I have not been watching the GOP debates. I like Ron Paul a great deal, but think that neither the GOP nor the press give him the time of day. The pretty boy of the GOP is Mitt Romney. Now, I’ll admit I don’t know Romney well. He comes across as the face of the GOP machine; the same way Hillary Clinton does for the Dems. That’s a turn off all by itself. But, what’s more, Romney’s a Mormon. Here’s a video from Fox news about the issue, wherein they interview Senator Hatch from Utah.
Okay, let’s break this down just a little bit. First thing is the Jesus shell game that Mormons play. We know they speak of and believe in a Jesus, but it is a distinctly different one that the Jesus of which the Bible speaks. Mormons (from the tour at the Temple in SLC right on down) want to present themselves as just another Christian body, but they’re not. Senator Hatch tried to play his Jesus card, but I’m not buying it. I hope you’re not, either. Further, I’m amused by Hatch arguing against Mormonism’s cult status by saying that it’s the fourth largest church in America today. Since when does size have anything to do with whether a body is a cult or not?! Typically, that sort of thing is decided not by counting noses but by the body’s theology (usually Christology).
So, let’s move on to my larger point. What’s the connection (or better, connections) between one’s religious convictions and one’s ability to discharge the duties of an office? On one hand, I think that there is very little connection. An out-and-out God hater can entertain and implement good and fair tax policies. A Mormon can have a good foreign policy. Conversely, an Evangelical (think Jimmy Carter) can be a stinking train wreck. Our Two-Kingdom friends refer to this sort of thing as the common kingdom. It’s not necessarily a religious or spiritual knowledge that instructs (for example) a shoe maker in making shoes. What’s more, it’s quite possible that an unbelieving shoe maker can be better as his craft than a Christian. So, in this sense, politics is in the common realm, and as such, a vote for a Mormon isn’t necessarily any better or worse than a vote for a nominal Christian. In fact, it might even be better, for at least the Mormon typically has respect for human life and doesn’t support the wholesale murder of unborn children, the way some Christian presidents have.
Problem is that it’s not as simple as I just made out. That’s because life doesn’t fit into nice little boxes. Life (and especially people) is far more complicated and mixed up than some would like to let on. Christians have been born anew, brought out of Satan’s kingdom into the kingdom of God’s dear Son. Regeneration reorients the whole of life and gives new meaning to everything. How can being a new creature in Christ NOT come to bear on one’s politics? At a more general level, how can one’s religious convictions NOT influence one’s decision-making? Further, it’s in this world that Christ redeems us and commands us to live every part of our lives in faithfulness to him. Christ redemption of his people will necessarily impact culture because people impact culture. On the flip side, some Christians think of the church itself as a political or social entity, to change this world for the better. This, of course, is unfaithful to Scripture. The church is God’s institution of redemption, through Word and Sacrament, prayer and fellowship. Those who are redeemed (distinct from the church as an institution) may themselves be engaged in social or political change, but that’s not the job of the institution of the church.
Okay, back to the Mormon thing. Senator Hatch says of Mitt Romney: “He literally lives his religion.” That’s the problem, and it’s an expected one. Romney’s demonic religion has a massive influence in his life and decision-making. Should that cause anxiety to the Christian voter? Is that anxiety such a problem that a Bible-believing person could not, in good conscience, vote for Mitt Romney or any other Mormon? What are your thoughts? I’m hoping not only to hear from my friend, Zrim, but also from the Hammer, Mr. Baggins, Pr. Wilson, Jason Anspach, Bobbert, and hopefully many others.
I agree with you about Mitt, but I detest Ron Paul. Give me Cain. Ron Paul is an anarchist whose ideology is as far from Christianity as Romney’s.
I would laugh at this but I can see you’re not joking.
You should actually find out what Dr. Paul stands for, then you would understand that he’s not an anarchist.
Nicholas, I can see our moral philosophy is either: not the same, or you haven’t done your research on this man. If you actually knew what he stood for and not just his talking points, you would understand why he is not a good bet for a believer. With his views on 9/11 and his stance on legalization of all drugs and prostitution he has NO chance of winning, only – once again – siphoning votes from Republican candidates… and I for one don’t want to lose to a pro-abortion democrat simply because everybody thinks that Ron Paul is a good bet.
Mark, I suspect that you might not understand Paul’s positions on drugs or prostitution (as those are two of the three things you mentioned). He’s not FOR either other of them; he’s not FOR legalizing them as such. He’s for states’ rights and the scaling back of federal power and its usurped jurisdiction. In short, he’s very much FOR the structure and distribution of powers as laid out in the Constitution. I, for one, don’t think that’s unelectable!
Ron Paul said, “If you do not protect liberty across the board, it’s a First Amendment–type issue,” he said. “We don’t have a First Amendment so we can talk about the weather. We have the First Amendment so we can say very controversial things. So, for people to say that, ‘Yes, we have our religious beliefs protected, but people who want to follow something else, or a controversial religion — you can’t do this’ … if you have the inconsistency, then you’re really not defending liberty. But there are strict rules on freedom of choice of this sort, because you can’t hurt other people, you can’t defame other people, but yes, you have a right to do things that are very controversial. If not, you’re going to end up with a government that can tell you what to eat or drink or whatever.”
He states that ” there are strict rules on freedom of choice of this sort, because you can’t hurt other people, you can’t defame other people, but yes, you have a right to do things that are very controversial.”
So, it seems that he would not be in support of murder being allowed by individual states because that hurts people… but he would be OK with states determining whether or not they could kill babies? Either he did not think this through, or he does not really consider abortion… murder. That in itself would be enough to deter a believer away from this vote.
Also, why would he think that prostitution does not harm? That drugs do not harm? Either he overlooked this as well, or his support of the right to do things that are very controversial include harming others despite his previous statement that our strict rules of freedom don’t give you the right to hurt other people.
I have an impossible time seeing what you would support about any of this.
I would echo what Tim said. The real talking point is what you parroted, that Ron Paul is for legalizing drugs and prostitution. What he is for is letting each state decide how they want to handle these issues and getting the federal government out of our lives. He has said on multiple occasions that he does not think these things are good but because he is a strong proponent of personal liberty, he believes the federal government should not dictate what we should watch, say, eat, drink, or do with our own bodies as long as it does not harm others or violate another person’s rights.
As for his views on 9/11, I assume you mean that he does just tell America that we were attacked because we’re freaking awesome and Muslims can’t stand that we are freaking awesome and so they hate us and are willing to blow themselves up because we’re sooooooo freaking awesome (USA! USA!) This is absurd of course. The CIA and our enemies have told us why they hate us. It isn’t because we’re awesome, free, drink beer, allow women to wear mini skirts, go to college and work. Very few Muslims are willing to blow themselves up because of those things. However, apparently many Muslims are willing to blow themselves up because we occupy their land, kill their people, support Israel no matter what, and tell them how they should live and what they should do. Gee, maybe if we didn’t do these things they wouldn’t hate us so much. Nah, America is so awesome, we couldn’t possibly be wrong on anything.
If anyone scares me with regard to foreign policy, it isn’t Ron Paul. Clinton, Bush and Obama have all been way to willing to send our troops around the world starting pre-emptive (aggressive), undeclared, unending wars all over the world. Every other candidate is the same.
As far as I’m concerned, the D and R next to someone’s name means the same thing. If you just look at policy, Bush and Obama are basically the same.
Mark, it’s pretty absurd for you to take the stance that the federal government would be better to handle the abortion issue rather than individual states. The federal government gave us Roe v. Wade.
Dr. Paul has delivered over 4000 babies and has been consistently pro-life his entire career, unlike plastic man Romney.
I wonder, where do you stand on war?
You’re missing the point of Ron Paul’s message though, Mark. While we may disagree with him on some points, we ought to listen to his message of freedom, liberty, peace, and truly limited government. If you had any idea what power the federal government has magically found for itself in the Constitution and the freedoms we are losing every day, I think you too would support him regardless of what differences you have regarding drugs and prostitution (which, by the way, won’t go anywhere in Congress). Consider this: I heard a lady speaking about the countries she used to live in – Turkey, Iran, and Azerbaijan. She said the situation in the U.S. is far worse because people here *think* they’re free. But they’re not. At least in those countries people know they’re not free and therefore they are active in trying to do something about it. Here, we celebrate the 4th of July while our independence is frittered away little by little. Did you know the federal government has a secret kill list with U.S. citizens on it who they consider dangerous? Did you know they can now target and kill U.S. citizens (and have killed two already) without due process?
“Mark, it’s pretty absurd for you to take the stance that the federal government would be better to handle the abortion issue rather than individual states. The federal government gave us Roe v. Wade.”
What? Absurd? The federal government also said slavery was OK… should we leave it to the states to determine whether or not that is OK? Oh wait… we did… result, civil war. The federal government also said women couldn’t vote… leave that to the states as well?
What if the federal government gave us a law called Sam vs. Jim and this allowed murder if you couldn’t support your child if they were 3 years old or younger? Would you say the states should decide murder and not the federal government? I hope not.
I find it pretty absurd for you to take the stance that the federal government should leave murder up to the states to decide… ridiculous… abortion is genocide.
“I wonder, where do you stand on war?”
I have varying stances on war… not a blanket stance.
“I think you too would support him regardless of what differences you have regarding drugs and prostitution (which, by the way, won’t go anywhere in Congress).”
No… wrong. I do not support a person based on what he can get accomplished in office… although that would play a part if that person met my primary criteria. That primary criteria is this… does the candidate stand for what I stand for? Does he represent me and what I believe? Especially on important matters like abortion, homosexuality, national security, etc… Does he live a life as far as I can tell of honor and morality? Is he a believer? Does he pander or flip flop? This is just a summary, but this is how I believe a believer is to vote.
I do not believe in voting for somebody just because they can get things accomplished in office, even if those things are things I want accomplished.
Mark, does the Constitution mean nothing in this country? Should the Federal gov’t walk all over the rights given to the states? Is that okay with you? I suspect not. How, then, at that level, can you oppose Ron Paul?
