Would You Vote for a Mormon for President? (A Second Look)

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

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

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)

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?

[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.

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.

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)

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.

[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

Jim,

[] Choose the cheaper

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

[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.

…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.

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

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..