November 5, 2012
ALAN ARCHIBALD writes:
I marvel that Christian conservatives rally around Mitt Romney, the first non-Christian to run for president of the United States. Did you note Rev. Billy Graham’s recent “rehabilitation” of Mormonism from “cult status” to “full biblical integrity?” Perhaps Rev. Graham has been swept away by the zeitgeist of flip-floppery.
According to Graham’s website, “A cult is any group which teaches doctrines or beliefs that deviate from the biblical message of the Christian faith. It is very important that we recognize cults and avoid any involvement with them.” “Avoid any involvement with them.” Moral decisions hinge on informed conscience and, by my lights, Christians have a moral obligation to inform their conscience fully and to help others do the same.
I have discovered a revealing peculiarity. Generally speaking, “liberals” are eager to communicate richly contextualized truth, whereas “conservatives” are eager to conceal contextualized truth in hopes that partiality will work to political advantage. I always welcome opportunity to publish intelligently expressed views that are contrary to my own: the more contrary, the happier I am to publish them. However, American “conservatives” are loathe to communicate contrary views to their best friends, much less to their entire flock.
I have no objection to Americans voting for any candidate they choose, regardless religious persuasion or lack thereof. Hey. I’m voting for the Muslim.
Despite “Prophet” Joseph Smith’s sexual predation and his establishment of a non-Christian cult (that pretends to be Christian), I acknowledge that followers of Mormonism are often outstanding, virtuous people and that freedom of religion properly guarantees them the right to subscribe to Mormon beliefs regardless their provenance.
Still, it is shameful that so many Christian “conservatives” plan to vote for Governor Romney without researching his personal formation-and-character. Research is necessary if only to determine what is “hidden in plain sight”: i.e., Mormonism is not a Christian religion, and founding prophet, Joseph Smith, was a sexual predator who taught that all Christian denominations were “abominations” in the sight of God.
As you admit, contradicting yourself, Romney is not the first non-Christian to run for president. And, he is not anti-Christian in the sense that Obama is.
I have no interest in defending the statements of every “Christian” regarding Romney’s Mormonism. However, your point that it has not been a serious issue of debate among Evangelicals and Catholics is plainly wrong. It has.
In 2008, there was a long thread at VFR titled “Does Protestant hostility to Mormonism sink Romney’s chances?” A commenter in that thread wrote:
In conversations with traditionalist Christians where I live, it has become strikingly apparent that many of these Christians absolutely will not vote for Romney no matter whom he runs against. Therefore, if Romney wins the Republican candidacy, he will not win the election, but he will damage the already tenuous relationship between traditionalist Christian voters and the Republican party. Any Republican candidate needs to bring out traditionalist Christian voters in droves in order to win the presidency. Romney cannot do this.
The point is that these Catholics and Protestants would not vote for Romney because of his Mormonism. I highly recommend the discussion because it refers to the general backlash against Romney’s Mormonism and provides, if you follow the links to related threads, a fairly exhaustive examination of the issue.
I am sure there are a fair number of Protestants and Catholics who still, four years later, will not vote for Romney for this reason, although probably not nearly as many as in 2008 since much has transpired since then. However, they could not under any circumstances vote for the anti-Christian Obama and remain consistent.
There are two reasons generally why Protestants and Catholics justify voting for a Mormon. One, they believe the alternative is plainly worse. And two, Romney is not a devout Mormon.
I personally have serious theological differences with many of those who have been president. Romney’s Mormonism, in my opinion, is an aspect of his shallowness and also of his loyalty to his family.
Please don’t lecture “conservatives” on contextualized truths when you yourself support a president who won’t even reveal his own birth certificate or his college transcript. If that’s what you call a high regard for contextualized truth, I’ll take plain old, non-contextualized truth any day.
However, American “conservatives” are loathe to communicate contrary views to their best friends, much less to their entire flock.
The idea that the liberal establishment is prone to communicate contrary views is laughable. We obviously live in entirely different worlds.
—— Comments —-
Kevin M. writes:
Option A: A Mormon
Option B: A Muslim (Google “Obama Shahada Ring Photos” and select Images)
No, I am not kidding, I have not been drinking and I don’t subscribe to conspiracy theories without a dump truck of evidence. I spent 4 years in Saudi Arabia. I know more than a tad about Islam. You cannot–repeat CANNOT–attend a madrassa in Indonesia or anywhere else without providing a document (I forget the name, but you can Google that, too) attesting to your having said the Shahada and pledging lifelong submission to Allah and his prophet, Mohammed. That document must be signed by a member of the Islamic clergy and bears a seal. The normal procedure today includes telephone or e-mail communication with the mosque where that document was produced for verification.
So, Mormon or Muslim. The choice is yours.
Terry Morris writes:
Your mention of Obama’s refusal to produce any official evidence that he is, in fact, what he claims to be and what the Constitution requires, is even more fundamentally simple than the birth certificate issue. How many people – friends of the family, relatives, neighbors, doctors, nurses, etc. – have we ever heard a peep out of confirming that Obama is truly a natural born U.S. Citizen? Two of my children don’t have state-issued birth certificates. But a large number of friends and relatives know that they were born here.
I have a contrary view for Mr. Archibald to publish: He’s a pompous ass. I’m sure that that’s about as contrary to his own view of himself as he gets. He claims that liberals are the truth tellers and that conservatives “loathe” the truth by “concealing” contrary views. Is Mr. Archibald living under a rock? And, thank you, Mr. Archibald, for so generously withholding your determining “objection” to my freedom to vote and for personally condescending to my religious freedom. You’re a great man for allowing us little people to conduct our own affairs, shameful as we may be.
Posted by Laura Wood in Uncategorized