By Aaron Blumer on
Mormonism
Politics
Church and State

votecountsThe essay below first appeared in September of 2007 in anticipation of the ‘08 election. This version is updated for 2011.

Would you vote for a Mormon for President? Under the right conditions, I would.

By now, the name Mitt Romney is at least vaguely familiar to most of us. Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, is running for President and is a Mormon. So far, his fund-raising efforts have been fruitful, and the discomfort of many Republicans with the alternatives has kept Romney in a strong position in the polls. Though his chances of being the Republican nominee are smaller now that Rick Perry has entered the race, an eventual Romney nomination is far from impossible.

Some pundits claim the Christian Right will never allow that to happen. In their view, evangelicals view Mormonism as a cult and anyone associated with Mormonism as an embodiment of evil. One pundit, who happens to be a Mormon, wrote the following:

Everyone knows that Christian evangelicals hate Mormons so badly that if they had to choose between a bribe-taking, FBI-file-stealing, relentless-lie-telling, mud-slinging former first lady, and a Mormon ex-governor who doesn’t lie, who’s still married to his first wife, and who supports the entire Christian evangelical agenda, they’d still rather die than vote for a Mormon.

Is he right? More importantly, should he be right? I for one would vote for the Mormon Romney over any liberal Democrat likely to seek office, and I’d do so with only brief hesitation. Before you brand me a nutcase or a heretic, consider the following factors behind my thinking.

Mormonism’s worldview derives from Christianity’s

Sometimes incomplete information is worse than no information at all. (What if you know the guy two seats away from you on an airplane has a gun, but you don’t know he is an Air Marshal?) But when it comes to the big ideas that form the framework of a person’s worldview, every bit of truth is powerful and important. Being partly right is far better than being entirely wrong.

So when it comes to running a country, a Mormon candidate is not even close to the worst-case scenario. Consider what most Mormons believe. They believe there is one God (at least only one that matters in this part of the universe). He is the creator and moral authority over the human race. Human beings ought to be honest, kind and just. We will answer to God at the judgment. In addition to these basics, Mormonism holds that the Bible is very important, that the traditional family is very important and that marriage is sacred.

In short, Mormonism shares with Christianity the belief in a mighty God who expects clean living from His creatures.

Gospel-believers understand that all other religions are false religions

All who believe the gospel see Mormonism as a false religion. As a Baptist and a fundamentalist, I share that view. Mormonism ultimately fails to deliver on its most fundamental promise: eternal life with God’s blessing. The Bible is clear that eternal life is available only through faith in the fully-God, fully-man Jesus Christ apart from any trust in our own works of righteousness. But the fact that Mormonism denies this truth doesn’t make it unusual. Every religion but Christianity denies it. By default, those who claim no religion deny it as well.

To some, Mormonism is particularly spooky because “it’s a cult.” But should we care one way or the other about the spookiness factor? What determines the eternal efficacy of any belief system is whether it holds to the biblical gospel of grace. Mormonism doesn’t, but that puts it on par with Council-of-Trent Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Judaism.

So if evangelicals can be comfortable with candidates who embrace the Judeo-Christian worldview, why can’t they back candidates with a Judeo-Christian-Mormon worldview? When it comes to the gospel, the only difference between Mormonism and many other false systems is that Mormonism hasn’t been around as long.

Do we really believe that a good works-based religion (“cult” if you like) that spun off Christianity and shares several of its tenets is worse than the liberalized versions of Baptist, Episcopal, or Catholic, which have a lower view of human life, a lower view of the institution of the family, a lower view of the Bible and an even murkier view of who God is?

In any case, given our highly specific understanding of what a true Christian is, it’s unlikely that we’ll have one to vote for in 2012. Just by the law of averages, most candidates for high office will not be persons with a genuine faith in the biblical gospel of grace.

Not all non-Christian belief systems are equal

Compare what Mormonism gets right to the belief systems of several other likely presidential candidates. Many candidates have a vaguely high regard for religion in general. That is, they believe that Christianity and faiths like it are helpful in driving people toward ideals like kindness, peace, fairness and love. But they do not hold that any religion is actually true in the sense of being factual in any exclusive way.

Some candidates speak often of God but believe in a God who is nonpersonal. (God is all that is good in the universe, or worse, simply all that is in the universe.) These also tend to believe that if God is a personal being, He has no moral or ethical requirements for the human race that He has gone to the trouble to reveal. These leaders are quite comfortable joining in prayers and public religious rituals but recoil in horror whenever a religion claims to posses exclusive truth about God or forgiveness. They do not believe the Bible can be a source of any kind of certainty about right and wrong in the world.

Such candidates are left with a purely pragmatic process for arriving at moral beliefs. What seems to be helpful? What seems to advance human civilization (as though “advance” could have any meaning without a moral authority to tell us which way is forward)? For the worst of the lot, the only moral calculation is “What seems to be the social trend?”

Though a Mormon’s beliefs ultimately derive from the “apostles” in Salt Lake City (limited somewhat by a synthesis of the Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, The Doctrine and Covenants, and the Bible), a Mormon believes right and wrong are revealed and did not evolve by chance through the clash of social forces.

The Mormon articles of faith uphold religious freedom and the independent authority of government

Anyone who grew up as I did is naturally apprehensive about the idea of a Mormon in the White House. Won’t he try to force everyone to become Mormon? Won’t he be under the control of the authorities in Salt Lake City? Will he try to weaken orthodox Christianity?

