A Vote for Romney Is a Vote for the LDS Church

Patheos – One evangelical explains why he cannot support Mitt Romney for President.

What [Paul] Weyrich understood was that you can’t have it “both ways” when it comes to Romney’s faith. You can’t say that his religious beliefs don’t matter, but his “values” do. The Christian worldview teaches that there is a short tether binding beliefs to the values and behaviors that flow from them. If the beliefs are false, then the behavior will eventually—but inevitably—be warped. Mormonism is particularly troubling on this point because Mormons believe in the idea of “continuing revelation.” They may believe one thing today, and something else tomorrow. This is why Mormons have changed their views, for example, on marriage and race. Polygamy was once a key distinctive of the religion. Now, of course, it is not. Mormons once forbade blacks from leadership roles. Now they do not. What else will change?

Even if a Mormon social teaching happens to concur with orthodox Christianity at this point in time, it is unreliable and subject to alteration. It’s tempting to say that “continuing revelation” has defined Romney’s career, who has changed his positions on same-sex marriage and abortion and just about every major “culture war” issue… TO READ MORE CLICK HERE.

The Church teaches us that there is a hierarchy of truths. Errors regarding God will result in errors involving man. The author make the assertion that “Evangelical Christians should have no part of [the] effort” to elect Romney. Should the same be said for Catholics? Read the entire article above and judge it. Let me know what you think on this matter.

27 Responses to A Vote for Romney Is a Vote for the LDS Church

  • I’ll have to think about this article, and follow the comments, but my first thought is that Kennedy had a mixed effect on American Catholicism, making it more acceptable to outsiders but watering down what it meant to be an American Catholic. Both Huntsman and Romney have distanced themselves from Mormonism, and Harry Reid is hardly out there leading a revival movement. Greater exposure for Mormonism could lead to a recognition that there’s a difference between the culturally religious and the devout among Mormons just as there is among Catholics.

  • Secularists may call it bigotry but they oppose Huckabee on similar grounds. We don’t want our president guided by philosophies that we don’t share. But the way I see it, even if his religion is an unfavorable tiebreaker when all else is equal, if all else is not equal, there’s reason to believe that Mormon values are closer to what you’re looking for than Jefferson’s deist values or Obama’s Easter-Christmas Protestant values. Besides, continued revelation can just as easily bring Mormonism closer to evangelical values. In fact, I think history proves that it does. I’d argue that adherents of religions with less authority (Protestants included) may be more likely to veer off in unexpected directions.

    As for promoting Mormonism, again I see this as a tiebreaker at most. Every candidate will have some view he or she promotes that you wouldn’t want promoted. This should be issue # 39,074,231.

  • I do not vote only for Catholics. But even among Catholics, what is acceptable to them today is certainly not what was acceptable to them in days gone by.

    I am sympathetic to what you are driving at, I think, but a twice divorced, annuled new Catholic, with a long term sullied record of behavior, who has not been tested seriously in his recent resolve to repent and who seems to lack the sensitivity and judgment to fully understand just how offensive and suspicious his “reincarnation” appears to many decent people, is better due simply to his Catholicism? Perhaps, Rudy too?

    Sorry that I do not know the rest of the field but politics is not my passion or hobby. However, going too far down that “I will only consider supporting those who believe as I do” path will likely leave few viable, electable candidates.

    So, is it almost certainly four more years of what we have now or is a less-than-perfect alternative worth considering? I think that is what we all face as a possible choice. I do not know enough about the other folks who are interested in White House, from a conservative perspective, to eliminate Mr. Romney yet.

  • His argument is contrived. I think it exceedingly unlikely that a ‘continuing revelation’ of significance will emanate from the Mormon apostles during the four years of a hypothetical Romney Administration. Is this fellow advocating a general boycott of elections? If he is not, what makes Mitt Romney more troublesome than anyone else who holds to a defective theology? (While we are at it, when this cloying evangelical is done critiquing Mormon soteriology maybe he will tell us his assessment of the Real Presence).

  • I don’t aim on voting for Romney come the caucuses next year, but I certainly would vote for him if he were to become the Republican candidate.

    I think the author makes a seeping over-generalization that may not actually be relevant to Romney or of other Mormon politicians.

  • He didn’t need to get into Romney’s religious beliefs at all. No need to address the “continuing revelation” of Mormonism, when the key issue is the continuing evolution of convenience of Romney’s political views. The one has nothing to do with the other. Romney’s flip-flopping political views are a matter of expediency and lack of guiding principle, not religious faith.

