Would conservative Christians vote for a Mormon?

Two of the Repubican presidential candidates, the alleged front-runner Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, are Mormons.  Both addressed the Faith & Freedom Coalition, an organization of conservative Christian political activists:

“I came today not to give a political speech,” former Utah governor Jon Huntsman Jr. told the crowd in a downtown Washington ballroom Friday, “but simply to introduce myself and my family.”

There was, however, nothing simple about it. The audience he was addressing consisted of hundreds of politically oriented Christian conservatives. Huntsman, who is expected to announce soon that he is running for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, is a Mormon.

The message that Huntsman, who is largely unknown nationally, seemed to be delivering to the annual conference of the Faith and Freedom Coalition was this: My values are no different from yours.

The other Mormon in the race — former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who is presumed to be the early front-runner — also addressed the group. But where Huntsman made overt references to God, Romney made none. Instead, he emphasized economic themes: unemployment, declining home prices, debt, foreclosures.

via Can a Mormon presidential candidate win over the Republicans’ evangelical base? – The Washington Post.

In principle, would you be bothered by having a Mormon president?  Would you vote for a Mormon?  Would you vote for either of these two Mormons?

Would refusing to vote against a candidate because he is a Mormon be an example of bigotry?  An unconstitutional imposition of a religious test and an establishment of a religion?  A violation of Luther’s doctrine of the Two Kingdoms?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://cosmthb.wordpress.com Bob Smith

    Yes. I would most certainly take into account a Mormon’s religion. They believe that they are gods-in-embryo. They promise absolute obedience to their Prophet, with that exaltation dependent upon it. They are taught it is OK to lie to non-Mormons.

    It isn’t the only criteria, but it sure is important. As is the faith of all candidates. For example, our current President grew up Unitarian-Universalist, attended for 20 years a UCC church that has a Liberation theology orientation. I think it shows in his policies.

  • http://cosmthb.wordpress.com Bob Smith

    Yes. I would most certainly take into account a Mormon’s religion. They believe that they are gods-in-embryo. They promise absolute obedience to their Prophet, with that exaltation dependent upon it. They are taught it is OK to lie to non-Mormons.

    It isn’t the only criteria, but it sure is important. As is the faith of all candidates. For example, our current President grew up Unitarian-Universalist, attended for 20 years a UCC church that has a Liberation theology orientation. I think it shows in his policies.

  • Michael Lynch

    I wouldn’t vote for a Mormon in the primaries. I would choose the lesser of two evils in the general, though.

  • Michael Lynch

    I wouldn’t vote for a Mormon in the primaries. I would choose the lesser of two evils in the general, though.

  • Pete

    Not a big deal. With perhaps a few exceptions, I think it’s safe to say that the predominant religion of our day is the “moralistic therapeutic deism” described by Christian Smith. This more likely characterizes a candidate’s beliefs than does an orthodox adherence to whatever religion he professes. Witness all the pro-abortion Catholics in office.
    Far more important is what the candidate says they will do and what they have previously done in the sphere of government. (Something that ought to have given the voting public great concern when evaluating our current President in 2008.)

  • Pete

    Not a big deal. With perhaps a few exceptions, I think it’s safe to say that the predominant religion of our day is the “moralistic therapeutic deism” described by Christian Smith. This more likely characterizes a candidate’s beliefs than does an orthodox adherence to whatever religion he professes. Witness all the pro-abortion Catholics in office.
    Far more important is what the candidate says they will do and what they have previously done in the sphere of government. (Something that ought to have given the voting public great concern when evaluating our current President in 2008.)

  • Pete

    As a reverse example, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t have voted for Jesse Ventura, even though he was LCMS, like me.

  • Pete

    As a reverse example, I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t have voted for Jesse Ventura, even though he was LCMS, like me.

  • Dave

    I didn’t vote for Romney in the the primaries last time because of the Mormon thing. But I was reading the Mormon Triples at the time (Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price). I couldn’t vote for someone who could believe those books.

    Now, I think that maybe someone like Romney doesn’t really read those things and as someone said above, he is just part of America’s moralistic religion. So, I think I could vote for a Mormon this time as long as he sticks to speaking about politics as Romney is now. Depends on what the other choices are.

  • Dave

    I didn’t vote for Romney in the the primaries last time because of the Mormon thing. But I was reading the Mormon Triples at the time (Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price). I couldn’t vote for someone who could believe those books.

    Now, I think that maybe someone like Romney doesn’t really read those things and as someone said above, he is just part of America’s moralistic religion. So, I think I could vote for a Mormon this time as long as he sticks to speaking about politics as Romney is now. Depends on what the other choices are.

  • Dan Kempin

    Truly a dilemma. I certainly like mormons. (Like pharisees, they make great neighbors.) I certainly share a lot in common with them politically.

    Could I; SHOULD I, as a Christian, pull the proverbial lever for a mormon president? I’m not sure I’ve worked that through yet. I can very easily reason myself into saying “yes,” but there is a deeper instinct against it that I am inclined to respect. (And no, it is not a bigotry–unless the distinction between believers and unbelievers is considered bigotry.)

    I am glad that I have not yet had to face that decision. In the end, I think I would, for the sake of Christian conscience, vote no. (Or “not vote for,” as it were.)

  • Dan Kempin

    Truly a dilemma. I certainly like mormons. (Like pharisees, they make great neighbors.) I certainly share a lot in common with them politically.

    Could I; SHOULD I, as a Christian, pull the proverbial lever for a mormon president? I’m not sure I’ve worked that through yet. I can very easily reason myself into saying “yes,” but there is a deeper instinct against it that I am inclined to respect. (And no, it is not a bigotry–unless the distinction between believers and unbelievers is considered bigotry.)

    I am glad that I have not yet had to face that decision. In the end, I think I would, for the sake of Christian conscience, vote no. (Or “not vote for,” as it were.)

  • General Jack D Ripper

    Just as noteworthy is Romney’s willingness to to speak at a conference organized by the disgraced Ralph Reed.

  • General Jack D Ripper

    Just as noteworthy is Romney’s willingness to to speak at a conference organized by the disgraced Ralph Reed.

  • Jeremy

    It’s a big mistake to ask people who they would vote for before it actually happens. Imagine it’s the year 1975, and asking conservatives would they vote for a divorced Hollywood actor? But then 5 years later Ronald Reagan wins in a landslide. Imagine it’s the year 2000, and asking conservatives would they vote for a woman to lead our country and military, and then 4 years later Sarah Palin is selected, and social conservatives are thrilled to get her.

  • Jeremy

    It’s a big mistake to ask people who they would vote for before it actually happens. Imagine it’s the year 1975, and asking conservatives would they vote for a divorced Hollywood actor? But then 5 years later Ronald Reagan wins in a landslide. Imagine it’s the year 2000, and asking conservatives would they vote for a woman to lead our country and military, and then 4 years later Sarah Palin is selected, and social conservatives are thrilled to get her.