Mark, does the Constitution mean nothing in this country? Should the Federal gov’t walk all over the rights given to the states? Is that okay with you? I suspect not. How, then, at that level, can you oppose Ron Paul?
Tim, that you are at that level surprises me. While the Constitution means everything to most people in this country… it doesn’t mean everything to all of us. The Constitution was created by people for people… I love how the common American believes that it can do no wrong. Don’t get me wrong, I believe it is one of the greatest ideas and documents every penned in the history of the world… but I don’t swear by it, nor do I base my every movement and vote on it.
I don’t mean to sound arrogant or haughty, but God is my “level”. A level higher than the Constitution and I base my opposition to Ron Paul based on where I believe God wants my heart. I stand on human issues that oppose God, not Constitutional issues that oppose government.
Abortion, civil war, voting discrimination, banning prayer from schools, mass murder through illegal undeclared wars, killing of U.S. Citizens without due process, redistribution of wealth through theft, high unemployment and poverty because of bad monetary and economic policy, and weakening of national security because we police the world.
All these were given by your beloved federal government, Mark. I’m voting for Ron Paul or no one. I can’t stand the status quo anymore. It’s killing this country.
Of course… and from your point of view I can’t say that I blame you 🙂
Mark, as I’m sure you’re aware, I’m not willing to put the US Constitution above the Bible. Everything is under the reign of King Jesus. You probably know enough about me to surmise that. I do, however, think that the Constitution has a VERY important place in our civil order. Ron Paul is THE SINGLE high-profile candidate that is willing to let the Constitution have its rightful place in American politics. That, ISTM, is an important point. It’s so important that Paul deserves a second look from you.
A second look indeed… I was actually a Paul supporter before I did give it a second look. Sorry, Tim, respect intended… but I don’t see it like you. As I am sure he would be a great President in the areas you are interested in, I have to vote the way I believe I have to vote… not about how big government is (although I believe it should be very little) but by character and moral issues… Ron Paul is not quite there for me.
As a Brit, I am closer to Mark on the political, but I am always a RMC…Royal Marine Commando. I went to Gulf War 1 in my 40’s, I was a Recon officer then. Semper Fi! 🙂
Thank you for your service 🙂
I have refrained, but Ron Paul? If you had more like him, you would not have an American Country! In fact I wonder how long America will last? See Pat Buchanan’s new book: Suicide of a Superpower, Will America Survive to 2025?
Tim, here are some of my thoughts recently on the topic:
Frankly, while their respective theologies and practices are enough to keep them from Reformed church membership, I remain puzzled as to how Romney’s or Palin’s or Roberton’s or Santorum’s theologies have much relevance on political governance. I get the theory of drawing a straight line from theological belief to political behavior, but like you said, life is far more complicated and mixed up than some would like to let on. In which case, the line some want to draw has a lot of holes in it.
When I was a Royal Marine attached to the American 3rd Force Recon in the Nam, many years ago now, I had a Morman American Marine therein, he was simply a great guy, and the salt of the earth type! (RIP..died recently) Without him, I would not be here today! I know that’s subjective, but Mormon doctrine differs better than Unitarian doctrine, certainly. And as noted above governing politically is a very broad spectrum, and Morman men have always been ready to fight for right and freedom! Romney Indeed, if I were an American!
Sure, he is a good man and all that you said… but you simply took Satan out of the equation. As Tim pointed out in the original post, this man follows a religion perpetrated by Satan and this religion is a big part of who he is. How can we trust him in office? We, as believers, should be voting for fellow believers who share our ideals. We will never make American a Christian nation, but we can at least make it tolerable for Christians.
Mark: I disagree, you cannot press everyone to the right or left, wheat or tares, etc. and especially when you are talking about the political. You have Morman Senators in your congress, etc. Sure Mormanism is not “evangelicalism” I know, but I remember when Kennedy was running for your American presidency, and some of the things people said about him and the pope. Kennedy worked hard to somewhat separate his personal religious faith, from the US goverment. He was close to Jefferson here it appears. You might want to read Luther’s doctrine of the Two Kingdoms.
Finally, I argue against Morman doctrine often, tritheism…three distinct Gods, etc. But, I also realize that it is certainly possible for a Morman to see Christ as Savior, even though his doctrine might be very flawed. Thankfully salvation is not based upon doctrinal precision so much as the Person and work of Christ, and salvation is also based on faith, even if that faith is imperfect, if it is in HIM, and so-called existential. We are not saved by a litany or form of proper doctrine either, but faith in God In Christ! (Note, this is really the Reformational and Reformed doctrine of faith alone. I am certain we will all be very surprised in the glory. And btw, I remember Luther calling “Satan” God’s satan!)
Well, irishanglican ~Fr. Robert… this is where we disagree and part ways:) For a Mormon to view Christ as his savior, he would first need to view the correct Christ… God. Since a Mormon views Christ as created and as brother of Lucifer… he determines the wrong god as savior. A created being cannot be savior of the world, therefore a Mormon is not saved via faith in Christ but rather misled via faith in an imaginary god that does not exist. It is not a flawed or imperfect faith in Him, it is no faith in Him. Flawed or imperfect does not imply that we can worship and have faith in a false god… it means that our faith in the right God is flawed or imperfect.
Mark,
I agree with you on the doctrinal or intellectual level, but I have learned that everything does not exist at this level, however. And I am a conservative guy, both thelogical and political btw. My point is that faith, and certainly saving existential faith is a mystery in God also! And not every Morman believes Jesus and Lucifer were brothers. My old friend was a Reorganized Morman, btw. I am just making a point here, and not of course agreeing or supporting Momanism. It’s just that I can see that everything is black and white for you, and I have found that life, and certainly the Christian life is not that way really.
Mark, I have been playing devils advocate with you somewhat, for I am a Reformed Anglican, but I stand close to some Federal Vision ideas also. And I was raised Irish Roman Catholic, and I am not anti-Catholic either, though I am Reformed. But indeed the Reorganised Morman Church is a bit different from the Salt Lake Morman Church. I hope you realize this?
“But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached or if you receive a different Spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough” (2 Cor. 11:3-4).
Thanks for the clarification… I was referring to the LDS not the RLDS in my posts. Simply because the RLDS or CofC do not call themselves Mormons, nor do they want to be called this, it didn’t dawn on me that you might be talking about both sects. I have studied the LDS church at length, simply to be able to witness to them effectively. And even though they may be different in several aspects, the aspect of Jesus’ character and who he is… is wrong on both accounts. I could refer you to a couple of good websites if you would like.
That’s okay Mark, as I said, I was somewhat playing devils advocate. But I still believe we must always let God be God. Yes, I know the difference in the so-called Morman Churches. They are indeed both wrong on the doctrine of God! But, some of the RLDS are Christians I believe?
Hey Tim, I could vote for Romney solely on the basis that he would be against abortion, albeit for vastly different theological reasons. He comes off as a too polished a politician and that scares me about him. Ron Paul scares, Perry Scares as well and Bachmann does not scare but only because she’s pretty. Cain is interesting right now mostly because he’s a bit of an outsider, his idea to overhaul the tax code it interesting. but what is really scary is that elections are in Nov of —— next year.
Cain is as much an insider as anyone. He worked for the Fed and said in May of this year that an audit wasn’t necessary. Now that auditing the Fed is popular among many people thanks to the work of Ron Paul, he says he’s for it. He was in favor of TARP, likes “90%” of the Patriot Act (a misnomer, it should be called the “repeal the 4th amendment act” and one week before the financial meltdown he said the economy was in great shape. He’s clueless as to what the problem is with the economy, how can he possibly be trusted to fix it? His tax plan is basically to replace a terrible tax code with an equally terrible tax code.
I’m curious, why does Ron Paul scare you? All the other candidates should scare you because they represent the status quo and will undoubtedly continue the same policies that have been failing for decades.
Tim, I wouldn’t vote for Romney not because he is a mormon but because he’s a typical politician. He represents the status quo. All he wants is power. By the way, when he was running for governor of Mass. he was pro-choice. Now he’s pro-life. Weird!!!
Ron Paul is the only one who understands the problems we face as a nation and the only one who has the balls to tell us the truth. That’s why he scares the media and the Republican elite. That’s why he is constantly demonized and misrepresented as being an anarchist, an isolationist, and a radical.
Tim, like your points above. I think a more fundamental question to ask is: should we as Christians vote for non-Christian’s? I don’t really see why we would make a distinction between Mormons and other non-believers (ie. athiests, Jehovah’s witness…). Like to get you take on it, thanks for sparking discussion!
Thanks, Adam. What makes you think that only Christians should rule over us as Americans? I’m probably more sympathetic than I come across, but I’m interested in your thoughts on this.
Actually, I don’t feel a personal conviction against voting for a non-believer. Just don’t think that we can or should make a distinction on this issue between voting for a non-believer or a Mormon…
When I was first thinking through the issue of Romney and voting for a Mormon, I did feel a visceral response to the thought and wondered how I could vote that way in good conscience (if it comes down to him as the Republican nominee). When I made the connection in my own mind that Mormon = Non-Christian (already knew that, just wasn’t thinking in those terms) it became a much simpler decision for me.
My voting philosophy is pretty simple. Since unless I myself run for office (which I won’t) no one I vote for will ever be exactly the candidate I want them to be, I vote for the one that’s the closest. In other words, whether it’s a primary or the general election, I vote for the most conservative person on the ballot for whichever position it is. I have my definite dislikes for several of the R candidates, for various reasons, but I can’t see that any of them would be as bad as another 4 years of what we’ve got (and if you think it’s bad now, just wait until he’s not worried about getting re-elected).
Also, with respect to how a Mormon would function as President, you could look at Utah as a test case. I haven’t done the research, but I would be willing to bet, if I were willing to bet, that from the governor on down the government there is and has been made up largely of Mormons. How have Christians fared there?
Thanks, Robert. What if the Mormon in question were the 70th governor of Massachusetts, not of Utah? Either way, do you think there are any necessary connections between one’s spiritual/religious convictions and the way one governs?