    I won’t vote for him because he has never governed as a conservative – social, fiscal, or otherwise. He has always run as liberal Republican, whether it was for Ted Kennedy’s seat in the U.S. Senate (in which election he actually tried to get to the left of Kennedy on abortion by noting that he had been for it longer than Kennedy had) or for Governor of Massachusetts. As Governor, he governed as a liberal. There is nothing indicating Romney is actually pro-life beyond his word, which is based on an alleged conversion that occurred, ironically, not long before he first decided to seek the GOP nomination for president.

    I don’t trust him on ANY issue. I believe there is no position Romney will not take and then change his mind on if he sees it as politically expedient. I will not vote for such a man. If he wins the GOP nomination, I will stay at home or vote 3rd party. And it has NOTHING to do with his religious beliefs.

  • Of course, the Constitutional checks and balances: Congress and the Supreme Court won’t be in play with Romney and the LDS.

    The next president must be anybody, including Romney, but Obama.

    Our country and our way of life depend on it.

    The No Nothings said much the same about 19th century Roman Catholic Papists.

    Public schools seem worse than I feared.

  • If candidates vow that they will set aside their religious beliefs if elected, then what does it matter whether he or she is a Mormon or an atheist for that matter?

    If Americans believe in the principle of separation of church and state, then it would seem to me that the ideal officeholder would be one who eschews any belief system that is antithetical to the idea that the Constitution and secular law prevail.

    Of course, the chances that a self-professed agnostic or atheist could be elected president is still anathema to the vast majority of Americans who hold that belief in any god is preferable to a belief in none.

    For appearance’s sake, Obama, whose “Christianity” is conducted mainly on his Blackberry and through pious self-serving platitudes pronounced at prayer breakfasts, is adequate to allay any fears that a non-believer leads the land.

  • We as Catholics should realize more than anyone that the doctrines of a religion does not define the c”o”ndidate. From the likes of JFK’s personal life, to Pelosi’s, well, every action, clearly tells us it is deeds, not words or Baptismal Certificate, which best describes how a politician thinks. Romney would be the old line of the “better than the other guy” – period. He is not someone I will vote for in the primary. His Baptismal Certificate has played no role in this decision.

  • Mormons are Masons and as Catholics we cannot support the enemies of the Church even when both major party candidates are enemies. The lesser of two evils is a pragmatic approach that denies the power of the Divine. if our choice is between a Moslem-sympathizing atheist and a Mormom (Freemason) then we have to vote for an alternate party candidate and beg our Lady of Victory to deliver us once again.

    Romney is the candidate of choice for the Republican party just like McCain was: groomed to lose to the global president.

  • I remember during the last election cycle. Huckabee asked Romney something to the effect of “Don’t you Mormon’s believe that Jesus and the Devil were brothers”?

    It would be too easy to make him look foolish because of his religious views. I think that he will be pummelled by the religious right and the irregligious left. He will be left, as he was before, unelectable.

  • Sorry about the apostrophe. It is one of my pet peeves. SPELLCHECK!

  • While many LDS founders were Masons, the intersection of Masons and Mormons is actually pretty complicated, and the LDS Church has no formal position on Masons. Furthermore, the Catholic Church’s discomfort with Masons is grounded in the same principles that cause our discomfort with Protestant churches. Basically, its principles cannot be reconciled with Catholicism, or any orthodox Christianity for that matter. It is true that Masonry was founded in part on an antipathy toward royalty, including the papacy, but frankly such antipathy was no more than that present in many protestant sect formations. I know many serious Mormons, and none have any antipathy toward the Catholic Church. In general, they are more sympathetic to the Church than practicing protestants, especially evangelicals and fundies.

    It is true that their theology is far-fetched to say the least, though to skeptics and atheists no more so than orthodox Christianity. But admittedly to knowledgeable Christians the beliefs appear as bizarre. That said, I don’t see now this has any relevance for fitness for office, however, and any political opponent who tries to make hay of Romney’s Mormonism is inviting a big risk of backfire.

    Finally, the idea that the lesser of two evils denies the power of the divine is just plain ridiculous. It is logically incoherent (given that the choice of perfection is never available as a practical matter) and not compatible with Church teaching. To suggest that a Catholic may not vote for Romney because he is imperfect is as absurd as suggesting that a Catholic cannot vote for a third party candidate because it is feckless. Nonsense on stilts.