  • John C

    Sorry, General Jack D Ripper is a piece of silliness from Dr Strangelove on another post.

  • John C

    Sorry, General Jack D Ripper is a piece of silliness from Dr Strangelove on another post.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    “I’d rather be ruled by a smart Turk (Muslim) than a stupid Christian.” – Luther

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    “I’d rather be ruled by a smart Turk (Muslim) than a stupid Christian.” – Luther

  • Booklover

    Aah, Steve, ya beat me to it. :-)

  • Booklover

    Aah, Steve, ya beat me to it. :-)

  • Dan Kempin

    Steve, #10,

    Do you have a reference for that quote?

  • Dan Kempin

    Steve, #10,

    Do you have a reference for that quote?

  • Booklover

    It is a tough decision. It depends on whether the candidate even knows or follows the doctrine of the religion which he or she “identifies” with. As was mentioned before, sometimes they don’t even know or practice it.

    I think it is safe to say that our current President is acting out his beliefs.

  • Booklover

    It is a tough decision. It depends on whether the candidate even knows or follows the doctrine of the religion which he or she “identifies” with. As was mentioned before, sometimes they don’t even know or practice it.

    I think it is safe to say that our current President is acting out his beliefs.

  • larry

    I could vote for such based on “I’d rather be ruled by a smart Turk (Muslim) than a stupid Christian.” – Luther. I just don’t find him to be a smart “turk”.

  • larry

    I could vote for such based on “I’d rather be ruled by a smart Turk (Muslim) than a stupid Christian.” – Luther. I just don’t find him to be a smart “turk”.

  • Cincinnatus

    Well, what if Romney actually “acted out” on his Mormon beliefs, as everyone keeps cryptically inquiring. Apparently he does not now, I am told. But isn’t Mormon praxis, insofar as it is relevant to public life, much like moralistic Christian practice? I.e., kindness to neighbors, abstinence from vices (even alcohol), advocacy of pro-life and other socially conservative causes, maintenance of family values, etc.? I fail to see the intrinsic problem here for social conservatives.

    Yeah, somewhere in their holy books is something about godhood and ruling planets. But somewhere in ours is a book about how the world will be consumed by fire, how Jews are God’s chosen people, how God slaughtered thousands in the Old Testament. Even if outsiders understand these Scriptural principles well–and they don’t–I’ve never known them to have tangible effects upon the conduct of public office (even the bit about the Jews seldom actually shapes our policy towards Israel).

    For me, the problem with Romney is precisely that he doesn’t appear to apply his Mormon morals to his public life. He lies, he waffles, he obscures–and he has a fantastically gigantic ego.

  • Cincinnatus

    Well, what if Romney actually “acted out” on his Mormon beliefs, as everyone keeps cryptically inquiring. Apparently he does not now, I am told. But isn’t Mormon praxis, insofar as it is relevant to public life, much like moralistic Christian practice? I.e., kindness to neighbors, abstinence from vices (even alcohol), advocacy of pro-life and other socially conservative causes, maintenance of family values, etc.? I fail to see the intrinsic problem here for social conservatives.

    Yeah, somewhere in their holy books is something about godhood and ruling planets. But somewhere in ours is a book about how the world will be consumed by fire, how Jews are God’s chosen people, how God slaughtered thousands in the Old Testament. Even if outsiders understand these Scriptural principles well–and they don’t–I’ve never known them to have tangible effects upon the conduct of public office (even the bit about the Jews seldom actually shapes our policy towards Israel).

    For me, the problem with Romney is precisely that he doesn’t appear to apply his Mormon morals to his public life. He lies, he waffles, he obscures–and he has a fantastically gigantic ego.

  • Jonathan

    Well, it would just be kinda awkward to hear him say “Good night, and may God bless America.”

  • Jonathan

    Well, it would just be kinda awkward to hear him say “Good night, and may God bless America.”

  • Steve

    No, it doesn’t concern me. Yes, he belongs to an odd religion (I’m only a few miles from Palmyra, NY, so I know of LDS oddities personally), but that’s his right. Frankly, it’s hard for me to say that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s brand of black liberation theology masked as Christianity (embraced, at least up until recently, by our sitting president) is any less weird. Well, maybe less weird than Mormonism, but still weird. I voted for Romney in the 2008 NY primary, and if he gets the nomination, I’ll certainly pull the lever for him.

    In my mind, here is the more interesting hypothetical: Would you ever vote for an avowed atheist for president? Why or why not?

  • Steve

    No, it doesn’t concern me. Yes, he belongs to an odd religion (I’m only a few miles from Palmyra, NY, so I know of LDS oddities personally), but that’s his right. Frankly, it’s hard for me to say that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s brand of black liberation theology masked as Christianity (embraced, at least up until recently, by our sitting president) is any less weird. Well, maybe less weird than Mormonism, but still weird. I voted for Romney in the 2008 NY primary, and if he gets the nomination, I’ll certainly pull the lever for him.

    In my mind, here is the more interesting hypothetical: Would you ever vote for an avowed atheist for president? Why or why not?

  • http://www.thirduse.com FWS

    Would refusing to vote against a candidate because he is a Mormon be an example of ….. A violation of Luther’s doctrine of the Two Kingdoms?

    This is not Luther’s Doctrine. The Doctrine of “The Two Kingdoms or Two Kinds of Righteousness” is taught in the Lutheran Confessions. You will find it in the Formula of Concord, Article VI titled “The [Lutheran] Third Use of the Law”. You will especially find it in the Luther sermon referred to as being the basis for FC Art VI.

    So what is this doctrine? Separation of Church and State? No. The Churchly Estate of Divine Revelation, Scripture and the Holy Sacraments, versus the Civil Estate of Man’s Laws? No!

    Luther (paraphrase from his sermon): There are two kingdoms, both ruled by God, each with it’s Divinely Instituted form of righteousness.

    God rules the Earthly Kingdom according the Second Table of the Law that is identical to the Law revealed , by God, in the minds of men and called Reason. This kingdom includes everything we can see and do in our bodies. It especially includes the visible holy catholic church as a form of god-institute government since all that we can see and do there is done according to the Law of God.

    God rules his Heavenly Kingdom alone by invisible faith in Christ alone. This kingdom utterly excludes anything we can see or do in our bodies. Why? All those things are fully included in that other Earthly Kingdom. This Kingdom is the fullfillment of the First Table of the Decalog that peculiarly deals with movements of the heart that are alone faith in Christ alone and alone can be kept by that faith. Alone.

    The Kingdom of God comes in ways that cannot be seen. How does either kingdom then come?