The Mormon articles of faith, and Mormons’ history of taking them seriously, should be reassuring. Article 11 maintains the freedom of individuals to “worship how, where, or what they may.” And Article 12 acknowledges the need to honor, obey and “be subject” to civil authority. Mormons believe Joseph Smith wrote these articles himself, and everything I’ve seen suggests Mormons take the articles as seriously as their well-known belief in the sanctity of the family.

Mormonism is also no longer monolithic. Because it’s been around for a while now and views individual revelation as an ongoing phenomenon, it has dissenters in its ranks. Unlike the followers of, say, the Watchtower Society, it’s not uncommon to hear Mormons offer mild criticism of their own church. Mormons are not brainwashed automatons, acting in lockstep with a secret puppet master in a Utah temple.

I’m not a fan of Mormonism and would prefer to have a non-Mormon president. I’d also love to live in an America that attaches much greater value to its Christian roots and in which a large majority prefers to have a Bible-believing Christian in the White House. But we don’t live in that America. So the question is, what kind of human being makes for a good president for the America we have here and now? We shouldn’t be too quick to dismiss any candidate who has a strongly Bible-influenced view of right and wrong.

As for this particular race, I’d love to see a Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio or Scott Walker jump into the race, then miraculously dominate and win the nomination. But if the ballot in 2012 is Romney vs. Obama, I think the choice is obvious.

Aaron Blumer Bio

Aaron Blumer, SharperIron’s second publisher, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University (Greenville, SC) and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in a small town in western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years. He is employed in customer service for UnitedHealth Group and teaches high school rhetoric (and sometimes logic and government) at Baldwin Christian School.

Discussion

Tue, 09/27/11
I hasten to add that the choice is equally obvious if the race ends up being Romney vs. Mrs. Clinton

…which may not be as unlikely as it sounds: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/26/hillary-in-2012-two-scenarios… Hillary In 2012? Two Scenarios…

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Tue, 09/27/11
I am surprised at the argument you make, Aaron, for voting for a Mormon. Mormons do NOT represent a Judeo-Christian worldview in spite of their hijacking the name of Jesus Christ for their movement Their view incorporates certain elements and buzz-words from both system, but in reality, Mormonism is neo-paganism. Their God is NOT the God of the Bible. He is a man who became a god just for this universe, and there are other universes with other gods. How is that Christian theology? Mormons are on a path of eternal progression toward becoming gods themselves. They baptize for the dead. How is that Christian baptism? Jesus Christ is the brother of Lucifer in Mormonism. In Mormonism, Jesus is not deity. The whole system parrots the organizational structure of the Masonic Lodge. We know that Mitt Romney believes this nonsense because he is an officer of the Church and has propagated these errors as a missionary of the Church. He holds to the Mormon’s false theory relating to the early colonization of this country by lost tribes from Israel, who are the supposed ancestors of the American Indians. He believes in the angel Moroni who revealed the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith. He refused to condemn the polygamy of Smith and others. He believes that the Mormon Elders continue to provide revelation on a par with Scripture. He believes that the Bible we use has been corrupted, and that the Mormon Church was brought into existence because all other Christian Churches were in error. These are only some of the errors of Mormonism which Mitt Romney believes and propagates. It is for this reason that most evangelical Christians refuse to get behind his candidacy for President, and I am disappointed to know that you do not find Romney for President objectionable.

Tue, 09/27/11
A Mormon? Possibly. Depends on his (or her) qualifications and convictions.

This particular Mormon? Not a chance in the world.

Tue, 09/27/11
In the end, we all will (should) vote in the general election for one of two potential winners from the two dominant parties. In general, one party represents liberalism, which, fundamentally, is completely anti-God. In general, the other party represents non-liberalism. That non-liberalism will represent some quantity of traditional, conservative values, even if only a little. By default, this makes the choice for Christians obvious.

Despite what many believe, we are still a two party country. A vote for a third party is, at the very least, a throw-away vote; more significantly, often it is a vote for the lesser of the two dominant party “evils.” I live in a state where our current governor was elected with a 35.9% vote. He represents a minority. Therefore, a majority of the state did not want him to be governor. That majority is now experiencing his policies in very negative ways.

Vote conscience in the primary. That is where you can truly choose the person who best represents your values. But don’t throw away your general election voice by trying to make a statement in voting for a sure loser (third party candidate) or by voting against someone who happens to espouse a seemingly more insidious religion than the Catholic, Agnostic, or Atheist.

And then trust that God’s sovereignty will continue to keep the world on the course He ultimately has planned for the ages.

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)

Tue, 09/27/11
Not voting is an option. I would happily exercise it. Before one makes the claim “you HAVE to vote for SOMEBODY” … imagine a race where the Republican was Stalin, the Democrat was Hitler, the third party candidate was Mao Tse-Tung, and Idi Amin and Pol Pot were organizing write-in campaigns. And the down ballot candidates were Nimrod, Antiochus Epiphanes, Herod the Great … you get the picture.

Martin Luther said better to be ruled by a wise Turk (Muslim) than a foolish Christian. But in a democracy (or our constitutional republic with democratic representation, as the originalists would say) where we get to choose our leaders, if presented with that choice - or any of a number of other bad ones - the best thing to do is to stay at home and allow the masses to follow their whim and folly.