P.S. Start betting… it’d be good for you. 🙂
I grant you that Romney’s actual governance is a better indicator of how he would govern than a look at Utah’s circumstances, but since the question was about Mormons in general…
I do think that there is a necessary connection between one’s spiritual/religious convictions and the way one governs, though not perhaps in the way that you or others here are thinking. The connection I see is that of application. Religious convictions bear on how one views property rights, the humanity of the unborn, and the justifiability of wars, to name three important issues. To me it’s more of a second-tablet (of the law) issue than a first-tablet one.
Btw, just to make a point, Romney or Obama? Certainly Mitt! ( I know pick your poison 😉 ) But in my opinion, and I am a political savvy guy, somewhat, both British and American, Romney is the GOP’s only choice to perhaps even beat Obama?
Note, its not your popular vote, but States who will pick the next American president! The GOP should be worried here its seems?
Robert, thanks for the input. I see the 2nd Table thing you’re talking about, and it seems wise and true. I wonder if there are some major connections with the 1st Table, too. In other words, doesn’t the soul-damning, mind-corrupting poison of idolatry (1st Table stuff) come to bear on the way one runs his life, family, business, and country (in the case of the President)? It seems quite ill-advised to ASK a “fool” to reign over us.
as that old saying goes… its the economy stoopid!
well, RP or anyone else (I like Herman Cain…), without question, the good ‘ol USofA is in deep deep @#$%. we are in big big trouble especially financially. in fact, I am not even sure we can recover unless we are willing to do some serious work on the economy which nobody agrees on how to fix. i know we had to spend our way out of the first great depression but i am not convinced that will work for the depression we are still in (and no, BO’s jobs bill won’t work. it is an old failure with a new name). without a good economy all the the freedoms given in the constitution won’t mean squat so far as i see it. all people will be worried about is their own survival (which is probably part of the whole occupy wallstreet protests).
soooo, all that to say, as far as I see it, mormon or not, we need a good leader who has a little bit of know how to see if he or she can turn the ship around or at least get it going back in the right direction in terms of economic recovery and who is willing to do this for the sake of the country and not just to save thier own skin.
now i ain’t sayin we gotta sell our souls to the debil so we can git outa dis mess, but we really do need someone who can get er done if y’all know what i’m sayin’. savvy?
finally, i don’t think it is right to try to legislate morality though limis do need to be set and laws enforced. moral issues are matters of the heart and that is only something God can do in people, no?
Thanks for the comments, Brian. I am no one’s idea of an economist, but I’m not sure I buy the Keynesian notion that the US gov’t spent their way out of the Depression. What’s more, how many TRILLIONS of dollars have been thrown at our current depression in the past 4 years? Anyway, I’m just not too sure about all that.
More to my point, though, is that one’s deeply held religious convictions simply have to bear fruit in one’s decision making. Since the President is (in great degree) a decision maker par excellence, I think the person’s spiritual convictions matter. They matter in how I run my family, why not for how the country’s run?
Before you jump on the Cain bandwagon, check this out: http://www.tomwoods.com/cain
I watched it and read a few articles… Cain is the man! If you would like, I could point you to a few videos and articles on each and every candidate before you jump on that bandwagon as well 🙂
Brian: Right on the beam, mate! And I am an old conservative Bootneck…That’s Royal Marine. 😉
Though I don’t think Cain can beat Obama! Just a Brit’s opinion again. 😉
And Tim, although I disagree with you here, I want to thank you for your service to the Kingdom of God.
Who would you vote for, Mark?
Well, since Tim is not running… holding my breath… my vote at present is for Cain.
Newit Gingrich is the smartest rep. politically, but seems like he cannot gain traction at all? Btw, Newt is a Catholic convert, he used to be a Baptist.
It is reported that he cheated on 2 of his wives and has had 3 marriages now. I don’t want a leader that can’t even lead his household.
Ya, I have heard that too, but I would not want a “puritan” or pharisee myself! He is still lame compared to John Kennedy! 😉
In fact, one can have right doctrine, and not be right with God (the Pharisee); or you can be right with God and lacking in right doctrine, (Apollos).
I would take the old sinner man myself, just like myself! (Rom. 7:13-25)
I had to scroll for a day and a half to get to comment, but for what it’s worth, I largely agree with you, Tim. I used to be a Neo-Con Republican, until a fellow PCA-er turned me on to the Southern Avenger. Now I’m not entirely Ron Paul’d, but mostly. I used to be really into Mitt.
When it comes time for Voting Day, and I have to choose between a certain man who says he’s a Protestant and a man who says he’s a Mormon, I’ll pick the Mormon every time. Our two party system isn’t about picking what’s right, it’s the lesser of two evils. Protest votes just help the leader.
Christ reigns over the two-party system, Robert. We don’t *have* to vote for a fool just cuz we’re boxed in by the GOP and the Dems. I think Christ might just bless votes (or lack of votes) that are based upon faith (not just sheer pragmatism, which generally is quite opposed to faith).
Question for Mark, Tim, Nick, Fr Robert: What about the constitution would you change and why?
Questions for Nick and Tim: Can you think of anything that you don’t agree with Ron Paul about? Who would you choose to support if Dr Paul wasn’t running?
Questions for anyone:
1. Who thinks that ANY of the candidates will have the testicular fortitude to actually put our country first, before their own agendas?
2. Which candidate visibly displays the most care to play by the rules, constitutionally speaking?
Put your biases aside, gentleman.
I personally do not know enough about the constitution to want to change anything other than church and state.
1. Cain
2. Cain
Levi,
Question 1: I would be down with repealing the 16th amendment so we can do away with income taxes. I would also be in favor of some kind of balanced budget amendment. That’s off the top of my head. There are probably other things that could be changed.
Question 2: I disagree on capital punishment. He used to be for it but has changed his stance (which he doesn’t try to hide). I don’t think it is uncivilized to put people to death for certain crimes. The Bible also makes it pretty clear that capital punishment is appropriate.
If Ron Paul doesn’t get the nomination, I’ll have a hard time even being engaged in the election process. I’ve come to realize that Democrats and Republicans are basically the same. Look at Bush’s policies and Obama’s policies. Hey, they’re the same! The only difference is that Democrats actually tell you what they intend to do – grow government. Republicans run on Reagan’s platform of limited government but the when they get into office spend just as much as Democrats, which is really what makes the neocons so dangerous. Maybe even more so than liberals.
To answer the other questions:
1. Ron Paul. This is clearly evidenced by his willingness in the debates to tell people the truth when it’s unpopular. When it comes to foreign policy, he’s the only one who has the guts to tell people something other than, “USA!, USA! You people are AWESOME and that’s why you’re hated. Just keep being awesome.”
2. Ron Paul, duh. He’s never voted for a bill that is unconstitutional and that’s a fact no one even debates. He even voted against his own bill to audit the Fed because it got attached to another bill that was unconstitutional. No one else can even claim to have that kind of record.
Levi, I would have to say Paul on both counts. He’s proven himself to be 100% consistent with is principles (thus, he’s got the fortitude), which adhere to the Constitution. He’s willing to speak out to his own hurt. He’s not terribly charismatic, but I suspect that he’s the GOP option for principled change.
Ron Paul is the only current Presidential candidate I’ve ever met in person; I was not favorably impressed (long story–I’ll tell it to you in person if you want, but I won’t be posting it). I dislike aspects of his foreign policy and his willingness to be an apologist for terrorists. And, I dislike the company he keeps, at least in the sense of who some of his most ardent admirers (who, as far as I can tell, have not been disavowed by RP) are — from those who couch their anti-Semitism as “anti-Zionism” to the conspiracy wackos (Alex Jones and his ilk). So, I won’t be voting for him in the primary. That being said, if he should happen to end up as the Republican candidate, I will have no hesitation voting for him in the general election.
Levi: I am a Brit, born in Dublin Ireland, and later educated theologically in England. But my younger brother (49), one time American Marine, is now an American citizen. I have a copy of the US Constitution, and I have read it several times. I myself have been in the US now for about three years. I am just an old history person, of course mainly for bible & theology, but I love both the English Civil War, and the American Civil War. I have many books on both.
As someone who has read about American Federalism, etc. I would favor the Republican party.
Personally, I just like the fair mind and attitude that Romney has shown so far. It is early but he would be my pick, but hey I’m a Brit! 😉
Tim, if it came down to the wire and it was a Mitt ticket vs the Community Organizer… I would, without question, vote for the Mitt ticket for the sake of ending the BO admin, even if Mitt is anti-Christ in his religious beliefs. So is the Community Organizer. GHWB is/was a 33rd degree mason but I dont remember too much hubub about all that (hearsay).
If it was an MR vs BO deal but RP was on the ballot but not very strong I’d check MR so as not to give votes to BO. Sort of like what happened with Clinton when another RP came along, and Clinton was an adulterer, smoker, drinker, etc.
There are well run Mormon homes and bad Christian homes and vice versa. There are good Christians and nominal Mormons and vice versa and so on So my concern is if how much a person’s religion effects his or her Governance might be indeterminant?
To answer Levi, I don’t think any of the candidates really have the wherewithall to do what it takes to govern with full integrity. They may not be able too. There is ALOT of corruption in Washington and it would probably take an all out war to clean it up. To really get things back on track economically MASSIVE spending cuts have to happen that would shut down large portions of the Government and put a lot of people out of work and put an put an end to many “services” but I coud be misinformed. We don’t want to shoot ourselves in the foot either. It is not an eas situation.
Herman Cain supported TARP, supports the Patriot Act, has admitted on more than one occasion that he has no clue about foreign policy other than “we should win,” announced that all in the economy was just fine about a week before the big collapse, lied through his teeth in the last debate about the fact the he didn’t want to audit the Fed, and wants to replace our terrible tax code with an equally terrible tax code.
He’s a fantastic candidate for the Neocons.
Either God is sovereign or He isn’t. If He is… then who ever He puts in office is OK… right? We are required to just vote our conscious and not try to just vote so we keep Obama out of office. If you don’t like RP don’t vote for him…. if you like him, don’t “not” vote for him because you are afraid voting for him will take votes from somebody who can beat Obama. Vote for who you think represents you and your ideals, morals, and conscious the best and let God work out the details.