    The Earthly Kingdom comes with Goodness and Mercy, in, with and under sinful Old Adams, extorted out of them by the second table Law. God’s will in this earthly visible kingdom will be done through the Law either willingly by man , or God will send plagues and pestilence to make us do his Will . So we should fear God and gladly keep the second table of the Law and do mercy and goodness and love to others.

    The heavenly kingdom, the communion of saints, comes only in with and under the Churchly government of the earthly kingdom through the Promise offered in,with and under the Word and Sacraments. Faith clings to that Promise and there , in with and under the ministrations of Old Adams and earthly visible elements, receives the Promised Mercy.

  • http://www.thirduse.com FWS

    Would refusing to vote against a candidate because he is a Mormon be an example of ….. A violation of Luther’s doctrine of the Two Kingdoms?

    This is not Luther’s Doctrine. The Doctrine of “The Two Kingdoms or Two Kinds of Righteousness” is taught in the Lutheran Confessions. You will find it in the Formula of Concord, Article VI titled “The [Lutheran] Third Use of the Law”. You will especially find it in the Luther sermon referred to as being the basis for FC Art VI.

    So what is this doctrine? Separation of Church and State? No. The Churchly Estate of Divine Revelation, Scripture and the Holy Sacraments, versus the Civil Estate of Man’s Laws? No!

    Luther (paraphrase from his sermon): There are two kingdoms, both ruled by God, each with it’s Divinely Instituted form of righteousness.

    God rules the Earthly Kingdom according the Second Table of the Law that is identical to the Law revealed , by God, in the minds of men and called Reason. This kingdom includes everything we can see and do in our bodies. It especially includes the visible holy catholic church as a form of god-institute government since all that we can see and do there is done according to the Law of God.

    God rules his Heavenly Kingdom alone by invisible faith in Christ alone. This kingdom utterly excludes anything we can see or do in our bodies. Why? All those things are fully included in that other Earthly Kingdom. This Kingdom is the fullfillment of the First Table of the Decalog that peculiarly deals with movements of the heart that are alone faith in Christ alone and alone can be kept by that faith. Alone.

    The Kingdom of God comes in ways that cannot be seen. How does either kingdom then come?

    The Earthly Kingdom comes with Goodness and Mercy, in, with and under sinful Old Adams, extorted out of them by the second table Law. God’s will in this earthly visible kingdom will be done through the Law either willingly by man , or God will send plagues and pestilence to make us do his Will . So we should fear God and gladly keep the second table of the Law and do mercy and goodness and love to others.

    The heavenly kingdom, the communion of saints, comes only in with and under the Churchly government of the earthly kingdom through the Promise offered in,with and under the Word and Sacraments. Faith clings to that Promise and there , in with and under the ministrations of Old Adams and earthly visible elements, receives the Promised Mercy.

  • Carl Vehse

    blockquote>“I’d rather be ruled by a smart Turk (Muslim) than a stupid Christian.” – Luther

    That’s a bogus quote… an urban legend! Listen to Dr. Gene Veith debunk The Completely Bogus “Wise-Turk-Foolish-Christian” Quote Often Attributed, Falsely, To Martin Luther.

  • Carl Vehse

    blockquote>“I’d rather be ruled by a smart Turk (Muslim) than a stupid Christian.” – Luther

    That’s a bogus quote… an urban legend! Listen to Dr. Gene Veith debunk The Completely Bogus “Wise-Turk-Foolish-Christian” Quote Often Attributed, Falsely, To Martin Luther.

  • http://necessaryroughness.org Dan at Necessary Roughness

    I might vote for a Mormon someday. Just not this Mormon. RomneyCare, global warming, a general morphing of his principles to match the people to whom he’s speaking, all make my skin crawl.

  • http://necessaryroughness.org Dan at Necessary Roughness

    I might vote for a Mormon someday. Just not this Mormon. RomneyCare, global warming, a general morphing of his principles to match the people to whom he’s speaking, all make my skin crawl.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    No, I would not vote for either of these two men at this point.
    I live in Utah where when it comes to local elections it is kind of hard not to vote for a Mormon. Here the LDS hiearchy runs the state. you have to get them to sign off on it if you want any major legislation to make it through. It is suffocating.
    Romney says the church knows its sphere and he knows his. Well that just isn’t true, and anyone living here in Utah knows it, unless they are mormon where they think the legislative arm of the government is their sphere.
    Romney doesn’t appeal to me for many reasons. His mormonism is just one.
    Huntsman did a fairly good job as governor, even managed to get the state to allow for bars, where you don’t have to buy a membership, you can just walk in and have a drink. Opened up the liquor licensing for restaurants a little too. He at least has a record of bucking the LDS hiearchy a little.
    Though he is messed up when he sasy things like “I’m a Christian, I’m a mormon.” You can’t be both Mr. Huntsman. He has come off in his interviews as shallow and wishy washy. He wouldn’t even stand behind a thank you note he wrote to the president, admitting on national television that he wasn’t sincere. If you can’t be sincere in a thank you note, then I don’t have time for you. But sincerity is a problem Mormon’s have and this problem is ingrained in their religion.
    So when he says he shares the same values I have, I’m insulted. We don’t. He doesn’t even know what those values are. One of them I have is being sincere with my thank yous. But he really thinks Christians and Mormons are the same. They aren’t. And they don’t have the same values, even if most of the united states shares this moralistic therapeutic deism, It does manifest itself differently.
    Added to that, any one who reads those books, as has already mentioned, and believes them true, is not smart. I’ve read them. So the smart Turk is out of question there. Anyone who reads them and is smart but still says they are true, is dishonest even with his own family. so you either have too stupid, or too dishonest.
    And both strike me as being exceedingly dishonest at this point.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    No, I would not vote for either of these two men at this point.
    I live in Utah where when it comes to local elections it is kind of hard not to vote for a Mormon. Here the LDS hiearchy runs the state. you have to get them to sign off on it if you want any major legislation to make it through. It is suffocating.
    Romney says the church knows its sphere and he knows his. Well that just isn’t true, and anyone living here in Utah knows it, unless they are mormon where they think the legislative arm of the government is their sphere.
    Romney doesn’t appeal to me for many reasons. His mormonism is just one.
    Huntsman did a fairly good job as governor, even managed to get the state to allow for bars, where you don’t have to buy a membership, you can just walk in and have a drink. Opened up the liquor licensing for restaurants a little too. He at least has a record of bucking the LDS hiearchy a little.
    Though he is messed up when he sasy things like “I’m a Christian, I’m a mormon.” You can’t be both Mr. Huntsman. He has come off in his interviews as shallow and wishy washy. He wouldn’t even stand behind a thank you note he wrote to the president, admitting on national television that he wasn’t sincere. If you can’t be sincere in a thank you note, then I don’t have time for you. But sincerity is a problem Mormon’s have and this problem is ingrained in their religion.
    So when he says he shares the same values I have, I’m insulted. We don’t. He doesn’t even know what those values are. One of them I have is being sincere with my thank yous. But he really thinks Christians and Mormons are the same. They aren’t. And they don’t have the same values, even if most of the united states shares this moralistic therapeutic deism, It does manifest itself differently.
    Added to that, any one who reads those books, as has already mentioned, and believes them true, is not smart. I’ve read them. So the smart Turk is out of question there. Anyone who reads them and is smart but still says they are true, is dishonest even with his own family. so you either have too stupid, or too dishonest.
    And both strike me as being exceedingly dishonest at this point.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    “a general morphing of his principles to match the people to whom he’s speaking, all make my skin crawl.” Welcome to Mormonism.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    “a general morphing of his principles to match the people to whom he’s speaking, all make my skin crawl.” Welcome to Mormonism.