Keeping in mind that it is God who chooses our leaders per Daniel 2:21 and other texts (including those that state that God set a particular pharaoh over Egypt at the time of the Exodus for the purpose of hardening his heart against letting Israel go so that God would judge Egypt for its crimes) makes this stance a practical application of Biblical principles. And in light of Proverbs 26:11, democracies will result in the masses choosing leaders according to the nature of unregenerate mob rule. So, God uses the passions of an electorate that really is no different from the pagans (or the faithless Israelis) oft depicted in the Old Testament - as human nature never changes, despite how the concept of “human progress” has become a religion in and of itself in this age - to install leaders of His choice to do His will, whatever that will may be for a particular leader and nation at any given time. Dictators, monarchs, democracies it does not matter … Daniel 2:21 still applies. I suppose that it is not surprising, then, that Daniel 2:21 (and similar verses) is not a favorite among leaders of the religious right or left, and even more so when one of their ideological opponents gets elected.

Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com

Tue, 09/27/11
If the Christian Right can overlook drug use, adultery, and draft … circumnavigation, I’m sure a little Mormonism isn’t going to choke anyone (except JobK who sneaked in while I was typing).

Tue, 09/27/11
Not telling anyone else how to vote! I will vote for the best choice offered on the ticket.

If it is Obama (the presumed Democratic candidate) and a mormon Republican candidate, I will vote for the mormon.

(Actually I really don’t care much about the candidate’s religion! I am having my car repaired today (fuel sending unit) and I don’t know what the religion is of the guy repairing it. Same thing with the plumber, the electrician, etc. I want the best choice for the job that needs to be done)

Twitter

Jim's Doctrinal Statement

Tue, 09/27/11
Not voting is an option. I would happily exercise it. Before one makes the claim “you HAVE to vote for SOMEBODY” … imagine a race where the Republican was Stalin, the Democrat was Hitler, the third party candidate was Mao Tse-Tung, and Idi Amin and Pol Pot were organizing write-in campaigns. And the down ballot candidates were Nimrod, Antiochus Epiphanes, Herod the Great … you get the picture.

I agree with you. But we’re far from there. I don’t think anyone considers a Mormon to be in the same category as your list of oppressors. Rather, that Mormon, with his generally Judeo-Christian traditional ethic would be better than a post-modernist liberal.

Christian voting fascinates me. Why should we vote? Just how patriotic should we be? Since God is sovereign, why do we involve ourselves in the course of governments? Those and many other questions will be debated until Christ’s Millennial Kingdom. For now, I’ll vote in the primary for the best candidate, and I’ll vote in the general election for the best possible winner.

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)

Tue, 09/27/11
What concerns me is Romney’s acceptance of the bizarre doctrines of Mormonism.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Tue, 09/27/11
Several good points have been made in this stream, the way I synthesize them is this: In a primary I will vote for a man who demonstrates the best combination of morals, workable policies, winability, and good judgment. In the general election the use of the same criterion makes the choice more clear. A Mormon candidate may score well in a few categories, but probably not well in winability, and, in my opinion, he has demonstrated terrible judgment by believing the “bizare” doctrines and the ludicrous historical assertions of his cult.

Tue, 09/27/11
[Ron Bean] What concerns me is Romney’s acceptance of the bizarre doctrines of Mormonism.
What concerns me is Obama’s acceptance of the bizarre doctrines of Black liberation theology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright_controversy
In a sermon delivered shortly after the September 11 attacks in 2001, Wright made comments about an interview of former U.S. Ambassador Edward Peck he saw on Fox News. Wright said:

“I heard Ambassador Peck on an interview yesterday. Did anybody else see him or hear him? He was on Fox News. This is a white man, and he was upsetting the Fox News commentators to no end. He pointed out — did you see him, John? — a white man, he pointed out, ambassador, that what Malcolm X said when he got silenced by Elijah Muhammad was in fact true — America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

Wright spoke of the United States taking land from the Indian tribes by what he labeled as terror, bombing Grenada, Panama, Libya, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and argued that the United States supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and South Africa. He said that his parishioners’ response should be to examine their relationship with God, not go “from the hatred of armed enemies to the hatred of unarmed innocents.” His comment (quoting Malcolm X) that “America’s chickens are coming home to roost” was widely interpreted as meaning that America had brought the September 11, 2001 attacks upon itself.

ABC News broadcast clips from the sermon in which Wright said:

“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye… and now we are indignant, because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

Later, Wright continued :

“Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that y’all, not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people that we have wounded don’t have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that.”

Twitter

Jim's Doctrinal Statement

Tue, 09/27/11
Jim, I hope you aren’t assuming that my lack of enthusiasm for Romney means that I’m an Obama supporter.

Obama may or may not accept Wright’s ravings, but Romney, as a “good” Mormon, must accept his church’s teachings.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Tue, 09/27/11
I would never vote for a Mormon - to be the pastor of my church.

However, as Jim said, the religious choice of a political candidate is ancillary to the job. Not that is has no bearing, just that it is not a primary consideration.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Tue, 09/27/11
Since I have no idea if someone really believes and conforms to the tenants of their religion, when it comes to political candidates, I pay more attention to their view of the role of gov’t and understanding of economics and their track record than if they are Mormon, Catholic, or Venusian.