Mark, you say things like this so often: “Either God is sovereign or He isn’t. If He is… then who ever He puts in office is OK… right?” This shows that you simply DO NOT understand the Calvinism that you consistently oppose. That God decrees a thing does not make it morally good or OK for a human to do. Morality is based upon the revealed law, not upon the divine decree. You routinely confuse these two very rudimentary concepts and think, in so doing, that you got Calvinism by the tail. Please stop this confusion… I’ve addressed it numerous times before, but you still persist in it.
Hi guys! I heard there would be, uh, hugs? I’m down with hugs.
Tim, I appreciate that you believe that every conversation is about Calvinism… but this one is not… this is about Mormonism and voting. I made no comment regarding Calvinism here… I made a comment about sovereignty… which 99.9% of believers, including non-Calvinists, 4 point, 3 point, 2 point, and 1 point Calvinists believe. You might think that all of us have to subscribe to your view of God’s decree and even call them rudimentary concepts… but smarter people than you disagree. I don’t think I have Calvinism by the tail… if I did, I would not debate and question you trying to figure out why you believe what you believe… a few of your beliefs seem quite ludicrous to me (seem to me… not are).
So… again… I believe God is sovereign… and that His will of who He wants as President will come to pass. What He requires of me is that I vote for the person who is… from what I can see from my limited view point… the most moral, upright, righteous man.
Sorry, if I sound put off.
Mark, the “sovereignty” you oppose around here isn’t anything other than Calvinism. Again, here’s the comment you made: “Either God is sovereign or He isn’t. If He is… then who ever He puts in office is OK… right?” Maybe I read this incorrectly, but it reads like a *score* of other comments where you’re trying to throw what you take to be the Calvinistic view of sovereignty back in the face of those whom you take to hold it. If I misread you, I apologize.
Indeed the Sovereignty of God includes His providence over everything, but it is also His complete will over everything and everyone, but especially His will over both the election of grace, and the reprobate, those saved by the grace of God, and those lost. This was Calvin’s view at least!
Btw, here I wanted to express that reason and revelation are not two equal sources of divine truth. On the contrary, reason merely points us to the true revelation, which does contain the divine truth. As Turretin contends that faith is not based on reason per se, but upon the reasonable testimony of reliable witnesses to the Christian mysteries. The causality is threefold: the objective cause of belief is Holy Scripture and its marks. The efficient cause is the Holy Spirit by whom one is led to belief. The instrumental cause is the Church, the means through which the believer is brought to the truth. It would seem that Turretin takes a more objectivist approach, and Calvin a more subjective or biblical alone approach. Perhaps it is here we can note the beginnings of a Reformed Scholastic approach in Turretin?
Sorry if you feel that way… wasn’t the intent as I am a proponent of the sovereignty of God… and I have never opposed the fact that what God wants to happen… happens… which is what I stated in my comment. I feel that you may have gotten so defensive of your position that you have failed to see my view or others with the same view. Like I said, I believe most of what you have put forth about the subject of Calvinism, but I do not believe you are correct in your defense of God controlling our thoughts and actions in regards to His will. That is it. As far as all things that God wants to come to pass, coming to pass… yes… that is Biblical. God uses us and our choices to His glory and outcomes.
My comment, “either God is sovereign or He isn’t” was meant to convey that we can’t believe He is sovereign and then worry that the wrong man will be in office. I am not worried because I believe its all part of God’s plan and my job is to vote for a righteous man… or at least as righteous as one can be.
Excellent Post Tim!! I wish I had read it earlier and got in on the conversation. Two quick points:
1. I have heard it said that the US has never elected a non-Christian President, thus the need for Hatch et al to make mormons out to be Christians too.
2. Like you said, non Christians sometimes perform their vocational calling better than Christians. The arts come to mind. But this could be problematic for the highest office in the land. Ideally we would like this person to be a big picture thinker and have a Christian worldview, but alas that has not happened in decades.
I found out where all the Ron Paul supporters are. http://www.lookingattheleft.com/
Actually, this is very funny, hope you guys enjoy the read… I am still laughing.
What’s missing from this whole discussion is the issue of presidential power.
The founders did not want a strong executive. The had just dealt with a king who circumvented the law in order to force their subjection to his will. Some didn’t want an executive at all. Unfortunately, beginning with Roosevelt, the executive branch has consolidated more and more power (and congress has been willing to give it up). You could actually argue that every president has consolidated power but it really picked up steam with Roosevelt. George W. Bush took it to a whole new level with his use of executive orders. He went so far as to proclaim via the executive order that he was taking laws enacted by Congress “under advisement” and even outright refused to enforce certain laws. Over 1,100 laws/provisions were challenged by President Bush during his two terms, which ushered in a whole new power to the executive branch – the power to ignore the law.
Obama has taken even this even further by claiming the authority to kill U.S. citizens (which he has done) without due process, without any legal explanation, and without presenting any evidence to the public.
Obama also told his staff to find administrative ways to enact his jobs bill without Congressional approval.
We’re not living in a democratic republic anymore. Our presidents are now essentially elected dictators. If this kind of power consolidation continues, history teaches us what is likely to happen. This is why fighting over Ron Paul’s position on drugs and prostitution is absurd. The house is burning down but instead of rushing in to save the people inside, you’re standing around arguing about whether or not they should be allowed watch rated R movies. Maybe we should save them and worry about petty issues later.
Do we have any reason to believe any of the other candidates even care about the Constitution? None of the other candidates made a peep, except to praise Obama, when he used a drone attack to kill two U.S. Citizens in Yemen. None of them raise the issue of an undeclared war in Libya. Not a single candidate, save Ron Paul, understands this, which is why none of them can be trusted. It reeks of pure desire for power when candidates are willing to change their position or lie through their teeth about their record, whether it’s auditing the Fed (Cain), abortion (Romney), or forced vaccinations of 12 year old girls (Perry). People that ambitious shouldn’t be trusted to show restraint as president.
We ought to fear rather than cheer the strong executive. That’s main reason why I won’t vote for Romney/Cain/Perry if they are the candidate. They’re essentially the same as Obama, only pro-life (well, maybe. And not if it’s killing foreigners including civilians and children. But who’s keeping score?).
In light of this, tinkering with the tax code and getting rid of a few regulations sounds pretty lame.
“That’s main reason why I won’t vote for Romney/Cain/Perry if they are the candidate. They’re essentially the same as Obama, only pro-life (well, maybe. And not if it’s killing foreigners including civilians and children. But who’s keeping score?).”
Let’s suppose you were right and both candidates were identical in every respect except for their position on abortion. That would mean that your only choice to make is whether you want a pro-choice or pro-life President. Facing that choice, you really don’t care which way it goes?
The Federal government should not be wielding that kind of power over the nation. Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional, but legislation passed by Congress banning abortion would be equally unconstitutional. If you actually care about the Constitution and the survival of the republic, this is the only tenable position to hold. It would be great if abortion was banned today and it’s extremely sad that so many lives are lost, but we can’t pick and choose issues that are ok to deal with by ignoring the Constitution. Ignoring the Constitution is exactly what gave us legalized abortions in the first place.
That said, if there was a chance that we could get a Constitutional Amendment, I might be of a different opinion.
Let’s not forget, however, that every candidate except Ron Paul sees no problem with continuing every war we are currently involved in, and some of them no doubt want to attack Iran. They may be pro-life when it comes to babies in the womb, but when it comes to wars of aggression (or more politely, “preemptive” wars) they see no problem will dropping bombs on people who never attacked us and pose no real threat. In one sense, you’re not really picking a pro life president if you vote for someone who wants to send our military around the world killing people because we feel threatened by them.
As Christians, we need to think more deeply about our support for war.
“Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional, but legislation passed by Congress banning abortion would be equally unconstitutional.”
The importance of a pro-life President is not so much legislation passed by Congress but rather appointments to the Supreme Court. And your reply to my query did not answer the question but rather shifted the focus from abortion to war (which, as you claim, does not distinguish the non-RP candidates from Obama, so falls within the “everything-else-the-same” part of my unanswered question).
Okay Robert, in your completely unrealistic example I would, if I was forced to vote, vote for the pro-life candidate simply because it would be the lesser of two evils. But as I pointed out, dropping bombs on people isn’t exactly a pro life position, so for me it’s kind of a wash. It doesn’t matter if you kill babies in the womb or drop bombs on foreigners. You’re still a murderer.
As an aside, conservatives held out great hope that Reagan’s choices to the Supreme Court would reverse Roe v. Wade, but it didn’t work. They actually affirmed Roe v. Wade. You never know what you’re going to get until the ruling is made.
Dropping bombs and cutting up babies in the womb oughtn’t be equated. I think that GOP-type conservatives are generally too quick to want to drop bombs, and I think that bleeding-heart libs are to slow to want to do so. In either event, abortion is an unmitigated evil; it’s unequivocally murdering the most helpless among us. War, while it certainly always includes evil things, is not an unmitigated evil and is not simply and only murder. These two things are quite different and shouldn’t be lumped together.
I agree with Tim… war is not murder unless you murder in war. Murder is the unjustified killing of another. Killing can be justified… it is in the Bible… although should be carefully scrutinized and the word justified should not be thrown around.
Tim, I am sympathetic to your opinion. I agree that a justified war is not simply and only murder. However, where I disagree is on the point of *these* wars, which are not justified. Bush’s aggression against Iraq/Afghanistan and Obama’s aggression against Libya are both evil and murderous. In that sense, I think it’s perfectly OK to put them on par with abortion. Both are murder, though abortion is particularly repugnant. Somehow dropping bombs on and shooting people is a little less offensive because it’s “war” and we are told by our most wise and benevolent overlords that they are “protecting us.”
These “ivory tower” discussions on war, and even somewhat the political are usually devoid of life experience and just the whole empirical.. without real theory even, just opinions. From a British standpoint the history of Afghanistan is profound, and has to do with the whole region. And now with the whole reality of modern so-called Radical Islam and Terrorism (9/11, British train bombings, also those in Madrid, etc.), this whole subject is certainly beyond just Bush, etc. This is just naivete in a fallen sinful world!