  • SKPeterson

    Is it appropriate to say that Romney’s Mormonism is troubling, but so also is Palin’s Fundamental Restoration of America tour? Too many overtones of Christian Restorationism especially in light of the Star of David she’s taken to wearing.

  • SKPeterson

    Is it appropriate to say that Romney’s Mormonism is troubling, but so also is Palin’s Fundamental Restoration of America tour? Too many overtones of Christian Restorationism especially in light of the Star of David she’s taken to wearing.

  • DonS

    Would refusing to vote against a candidate because he is a Mormon be an example of bigotry? An unconstitutional imposition of a religious test and an establishment of a religion?

    No one above really has answered these two questions from the original post. My answer to the first one is “no”. A person’s faith informs (or should informs) their values, lifestyle, and decision making, so it is a factor that a voter should reasonably consider, without being labeled a bigot. My answer to the second question is also “no”. Governmental entities violate the Constitution, private parties cannot. The Constitution is a check on government, and a means of protection from government for individuals.

    When I make a decision as a voter, I will evaluate the candidates’ faith as a factor, along with everything else I know about each of them. Mormonism is not a positive factor for me, but I will still vote for a Mormon if I believe, in the aggregate, that the Mormon will more closely govern in accordance with my political philosophy.

    Many conservative Christians put their political principles aside to vote for “born again” Jimmy Carter in 1976, on the basis of his declared faith. They very much regretted doing so when they realized that, despite his faith, he was a wretched president. It is very much a mistake to be a one issue voter.

  • DonS

    Would refusing to vote against a candidate because he is a Mormon be an example of bigotry? An unconstitutional imposition of a religious test and an establishment of a religion?

    No one above really has answered these two questions from the original post. My answer to the first one is “no”. A person’s faith informs (or should informs) their values, lifestyle, and decision making, so it is a factor that a voter should reasonably consider, without being labeled a bigot. My answer to the second question is also “no”. Governmental entities violate the Constitution, private parties cannot. The Constitution is a check on government, and a means of protection from government for individuals.

    When I make a decision as a voter, I will evaluate the candidates’ faith as a factor, along with everything else I know about each of them. Mormonism is not a positive factor for me, but I will still vote for a Mormon if I believe, in the aggregate, that the Mormon will more closely govern in accordance with my political philosophy.

    Many conservative Christians put their political principles aside to vote for “born again” Jimmy Carter in 1976, on the basis of his declared faith. They very much regretted doing so when they realized that, despite his faith, he was a wretched president. It is very much a mistake to be a one issue voter.

  • Jonathan

    But Mormons are great pragmatists, right? Able to adapt? Wouldn’t you want that in a leader, someone who can make things work despite the apparent obstacles?

  • Jonathan

    But Mormons are great pragmatists, right? Able to adapt? Wouldn’t you want that in a leader, someone who can make things work despite the apparent obstacles?

  • Jon

    “I’d rather be ruled by a smart Turk (Muslim) than a stupid Christian.” – Luther

    I’ll buy that Luther didn’t say it, but do you suppose whoever did was warning us not to vote for Sarah (Revere was warnin’ the British) Palin? But on the LDS question, I frankly see no difference between Mormons and the religious right. The theology isn’t the same, but the two groups largely share the same governing philosophy, worldview, etc. The Mormons might be a little more tolerant of science, though.

  • Jon

    “I’d rather be ruled by a smart Turk (Muslim) than a stupid Christian.” – Luther

    I’ll buy that Luther didn’t say it, but do you suppose whoever did was warning us not to vote for Sarah (Revere was warnin’ the British) Palin? But on the LDS question, I frankly see no difference between Mormons and the religious right. The theology isn’t the same, but the two groups largely share the same governing philosophy, worldview, etc. The Mormons might be a little more tolerant of science, though.

  • larry

    Can a Christian vote in the final analysis for two candidates that are either implicilty or explicitly not Christians is the real issue.

    I suppose once the primaries are locked in all one has is their civic duty and all one can do is best weigh the options as to governing and “hold the nose” while pulling the lever.

    What we do KNOW is that Christians can and should and are commended to serve even in a rank and overt pagan nation. What we are talking about here appears to be “the best pagan” or “heretic heresy” follower possibly, as to abilities, be selected but who would simultaneously NOT confuse the two Kingdoms more than necessary (e.g. Utah, Med. Rome, Calvin’s Geneva, etc…).

    And no I’m NOT promoting Romney, he is not on my “selection list” in the Rep. party at all and I hope he is not the candidate.

  • larry

    Can a Christian vote in the final analysis for two candidates that are either implicilty or explicitly not Christians is the real issue.

    I suppose once the primaries are locked in all one has is their civic duty and all one can do is best weigh the options as to governing and “hold the nose” while pulling the lever.

    What we do KNOW is that Christians can and should and are commended to serve even in a rank and overt pagan nation. What we are talking about here appears to be “the best pagan” or “heretic heresy” follower possibly, as to abilities, be selected but who would simultaneously NOT confuse the two Kingdoms more than necessary (e.g. Utah, Med. Rome, Calvin’s Geneva, etc…).

    And no I’m NOT promoting Romney, he is not on my “selection list” in the Rep. party at all and I hope he is not the candidate.

  • http://gslcnm.com Pastor Phil Spomer

    I would happily vote for an atheist, or an agnostic. They don’t call themselves Christians.
    The problem isn’t a Mormon president pre se. It’s all the rhetoric surrounding it. Mormons will say that they’re Christians, and when someone says otherwise, the whole political class will accuse that person of bigotry.

  • http://gslcnm.com Pastor Phil Spomer

    I would happily vote for an atheist, or an agnostic. They don’t call themselves Christians.
    The problem isn’t a Mormon president pre se. It’s all the rhetoric surrounding it. Mormons will say that they’re Christians, and when someone says otherwise, the whole political class will accuse that person of bigotry.

  • steve

    Bottom line for me is that if Romney’s policies match my views more closely than the others; if Romney has no other issues or skeletons that would reduce his chances of winning the general elections, I would vote for him. However, that last bit is probably the crux of the issue. I wouldn’t put it past the Democrats to highlight his Mormon religion and try to use it as a wedge to divide the opposition.

    I’ve had my fill of candidates and presidents who where their supposedly “Christian” religion on their sleeves to pander for Christian votes. It would be refreshing, for once, to hear from a politician who firmly believes in their own religion and won’t back away from it despite the fact that it’s not the “majority religion”, whatever that is.

  • steve

    Bottom line for me is that if Romney’s policies match my views more closely than the others; if Romney has no other issues or skeletons that would reduce his chances of winning the general elections, I would vote for him. However, that last bit is probably the crux of the issue. I wouldn’t put it past the Democrats to highlight his Mormon religion and try to use it as a wedge to divide the opposition.

    I’ve had my fill of candidates and presidents who where their supposedly “Christian” religion on their sleeves to pander for Christian votes. It would be refreshing, for once, to hear from a politician who firmly believes in their own religion and won’t back away from it despite the fact that it’s not the “majority religion”, whatever that is.

  • steve

    The above should have said “wear their supposedly “Christian” religion”…

  • steve

    The above should have said “wear their supposedly “Christian” religion”…

  • utahrainbow

    This isn’t just about voting for someone who doesn’t share your faith. What is important here, I think, is where LDS theology and politics intersect. Here is a quote from a Mormon PhD:
    “This land and nation chosen and protected by God, exists by the Constitutional Rights of ‘freedom’ assured by prophecy and by promise, for the express purpose of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the Restoration of the Gospel and Church of Jesus Christ…Promised freedoms by God can only be secured by a “responsibility” upon those who live in the Land of Promise. Just as Captain Moroni rallied the concerned inhabitants of the Promised Land; a non-denominational “Title of Liberty” needs to again be raised over this Promised Land for the protection and security of “our God, and our religion, and feedom and our peace, our wives and our children…”

    I know the quotes are obnoxious, but that’s how I found it in a local event promotion of a ‘Conference on Ancient American History’. The problem for governing lies in that many Mormons believe that the Constitution is divinely inspired. And the Founders nearly divine themselves. However, it is certainly true that not ALL mormons hold to these beliefs, as this article shows (but the artwork is a good example of a common Mormon view of America):
    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51706707-78/mcnaughton-byu-painting-bookstore.html.csp

    Of the two, Huntsman is preferable. I think he was a good governor, and, like Bror said, knew when to buck the predominant mormon group-think in the legislature when needed.

    It’s also true that there are some Christians who might hold a similar view about the Constitution, so that would concern me equally.

  • utahrainbow

    This isn’t just about voting for someone who doesn’t share your faith. What is important here, I think, is where LDS theology and politics intersect. Here is a quote from a Mormon PhD:
    “This land and nation chosen and protected by God, exists by the Constitutional Rights of ‘freedom’ assured by prophecy and by promise, for the express purpose of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the Restoration of the Gospel and Church of Jesus Christ…Promised freedoms by God can only be secured by a “responsibility” upon those who live in the Land of Promise. Just as Captain Moroni rallied the concerned inhabitants of the Promised Land; a non-denominational “Title of Liberty” needs to again be raised over this Promised Land for the protection and security of “our God, and our religion, and feedom and our peace, our wives and our children…”

    I know the quotes are obnoxious, but that’s how I found it in a local event promotion of a ‘Conference on Ancient American History’. The problem for governing lies in that many Mormons believe that the Constitution is divinely inspired. And the Founders nearly divine themselves. However, it is certainly true that not ALL mormons hold to these beliefs, as this article shows (but the artwork is a good example of a common Mormon view of America):
    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/51706707-78/mcnaughton-byu-painting-bookstore.html.csp

    Of the two, Huntsman is preferable. I think he was a good governor, and, like Bror said, knew when to buck the predominant mormon group-think in the legislature when needed.

    It’s also true that there are some Christians who might hold a similar view about the Constitution, so that would concern me equally.

  • utahrainbow

    By the way, the word is Huntsman went to a Lutheran school here for a short while. Might just be a rumor, though…

  • utahrainbow

    By the way, the word is Huntsman went to a Lutheran school here for a short while. Might just be a rumor, though…

  • DonS

    The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, is a Mormon. Regardless of the many, many shortcomings in his political leadership, I don’t see that his Mormonism has had a particularly big impact in his governing style. I would expect that would be the same for either Romney or Huntsman. Which is why I regard Mormonism as a factor in evaluating a candidate, but probably not a decisive one if his/her overall governing philosophy more closely matches mine.

  • DonS

    The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, is a Mormon. Regardless of the many, many shortcomings in his political leadership, I don’t see that his Mormonism has had a particularly big impact in his governing style. I would expect that would be the same for either Romney or Huntsman. Which is why I regard Mormonism as a factor in evaluating a candidate, but probably not a decisive one if his/her overall governing philosophy more closely matches mine.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Dan Kempin (#12),

    No, Dan. I don’t know where it was that quote was taken from, but I believe it to be true. I have heard it from Lutheran pastors (forever) and it sounds like Luther.

    Maybe someone else here can pinpoint it’s origin.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com Steve Martin

    Dan Kempin (#12),

    No, Dan. I don’t know where it was that quote was taken from, but I believe it to be true. I have heard it from Lutheran pastors (forever) and it sounds like Luther.

    Maybe someone else here can pinpoint it’s origin.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Utah Rainbow,
    Thanks for sharing that link. There are many things I love about Utah. The news programing, the newspapers, and this kind of junk being sold ubiquitously throughout the state are not things I enjoy about Utah. It’s suffocating.
    I dearly cherish the U.S. Constitution, but making it divinely inspired is a bit over the top. It did have to be amended a few times…. Ohe wait that doesn’t matter, because what you believe today could change tomorrow, it all depends on what the latest revelation is. Which again makes voting Mormon just a bit dangerous. you might have a handle on what he believes today and be comfortable with that (though how you would be is another matter) who knows what the guy will believe tomorrow. On going revelation is a humdinger. This actually undermines the Constitution and its normative value on politics if you take Mormon religion seriously. The Book of Mormon they believe is divinely inspired but it determines not for them who God is, or what is right and wrong. The LDS faith flatly contradicts the Book of Mormon, and makes no bones about it. If they can play that fast and loose with the BOM, what do you think they could do with the Constitution?