Scenescape Media

Tue, 09/27/11
[RPittman] This is political shortsightedness and naivety…….This argument is out of political pragmatism, not Christian principle.

If voting for the lesser of two evils violates your conscience, then, of course, you must not do that or you would violate God’s clear commands in Romans 14. I would be violating my conscience if, by voting for a third party or other unelectable candidate, I would, in fact, be increasing the vote count for the post-modernist liberal. What you call my political pragmatism is actually my conscience telling me it is unwise to vote in such a way as to be supporting the least desirable candidate.
[RPittman] I remember Jesse Helms……George Corly Wallace was one of the most influential political figures in the last half of the twentieth century……

These were men already of position such that a vote for principle had very public and significant ramifications. They do not represent the majority of American Christians, and, as such, are unfair comparisons.

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)

Tue, 09/27/11
We are all pragmatic to a degree. You can’t shop in your local Kroger anymore without supporting, by proxy, some company with an immoral agenda. Back in the day, my dad would not shop or buy gas where they sold alcohol or cigarettes- it would have violated his conscience. Try doing that now- I think if he were alive today, his conscience would have had to make some adjustments. Or we’d’ve moved to Borneo. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-confused001.gif

It doesn’t violate my conscience to vote for whoever I think is the best man for the job. I don’t care if he thinks he was abducted by aliens if he’ll campaign on the FairTax. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-happy112.gif

Scenescape Media

Tue, 09/27/11
I’m just saying that these are the only portions of your post that are relevant towards arguing as to whether or not a Christian should vote, as you say, pragmatically or strictly by principle:
[RPittman] This is political shortsightedness and naivety. One should always vote his conscience. I would contend that voting for “the lesser of two evils” is a violation of conscience and principles. This argument is out of political pragmatism, not Christian principle. By voting principle, the longer view is better served.

Bringing famous principle-voting men into the arena does not speak to the question of how the general public might approach the decision.

My argument is that what might be conscience for one man isn’t necessarily conscience for all. My conscience tells me my “pragmatic” approach is better than the alternative. Yours tells you otherwise, and I would be out of place to argue with that.

I don’t believe my approach is myopic/shortsighted or naïve. On the contrary, I could contend just as easily that voting strictly principle is naïve idealism.

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)

Tue, 09/27/11
JNoel,

We stand individually responsible for our decisions, and we are NEVER accountable for the decisions of others. If you vote for a person you believe is not the best candidate, you have erred. If you vote for the best candidate, who happens to be third party, and others vote for the worst possible candidate, you are still only responsible for your own vote. You bear no responsibility for how others vote or for trying to make sure you out-do the worst by compromising your own position.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Tue, 09/27/11
[Ron Bean] Jim, I hope you aren’t assuming that my lack of enthusiasm for Romney means that I’m an Obama supporter.

Obama may or may not accept Wright’s ravings, but Romney, as a “good” Mormon, must accept his church’s teachings.
Hey Ron, Not assuming this!

––-

In the pre-primary and primary phases, on has a lot of opportunity to support any candidate - especially financially.

But when the primaries are done it’s gonna come down to two. Obviously the presidency is just more than one man … it’s the whole executive branch.

Twitter

Jim's Doctrinal Statement

Tue, 09/27/11
What difference does it make if he is mormon or catholic or any other bizarre spin of authentic Christianity? It doesn’t. Lost person is lost. Do you really vote for president to be your spiritual guide? How sad if you do.

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

Tue, 09/27/11
Chip, I couldn’t agree more. The best candidate I can vote for is the one who is electable and who falls the most in line with my views. I think the underlying difference seen in this thread lies not with the question of whether or not a person should vote on principle, but, rather, the question of whether or not a person should vote on electability. If electability is as important as position, then we have a true two party race. If electability is irrelevant, then we have a possible two-hundred million candidate race (or however many voting-age citizens there are).

The problem is not with who is being elected, the problem is the voters. No president is going to change the country. Change must come from the population turning its eyes back to God. Then, and only then, we will see candidates who are not only in line with Christian principles, but also “electable,” i.e. the masses will vote for them. We aren’t there right now. Not even close. We probably couldn’t even get a Reformed pastor, Conservative Evangelical pastor, and a Separatist pastor to agree on the best candidate.

By voting pragmatically in the general election, the liklihood of slowing down the loss of our freedoms to proclaim Truth increases. Romney is far more likely to stand for religious freedom than the liberal left. Then I can stay busy taking advantage of that continued freedom to continue that change from the bottom up.

Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)

Tue, 09/27/11
Had class this AM. Looking at this thread, it occurs to me that we might have an interesting discussion in Rhetoric class on my thesis that, other things being equal, voting for a Mormon is a good choice if the alternative is a liberal agnostic or something similar.

Some responses to various points along the way…

1. JimCarWest commented on Mormonism vs. Christian worldview

Response: The Judeo-Christian worldview is not about Jesus Christ, which is why we’re able to include “Judeo” in it. But to clarify, I’m not in favor of any Mormon doctrines beyond the ones I mentioned that we do, in fact, have in common. The things you mentioned are indeed contrary to Scripture and my beliefs.