I do not agree with your view that Lybia, Afghanistan, and Iraq were not justified.and therefore murder.
Read my British lips… Ron Paul cannot beat Obama! Again, it is gonna be who wins and carries the most States! And that is someone who will win conseratives both Rep. and conserative Dem’s of course, but also independents, in all those States. It looks here like the Dem’s are afraid of Romney the most. If I were an American I would want the person who could beat Obama! The stakes of another 4 years of him are just too high!
It’s that kind of attitude that will prevent him from even getting the chance to beat him.
I’m under no delusion that RP is fighting an uphill battle. So was George Washington in 1776.
I suspect that RP has broader bi-partisan support than any other candidate. If Mitt is nominated, he will get the GOP votes, but not the dems. If RP’s nominated, he’ll get (most of the) GOP votes and a LOT of dem votes, too. I think that RP’d be a massive vote-getter in the general election. The problems is getting through the GOPs insider politics.
I quite agree with Nick that people keep SAYING that he can’t win, and thus they make it so. If they’d rather say the can and will win, maybe they’d make so, too.
As a one time very military person, I am a realist. Sadly America’s best days appear over. I hope I am wrong, but in biblical and postmodern terms it appears not. Just like Great Britain, and I think personally America is even more secular now. Very sad!
just have to come backand say I can be as politically mean as the rest…If it comes down to the wire and Mormon Mitt is the stronger candidate to oust the Community Organizer… I’m throwing Ron Paul or Herman Cain or whoever under the bus and going with Mormon Mitt. It is just the simple truth.
Whoever can beat Obama, and this right now appears like Romney? I’m a Brit, but Obama is the worst American president I have seen in my lifetime! Jimmy Carter, was bad, but nothing like Obama! And I can remember film news clips of Eisenhower in the movie house in Dublin.
Indeed America is in deep trouble!
Cain is in the lead in the polls… I don’t know why you are so focused on Romney.
Cain: Has no money, and it takes money to win the American presidency sadly, and Cain really has no political experience, or “boots” on the ground in the early voting States, all this stuff does matter in the long haul.. perhaps more than we realize! I’m with Brian, this is gonna be a tuff political battle! This could make or break the American system, i.e. 4 more years of Obama, and his liberal “Greece” mentality? I have been to Europe many times, the EU is a mess also. And this is where America is heading with Obama, and the Dem’s.
True, Cain’s Federal Election Commission reports cover only cash raised through the end of September. It’s possible his October surprise rise to prominence has been equaled by a money surge we just haven’t yet seen. And I believe America is looking for a non-politician… it remains yet to be seen.
the blog post is about voting for mormoms… hence my mention of Romney if he were the strongest contender and could get Obama out of office Id vote for him even though he ismoemon. make sense now?
This blog post is about mormons??? hahaha…
I’m okay voting for a Mormon. I work with a ton of Mormons and most of them are good guys who share very similar values regarding politics, morality, family and stuff that matters when legislating our country’s laws. I won’t welcome them into my home to lead family worship or sit with them at their church on Sunday, but their spiritual condition doesn’t seem like it would lead a mormon to desire to create a country that I don’t want to live in.
I mostly skimmed the thread (seems it was more about Ron Paul than voting for a Mormon) but I really don’t understand why our faith would not allow us to vote for a mormon. If that were true, we would not be able to vote for anyone who was not a professing Christian, which is impossible, and I think nonbiblical.
Mike, if you have time, look at the discussion on FB about this. I’m interested in your thoughts: http://wp.me/pVf8p-qD – all the rest of ya’ll can read it, too.
For a start I reject the folly and hypocrisy of Romney, Gov. Christie and Huntsman saying in so many words that there is no place for Dr. Jeffress’ opinion. I think Gov. Perry’s retort (basically, I don’t agree but Jeffress can state his opinion) is embarrassing for the attempt to whitewash Mormonism and rule out its public criticism.
I think that a two kingdom perspective is basically right, that we have a secular government in which unbelievers and Christians can serve. I would be willing to vote for a Mormon recognizing him or her as a professed unbeliever if I agreed with the policy platform.
However, we must be vigilant because Mormonism is now in the mainstream. I take the fact that we have two Mormon GOP candidates for President as evidence. The pressure is on for Bible believers to cave and extend the right hand of fellowship to A CULT, A FALSE FAITH, A FALSE CHURCH AND A PACK OF LIES. Sen. Hatch’s simplistic sophistry can only persuade the uninformed. Mormons can take our Lord’s name as their own all they want, it does not change the fact that they do not follow the Son of God.
Brandon,
Once again, you are meshing the two kingdoms! The issue is not what Mormon doctrine or theology thinks about the Son of God, etc. But what are the moral ethics and standards of the two Morman’s running for president! 🙂
Once again, you are meshing the two kingdoms!
Obviously you didn’t fully read my post. And actually, you pose a false dilemma. There are a few issues here, one of which is whether Mormonism is Christian, which a U.S. Senator asserts.
One thing that it will be especially embarrassing and problematic is Romney hosting prayer breakfasts and supporting faith based initiatives. Hopefully, if he gets the White House, he won’t get into that nonsense. Does anyone know where Romney stands on faith based initiatives?
Brandon,
Can’t you see you are still pressing issues between the two kingdoms? As per Luther, etc. WE agree about Mormanism, but we simply must live in the tension of this fallen, broken world…in it, but not of it, etc. Note George Elton Ladd’s ‘already but not yet’, tension! Certainly the Christian lives in two kingdoms, realistically.
Fr. Robert, I’m pretty certain you’ve not understood Brandon, as his comments are down-the-middle 2K. I suspect that the more I look at 2K theory (in it’s modern garb), the more I see classical liberalism at it’s roots. I can certainly appreciate some of the 2K opposition to abuses in the church, but (though I have a lot yet to learn about it) I think that modern 2K is flat, that it tends to cut Christianity off from society, and predispose Christians to secular and diversity-type thoughts and assumptions. I don’t pretend that these issues are easy; nor do I think I’ve got it all ironed out. The point of this (wildly popular) post was to read what other folks think.
Tim,
Indeed it is not so much the 2K issue itself, but how we vision God’s revelation. Myself I tend toward the presuppositional approach of God’s Word. And I certainly admit my own social conservatism, almost all of my family were in WW2, my father, to my great uncles, uncles, even several of my aunts were nurses in that war. Not to mention I was raised conservative Irish Roman Catholic. That is sort of a dying breed today. Not traditionalism, but a theological covervative Catholic Augustinianism. My Irish parish priest was of the or a Augustinian order.
Is anyone familiar with the hermeneutical distinction between theocracy and exile? This distinction was given my by a well-read 2K fellow, but it seems like a hermeneutical construct that’s perfectly engineered to yield a rabid 2K theology, as they consider the NT exilic and they also (rightly) give the NT interpretive priority over the OT. Any ideas?
My sentiments mirror those of Battle the Younger.
But suppose your conscience leads you to vote only for Christians. I’m curious to see what the determining benchmark would be. The Apostles Creed? Perhaps something more nuanced: someone who holds to the WCF/3FU. Barring that a 1689er.
What about the Christian who believes in the continuation of prophecy and Divine revelation?
Jason, my answer is simply that I’m not sure. If I had to hazard a guess, I’d lean toward submission to the great ecumencial Creeds, but again, the jury’s out. That’s part of why I posted this. I have genuine discomfort with some 2K stuff. Then, again, I find myself wondering about the truth and practicality of some of the theonomic thought that I’ve imbibed.
Indeed. If this were the standard formula used by the majority of the voting public, then wouldn’t the electoral strategy boil down to affirming creeds and then doing your best to show your moral superiority off?
Would we at that point be electing leaders or Pharisees (in the sense of the one best able to show how righteous he is).
You would have to assume that we aren’t already committed to that formula. As Christians and also the secular world is already looking for the man/woman who presents as the most righteous and best suited for the position. I simply present that we, as Christians, use our God given brains to determine whether or not they are pharisees or Pauls. If God gives us the gift of discernment, shouldn’t be too hard.
I would strongly disagree that the secular world is looking for the most righteous candidate. Best suited, sure. But most righteous, not unless you’re granting a subjective understanding of righteousness.
Further, if the gift of discernment leaves Christians unable to avoid, identify, or abandon unsound doctrine in the pulpit, how would you justify the notion that it will help us avoid unsound leadership in a POTUS?
So do you support false doctrine over sound? I will take a candidate who thinks baptism is essential over someone who thinks Jesus is the archangel Michael.
Jason, I’m sure I don’t understand your thoughts on the issue of adherence to the creeds. It seems *impossible* that such a minimum level of Christian belief could turn into a pharisaic political parade. What am I missing here?
You’re arguing from a fallacy (guilt by association with a hint of straw man).
I would vote for an atheist who can count for state auditor before I would take a Christian who cannot. I would also vote for a Roman Catholic who knows his numbers before a Calvinist who does not. I still think transubstantiation and semipelagianism to be grave errors.
I would frequent a buddhist mechanic who can fix my car rather than a Christian who cannot. This does not mean that I prefer reincarnation to resurrection as my dogma of choice.
In neither case am I supporting false doctrine over true. I am instead making a judgment on who is best able to do the required task.
Also you avoided the question relating to the effectiveness of relying on the spirit of discernment for politics.
Even though I do not understand some of the words that Tim uses 🙂 I do subscribe to AW Tozer’s –
“What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us.”
I find it difficult to understand why a believer in the Almighty God would vote for anybody other than another believer simply because “his character and morals are more in line with mine”.
Aren’t character and morals defined by our faith? Would it be OK to vote for a Wiccan if his morals and character were in line with yours or if he was a sure bet to get Obama out of office? A Mormon is worse than a Wiccan simply because he is masquerading as a Christian and this is a big trick of Satan’s. Now he may be a “good” person in human standards, but we should be looking higher than that… we should look for a leader, when possible, if one is available, who is a believer and lives his life like a believer… not just a non-believer or a make-believer who lives his life as a believer.