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Utah Rainbow,
    Thanks for sharing that link. There are many things I love about Utah. The news programing, the newspapers, and this kind of junk being sold ubiquitously throughout the state are not things I enjoy about Utah. It’s suffocating.
    I dearly cherish the U.S. Constitution, but making it divinely inspired is a bit over the top. It did have to be amended a few times…. Ohe wait that doesn’t matter, because what you believe today could change tomorrow, it all depends on what the latest revelation is. Which again makes voting Mormon just a bit dangerous. you might have a handle on what he believes today and be comfortable with that (though how you would be is another matter) who knows what the guy will believe tomorrow. On going revelation is a humdinger. This actually undermines the Constitution and its normative value on politics if you take Mormon religion seriously. The Book of Mormon they believe is divinely inspired but it determines not for them who God is, or what is right and wrong. The LDS faith flatly contradicts the Book of Mormon, and makes no bones about it. If they can play that fast and loose with the BOM, what do you think they could do with the Constitution?

  • utahrainbow

    That’s true, Bror, maybe its just all part of the evolving Mormon landscape. It’s possible that this reverence for the Constitution is a more recent, “revealed” phenomenon. And yes, definitely suffocating. How do you turn a Republican into a Democrat? Provided they aren’t Mormon, move to Utah. :)

  • utahrainbow

    That’s true, Bror, maybe its just all part of the evolving Mormon landscape. It’s possible that this reverence for the Constitution is a more recent, “revealed” phenomenon. And yes, definitely suffocating. How do you turn a Republican into a Democrat? Provided they aren’t Mormon, move to Utah. :)

  • Jonathan

    @31, That last line of the quote just really stuck out, didn’t it? “our peace, our wives and our children….”

    I mean, why emphasize plural WIVES and children? Couldn’t he just have said “our families”?

  • Jonathan

    @31, That last line of the quote just really stuck out, didn’t it? “our peace, our wives and our children….”

    I mean, why emphasize plural WIVES and children? Couldn’t he just have said “our families”?

  • SKPeterson

    Jonathan @37 – or just said “our wives and children” which would be more akin to “families,” without raising the polygyny flags.

  • SKPeterson

    Jonathan @37 – or just said “our wives and children” which would be more akin to “families,” without raising the polygyny flags.

  • utahrainbow

    @37 & 38
    Got me. Maybe he’s a closet polygamist. That, of course, is not officially okay. Here’s the website. Bruce H. Porter, PhD is his name.
    http://www.ldspromisedland.com

    From what I can tell, he’s a Dr. trying to make a buck or two.

  • utahrainbow

    @37 & 38
    Got me. Maybe he’s a closet polygamist. That, of course, is not officially okay. Here’s the website. Bruce H. Porter, PhD is his name.
    http://www.ldspromisedland.com

    From what I can tell, he’s a Dr. trying to make a buck or two.

  • utahrainbow

    Of course, this is a bit of guilt-by-association as I do not know nor necessarily think that Romney or Huntsman believe these things. I’m just trying to show that Mormonism can have a very political element.

  • utahrainbow

    Of course, this is a bit of guilt-by-association as I do not know nor necessarily think that Romney or Huntsman believe these things. I’m just trying to show that Mormonism can have a very political element.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    I wouldn’t vote for him, but it’s more about his double standards than his Mormonism (the whole gay marriage thing happened on his watch, and his push for state health care).

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    I wouldn’t vote for him, but it’s more about his double standards than his Mormonism (the whole gay marriage thing happened on his watch, and his push for state health care).

  • Bryan Lindemood

    There are certainly also some in the American Evangelical contingent who hold strangely similar views about the chosen state of America and its divinely inspired constitution. I would have similar misgivings about voting for them too for federal rule.

  • Bryan Lindemood

    There are certainly also some in the American Evangelical contingent who hold strangely similar views about the chosen state of America and its divinely inspired constitution. I would have similar misgivings about voting for them too for federal rule.

  • http://cosmithb.wordpress.com Bob Smith

    For the record, Mitt Romney not only claims to be a Mormon, but a devout one:
    “The ex-governor says questions about his faith are fair to ask. Some queries he answers directly. “I don’t drink alcohol, I don’t smoke, I don’t drink coffee or tea. I also do a tithe,” he says, meaning he donates 10% of his income to the church. All are church requirements.

    Romney responds more generally when asked if he has participated in an endowment ceremony, in which men and women take vows of secrecy about temple rites and of obedience to the Lord, and begin the daily practice of wearing a sacred “temple garment” resembling abbreviated long underwear.

    “I do attend the temple of my church … and people can learn about that by contacting the church,” he says, adding: “I’m sure on the Internet you can find every single aspect of what’s entailed.””
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-12-romney-cover_x.htm

  • http://cosmithb.wordpress.com Bob Smith

    For the record, Mitt Romney not only claims to be a Mormon, but a devout one:
    “The ex-governor says questions about his faith are fair to ask. Some queries he answers directly. “I don’t drink alcohol, I don’t smoke, I don’t drink coffee or tea. I also do a tithe,” he says, meaning he donates 10% of his income to the church. All are church requirements.

    Romney responds more generally when asked if he has participated in an endowment ceremony, in which men and women take vows of secrecy about temple rites and of obedience to the Lord, and begin the daily practice of wearing a sacred “temple garment” resembling abbreviated long underwear.

    “I do attend the temple of my church … and people can learn about that by contacting the church,” he says, adding: “I’m sure on the Internet you can find every single aspect of what’s entailed.””
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-02-12-romney-cover_x.htm

  • Jon

    For those who know, does LDS “reverence” for the Constitution include all the amendments? All the case law the interprets it?

    Isn’t the question, how would a candidate’s church teaching affect his or her judgment? The LCMS, for example, teaches that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, citing Luther’s treaties. Would a US president, who is LCMS, have to believe and act on that teaching? Would it be fair game for his or her opponent to raise, so that Catholic voters could know it?
    Michelle Bachmann, I have heard, resigned from the WELS over the issue. She said she could no longer acknowledge that the Bishop of Rome is the anti-Christ.

  • Jon

    For those who know, does LDS “reverence” for the Constitution include all the amendments? All the case law the interprets it?

    Isn’t the question, how would a candidate’s church teaching affect his or her judgment? The LCMS, for example, teaches that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, citing Luther’s treaties. Would a US president, who is LCMS, have to believe and act on that teaching? Would it be fair game for his or her opponent to raise, so that Catholic voters could know it?
    Michelle Bachmann, I have heard, resigned from the WELS over the issue. She said she could no longer acknowledge that the Bishop of Rome is the anti-Christ.

  • Jon

    Sorry for the typos – Second line should read: “All the case law that interprets it.” And 3d line, 2d paragraph should read “treatises,” not “treaties.”

  • Jon

    Sorry for the typos – Second line should read: “All the case law that interprets it.” And 3d line, 2d paragraph should read “treatises,” not “treaties.”