2. JobK related the sovereignty of God to voting.

Response: God uses means. It’s true He chooses rulers, but He also chooses everyone who thrives or suffers or dies from moment to moment, everyday. This doesn’t stop us from believing it’s right to cross the street to aid an injured person. In short, in Scripture, God’s control never negates our responsibility. We have the opportunity to shape the kinds of rulers we will have—which affects the well being of many people.

3. Also JobK on how democracies always elect the worst possible candidates

Our national history doesn’t really bear this out. In His grace, God has often seen to it that the nexus of peoples’ individual interests, moral and ethical convictions, and available candidates has often resulted in better rulers than we deserve. In part, this is because the most powerful influences in democratic decision making are the ones where there is much overlap among the constituents.

4. Ron Bean on bizarre Mormon doctrines.

They are only bizarre because we do not believe them. (Certainly atheists see our virgin birth and Trinity ideas as bizarre… not to mention hypostatic union). What’s important about the Mormon beliefs is not that they strike as bizarre but that they are false. That I freely grant (and with enthusiasm).

But as I pointed out in the piece, all religions that do not present the pure gospel are ultimately false. This does not prevent them from having important truths within them.

5. Several (mostly RPittman) on the wrong of voting for the lesser of two evils (stand on principle leave results to God.)

This is begging the question, which is “What’s right in elections?” Why is it wrong to vote for the best man?

Secondly, I have long argued (and I think I’ve not yet heard a counter) that since we will never get to vote for Jesus Christ, we are always voting for the lesser of two evils. We are always voting for a sinner. Consequently, a vote for the “least evil” is the same as a vote for the “most good.” (If you think about it, any vote for a deacon or pastor is also a vote for someone who is, hopefully, less evil than many others).

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Tue, 09/27/11
[RPittman] I’m not a Jesuit pragmatist who believes the ends justifies the means
Take this test: You car is not running properly but you do not know why. You suspect it is the alternator (see http://www.buzzle.com/articles/bad-alternator-symptoms.html Bad Alternator Symptoms ). In your church is a fine, godly man who tinkers with cars. He shares your worldview and your faith. But frankly he is a rank amateur. He kind of gets the concepts but does not have the training, the tools, or the experience to investigate and remediate your car’s issues. Additionally has has no credit at the NAPA parts store.

Down the street is an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_Service_Excellence] ASE repair shop. They have a good reputation in the community but the owner is a Mormon.

You expect the repairs may cost as much as $ 500.

What do you do?

[ ] Choose the Christian

[ ] Choose the Mormon

Twitter

Jim's Doctrinal Statement

Tue, 09/27/11
Jim,

[] Choose the cheaper

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Tue, 09/27/11
[Aaron Blumer]

Some responses to various points along the way…

1. JimCarWest commented on Mormonism vs. Christian worldview

Response: The Judeo-Christian worldview is not about Jesus Christ, which is why we’re able to include “Judeo” in it. But to clarify, I’m not in favor of any Mormon doctrines beyond the ones I mentioned that we do, in fact, have in common. The things you mentioned are indeed contrary to Scripture and my beliefs.
Aaron, are you sure that Mormons are coming from a Judeo-Christian worldview?

There are several significant differences between Mormonism and historic Christianity that you seem to be missing. Mormons believe that mankind is co-eternal with God while Christians believe that man has the creative work of God as the source of his existence. Mormons also reject the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo (out of nothing) while Christians believe that God spoke the universe into existence. Mormons believe that God is subject to the physical and moral laws of the universe, while Christians believe that God is the source of the physical and moral laws of the universe. The Creator/creation distinction does not exist in Mormonism. If you define God in the Judeo-Christian historic sense, then you would have to believe that Mormons are Atheists. They do not believe that such a God exists. These doctrines have a significant impact on our understanding of the nature of God and our relationship to Him. Mormonism has significantly more in common with Greek mythology than historic Christianity. Aaron, the doctrines you think we have in common with Mormonism, we actually do not.

After saying all this, I have voted for Mormons but I believe there is another area that Evangelicals need to consider before supporting a Mormon for President of the United States. Albert Mohler sums up this concern in an http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/2007/07/the-church-of-the-devil.ht…] article he wrote four years ago.
I have argued that evangelicals should think carefully about this question and I have raised concerns about a Mormon in the White House.

Others will bring their own concerns. I am not interested in worries about Mormon temple undergarments and plural marriage. I do not worry about a Mormon president playing into apocalyptic scenarios with nuclear weapons. I am concerned that a Mormon in the White House would do much to serve the worldwide missionary cause of Mormonism. I do not worry that a President Romney would push that agenda from the White House. My concern is more about symbolism and perception.
I understand the objection to this concern is that a lost person is a lost person regardless of what false religion in which he is a member. But anyone that has spent significant time sharing the Gospel with Mormons recognizes the significant difficulty of getting them to grasp a basic historic Christian understanding of the person and nature of God and their accountability to Him. This is not as big of a difficulty in sharing the Gospel with a Roman Catholic. At least with a Roman Catholic, you are dealing with the same understanding of the term “God.” I’m not interested in seeing Mormonism becoming more influential in the world in any way.