I know it is a far stretch, but what if a Satanist or a declared atheist has character and morals in line with yours? At least they are up front that they do not worship God, whereas the Mormon worships a false god who he calls Jesus.
Jimmy Carter was/is a Christian believer, but most conservative Christians I think at least would agree he was a poor American president. So that argument goes right out the window! And I am sure many of the other American presidents were also Christians, but perhaps not such good Christians, all? I have chatted with several American historically minded Christians that don’t feel Abraham Lincoln was even a Christian? So this whole logic must be measured by many other standards.
Again to get into the “theology” of Mormanism is not really the issue, but the personal moral ethics of any man or woman and his/her good understanding of the American Constitution (at least visibly), that would run for the the American presidency. As I have said, I think Morman Americans have showin that they are quite willing to fight and die for American values and freedom. And this would certainly include their basic idea of belief in God, and a basic theism. Beyond that, I think we must see the idea of the Two Kingdoms, etc. And allow a persons belief, if they are Theist at least, and state they believe in God. This it seems would be the minimal.
And certainly, if one were not a moral and even theistic person, this would certainly come out. So no Wiccan or so-called Satanist would really have a chance at the American presidency! Just as my place of birth in Great Britian, we would never place some such in the PM! Btw, we had a Jewish PM, and a great one.. in Benjamen Disraeli!
I tend to agree with Mark, Fr. Robert. You want to set up some least common denominator and then appeal to 2K to cover the rest. In fact, a consistent 2K wouldn’t even care if the candidate were a theist at all. A Wiccan and devil worshiper would be fine, so long as they meet the lowest common denominator. Essentially, the Christian voting (on the 2K theory) is NO DIFFERENT than the atheist voting. You don’t see a problem with that?
What’s funny, here, is that the Scriptures say that all the things of life flow out of the heart. 2K theory seems to want to ignore the heart and focus on the things of life (at least in the common kingdom). This, of course, has the tail wagging the dog. Jimmy Carter et al are no counter argument. You recall that I mentioned him specifically in the original article! No one’s arguing that all anyone’s gotta be is Evangelical to be qualified to run the country. What we are arguing is that we cannot trust a heart that is dead in sin and at enmity with God to fulfill GOD’S charge to reward righteousness and punish wickedness. Don’t get any simpler than that! We might be able to have an enemy of God fix our plumbing or even run our economy, but we’d be fools to think he can discharge the God-given duties in Romans 13… or maybe Romans 13 doesn’t matter.
Not to tell you your own history, Fr. Robert, but since you’re telling us our own politics, I suppose I feel okay to tell you that you’re wrong about Benjamin Disraeli. Disraeli was born to Jewish parents but was an Anglican. He was baptized early in life by his own choice and remained in the Church of England until his death.
Tim,
First, certainly Disraeli was a converted and so-called fulfilled Jew, that’s historical. But he is still or was “Jewish” to so many. I can see you have not been or lived in Israel… As I have both!
As to the Two Kingdoms, it is you who seem to press this down to the lowest level, with “your” view we could place Hitler here. And this certainly is not my view at all! My point is the Two Kingdoms, but within the Judeo-Christian sense. And this was Luther’s view also! Btw, it is here we should perhaps note the German Reformed Confessing Church, and the Barmen Declaration, with Karl Barth (1934).
Note too Tim, I am an old one-time theonomist myself! But, that is just indefensible in the real Christian sense. The only biblical position is as Luther, Two Kingdoms, and his Law-Gospel, etc. The Christian will always be a man or person of another world or kingdom, but he also must present and live himself in this fallen world too, which he himself is still subject.
Finally, we should hear St. Paul and St. Peter that even the Roman goverment and the emperor should be given respect, etc. But the Lordship of Christ is always first & foremost!
*The nature of Mormanism, and a Morman president is really one that we cannot really press into on an open blog. Again, it is both a place and position of conscience and too theology. For myself, I cannot see a Morman British PM! But the American debate goes on it appears!
Btw Tim, I am not “telling” you your own politics, but I am quite amazed how ignorant many Americans appear to be on their own Republic and Constitution!
PS..And remember mate I fought side by side with your Marine 3rd Force Recon way back in the Nam (1968, Tet.), and I was wounded there. And again, in Gulf War 1 (in my 40s), we had also some Spl. Op’s again with American Spl. Forces, etc. So yeah, I have some pride! 🙂
@ Tim, October 19:
Hi Tim, I appreciate your willingness to admit uncertainty because I am in the same boat. After getting a grounding in Dutch Neo Calvinism in CRC circles, I saw a spring board from that standpoint to theonomy. However, after wrestling with the implications of the newness of the New Covenant and that fulfillment of the Mosaic economy in Christ, I have had to step back from a theonomic position. From where I see it now, some kind of 2K view best fits the overall movement of redemptive history as well as evidence of specific texts. (My personal development in this area gone on over a number of years).
Just today I was thinking that the various options for Christ and culture need to make their case exigetically. A 2K view seems bolstered by passages like I Corinthians 5 about not having to judge those outside and Luke 20 about giving back to Caeser. However, these passage does not seem necessarily antithetical to a sphere sovereignty view.
I am intrigued by the following remark of yours: I think that modern 2K is flat, that it tends to cut Christianity off from society, and predispose Christians to secular and diversity-type thoughts and assumptions.
More to come…
Correction: However, these passages are not necessarily antithetical to a sphere sovereignty view.
Fr. Robert, sorry to say that you have not addressed the elephant in the room from may last comment. HOW CAN a stone-hearted enemy of God be trusted to discharge the duties placed upon him by God in Romans 13. Are we to ask a man who has no spiritual discernment to reward righteousness and punish wickedness? That seems to me to be the height of foolishness.
Tim,
Nero had a Seneca! 😉
“I would vote for an atheist who can count for state auditor before I would take a Christian who cannot. I would also vote for a Roman Catholic who knows his numbers before a Calvinist who does not. I still think transubstantiation and semipelagianism to be grave errors.
I would frequent a buddhist mechanic who can fix my car rather than a Christian who cannot. This does not mean that I prefer reincarnation to resurrection as my dogma of choice.”
These are great scenarios, but not realistic. In a more realistic scenario, who would you vote for? Would you vote for an atheist before a Christian if they could both count? Would you vote for an RC over a Calvinist if they both knew numbers? Which mechanic would you frequent if they could both fix cars?
This is a more realistic scenario because when choosing an auditor, they would most likely all know how to count or know numbers… and when choosing a car mechanic, they would most likely all know how to fix cars.
We are faced with Presidential candidates that have never been President, so don’t know how to be President (except for Obama and that is debatable). So you have to judge them on how you think they will do based on past performance in other areas and by what the state they believe. Now if they say they are a Christian but their life displays non-Christian behavior throughout… you use your discernment. If they say they are a Christian and their life displays this… from what you can see… then that should be your first priority in voting. Following that you vote on other areas if you have 2 or more candidates that meet your prior criteria.
Problem is that an accountant and a mechanic are not moral authorities to whom we must submit. They are not called to judge between good and evil and to act accordingly. Fr. Robert’s lack of response must be taken as an admission that the 2K position (at least its representation on THIS SPECTACULAR BLOG) is exceedingly weak at this point.
No Tim,
Just too subjective for me, i.e. the subject. And again, Calvin read the pagan Seneca just about once a year!
Robert, what in the world does Calvin reading Seneca have to do with what I asked?! What am I missing?
Tim,
I would hope you would see something of the 2K position, in some example? But, as we can see with Brandon, this subject is really vast, and we have not even touched the basics. I just cannot, with the time element, etc. And we have somewhat lost connection here with the political and the American presidency.
Fr. Robert, If by the Calvin/Seneca example you mean that we learn from pagan, I *completely* agree. What I don’t see is how that addresses my question about how a God-hating person can faithfully discharge the God-given duties prescribed to the magistrate in (among other places) Rom 13.
Tim,
Your ad hoc (specific purpose), must define God-hating? For me Obama shows signs of that, as his friend Jeremiah Wright! But my point too, was Nero’s close connection and choice of Seneca’s help and Stoic advice, Seneca in fact actually adviced Nero to stand above the passions that ‘rule the lives of lesser men’, “for the prince is subject to no laws and must, consequntly, goven himself..”liberalitas” – measured liberality. And Seneca even urged Nero to practise clemency to help the Roman people to love him, “while clemency, as the source of peace, makes the ruler ‘like the gods’.”
Sometimes I think the Romans and Greeks were well ahead of us, even in our so-called modern to postmodern culture! Note, the Western philosophical tradition that began in ancient Greece, and that affected many, even the Jewish philosophy.
Why are we making this so hard? Just do what Scripture tells us to do. Period. No need to bring in the Romans and the Greeks… we have God. Find the candidates who reflect what you determine to be Godliness and then, from them, determine who would best lead the country. It works for me every time. I may never get the candidate I want elected, but I feel great about my vote.
Well Mark, I am just an old historical and philosophy guy (I have a doctorate in philosophy, btw), but we were also at least talking about the Two Kingdom doctrine of Luther too. Note, I try to stay close to Luther on this subject! But as I have showed, old Nero had a man like Seneca and his Stoic philosophy to help him. And we must simply note too, that St. Paul was certainly affected by the Jewish idea of Hellenism (Acts 22:3 / Gal. 4:4-5 thru 7). Not to mention Paul’s Roman citizenship.
*We must note here too, how much Plotinus (AD 205-70) also affected Augustine! Just as Reformation theology itself was affected by an Augustinianism, both Luther and Calvin, etc.
My point to all this, is just where the British and then American ideas come from, i.e. Western civilization, and certainly includes the Greek Philosophers!
Jason, I make a VERY helpful distinction between crimes (external) and sins (internal and external). The state is responsible for prosecuting crimes, but not sins. God (and, to some degree, his church) is the prosecutor of sins. The basis of crimes ought to be (mostly) the externals of God’s law measured by externals. Thus, (according to Rom 13) the civil magistrate is God’s minister to reward righteousness and punish wickedness.