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    @41,
    Interesting about the gay marriage bit. Of course the LDS has funded campaigns against gay marriage. At the same time as that becomes more acceptable, we have polygamists using it as a basis to challenge marital laws in general. It’s quite the phenomenon. Something a long the line if a man can be married to another man, why can’t he be married to more than one woman?
    Of course, the mainstream LDS has it in their interest to suppress the polygamist groups as much as possible these days, but many of the rank and file are sympathetic to them. So one has to wonder where Mitt Romney stand in all that and why. It’s all a mess.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    @41,
    Interesting about the gay marriage bit. Of course the LDS has funded campaigns against gay marriage. At the same time as that becomes more acceptable, we have polygamists using it as a basis to challenge marital laws in general. It’s quite the phenomenon. Something a long the line if a man can be married to another man, why can’t he be married to more than one woman?
    Of course, the mainstream LDS has it in their interest to suppress the polygamist groups as much as possible these days, but many of the rank and file are sympathetic to them. So one has to wonder where Mitt Romney stand in all that and why. It’s all a mess.

  • Cincinnatus

    I’ll be honest: all the cryptic speculations on here regarding a potential Mormon President–that he would like to unbelievers (i.e., the American public), that he would attempt to legalize polygamy, etc.–resemble the (unfounded) suspicions that plagued our first Catholic President–specifically, that he would prioritize his “allegiance” to the Pope over American interests.

    I just don’t see it. As I said, average Mormonism in practice resembles Christian social conservatism more than anything else. Am I right? As others have noted, the real problems with Romney have little, if anything, to do with his religious background.

  • Cincinnatus

    I’ll be honest: all the cryptic speculations on here regarding a potential Mormon President–that he would like to unbelievers (i.e., the American public), that he would attempt to legalize polygamy, etc.–resemble the (unfounded) suspicions that plagued our first Catholic President–specifically, that he would prioritize his “allegiance” to the Pope over American interests.

    I just don’t see it. As I said, average Mormonism in practice resembles Christian social conservatism more than anything else. Am I right? As others have noted, the real problems with Romney have little, if anything, to do with his religious background.

  • http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/ Carol-Christian Soldier

    Bolton-Bachmann-
    Bachmann-Bolton-
    no more elitists Rs – and please don’t give mte the R talk of-
    if we don’t vote for romnye-newt-etc etc etc. a democrat will win-
    w/ the elitists – there is no difference-
    R elitists are D lite–
    whew-I just made that phrase up-I like it…
    C-CS

  • http://carolmsblog.blogspot.com/ Carol-Christian Soldier

    Bolton-Bachmann-
    Bachmann-Bolton-
    no more elitists Rs – and please don’t give mte the R talk of-
    if we don’t vote for romnye-newt-etc etc etc. a democrat will win-
    w/ the elitists – there is no difference-
    R elitists are D lite–
    whew-I just made that phrase up-I like it…
    C-CS

  • Booklover

    I am sorry that I had read the supposed Luther “wise Turk” quote (not just online, but in books!) so often that I believed it.

    Dr. Veith already discussed this apparently untrue quote in a 4-year-old blog entry of 2/21/07. Scroll down about 4/5 of the way and you will find it:

    http://www.geneveith.com/archives-from-old-blog-site-jan-2007-october-26-2007/

  • Booklover

    I am sorry that I had read the supposed Luther “wise Turk” quote (not just online, but in books!) so often that I believed it.

    Dr. Veith already discussed this apparently untrue quote in a 4-year-old blog entry of 2/21/07. Scroll down about 4/5 of the way and you will find it:

    http://www.geneveith.com/archives-from-old-blog-site-jan-2007-october-26-2007/

  • Cincinnatus

    Well, since Luther didn’t say it, the quote clearly has nothing to teach us.

  • Cincinnatus

    Well, since Luther didn’t say it, the quote clearly has nothing to teach us.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I would rather have a smart Turk than a dumb Christian”

    In the context of the 1500′s, I would not because the Turks were enemies.

    I would not rather be ruled by a smart enemy than a dumb friend.

    Which makes me ask, are Mormons enemies? In our current cultural context, I would not count Mormons as enemies, so there is no problem voting for them.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I would rather have a smart Turk than a dumb Christian”

    In the context of the 1500′s, I would not because the Turks were enemies.

    I would not rather be ruled by a smart enemy than a dumb friend.

    Which makes me ask, are Mormons enemies? In our current cultural context, I would not count Mormons as enemies, so there is no problem voting for them.

  • steve

    Cincinnatus, #50:

    Good point but I would respond: not necessarily. The same response I would give if someone said “if Luther said it, we should learn from it”. Although, granted, I’m not a Lutheran.

    Since this statement is being bounced around in relation to a Mormon, I think an apropos question for the group would be, would you yourself vote for a wise and competent Muslim? If not, then the statement, true or not, is pointless.

  • steve

    Cincinnatus, #50:

    Good point but I would respond: not necessarily. The same response I would give if someone said “if Luther said it, we should learn from it”. Although, granted, I’m not a Lutheran.

    Since this statement is being bounced around in relation to a Mormon, I think an apropos question for the group would be, would you yourself vote for a wise and competent Muslim? If not, then the statement, true or not, is pointless.

  • Cincinnatus

    sg: But that is committing a fallacious appeal to authority. It is not worth learning from a statement simply because someone we view as authoritative said it. The statement should stand on its own merits.

    Accordingly, taking the statement at face value, regardless of who said it, I agree with you. To wit, I would have no problem voting for a Mormon. But I do not think personal religious convictions are irrelevant, of course. Thus, my willingness to vote for a Muslim would certainly depend upon what kind of Muslim. There are certainly moderate, pro-democratic, pro-American Muslims for whom I would have few or no qualms voting. For example, I would not vote for this man: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15613050/ns/politics/t/first-muslim-elected-congress/

    But the reasons for withholding my vote from this representative have nothing to do with his religious but rather his political convictions.

  • Cincinnatus

    sg: But that is committing a fallacious appeal to authority. It is not worth learning from a statement simply because someone we view as authoritative said it. The statement should stand on its own merits.

    Accordingly, taking the statement at face value, regardless of who said it, I agree with you. To wit, I would have no problem voting for a Mormon. But I do not think personal religious convictions are irrelevant, of course. Thus, my willingness to vote for a Muslim would certainly depend upon what kind of Muslim. There are certainly moderate, pro-democratic, pro-American Muslims for whom I would have few or no qualms voting. For example, I would not vote for this man: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15613050/ns/politics/t/first-muslim-elected-congress/

    But the reasons for withholding my vote from this representative have nothing to do with his religious but rather his political convictions.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    cincinatus and sg and 51 & 52

    As far as I can tell, “turk” is a standin for “non christian”. since everyone was baptized in europe, Luther ‘in love” addressed the baptized as christians.

    so when Luther says “turk” feel free to insert all the various labels we have for those who are not christian here in the usa. there was no such equivalent in his age and country.

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    cincinatus and sg and 51 & 52

    As far as I can tell, “turk” is a standin for “non christian”. since everyone was baptized in europe, Luther ‘in love” addressed the baptized as christians.

    so when Luther says “turk” feel free to insert all the various labels we have for those who are not christian here in the usa. there was no such equivalent in his age and country.