Tue, 09/27/11
…and whoever can win is said to be the best choice as long as his views are not too objectionable to our faith. And is Voting on principle (which I recognize seems to have gone out the window a long time ago), no longer the best option for the believer? So somehow it is better to vote for Romney even though a vote for Bachmann or Cain would be preferable simply because Romney may win, and they supposedly cannot. Well, no one would have thought that Cain could wipe out both Romney and Perry in one stroke in the FL straw vote either. Our country was founded on the principle that truth should not be sacrificed on the altar of expediency. Our country is in the condition that it is today because many Christians have come to accept and even approve the lesser of two evils. I would rather lose an election and have a clear conscience before God than opt for the expedient. After all, a lost battle doesn’t always mean a lost war.

Tue, 09/27/11
So somehow it is better to vote for Romney even though a vote for Bachmann or Cain would be preferable simply because Romney may win, and they supposedly cannot
OK. I get the primaries (of which there as been so far none!) and the staw polls (of which there have been few and they are for a small group of people).

My question for you is at the general election time … November 6, 2012

There won’t be Cain, Bachman, Romney, Perry et al on the Republican side

There will be:
  • Democrat = President Obama
  • Republican = [well we don’t know yet]
  • Constitution party = ???
  • Green party = ???
I won’t say “never” but there is a very high probability that the one elected will be either the Democrat (Obama) or the Republican = (???)

OK … if the Republican is the mormon Romney? Now what is the choice?

I’ve already stated not that Romney is my first choice but that if it comes down to Obama vs Romney, I will vote for Mitt

Twitter

Jim's Doctrinal Statement

Tue, 09/27/11
Does the gov’s acceptance of LDS’ “bizarre doctrines” make him any less of an acceptable candidate than JFK’s Roman Catholicism back in the 1960 election?

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

Tue, 09/27/11
Doesn’t matter, you should have still voted for the Baptist over the Irish Catholic Hollywood actor in 1980…

Do you want the pope to run this country!?

Tue, 09/27/11
Regan was Protestant. IIRC, his home church in SoCal was a First Presbyterian. Looking back, I doubt the Vatican was calling the shots in the Uncle Ronnie’s White House.
[Barry L.] Doesn’t matter, you should have still voted for the Baptist over the Irish Catholic Hollywood actor in 1980…

Do you want the pope to run this country!?

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

Tue, 09/27/11
Nice question on a day like this, Aaron.

If it is a choice between Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama, I would vote for Mr. Romney.

p.s. - And for the entertainment, imagine how American conservatives and American liberals will began critiquing this man if he actually does become the Republican nominee.

p.s.s. - The Annual Northwest Baptist Missions Conference is continuing tonight with Pastor Matt Johnson and Grace Baptist Church in Salt Lake City. Pray for all the brothers and sisters and their encouragement in the gospel.

Roots by the River

Jesus in Idaho Falls

Tue, 09/27/11
[Rob Fall] Does the gov’s acceptance of LDS’ “bizarre doctrines” make him any less of an acceptable candidate than JFK’s Roman Catholicism back in the 1960 election?
With the recent popularity of the Broadway musical “The Book of Mormon”, the bizarre doctrines of Mormonism literally got a stage. Compared to the Resurrection, Virgin Birth, and Trinity, things like Jews sailing to America, getting your own planet, and holy underwear MAY provide rich material for those who wish to raise questions about Romney with the undecided public.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Tue, 09/27/11
[GScottJones]…In a primary I will vote for a man who demonstrates the best combination of morals, workable policies, winability, and good judgment…
What if the best candidate is a woman :-)

Pedid por la paz de Jerusalén.

Tue, 09/27/11
[CLeavell] Mormons believe that mankind is co-eternal with God while Christians believe that man has the creative work of God as the source of his existence. Mormons also reject the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo (out of nothing) while Christians believe that God spoke the universe into existence. Mormons believe that God is subject to the physical and moral laws of the universe, while Christians believe that God is the source of the physical and moral laws of the universe. The Creator/creation distinction does not exist in Mormonism.
You may be on to something here. I agree that in the final analysis the Mormon “God” is not the God of the Bible any more than the God of Islam is really the God of the Bible. Yet there is a great deal of overlap.

In any case, that part of my argument doesn’t stand alone. We really have to compare what Mormons believe to what agnostics, pantheists, secular humanists and other folks running for office believe.

Viewed from that angle, I think the Mormon POV looks pretty good. Of course, I’d never say it’s “good enough,” but there’s a difference between ideals and real options.

This is what many miss when it comes to the process of electing leaders and developing policy. By all means believe in the ideals, but also recognize how the actual choices differ from them.

My impression is that the average Mormon is only slightly more confused about God than the average “evangelical.” They do at least see God as vastly superior to us, as the moral judge over humankind and the only deity that matters in this part of the universe.

(On a side note, if you look at it from the POV of a critic, is “holy underwear” really weirder than circumcision? I don’t want to get into a “Who has the weirdest beliefs?” contest. Weird things are sometimes true. What matters is what’s true and what isn’t, not how odd it seems to people when they have their Rational hat on.)
[jimcarwest]…and whoever can win is said to be the best choice as long as his views are not too objectionable to our faith. And is Voting on principle (which I recognize seems to have gone out the window a long time ago), no longer the best option for the believer?
“Whoever can win is the best choice” definitely does not appear in my position anywhere. I’m not sure who is taking that position.

