“I am stunned at how many of them also go on to claim that anyone who opposes Romney because he is a Mormon is guilty of bigotry”

Joel Belz in “The right questions” at World Magazine:

I happen to find Mitt Romney a highly appealing candidate. I have talked with him personally, and twice heard him give compelling stump speeches. His Texas speech earlier this month on the subject of religion in the electoral process was statesmanlike, accurate, anything but boilerplate, and in very many ways helpful. He steered us all away from the glib implication we hear so often that it’s a simple or desirable thing to separate church and state.

Romney was more thoughtful on the subject than any major candidate I’ve heard in my lifetime.

Indeed, his very thoughtfulness makes me want to be very careful when I raise the question: How does a person’s Mormonism affect his or her possible role as president of the United States?

But just because I’m obliged to ask the question carefully doesn’t mean I’m out of bounds in asking the question. I applauded when Romney stressed: “[Some] would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do.” Nor should he; that is part of his personal character.

But this integral and holistic nature of the person is also exactly what makes it not just right, but necessary, to ask—even in detail—just how what this man believes “religiously” affects all the rest of his behavior.

So it’s not bigotry for Americans to ask of Mormons they know: “Why so secretive? Why the necessity to hide so much?” One of the hallmarks of the historic Christian faith—as opposed to some of the cults it has spun off—is its eagerness to say: “Check us out! We may have embarrassing moments in our past, but we have no secrets.” We’re like Jesus saying to Thomas: “Feel the nail prints. Thrust your hand into my side!”

And in the same way it’s not bigotry for Americans in general to ask that of Mormons they know, it’s not bigotry to ask the same question of the man who this year is Mormonism’s most prominent and celebrated member.

Oh please, please stop asking embarrassing questions about our religion

In a Q&A with M. Russell Ballard and Quentin L. Cook:

IDEAS: I find myself wondering how you feel about even having to answer certain questions about your beliefs, like the one raised by Governor Huckabee about the relationship between Jesus and Satan?

BALLARD: In some ways, I think this matter of religion has got way out of whack, gone way beyond anything we’ve ever seen in the political arena before.

IDEAS: When you say it’s out of whack, what do you think would be appropriate?

BALLARD: At some point, in fairness, we ought to be hearing from the candidates as to what they would do to resolve the economy, what they would do to resolve the world affairs situation. Somehow, if the religious side could be set aside long enough for people to be able to evaluate each candidate – I don’t care who they are – as to how they’re going to solve the real problems, and there are real problems facing America. I just hope that we get some time along the way to be able to hear, really, what the solutions are being offered. We’ve got almost an obsession with this other side.

“Greater than any fight about a political office”

Paul Schutzer in Time:

Many of them believe that if the G.O.P. nominates Romney — much less if the country elects him as President — Mormons will gain a stronger hand in the all-important business of saving souls. To them, the stakes of that struggle are as great or greater than any fight about a political office.

Romney’s Big Speech (and Big Mistake?)

Justin Taylor quotes Daniel Larrison:

The impossible balancing act is stressing the political irrelevance of the theological differences Mormonism really does have with Christianity while simultaneously claiming that this very same religion, whose distinctive substance is supposed to be irrelevant, informs and shapes his “values” that he will rely on to make judgements about policy. Another part of the balancing act (which is where it becomes really dangerous politically) is to declare that it is “un-American” to judge a candidate based on his religion without insulting the millions of voters who consider a candidate’s religion an important part of selecting their preferred candidate, while also paying homage to the “separation of church and state” without actually endorsing the idea that the separation of church and state has any constitutional basis (which a fairly large number of religious conservatives doesn’t accept). His speech will have to go something like this: “My faith, which is very important to me and has made me who I am, should not be important to you, but it is important that we have a person of faith leading this country, and that person happens to be me.”

Whatever happens, I’ll be at the edge of my seat waiting to see if Mitt is honest in portrayal of Mormonism.

“Enough cliches about faith. Mitt’s Mormonism matters”

Errrol Louis in the New York Daily News:

Let’s quit tiptoeing around the question of whether Republican Mitt Romney’s Mormon religion will be an issue in his bid to become President of the United States.

Of course it will matter. And it should.

Voters have every right to be curious and concerned about a candidate’s beliefs – especially a candidate like Romney, who keeps talking about the importance of faith in his life.

Romney’s not a run-of-the-mill believer. Before entering politics, he served as a Mormon bishop, presiding over several congregations in Massachusetts.

There’s little chance that a devout follower of Rastafarianism, the Unification Church or the Nation of Islam – not just a believer, but a leader – could expect to run for high political office and not get a couple of questions about what they believe and what public actions they took as a church leader.

Romney has gotten a few. He told CBS News he is a “true-blue through-and-through” believer, but also said, “My church wouldn’t endeavor to tell me what to do on an issue, and I wouldn’t listen to them on an issue that related to our nation.”

Those contradictory statements won’t cut it. And they don’t sidestep the plain fact that Mormonism, like the other faiths I mentioned, is not a Christian religion.

This is a sore point with Romney and other Mormons, who emphasize their reverence for Jesus, belief in His divinity, and the fact that the religion’s official name is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Those protests hold little water with leaders of most Christian denominations. In 2001, the Catholic doctrinal office (then headed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who is now the Pope) decreedMormons must be re-baptized to join the Catholic Church.Methodists, Presbyterians and Baptists have similar official disclaimers.

The reasons are clear to anyone who stayed awake through Sunday School and takes a look at the Mormon holy books, including the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.

Mormons, it turns out, believe human souls have existed for all eternity, temporarily inhabit physical bodies and can eventually evolve into gods. They also believe the Garden of Eden was in Missouri and that tribes from Israel traveled to what is now America, built ancient cities and fought epic battles…

“It’s appropriate to judge candidates on their beliefs and values”

A Salt Lake Tribune public forum letter, posted 6/11/2007:

I’m tired of hearing the claim that all who refuse to vote for Mitt Romney, because he’s a Mormon, are somehow biased and shouldn’t be allowed to consider religion when they vote. Nonsense.

Although it’s true that the Constitution bars any religious test to hold federal office, that does not mean that voters are barred from considering a candidate’s religious beliefs and values. After all, voters can reasonably expect that a candidate’s beliefs might influence future decisions were the candidate to be elected.

If I believed in animal sacrifice to appease the gods, female genital mutilation to reduce sexual promiscuity, and smoking marijuana as a way to “connect” with my higher power, you might reasonably conclude that you didn’t want me to represent you in Washington.

‘m not suggesting that it’s reasonable to vote against Romney simply because he believes in an anthropomorphic god. That’s ridiculous, because that belief would be unlikely to affect government policy. On the other hand, it’s na ve to suggest that there are no tenets in Mormonism, or any other faith, that might affect policy decisions. As a result, it’s appropriate to judge candidates on their beliefs and values – even those rooted in religion – that could affect policy decisions.

Ken Roach
Salt Lake City

“Mitt Romney and Mormonism” Video Mentioned on Fox News

I ran across this YouTube video tonight and was happy to hear JesusNotJoseph.com and my video mentioned.

I got the impression that Hugh Hewitt assumed my video promoted the idea that Mormons still practice polygamy like it was done pre-1890 (apart from the current polygamous temple sealings that still go on). But “Mitt Romney and Mormonism” only mentions in passing that people often associate Mormons with polygamy.

Of course Hewitt was quick to use the loaded “anti-Mormon” and “bigot” language. I really wish he would promote a thoughtful, intelligent discussion over the issues rather than inordinately depend on hot rhetoric. I’d love the opportunity to call him out on television for his irresponsible use of language and disrespect for thoughtful Christians who recognize the impact a person’s religious worldview can have on the rest of life and sincerely worry about the implications of public Mormon legitimization.

Francis Beckwith on Chrisitan Creeds and the “Kennedy Mistake”

From First Things:

“Creeds are not meant to measure the qualifications of a political candidate in a liberal democracy. Not only does the formulation of Christendom’s most important creeds predate the existence of liberal democracies, their subject matter bears no relation to assessing those attributes that we consider essential to the leadership of a political regime. In practice, most Christians already fully grasp this truth.

“For example, many evangelicals in the 1980 presidential election voted for Ronald W. Reagan over Jimmy Carter, even though Carter was clearly more evangelical in his theology and church participation than Reagan. For Reagan’s supporters, it was his policies and not his theology that was decisive for them. Although these evangelicals would have likely chosen Carter over Reagan to teach Sunday school, they preferred Reagan in the Oval Office because they believed that Reagan’s policies best advanced the common good.

“If one believes that the common good is achieved when a political regime treats justly its citizens and the many institutions that help develop and sustain their virtue, a candidate who embraces these ideals, even if he or she is not a Christian, is a candidate that a Christian can support with a clear conscience…

“Romney, in order to pacify secularists and traditional Christians, may be tempted to emulate Kennedy and claim that his theology and church do not influence or shape his politics. But this would be a mistake. For it would signal to traditional Christians that Romney does not believe that theology could, in principle, count as knowledge; but this is precisely the view of the secularist who believes that religion, like matters of taste, should remain private. Yet if a citizen has good reason to believe her theological tradition offers real insights into the nature of humanity and the common good—insights that could be defended on grounds that even a secularist cannot easily dismiss—why should she remain mute simply because the secularist stipulates a definition of religion that requires her silence? Why should she accept the secularist’s limitations on her religious liberty based on what appears to many of us as a capricious and politically convenient understanding of “religion”? If Romney commits the Kennedy Mistake, it would give tacit permission to secularists to call into question the political legitimacy of not only Romney’s fellow religionists (including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid) but also conservative Catholics and evangelicals.”

Mormonism is rooted in a rebuke to traditional Christianity

Time:

Many Evangelicals have been taught that Mormonism is a cult with a heretical understanding of Scripture and doctrine. Mormons reject the unified Trinity and teach that God has a body of flesh and blood. Though Mormons revere Christ as Saviour and certainly call themselves Christians, the church is rooted in a rebuke to traditional Christianity. Joseph Smith presented himself as a prophet whom God had instructed to restore his true church, since “all their creeds were an abomination in his sight.” He described how an angel named Moroni provided him with golden tablets that told the story (written in what Smith called “reformed Egyptian” hieroglyphics, never seen before) of an ancient civilization of Israelites sent by God to America. The tablets included lessons Jesus taught during a visit to America after his Resurrection. Smith was able to read and translate the tablets with the help of special transparent stones he used as spectacles. He published them as the Book of Mormon in 1830.

Even if Mormonism is false, it’s still worth believing?

In World Magazine:

In a late April interview with Romney, WORLD asked: “The Apostle Paul is famous for saying that if the historical facts don’t back up Christianity, then his teaching—Paul’s teaching—is worthless and the Christian faith is futile. Would you be willing to say the same thing if it were shown that Joseph Smith made things up? Would it be fair to conclude that Mormon teaching is also worthless and futile?”

Romney was quick to answer. “I’m not going to take that hypothetical—OK?” he said, almost curtly, then softened. “I’m no Paul,” he added modestly.

This kind of talk rings familiar to me. I talk to so many Mormons here in Utah who believe that even if Mormonism isn’t true, it still might be worth it to believe in, and certainly—even if Mormonism is helping to send people to hell for idolatry—it isn’t worth opposing. I call this an “atheological tendency“. It’s the ultimate shrug.