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

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!?

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..

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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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!

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.

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

Pedid por la paz de Jerusalén.

[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!

[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.

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.