that if you don't have a receipt from the charity, that the IRS can deny your charitable deduction on your income taxes, right? Maybe you're looking too hard.

You do know that if you don't have a receipt from the charity, that the IRS can deny your charitable deduction on your income taxes, right?

I give because I feel led to, because it makes my heart feel good to help, and because it's the right thing to do. Not because of a tax deduction. As I've mentioned, I've known a few friends who give anonymously (the fact -- but not the amount -- was brought up during a prayer group discussion on the topic of tithing and giving), and one reason they do so is because they don't want to feel like they were manipulated by anyone, not even the IRS, into giving.

Maybe you're looking too hard.

Maybe you're not looking hard enough.

So really, how do you rationalize away Matthew 6:2-4? If your left hand shouldn't know how much your right is giving, why should your bishop?

One other point: in my church (and I suspect the majority of biblical Christian churches), the offerings are counted and logged (nowadays in a secure computer system) by a select group of deacons, elected by the congregation. No paid clergy or staff has any knowledge of how much any congregant gives, dollarwise or percentagewise.

Think about it: if someone is paid from the pot that they’re asking you to give to, that’s a clear conflict of interest (by the way, our staff salaries are also determined by member vote, not a bureaucrat in SLC).

This also means that the clergical staff can’t “play favorites” because of giving when it comes to counseling and other spiritual duties. How would you feel if your clergyman gave preference to the family who routinely gave 20%? Does that seem like a reflection of the dictum that we are all equal before God? Your bishop has the option of playing that game (and apparently *does* so, for those who don’t tithe “enough”), but my pastor is freed from that possibility.

“One other point: in my church (and I suspect the majority of biblical Christian churches), the offerings are counted and logged (nowadays in a secure computer system) by a select group of deacons, elected by the congregation. No paid clergy or staff has any knowledge of how much any congregant gives, dollarwise or percentagewise.”

I'm familiar with that process, as my stepfather was one of those people in the Southern Baptist church we attended with him. However, we don't use paid clergy. My Bishop is not paid for his services, he was selected for the job and volunteers his time. The elders who help him, the first and second counselors, are likewise unpaid, and selected from among the members of our ward. The Bishop is actually the one I've know the least amount of time, but I've known him for over five years, and trust him implicitly. I've known his counselors for over a decade. I've been in the Elders Quorum Presidency, and the Sunday School Presidency.

You can think what you like, but I was years longer at not attending any church because of what I observed and heard while sitting in the room with my stepfather and his cronies as they tried to find ways to shake more money out of the congregation. Fortunately, I've known other Baptist ministers and their families, and I've had a great deal of time to reflect on those years, so I know that isn't necessarily typical of Baptists. But what Reaganaut has said isn't typical of my experience of my church, either.

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.