February 26, 2007
Can Prolife Mormon Mitt Romney find Support Among Doctrine-Focused Evangelicals?
Over the last few weeks I've been pondering this question. Can evangelicals, especially those who concern themselves with doctrinal precision, vote for someone who would be regarded as a member of a cult? For some evangelicals, there is a doctrinal litmus test for presidential candidates. And while there is talk of Romney's flip-flopping on a variety of issues including his stance on human life, I wonder if his prolife popularity is enough to sway evangelicals to vote for him on the basis of his conservatism. I personally think that Barak Obama may appear more evangelical to those who are unfamiliar with church doctrine than will Mitt Romney who identifies himself as a Mormon. I honestly have not formulated a position on this yet, so I would appreciate hearing from you on this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hi Sarah,
I haven't formed an opinion on it either. I am bothered, however, with anyone who wants to redefine Christianity to make it compatible with Mormonism. Limbaugh wants to warn against people redefining conservatism to make it fit with the present candidates, but Roger Hedgecock (when he was guest hosting on Rush's show) virtually laughed, in his usual arrogant way, at the idea that Mormonism is a cult when he was interacting with a caller. I am curious to see if Rush responds the same way and undermines the doctrine of Christ's deity. He would do well to avoid theological discussions since he is profoundly ignorant on that subject, having promoted Neale Donald Walsch's nonsensical books on his website.
Romney also mentioned that he just thinks a "person of faith" needs to be in office. That statement is meaningless. Everyone will just pour their own meaning into that expression and think they know what he means, like good postmoderns.
Hi Sarah,
I was thinking more about this subject while at work tonight. I have to say that I don't even think G. W. Bush is a genuine believer. Do you think that he is? If not, then what would be the difference between voting for him as over against Kerry and voting for Romney as over against Hillary, if that's what we're left with?
It's true that we're not voting for a pastor in chief as a president, but we do want someone who is a complete example of integrity, which includes theological beliefs as well as conduct. I think we're hesitant to endorse Romney because he doesn't seem to demonstrate intellectual integrity on life's most important question, as well as being somewhat troubled by his past flip-flopping.
What will we do if the choices are between McCain and Hillary? We may have to puke as we punch the card for McCain hahaha. Either way, the next presidential election will be most depressing, especially with what just happened in the Senate and the House.
Two issues are HUGE in my opinion:
1) Border control and the illegals who are already here.
2) Judges.
You should see how bad things are in Texas with regard to border control. It's beyond bad. My own brother is married to an illegal alien and he has a daughter with her. I am not sure if people in the north realize how bad it is and how utterly pathetic G. W. Bush is on this matter. If we don't have our borders under control, we don't have a country (this issue is rightly important with Hedgecock). We are allowing cheaters who don't care about the law to come in at the cost of the tax paying citizens, and this administration (not to mention the reprobates on the left) doesn't seem to care. They are pandering to them.
We have become a culture of cowards and I am not sure things will improve, no matter who is in office. They certainly will not with any of the Democrat runners in office. We will be so desparate that we're likely to vote for a "moderate" like McCain or Giuliani (political "stars" as it were) just to stop the flood of problems that would face us if the left is given more power.
Here's what I am saying: In my own conscience, a vote for Romney is almost no different from a vote for Bush when it comes to religious considerations. In the case of the former (Romney), we have explicit unbelief coupled with generally conservative convictions, and in the case of the later (Bush) we have implicit unbelief with generally conservative values. It amounts to a difference between a vote for implicit or explicit unbelief on religious issues. Romney's theological beliefs are just manifestly MORE kooky and culturally odd.
Ask yourself this question about George W. Bush. Would he himself have any hesitations about voting for Romney given Romney's Mormonism? I don't think so, given Bush's religious inclusivism. I think Bush would vote for a conservative Muslim (if his only other options were anti-conservative) and think he's voting for a genuine worshipper of God.
Why are we any more bothered by the thought of voting for Romney than we are in voting for G. W. Bush?
I'm a Mormon, I can tell you that if I was old enough to run for President I'd make a good one.
I think Mitt does a bad job at defending Mormonism, and I think some of his comments are aimed at appealing to evangelicals. Examples of this would be Romney's negative beliefs on polygamy calling it "horrible". To me these types of statements are political calculations more than true beliefs. For the record I don't think that polygamy was horrible, I also don't think that makes me a cultist, call the Prophet Abraham a cultist if you will.
My feelings of people when they tell me I'm in a cult...if you really want to know, I think to myself and usually just tell them to their face that I think they are pretty stupid. That whole "Mormons are in a cult" thing is just made up by evangelical pastors to fear monger their members into not looking into it. That's because Mormon priesthood holders are made up of generally all male members and none are paid, so the evangelical pastors lose their money. That's really why they gang up on us.
I find that most Christians (outside of my church which is Christian as well) I run into are ignorant of the Bible, they don't know that Abraham, Jacob/Israel, Moses were polygamist themselves and have only a few verses of the Bible memorized and that is the extent for their bible knowledge. Usually Christians of the evangelical type are familiar with the teachings of Paul and hold on to a misinterpretation of Paul's teaching on salvation by grace rather than works. Regardless of what Paul says Jesus Christ was clear in his teachings (found in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) that he expected good works of his disciples and not just a confession of belief.
While evangelicals hate Mormons because of Polygamy and they hate the Clinton's because Bill had sex in the Oval Office with an intern, they are showing a willingness to abandon their pro life stand to vote for a non Mormon alternative, which will most likely be Rudy or John McCain. Both have confessed to having committed adultery. Both have slept with more women than just their wife.
So in a nutshell we don't want Hillary because her husband cheated on her and we don't want Romney because his ancestors practiced polygamy, so let's elect one guilty of adultery so long as he's not a democrat, and let's elect a guy who has slept with many woman so long as he's not married to all but one of them (at a time)
You can email me
brian_terrill2003@yahoo.com
Brian Terrill
Post a Comment