  • Correct me if I am wrong but I was given the impression, both past and present, that Romney and fam. were practicing and active Mormons. He is not a Mormon in name-sake only, maybe Huntsman is. Therefore we should be able to ask how his religion, which is not Christian, effects his worldview? That is a perfectly reasonable question to ask.

    For example, let us consider life. Mormons believe that the human soul exists before it incarnates in the body. It does exist outside the body until actual birth. The fertilized embryo or baby in the womb is not fully or truly human from a Catholic perspective. Now do you see why Mormons are so flimsy on abortion or stem-cell research? It’s not solely a Romney problem, look at Orrin Hatch and other Mormon politicians. It makes perfect sense once you begin the grasp how they think.

  • Mike,

    Most Mormons are not aware of the Masonic influence on their cult and most Mormons I have met are good and decent people. However, just like Freemasonry and other secret societies there are different degrees of initiation. The problem here is that seldom does one move up to the upper levels of Mormonism and worldly success without being initiated into the Masonic rites of Mormonism. Romney’s success at Bain and his fathers prominence, until Johnson ‘brainwashed’ him, are evidence of their Masonic influence. This is not proof and I am not judging the man, but it is enough for me to be concerned as a Catholic and as an American to put this man in the White House.

    The Popes have been pretty clear on Freemasonry and have FORBIDDEN the faithful from membership in Freemasonry and other secret societies. Protestantism is a heresy, and in the past, for a generation or two following the so-called Reformation, Protestants were heretics. Now, so far removed from the heresy, most Protestants are adherents of mere Christianity and need to be brought into full communion with the fullness of Truth. Protestants may be against the Church on certain points, but they profess the same faith in the same Christ that we do. Freemasonry is Luciferian occultism and is specifically set up to destroy Christ’s Catholic Church. There is a HUGE difference between Protestants and Masons and our relationship to both. Mormons are not Protestant Christians, they are a Masonic cult.

    I do not suggest that we should not vote for Romney because he is imperfect. Gingrich and Santorum are also imperfect as are all other candidates. I am saying that if I had to choose between a secular, materialist atheist and a Mormon – I would choose neither and vote for another candidate who did not happen to have moral beliefs that are set over and against the Church and probably the country.

  • McCain supported federal funding embryonic stem cell research. Why ask about the religion when you can ask more direct questions like “do you support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research?”

  • Good questions to ask and if one’s religion is easily understandable like say any type of actual Christian or a Jew then I am not going want to know much about their religion; however, when a candidate belongs to a religion or a cult that stands against our beliefs and principles, then I want to know what’s what. I would be just as concerned with a Moslem, Jehova’s Witness or Seventh Day Adventist for that matter.

    Every man’s religion defines his interaction with the world. It is a very important factor in how he will govern if elected. I think our Founding Fathers wanted us to set aside our differences in the Judeo-Christian tradition. I do not think they envisioned an America that had to negotiate with Atheists, Hindus, Moselms or Mormons running for public office.

  • Knight, why are you cutting slack for Jews, who flatly reject Christ, whereas fringe Christian sects such as Mormons, Witnesses and others at least grant him a level of primacy if not divinity?
    As for atheists/agnostics, it would seem questions of religious influence would be moot and they would be better able to maintain the wall of separation between church and state.

  • Good questions Joe. I am not a naturally pithy person so it takes great effort to keep my com box posts as long as they are. If I didn’t even try, I would probably drone on for several pages and no one wants to read that.

    Jews are our brothers in faith in the One True God, although they have a limited understanding of Him as Trinity. Additionally, Jews 2,000 years ago can be blamed for rejecting Christ; however, faithful Jews today are worshiping God with us and awaiting the Messiah. What they don’t know is that when He arrives, it will be His Second coming. St. John tells us that multitudes of Jews will profess Jesus as the Messiah when He returns to Judge us. Jews have to keep the Commandments as we do, they have a slightly more complex yet less severe interpretation, but they keep the core. Frankly orthodox Jews are often easier to relate to than most so-called Catholics.

    As for atheists/agnostics maintaining a wall of separation, to me that is the precise problem. The want to keep the Church out of the public square as the impost their beliefs on the rest of us with no reference to God. I have a big problem with that.