I think one 2K reply would be that the office of President enforces a secular system law (not secularist) and that Christian faith and discernment, while helpful, are not essential to the defense of the United States Constitution. The President judges based on common law/ natural law and it is possible to agree with and implement the US Constitution without being a Christian. On this view, a regenerate heart could be an asset but would not be a requirement since the Office of President handles temporal matters in the common kingdom.
Brandon, Rom 13 isn’t talking about a secular system of law, but about real righteousness and real wickedness. One *might* appeal to natural law to answer my question, but it really doesn’t address the issue. The issue isn’t whether the law is written on the heart of the unbelieving magistrate, but whether he has the ability to discern clearly to reward and punish the correct things/people. I understand that, in Paul’s day, the Roman Emperors were negative examples of what Paul says is their God-given task. Yet, Christians were still called to submit to that God-ordained authority. Our situation is quite different. Here, we have a voice in putting someone into power. If, by our suffrage, we put a God-hating man into power, let us not be a bit surprised that he will not have the spiritual discernment to do what God calls him to do. Also, some of the blame for that (and what follows from it) is certainly on us.
I remember once reading either DeMar or North and the point was that because the standard is good and evil that it had to be God’s Law (the Mosaic Law) was that in view in Romans 13. However, because the Roman emperor was the power that Paul has in mind, it is unlikely that Paul is referring to the Mosaic civil law. Rather, it makes better since to see Paul referring to the natural law*. It is attractive to see the standard as Biblical Law until it must be admitted that Biblical Law was not in force under the emperors of Rome.
Now the issue about putting a God-hater in power, I think it ultimately comes down to policy. Our current President professes to be a believer and yet most of us here find his policies disgusting and deleterious at best. It seems that our situation in which we have the right to vote for our chief executive gives us the responsibility of voting for the candidate who will defend our liberties. Our current President has professed faith but is not defending our liberty because of his irresponsible expansion of government power. In the case of Romney, he is an option because while he may profess a false faith, he may have a better profession of policy in line with our free market and Constitutionally limited government.
However, I still think that it might be a valid point that it would be best to vote for a qualified believer for the office. I’m still thinking about that. Definitely an important question if it comes down to Romney vs. Obama in the general.
*Defining Natural Law: the understanding of God’s Moral Law that God in His Providence was allowed to be discerned by humanity in common for General Revelation.
Brandon, do you see natural law as synonymous with the moral law of God, that is, as it’s commonly understood, the 10 Commandments? If so, doesn’t natural man’s spiritual deadness cause him to pervert and distort even this?
No doubt about it. Definitely an important point. It just seems inescapable that Paul in Romans 13 assumes that their is a legitimate administration of the moral law in a civic scope under the Roman emperor.
Brandon, a legitimate administration and the ability to discharge the duties of the moral call of Rom 13 are not the same thing. I don’t think there’s anything in Rom 13 that says or implies that the gov’t in Paul’s day *was* discharging its duty.
The Christian is obligated to submit to the legitimate authority, while the legitimate authority is called to submit to God’s authority and be his faithful minister. So, if we’re under a legitimate authority who does not submit to God, we’re still commanded to submit to that authority. Our question (that is the question I’m trying to probe in this blog post and comments) is one of the propriety of actively putting someone into office by our suffrage who does not submit to God. In other words, we find ourselves in a significantly different place than the saints of the NT… we’re not quite as “exiled” as 2Kers would like to make out.
Tim, I think you may run into some practical difficulties in regards to the application of the 10 commandments if you take it to be a 1:1 reflection of natural law.
I speak specifically of the conditions relating to covetousness, but truly any condition in which the heart is the offender is complicated in such a view.
Tim,
Please help me fill in the details. If I am understanding you, the Christian has to vote (when he has a vote) for a person who subscribes to the Christian faith, let’s say in its Evangelical Protestant form. Now, what are the consequences for not voting for a professed believer? Is it a voluntary thing and shame on those who vote for Mormons? Or is it a matter that actually comes up to a chargeable offense under the auspices of church discipline? The implications are rather serious if one propounds a spiritual obligation to vote for certain candidates.
For my part, while I sympathize with what you’re saying, I still contend that civil office is temporal matter and, under a non-establishment of religion republic, a religious test for office is simply not necessary. A magistrate may have personal issues with the eternal destiny of his soul (which no one except God can certainly and infallibly judge anyway) but spiritual conditions are separate from the temporal law of the temporal land. Only if we lived under a state of National Confession could we have a religious test for civil office.
DOH! Jason, please see my response to you in the segment above. Sorry.
Brandon, the vote (last I checked) is very much a private matter. Thus, it (in any event) it would be a very difficult thing to prosecute in the church courts! Quite honestly, I’m still trying to work these issues out. I have deep reservations with the 2K model. I have some reservations with the theonomic model. I am trying to work through these issues; I don’t have it all worked out, and I hope that I won’t be charged in an ecclesiastical court just yet!
Tim,
It is here that our conscience should be bound by Holy Scripture, but here too it is always in “spirit & truth”. Note, Gal. chap. 5.
Tim, good point about the private nature of voting! Maybe the question is, should Christians be held accountable for public expression/ advocacy of candidates and positions? On that point, I think the spirituality of the church makes it not a matter of ecclesiastical concern, but of debate as private citizens. (In other words, this cool blog is a great forum for this discussion!)
Now, I wanted to interact with your view that 2K cuts Christians off from society. I don’t think that necessarily follows. It seems to leave plenty of room for Christian engagement in the world. However, you might be referring to the skepticism from some 2K advocates about distinctly Christian contributions to society. That is a tougher one.
I’d also say that 2K doesn’t automatically lead to a secular/diversity mindset, though I’m curious what mean by that. 2K naturally fosters a commitment to religious and ideological pluralism in politics and society. However, I don’t see any direct connection to politically liberal positions.
Brandon, I think that if a Christian were publicly to advocate a political view that was overtly sinful (say, abortion), I think that would or could be a legitimate issue of church discipline. I’m sure you agree. I’m not into the rule of the church (as such) in the realm of politics, but I am into the ascendancy, hegemony, and eventual dominance of Christianity (that is, of Christ and his ways) over all things on this earth. The 2K position, as I’m familiar with it, is not into that. In fact, since the Bible is *for* the church not for the common kingdom, I don’t think that consistent 2Kers have a place for anything distinctively Christian in, say, politics. This, of course, plays *right* into the hands of the secularists who are mostly okay with letting people play like Christians in the church, but will not allow Christ in the public square. 2Kers, in great degree, tend to agree.
Now, I’m aware that 2Kers like Horton make a very helpful distinction between the church as institution and the church as organism. There’s some good thought that proceeds from that distinction, so I think there’s hope in the 2K camp.
Certainly in the Two Kingdom approach the Christian ethic is aways Judeo-Christian. St. Paul’s ethics were Jewish from top to bottom, but always within the so-called Salvation History of God, and here were the Covenant/covenants of God, (Eph. 2:11, etc.).
Fr. Robert, on your 2K view what do biblical ethics have to do with the common kingdom?
Tim,
All forms of ethics have to do with the Kingdom, but especially sexual ethics and behavior. I simply noted this, as many seem to compartmentalize the Kingdom in the Two Kingdom approach.
I.e. There are eternal issues in both the so-called Two Kingdoms!
Fr. Robert, thanks for the response. I quite agree that the ethics of the Kingdom of God (redemptive kingdom) ARE the ethics for the common kingdom, too (generally speaking, as there are exceptions). It’s funny, but the 2K position seems deeply compartmentalized… to a fault.
However, we can distinguish between ethics in Christ’s Kingdom, (which is currently manifested in the church) and ethics in the common kingdom. First Corinthians 5 seems to assume that by making a distinction between church discipline and dealings with unbelievers.
Brandon, to be sure. The distinction is there and is important. It does not, however, necessarily turn into the deeply divided categories of the 2K theory. Again, I’ve read theonomists teach this distinction! It’s clear to me that certain 2K notions are quite true and held to by many who’d never call themselves 2K. It’s the more radical 2K notions that make me quite nervous.
Tim, please give some examples of those “more radical 2K notions.” Fresh meat for the discussion!
Tim,
Yes, we want everything neat and tidy, but in a fallen, broken and sinful world, we as Christians are living in that real tension of the ‘already but not yet’. The redemptive Christian life is itself, caught in this reality & tension, our only perfection is in the One above, at the Right-Hand-of-God the Father, Jesus Christ the Lord, the One and Only Mediator!
Brandon, sorry for the delay. I take the notion that the Bible governs in the church and that natural law governs the common kingdom to be at once neat and tidy, but terribly misleading and (basically) false. The first time I ran into this thinking was on a blog. The question on the table was: “Is there a distinctively Protestant case against gay marriage?” I offered that the Bible says… but I was shut down saying that the Bible applied in the church, but not to the state. I was amazed… I still am. There appears to be little (or, really, NO) place for the second use of the BIBLICAL law in 2K theory.
The example of gay “marriage” is a good one. I know some people who are basically ready to give up the political battle on gay marriage and have decided, based on libertarian principles, to do away with state recognition of marriage. However, that is another issue.
Tim, in that blog discussion, was the following issue brought up: “How can we oppose gay marriage on Biblical principles when not everyone in our nation shares our commitment to the authority of Scripture?” The rationale seems to be that because of the nature of our pluralist society, a case against gay marriage would have to be made on the basis of natural law because the authority of Scripture is not a common place for public policy. The fact that we are in a society where fewer people value Biblical ethics is sad and regrettable but nevertheless a reality.
My position is that there is a Biblical case against gay marriage but one that is not suited to political debate simply by the fact that our political system is basically secular.
Robert,
You have made a fine general statement of the tension in which we live. I think we have set forth basic rationale for the general outline of 2K thought. However, I think that some 2K statements about the implications for Christian faith for politics are nothing more than a cop out. I think it is perfect for a pastor (speaking generally here) to say that politics isn’t his area of authority. Very good. But he goes too far if he starts discouraging other believers from thinking about how Christian faith can inform politics. How do we know there isn’t a distinctly Christian perspective on politics (a’ la Abraham Kuyper, for example) if we rule it out of existence based supposedly on 2K theory. That is a question I think is worth asking.
Hey, Brandon, are Christians obliged, therefore, to hang up our weapons of battle because the live in a secular society? Does the 2nd use of the law only function in theocratic societies?
Hi Tim. I’ve been taking time to think about your questions. In the meantime, check this out:
http://www.calvinseminary.edu/lectures/archive3172.ram
Returning to an earlier point, I believe it is significant that a Baptist pastor’s right of free speech to question Mormonism was challenged in the course of this controversy and that ought to cause us concern. One may believe that there should be no religious test for the Office of President but people should be able to say that a particular faith is false if they want to do so. It is interesting to think that a 2K proponent might object that Jeffress is violating the 2K distinction. But it would seem that he only would be truly violating the non-establishment of religion if he said that a Mormon President was illegal or unconstitutional.
Tim,
Perhaps this link might be helpful, a quote from Luther on the 2K, and commentary, etc.
http://www.biblicaltraining.org/luthers-doctrine-two-kingdoms/luther
Here is another nice link, with Luther’s 2K.
http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Journal-of-Lutheran-Ethics/Issues/August-2002/Luthers-Doctrine-of-the-Two-Kingdoms.aspx
I hope these help to put “Luther” squarely in this subject!
Here is a piece too from Calvin’s Institutes..
There are two governments: the one religious, by which the conscience is trained to piety and divine worship; the other civil, by which the individual is instructed in those duties which, as men and citizens, we are bound to perform. To these two forms are commonly given the not inappropriate names of spiritual and temporal jurisdiction, intimating that the former species has reference to the life of the soul, while the latter relates to matters of the present life, not only to food and clothing, but to the enacting of laws which require a man to live among his fellows purely honorably, and modestly. The former has its seat within the soul, the latter only regulates the external conduct. We may call the one the religious, the other the civil kingdom. Now, these two, as we have divided them, are always to be viewed apart from each other. Let us now return to human laws. If they are imposed for the purpose of forming a religious obligation, as if the observance of them was in itself necessary, we say that the restraint thus laid on the conscience is unlawful. Our consciences have not to do with men but with God only. Hence the common distinction between the earthly forum and the forum of conscience.
Here is an article about aspects of Romney’s tenure as a Mormon Bishop.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/campaigns/in-boston-mitt-romney-evolved-in-mormonleadership-some-churchwomen-say/2011/11/17/gIQAMOoWjN_story_2.html
[…] Voting for Mormons « Providence. […]
Get a look at Joel’s link above. Please read his response. Here’s my witty comeback:
Thanks for linking to my thoughts on this one, Joel. A couple things come to mind. The first (and least important) is that YOU PERSONALLY applying a religious test is absolutely permitted. The government may not apply such a test (which tests were relatively common in colonial times). So, you’re not only not being constitutional, but you’re misreading the Constitution in the way that I find political liberals often misread it. That is, where the Constitution limits the government if official capacity (especially in issues of religion), political liberals tend to limit private citizens or even expression by a public official. Like I said, that’s the less important point.
The more important one is that my original point stands. Should *how* a person views the world be an important consideration to a citizen electing that person? What more than a man’s religious considerations are more fundamental to how he views the world. Enlightenment thought wants to pretend this isn’t so, but it is. Jesus said that trees bear fruit. What kind of tree and fruit do we want. By our own suffrage we’re putting a person in office to rule over us. How exceedingly foolish to pretend that his deeply held religious and spiritual convictions are not important. Chesterton said it better than me:
Hello everyone,
I’m brand new to this blog. In fact, I’m not an avid blogger (rather: I’m not a blogger at all), or a big blog-follower. I’m tuning into this discussion as a friend of mine (who’s a devout Christian) pointed me to it when I asked him the question of whether he thought Christians would find a way to vote for Romney.
Now, full disclosure: I’m not a Christian (at least not a reformed one), I’m not a Republican (in fact, I’m not even conservative in most of my political views, with abortion being one huge exception) and tend to vote Democrat (yes, I voted for Obama). So, why am I paying attention and even participating in what is obviously a fairly conservative, Christian blog?
I used to be a Mormon (note: I’m not a rabid “anti-Mormon”, just one of the few who made a clean break). And for a while I conscientiously explored and participated in reformed Christianity. So, I’m probably a rare animal who knows a lot more than the average person about both view points.
I would vote for a Christian (depending on whether I agreed with his views), but I would never vote for a Mormon (independently of his views).
I tend to agree with what appears to be the majority view here: someone’s view of the world, their “philosophy”, informs how they may govern.
The issue with Romney in my view is that, in order for one to reach a prominent position in the LDS church — and to be in it for many years — one has to essentially learn to negotiate a large number of conflicting, really intricate, and just plain baffling (religious) views and positions while at the same time trying to project a sense of personal integrity. Think the now infamous phrase “depending on what is is.” BTW: This is obviously not a problem exclusive to people in leadership in the LDS church. Clinton isn’t LDS.
Some may read this and say: well, the world of politics isn’t perfect, and perhaps it’s a good thing if you’re able to negotiate through complex and conflicting view points while projecting a sense of personal integrity. Perhaps. But what would I rather have a president say when faced with a critical decision: “this is a ton of conflicting and baffling information, we need to question its source and validity before we can take action”, or say: “I don’t see any conflict here, everything is just fine, let’s act now”
We’ve already lived through the latter.
Luis, welcome to my blog. I appreciate you stopping by. Please make it your new homepage! Thanks, also, for adding into this conversation. Most politicians are when you accuse Mitt of being, so that doesn’t seem particularly or specifically damning to him. That’s one reason I like Ron Paul, is that he wakes up KNOWING what he thinks. I think the worldview or philosophy issue with a LDS candidate is much deeper and more important (at least theoretically).
I’ve a question for you, Luis. What does this mean: “I’m not a Christian (at least not a reformed one)”? Are you a Christian? One needn’t be Reformed to be a Christian!
I wouldn’t call you unwelcome… but in my honest opinion, I don’t think you can effectively comment on this subject without a relationship with Christ. Simply exploring and participating in Christianity is not the same as having a relationship with God. Therefore, I don’t think you can honestly understand a heart trying to do God will.
That’s one thing I do like about Ron Paul: he strikes me as being real and principled. One can disagree with his views, but at least one can argue them. Arguing the views of someone who isn’t real or principled is an exercise in futility.
I guess it is a matter of degree. In my experience, it’s the difference between looking out the window, seeing that the sky is blue, and firmly claiming that it is green — just because it says so in this particular book — and looking at a passage in the Bible, having difficulty with it, having an argument about it with a friend, and then coming back to it and saying “Ok, I just don’t know what it means.” Christians try to reason their way through, and at times agonize over, their beliefs to a large extent (think John Bunyan). Mormons tend to turn the page and stir clear of confusing view points. The size of the compromises are very different.
As far as how the rest of Mormon thought or philosophy may influence Romney’s decisions, I’d like to hear more examples. Yes, there are distinct and large differences between what Mormons believe about the Godhead, salvation , and many other core christian beliefs, but I’m not sure how these would have an impact on his type of government or the decisions he would make. Can you think of some examples?
One thing that comes to mind, perhaps, is that Mormons believe in what they call “personal revelation” (meaning, that every person has the right to receive revelations, or promptings from God about whatever duty they may have been given). So, for example, if he were elected president, he could wake up one day with the “distinct feeling” that he should do this or that, and call that “feeling” an infallible dictate from on high. He would have difficulty facing up to being wrong about acting on such a “personal revelation.” But again, not a unique trait to someone like Romney, but a trait I’d rather not see in a president if I can avoid it.
On my personal beliefs… I believe in Christ’s teachings, and try to live them to the best of my understanding. However, I view Christ as a prophet, or a messenger, rather than the Son of God.
(btw: if this makes me persona non-grata in this blog, just let me know, it’s OK — I want to be very respectful of your sense of community here)
Luis, you are welcome on my blog and in my home (if you get to the Portland, OR area). Do me a favor and read and study both John 1 and Hebrews 1. There’s not doubt whatever that the NT presents Jesus as Yahweh. In Jesus’s own words, “Unless you believe that I AM, you will perish in your sins.” Give that some serious thought.
As to how Mormonism and how it might factor into decision making, I’ll think about it a little more and get back to you tomorrow.
Lord bless you, friend. You’re certainly welcome here.
Thank you… I’ll visit from time to time and will be happy to participate if there is a topic where I think I can be of use given my unique perspective and background.
Thank you also for the references to the NT. I can assure you I’ve read it several times and pondered it in depth. I haven’t arrived at my current state of beliefs without much thought (and even my fair share of “agonizing”, to quote myself above).
Luis, Lord bless you. Please come on back and bounce your thoughts off of me. I appreciate your thoughtfulness. Jesus must reign until all his enemies are put under his feet. We’re either submitted to him, or he will crush us in judgment. May he grant that you submit to Christ and trust Jesus, who alone can save you from sin. Blessings!
Thank you for your kindness and your wishes on my behalf. I would be happy to get into an interesting dialog with you about religion and my personal views — probably in a different setting (as this is a public blog on the different subject of voting and politics)
BTW, here is an article that articulates some of my reservations about Mormons:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-mormon-church-in-need-of-reform/2012/01/27/gIQA3s44aQ_story_1.html
The author’s depiction of what happens when a Mormon questions the Church’s teachings is spot on. She is a bit harsher on her characterization of the Mormon leadership than I would have been, but I guess I don’t know her experience.
So, if someone is in a prominent position in the LDS church it means he hasn’t seriously questioned or voiced any reservations about its teachings. Being that many of the LDS church’s teachings are controversial (to put it mildly), that leaves only a few options:
– The person is a hypocrite (who questions in secret and pretends not to)
– The person is unable to think critically (who is unable to grasp or uninterested in pondering contradictions or their importance)
– The person is able to make very strange compromises about matters of the highest importance (“the sky is green” example)
Neither of these a traits that I want in a leader.