AS for voting on principle, I think everybody believes in voting on principle. The question is what principle should we vote on? There are several possibilities..
  • The principle that we should vote for the one who most closely matches your own views on everything
  • The principle that we should not vote at all unless we have a candidate who agrees with us on just about everything
  • The principle that we should vote so as to obtain the result that best helps the country
Several others are possible. I’m all for hearing arguments for and against each. But to claim one of these principles and act as though it alone = “voting on principle” is kind of an anti-debate approach.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Tue, 09/27/11
[Aaron Blumer] 5. Several (mostly RPittman) on the wrong of voting for the lesser of two evils (stand on principle leave results to God.)

This is begging the question, which is “What’s right in elections?” Why is it wrong to vote for the best man?

Secondly, I have long argued (and I think I’ve not yet heard a counter) that since we will never get to vote for Jesus Christ, we are always voting for the lesser of two evils. We are always voting for a sinner. Consequently, a vote for the “least evil” is the same as a vote for the “most good.” (If you think about it, any vote for a deacon or pastor is also a vote for someone who is, hopefully, less evil than many others).
yes, Yes, YES!!! I was just about to post this but you beat me to it. I’m so tired of those who say, “Why would you vote for the lesser of two evils?” I have the same response as you…EVERY vote is for the lesser of two (or more) evils. Because we will never have a perfect candidate (and by “perfect” I mean more than sinless—I mean someone who lines up perfectly with my perspective on every issue and is morally above reproach in every area), we must weigh many factors and cast our votes according to our conscience. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Tue, 09/27/11
[drwayman]
[GScottJones]…In a primary I will vote for a man who demonstrates the best combination of morals, workable policies, winability, and good judgment…
What if the best candidate is a woman :-)
This issue has been raised in my church. Without doing a lot of research I stated that I saw no problem with women having authority in civil government. If anyone has any Scripture that addresses this I would like to hear it. Being a “queen” is a bit different, but I could not think of any possitive examples, except maybe Deborah.

As long as she is not Mormon!

Tue, 09/27/11
Aaron wrote, “My impression is that the average Mormon is only slightly more confused about God than the average “evangelical.”

I beg to differ, bro.

Evangelical says, “There is a God, and I am not Him.” Latter-day Saint says, “There is a God, and you and I are literally His sons.”

Evangelical clearly knows the divide. Latter-day Saint says there is no divide.

Evangelical clearly says there are two circles: One is Creator. And the other is creatures. Latter-day Saint says there is one circle. One round.

There is no overlap.

Roots by the River

Jesus in Idaho Falls

Tue, 09/27/11
[GScottJones] I could not think of any possitive examples, except maybe Deborah.
How about Esther?

Pedid por la paz de Jerusalén.

Tue, 09/27/11
[drwayman]
[GScottJones] I could not think of any possitive examples, except maybe Deborah.
How about Esther?
My understanding of the Persian Empire is that women had almost no political influence. Her “election” was also a bit different!

Tue, 09/27/11
[GScottJones] My understanding of the Persian Empire is that women had almost no political influence. Her “election” was also a bit different!
I don’t know much about the Persian empire, what you say is probably true. However, notice in Deborah’s case there appeared to be a vacuum of godly leadership; hence, Deborah’s leadership was the solution. You never know, the same tactic might work again. Maybe we need a woman to fix our nation by occupying what has traditionally been a man’s place. Even though Esther’s election may have been different, maybe a woman president will be available “for such a time as this.”

Pedid por la paz de Jerusalén.

Tue, 09/27/11
What about a Woman Lutheran? If you’re going to draw the line at a Mormon, why not a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran who hasn’t attended church in two years?

I hope a certain marginal cussing Catholic governor of New Jersey finally gets in. Why? Because he can lead and get the job done.

Tue, 09/27/11
[RPittman]
[Aaron] Now, supposing you had the choice of Josef Stalin and Adolf Hilter, which do you think would be the lesser of two evils? or Herod and Nero?
Now, supposing you had the choice of Joseph Stalin and Mitt Romney, who would you vote for?

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Tue, 09/27/11
[Todd Wood] Aaron wrote, “My impression is that the average Mormon is only slightly more confused about God than the average “evangelical.”

I beg to differ, bro.

Evangelical says, “There is a God, and I am not Him.” Latter-day Saint says, “There is a God, and you and I are literally His sons.”

Evangelical clearly knows the divide. Latter-day Saint says there is no divide.

Evangelical clearly says there are two circles: One is Creator. And the other is creatures. Latter-day Saint says there is one circle. One round.

There is no overlap.
Well… you’re assuming evangelicals who have a clue. I’m not sure “most” of them do…. and I put “evangelicals” in quotes because so many now claim the term yet believe in many roads to heaven, etc.

But if we’re going to classify the “Mormon worldview” or Mormon view of God, where does it fit? It’s polytheistic ultimately but tries to have it both ways. Is it pantheistic? Though their idea of God is not one in which God is infinite and non-contingent, He is still distinct from the creation, am I right?

So lumping it in with “Judeo-Christian” is probably too sloppy but I’m not sure where else it goes.

@Roland…

Nobody is claiming that people can always judge perfectly who the best available candidate is. Given how many Stalin eventually killed, it’s not easy to say those who thought Hitler “better” were wrong. Of course, it’s a bit apples and oranges since they we’re not talking about the same kind of selection process… and the voters did not get to see everything ol’ Adolph would turn out to be.

But what I’m talking about is backing the best available guy vs. refraining from the vote or perhaps missing an opportunity to “vote against” someone evil. So a more valid comparison would be what if those who backed Hitler had done nothing instead? Same result. So I think the “Hasn’t worked” argument is defeated. It is not evident that refraining from supporting the best/least evil candidate has better results than supporting him.

As for the “we always vote for a lesser of evils if we vote at all” argument. I think it still stands. Though it’s true that there’s a difference between voting for an option you loathe only slightly less than the other vs. voting for someone with attractive qualities though not perfect, the difference is relative. Anyone we vote for is either slightly lesser of two evils or a whole lot lesser of two evils.

In any case, a vote need not be understood as an endorsement of all the candidate is and believes. It only means you see him as better than the alternative. If indeed you do see him as better, there must be at least one difference that is “attractive” (even if it’s nothing more than “He will raise taxes .0001 % less than the other guy will.”)

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Tue, 09/27/11
[RP] At the risk of sounding cynical, politics may be one of the downfalls of Christian influence in America. Somehow, I don’t recall Christ calling us to win elections but I do remember our Lord saying, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature (Mark 16:15).”
The old false dichotomy again. Of course we can’t preach the gospel and win elections. Utterly impossible. And of course we can’t do anything Jesus didn’t command us to do, like post stuff on the Internet, for example.

The “we always vote for a lesser of two evils if we vote at all” argument.

Still stands. Saying it plays into the hands of some supposedly undesirable group doesn’t defeat it. To defeat it, we need an argument that answers the nature of the candidates. I’ve alleged that they all imperfect. Am I incorrect? I’ve argued that since they are always imperfect we are always voting for the one who is best of those available. I’ve also argued that “best” is the same as “least undesireable.” So to defeat that argument, we need something that either shows the candidates are not always flawed or that voting the best is not the same as voting for the least flawed.

As for “the pols,” in Romans 13, God says they are very important, serve Him, and are worthy of honor.

I’m out of time, but briefly revisiting the “voting the best/least flawed candidate hasn’t worked” counterargument:

As I said, nobody is claiming it works out well every time. The Chancellor Hitler case may or may not have turned out as you suppose if voters who backed him had elected some third party guy. Since you say he rigged the thing anyway (I haven’t read up on that part of the history so I wouldn’t know), it kind makes the question of how people voted a bit irrelevant. He was going to find a way to gain power in any case.

But the truth of that situation and it’s relevance here is really simpler even than that.

Hitler deceived voters. Since the ability to deceive voters is not unique to the “least of the evils” candidate (the one who looks worse could also be deceiving), the case only proves that voting in general is an imperfect process. It doesn’t prove that voting for the least unattractive candidate results in disaster.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Tue, 09/27/11
[RPittman]
[Greg Long]
[RPittman]
[Aaron] Now, supposing you had the choice of Josef Stalin and Adolf Hilter, which do you think would be the lesser of two evils? or Herod and Nero?
Now, supposing you had the choice of Joseph Stalin and Mitt Romney, who would you vote for?
Stalin would be eliminated because he’s not a native-born American citizen as required by the Constitution and Romney would win but I wouldn’t vote for him … I would protest … . . Greg, somehow your persistent questioning of my posts gives me the idea that you think you’re slick and clever … LOL … . 8-)
Well, I’m not sure why you have that idea, because that idea would be incorrect. Please don’t make assumptions or judgments about my thoughts or motives. LOL or no LOL.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Tue, 09/27/11
Back in the late 80s we lived in the Southwest where the Safeway grocery chain had a large presence. One lady we knew decided not to shop at Safeway “because it’s a Mormon company.” Though I didn’t make a great effort to find out (and this would be much easier today because of the Internet), I did manage to learn that Safeway was a public company owned by stockholders. Clearly the LDS church could hold any publicly-traded company it desired such as Ford, General Electric, Boeing, or Coca-Cola in its stock portfolio. According to this line of thinking LDS ownership of stock would make those companies “Mormon” as well. I thought her boycott was rather silly, a decision made more from emotion than conviction. But the election of a Morman man, one Willard “Mitt” Romney, to the Presidency is a more profound choice than is choosing where to buy groceries.

The potential for revenge is my primary concern about the Mormon church gaining the ultimate political leadership of this country. The Mormon Church has been persecuted for it entire existence. When Brigham Young stood at an overview of the Salt Lake Valley he reportedly said something to the effect, “This is the place.” But the reason he led a group of settlers to what is now Utah was because they were chased-out of the borders of the United States at the time. Polygamy is one of the great conflicts the LDS Church has with Christianity. When Utah applied to Congress for statehood, “One of the conditions for granting Utah statehood was that a ban on polygamy be written into the state constitution” (Wikipedia, “Utah”). Though still illegal, the LDS church has disowned polygamy but has never eradicated it.

History clearly shows that when a persecuted group gains politcial power over its oppressor it takes revenge on the oppressor. Though the election of Mitt Romney to the Presidency will most likely not result in a revolution, the French Revolution is a stark reminder that vengeance is an extremely strong emotion and is a motivator for an oppressed group to take political power. And if a person says, “That can’t happen here,” he or she ignores the sin nature of Man and history itself.