    I believe this country is blessed because we have been for most of our history faithful to God in our flawed, sinful way. We are dangerously close to losing that and that frightens me.

  • With all due respect, my friend, the divide between Christians and Jews would seem to be much greater than that between Catholics and Protestants. When their forefathers rejected Christ and shouted “Give us Barrabas, his blood be on us and our children,” they sealed their fates. The cornerstone which the builders rejected has become the capstone.

    As for the church in the public square, the argument from the other side of yours is that there are many in a pluralistic society who view the imposition of religion in whatever form into the public square is precisely why the “wall” that Jefferson so clearly delineated is the bedrock of the American republic.

  • Joe,

    St. John is pretty clear that multitudes of Jews will accept Jesus as the Messiah.

    You have an erroneous interpretation of the wall of seperation that Jefferson invoked in a letter to Baptists and NOT an official US document. Additionally, in the Baptist tradition, well known at the time, the wall is designed to keep the government OUT of religion, NOT to keep religion out of government – which is actually impossible.

    If you respond today and I don’t get back to you it is because my lovely bride doesn’t want me bogging because I have other more pressing responsibilities and I don’t Mary mad at me because I disappoint my wife.

  • By all means, domestic tranquility comes first. : )

  • C O N G R A T S !

  • Joe,

    If we define religion as justice to God, then we can also assume there is an anti-religion, which denies God His due justice. Atheists have a belief system, which is sort of a religion, more precisely an anti-religion. So no wall of separation keeping a governors beliefs out of governing is possible.

    The problem is when we enthrone anti-religion in the government we are asking God to get out of our affairs and that only leads to destruction. Atheism is a precursor to Lucifarianism and that is the Masonic/Mormon agenda.

  • If there is no God there would be no atheists. To me agnosticism is the best place for now. I have doubts where others have certainty. That is all agnosticism is.

  • Joe,

    Your post reveals some logical inconsistencies, which I am familiar with because I used to share them. Given that the atheists do exist, then by your logic God exists, otherwise there would be no atheists. If God exists, then being indifferent or neutral is a flawed decision and is not really agnosticism, it is practical atheism.

    I am not attacking you, I shared your viewpoint for a long, long time. Soon we have to make a decision; either we are with God, or we are against God. Fence sitting comes to an end for every man and it always comes sooner than anyone thinks it will.

  • Let’s be clear on what Mr. Smith advocates in American politics, as outlined in the article ‘A Vote for Romney Is a Vote for the LDS Church’. Simply stated, no Mormon should ever be President of the United States. Should we follow his logic and opinion to the next “bully pulpit” conclusion? Mormons shouldn’t be Senators or Representatives. They’re dangerous, after all, and they propose a theology that could devastate and mislead evangelicals and other unsuspecting victims. Doesn’t this rhetoric sound vaguely familiar? Haven’t most societal atrocities and genocides begun with the implicit or explicit statement that the “other group” was dangerous or followed an inferior or incorrect belief system (eg. – Hitler, Darfur, the Balkans)?
    Warren Cole Smith must have a low opinion of his fellow evangelicals. He assumes that a Mormon President of the United States would increase conversion rates to Mormonism. While it may spark additional interest in the LDS church, does that necessarily equate to higher baptismal rates? Historical data doesn’t support that conclusion (e.g. see Catholic conversion rates after Kennedy). Let’s give our friends of other faiths a little more credit. If they decide to convert to Mormonism, it won’t be a result of Mitt Romney. If Mr. Warren Smith is so terrified that talking to Mormon missionaries will lead Evangelicals astray, perhaps there is something meaningful to the message that should be heard. Most people that directly and respectfully interact with other faiths reaffirm their own beliefs, reassess incorrect stereotypes, or gain a new religious paradigm.
    In summary, Warren Cole Smith promotes a homogeneous society where vital leadership positions are limited to those people who have the same religious belief system as the masses. Excellent thinking skills, integrity, hard work, history of achievements, solid values, and love of country do NOT qualify a person for President of the United States. Essentially Muslims, Mormons, Buddhists, Atheists, (and he hinted at Jews), and any other non-Nicene Creed associated religions are exempt from public service, and maybe even private service. Had we time, we could analyze the singularly stunning assumptions that Mr. Warren Smith used to support his logic. Maybe we sum up his article this way; his assumptions are clearly dangerous and non-biblical.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .