Backing Mormon candidate as bad as saying Mormonism is Christianity?

“When you have someone like Franklin Graham going on CNN and saying he has no problem voting for a Mormon like Mitt Romney and Osteen saying Mormons are Christian, it is clear that politics are being put before the eternal soul of man.”
Televangelist Launches Fierce Attack on Joel Osteen, Says Mormonism Isn’t Christianity

1398 reads

There are 17 Comments

Aaron Blumer's picture

... Christians are widely confused about the relationship between church and state and what backing any candidate means in ref. to his religion.

Mike Harding's picture

Apples and oranges here. Osteen is obviously heretical. Franklin is not. Other candidates are Roman Catholic who also have plenty of heretical views on Christianity. If Romney was advancing Mormonism, then I think the article has a point. I have not seen any evidence that he uses his public platform to do so. Jefferson was quite hostile to some Christian theology; yet, he is remembered as one of our great presidents. Personally, I plan at this time on voting for Santorum. But if Mitt gets the ultimate nomination, I will vote for him over Obama any day of the week.

Pastor Mike Harding

Paul J. Scharf's picture

The presidential contenders for the Stupid Party (the Republicans) this time around are a strange cast of misfits, oddballs and has-been's. Sadly, there are no true conservatives left in the race, with the possible exception of Ron Paul. The rest are big-government, tax-and-spend, insiders.
The problem with Romney or one of those others winning, if that is possible, is that Christians and conservatives will drop their guard while the new administration implements a similar agenda to that which the other party already offers.
The heavy hitters in the Stupid Party chose to sit this one out, much as in 1996. Contrary to the popular line in conservative media, I believe they share my prediction that Obama is likely to win in a landslide behind the support of a populace that is increasingly on the government dole.
Thus, I am not setting myself up for a big disappointment here -- my expectations are very low to begin with.

Editor in Chief – Dispensational Publishing House

Bible Teacher, Minister, Educator, Author, Journalist

JobK's picture

Some would convince themselves that Stalin is the lesser of the two evils and vote for him. Some would do the same concerning Hitler. How's about voting for neither? Honestly, this thing is out of our hands, and will be determined in a lesser way by the unregenerate masses that make up the vast majority of the voting public, and in a greater way by God, who the Bible says raises up and removes leaders according to His purposes (and no, democracy and our Constitution does not render the Bible to no effect).

Right now, the unregenerate mindset is to vote for the other guy to sacrifice. Whether that "other guy" is an unborn child, a kid from the other side of town that gets sent off to fight our nation-building "wars" in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Libya (is Iran next?) or wherever, and illegal immigrants doing the agricultural and construction jobs (for not only low pay, but no healthcare/retirement/insurance or other benefits) that Americans won't do, the folks who pay the taxes to support social programs, etc. the masses will elect whoever promises to shift as much of the burden of the dirty work to someone else as possible.

So right now, the Mormon Church (as represented by Romney, Huntsman) and the Roman Catholics (Santorum, Gingrich) are fighting to compete with Obama for the privilege of giving a nation that despises Jesus Christ whatever they want. The best part is that for all we know, they may be colluding behind the scenes. After Romney (who was being backed heavily by Catholics and was considered their candidate of choice) was rejected by evangelicals in 2008, the Catholic Church and the Mormon church decided to work together overtly and directly - and cut Protestants out of the picture - shortly thereafter, with the (successful) homosexual marriage ban in California their first test of strength, and since then both have also worked together (although much more quietly than the homosexual marriage opposition effort) to oppose anti-illegal immigration efforts.

But hey, if you want to indulge in the Mormon vs. Catholic vs. Obama (whatever he is supposed to represent) shell game, be my guest. The real trick isn't picking the best snake from the den of vipers, but trying to convince yourself that the snake that you just grabbed by the tail isn't going to bite you. Or more truthfully, after he has bitten you (as Reagan, Bush, and all the other candidates supported by conservative Christians have been) trying to convince yourself that he didn't REALLY bite you, and that the next snake that you will be looking for in 2012 or 2016 won't bite you either.

Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura

Sean Fericks's picture

Let's see, Gov. Romney is not desirable due to his defense of the socialized Massachusetts healthcare system (among other things). Santorum and Gingrich only polled 9% each last night. All three are big spending "conservatives". Huntsman came in a respectable third last night, but didn't even campaign in Iowa. Huntsman is also a big spender. Who does that leave? Ron Paul, not a big spender, a Christian, pro-life as can be, beat expectations in both Iowa and New Hampshire, pulls more independents than Gov. Romney , and eager to eliminate all foreign aid, thus keeping us from the continual support of Israel's enemies. He is also lives and breaths liberty. He doesn't just vote for it when it is expedient.

Oops (no pun intended), I forgot about Gov. Perry (as did most New Hampshire voters). He received 0.7% last night. He needs to go back to Texas and continue to be the great governor that he is.

How about doing a bit of research prior to voting?

It appears that Gov. Romney will win this thing. If you want to protest it, protest it with the guy who has the ability to run a campaign in all 50 states, a guy who is really a fiscal conservative, a guy who has a long track record of voting consistently for liberty, a Christian, a medical doctor (hello health care debate), a guy who pulls independents and even many Dems, a guy who wants to give Israel a free reign to do what they need to do.

Sure, Romney is nearly inevitable (because Fox News has been saying so, and because he has money). Hopefully, he will be a good president. But let's stop looking for a "true conservative" when we have a proven liberty-loving Constitutionalists standing right in front of us, nipping at Romney's heals.

Sean Fericks's picture

Let's remember that President Clinton and President Carter were Baptists. Would you vote for them again?

Wayne Wilson's picture

Someone had to show up as a Ron Paul supporter. I won't argue his merits or lack of them as the case may be, but let's not pretend he supports Israel by giving them a free hand. He is as pro-Arab as any American politician has ever been, and based on his slanderous comments against Michelle Bachmann, I would say Pro-Islamic as well, but that just may be because they want to rid the world of the Jewish problem.

After Israel struck Gaza in early 2009, the good doctor gave an interview to Iranian TV and said Israel was the aggressor, Gaza was Israel's "concentration camp" and rather than criticize the Palestinians for firing thousands of rockets into Israeli towns, he said all they had were just "home-made bombs." He said this to Iranian TV. Israel, he said, would make peace with the Arab league if we weren't backing them up. I have tried to think of something more shameful than that said by an American congressman overseas...I just haven't been able to come up with anything.

On top of that, his solution to Iran getting a nuclear bomb is to offer them friendship. To me, that's just a teency bit naive.

Sean Fericks's picture

Wayne, I'm willing to hear all evidence. Do you have a link for either the transcript or an actual clip of that interview? This is the second time I have heard of it, but I would like to view it in person (preferably the whole thing). I also haven't heard the Michelle Bachmann comments. Can you provide a link for that as well?

BTW, I am pro-Arab.

Richard Pajak's picture

BTW, I am pro-Arab.[/quote]

I always thought pro Arab and anti-semitic were synonymous

Richard Pajak

Aaron Blumer's picture

Richard... not sure if you're serious or not. " ]Anti-semitic " is a term that, historically, has to do with hatred of Jews just because they're Jews. Usually, when people say "pro-Arab" or pro anything, they are expressing support for one group or individual vs. another in a particular conflict. Sometimes pro-A means anti-B in a conflict. But there is no inherent reason why a person can't be supportive of both sides in a conflict yet believe one has a better claim than the other.

As for Ron Paul, one of the creepiest things about the race this time around is how many supporters he seems to have.
...and how many think that his ideas form some kind of standard for authentic conservatism. Libertarianism is not conservatism, though they tend to overlap/track together on several points.

Though I appreciate Paul's desire (at least rhetorically) to do drastic things to deal with the size of gov't and the debt situation, he shows a great deal of naivety about what is actually possible locally and what is even close to sane globally ("foreign policy").

But to get back to the OP, the fundamental question there is how does a candidate's religion relate to his fitness for office or to whether or not Christians vote for him? It's certainly a mistake to think that a vote for a candidate is an endorsement of what he believes about everything . So why should we view it as an endorsement of his religion? He's not running for National Chaplain or National High Priest.

Wayne Wilson's picture

I thought the Paul followers had seen all his videos, and on the tonight show as well, where he mocked Rick Santorum for his opposition to Same Sex Marriage as well.

The link to Paul on Iranian TV. Press TV, for the uninformed, is the Iranian English language press arm of the regime.

By the way, Paul is also being heavily promoted on Russian English language media as the "peace candidate." I wonder why...

The Bachmann and Santorum slander

Sean Fericks's picture

I am pro-Arab, pro-Israel, pro-life, and pro-peace. I knew a gentleman in Phoenix who is a good Christian Arab from Palestine. His family was displaced by the settlements. He is an Arab and a brother in Christ. How could I be anything but pro-Arab? I understand that Israel must defend herself, and we should back off and let her do so (not telling her when to quit, not telling her to use "restraint", etc.). But when we directly support and even encourage her actions by giving her weapons and logistical support, we incur a moral responsibility as well.

Wayne Wilson's picture

I think any believer is pro-Arab in that sense...Arab human beings, Arab culture when it is not fused with Islamo-facism. Of course I am speaking of the conflict between a free people and terrorists. What moral responsibility do we incur by supporting a free people...a self-critical people?

The moral argument is fairly simple if you think about the big picture. If Israel unilaterally laid down all their weapons for one year, what would happen to the Israeli people? And if Israel's Arab neighbors unilaterally laid down their weapons for one year, what would happen to them?

Now, what do you think of Dr. Paul's specific comments to Iranian TV? What do you think of his use of the word "concentration camp"?

Sean Fericks's picture

I will have to view the video tomorrow. I am at work and have my mom's b-day party tonight, so it might be a bit before I respond to the video. I am interested and am willing to change my mind, especially if I can be convinced that Dr. Paul's foreign policy is a greater danger to us than the violations of the Constitution and fiscal discipline of the other candidates.

I know this is way off topic, so I will probably post it in a new thread under politics. A more theological discussion: Is the modern state of Israel a direct recipient of the OT blessings / curses on Israel? Thus, are Christians required to defend her? Or, is the modern state of Israel to be treated as other modern states, and to be judged and treated on her merits / demerits?

My gut feel is that the modern state of Israel is not protected by the blessings given in the OT. I would like to think this through with people who are wiser than me.

Sean Fericks's picture

Back to the original post topic, I work very closely with several LDS friend in business and politics. When it comes to politics, they are no different than the Catholics, Baptists, or Presbyterians I have known. Depending on which individual you talk to, they may be Constitutionalists, conservative, or liberal. If you are going to vote against Govs. Romney or Huntsman because of their religion, you are down to Gov. Perry or Rep. Paul, the only professing born-again believers remaining in the race.

Wayne Wilson's picture

I do believe the promise to Abraham that God will "bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse" applies to the Jews generally and certainly the Jews in their homeland. The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. All the prophets affirm that this promise will be the reality as God's plan for his people comes to fruition at the end of the age (Isa. 49:22; Isa. 54:3,17; Isa. 60; Ezek. 37:28; Zech. 14:16-21, etc.).

Between the Promise and the End, we have the evidence of history that those nations/governments that have been kind to the Jews have flourished, while those who have sought their destruction have faltered or disappeared.

That does not mean the modern Israeli government is never wrong, or never guilty of injustice (they are unredeemed humans for the most part, after all). However, by happy Providence, in addition to the Promise, they share our values of democracy and human rights as well. Arabs citizens of Israel have more rights in Israel than their brethren in Muslim controlled lands. So by common faith in the promises to Abraham, and in shared western values, they are allies and should remain so. It is no surprise to me that in an era when our nation seems destined for decline, popular politicians at both ends of the spectrum (European-style Socialist and Libertarian) should share a disdain for Israel, and thus finalize the loss of blessing we already are beginning to experience as we drive from our laws divine moral principle and embrace that which pollutes the land. This is one of those times in history when things are very plain.

Sean Fericks's picture

I have started a poll and thread in the politics section of SI so that we can carry on the Ron Paul discussion without further hijacking this thread.