  • George A. Marquart

    The closest I could come is:
    Ohne Verstand, Weisheit und Gesetze können weder Türken noch Tataren leben und haushalten.

    Without understanding, wisdom and laws, neither Turks nor Tartars could govern.

    But I have been unable to find where Martin Luther wrote this, or said it.

    George A. Marquart

  • George A. Marquart

    The closest I could come is:
    Ohne Verstand, Weisheit und Gesetze können weder Türken noch Tataren leben und haushalten.

    Without understanding, wisdom and laws, neither Turks nor Tartars could govern.

    But I have been unable to find where Martin Luther wrote this, or said it.

    George A. Marquart

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    george @ 55

    indeed this had important implications George. Luther felt, along with our confessions, that turks could do ALL righeousness except have faith that was personal trust that Jesus paid for their sins.

    The confessions say that the law is revealed to men in their reason. In the confessions reason=natural law. so the second table law, and even the “outward” expressions of the first table, such as having faith in a god, etc can be fully done by turks . This is the earthly kingdom.

    the only thing then in the heavenly kingdom is alone invisible faith alone in christ alone, since ALL other righteousness is already FULLY in that other visible earthly kingdom that is of the Law and old adam and not faith.

    and both kingdoms come in a way that cannot be seen (Jesus in the gospel of luke…) in the earthly kingdom God works in with and under old adam extorting his goodness and mercy out of them with the law. this is especially true in church.

    in the heavenly kingdom God works in with and under the earthly governance of the church through word and sacrament. in with and under those words and sacraments is the Promise that faith clings to and receives the promised mercy. (apology art IV)

  • http://www.thirduse.com fws

    george @ 55

    indeed this had important implications George. Luther felt, along with our confessions, that turks could do ALL righeousness except have faith that was personal trust that Jesus paid for their sins.

    The confessions say that the law is revealed to men in their reason. In the confessions reason=natural law. so the second table law, and even the “outward” expressions of the first table, such as having faith in a god, etc can be fully done by turks . This is the earthly kingdom.

    the only thing then in the heavenly kingdom is alone invisible faith alone in christ alone, since ALL other righteousness is already FULLY in that other visible earthly kingdom that is of the Law and old adam and not faith.

    and both kingdoms come in a way that cannot be seen (Jesus in the gospel of luke…) in the earthly kingdom God works in with and under old adam extorting his goodness and mercy out of them with the law. this is especially true in church.

    in the heavenly kingdom God works in with and under the earthly governance of the church through word and sacrament. in with and under those words and sacraments is the Promise that faith clings to and receives the promised mercy. (apology art IV)

  • larry

    Also confused in this discussion is the term Christian which has been numerous times, alluded to at least, as “Christian ethic” or “Christian morality” or the like. But that’s not a Christian, that’s simply a created creature believer and unbeliever alike. The Law is written on ALL hearts without exception, baptism is not.

    Thus the point about voting on the basis of like earthly ruling ideals is well made, though too often inadvertently mingled with referring to these as “Christian ideals”.

    Another thing confounded is the underlying binding of the conscience via an implied law that wishes to reassert hiddenly, even by accident, that there is some other righteousness that prevails before God in a lot of this discussion as to one’s voting decision. We find it in the implied question, “CAN” or “MAY” a Christian vote for a Mormon? First, that’s a “law” question and not a Gospel question. Thus, in our system of governance and given the Gospel, there is a certain sense of freedom here that goes like this, ‘yes a Christian may for doing this neither harms the righteousness they have in Christ toward God, nor aids it’. There is a certain “sin boldly but believe all the more boldly” here. This is at the end of the realm of wisdom but the Christian has the added aided by faith. Aided by faith meaning FREE so that whether one does or does not is in fact irrelevant pertaining to the righteousness one has before God pro me via Christ alone, thus HERE reason is free to be wise and vote for or against any candidate based on well reasoned wisdom as to governing. I.e. the Christian in faith need not worry about hope of reward or dread of punishment based on his or her vote.

    Now could any given president be THE president that shuts down the church and thus the Gospel in this country? Not likely one, perhaps an organic underlying movement on both sides but not likely one due to the balance of powers (a bigger ship to manipulate). But hell, why would the devil want to do that, we already increasingly put a very low value on doctrine. From the devil’s point of view if it ain’t broke don’t fix it, this is far more successful than sword persecution which tends to fertilize the church and the Gospel as opposed to poisoning it outright as loose doctrine does.

    This later issue may be the real rub for Romney when he portrays himself AS a Christian but then is unbaptized as a Christian. For his works, the norm by which most sects determine one’s true Christianity (thus one could understand Romney’s confusion here), from all known appearances and actions would pass him as signs of “being saved/elect” etc… After all that IS what passes for proof among sects as “Christian for sure”, or at least highly likely. But he’s not baptized in the name of the holy Trinity and of course that brings up the defense of the sacraments and we know how that goes. Yet, when Romney asserts he’s Christian as a Mormon with all his good works and 99% of that which parades itself around AS Christian, AS saved, AS born again, AS elect, AS truly converted is the same “fruits of good works” – then one can understand why Romney might wonder, “Why don’t they then think I’m a Christian?”

    Thus, the public discussion as to what is and what makes the “Christian voting block” that gets confounded over into “what is a Christian” is all about good works when all is said and done, just ask your pagan friends they will tell you honestly.

  • larry

    Also confused in this discussion is the term Christian which has been numerous times, alluded to at least, as “Christian ethic” or “Christian morality” or the like. But that’s not a Christian, that’s simply a created creature believer and unbeliever alike. The Law is written on ALL hearts without exception, baptism is not.

    Thus the point about voting on the basis of like earthly ruling ideals is well made, though too often inadvertently mingled with referring to these as “Christian ideals”.

    Another thing confounded is the underlying binding of the conscience via an implied law that wishes to reassert hiddenly, even by accident, that there is some other righteousness that prevails before God in a lot of this discussion as to one’s voting decision. We find it in the implied question, “CAN” or “MAY” a Christian vote for a Mormon? First, that’s a “law” question and not a Gospel question. Thus, in our system of governance and given the Gospel, there is a certain sense of freedom here that goes like this, ‘yes a Christian may for doing this neither harms the righteousness they have in Christ toward God, nor aids it’. There is a certain “sin boldly but believe all the more boldly” here. This is at the end of the realm of wisdom but the Christian has the added aided by faith. Aided by faith meaning FREE so that whether one does or does not is in fact irrelevant pertaining to the righteousness one has before God pro me via Christ alone, thus HERE reason is free to be wise and vote for or against any candidate based on well reasoned wisdom as to governing. I.e. the Christian in faith need not worry about hope of reward or dread of punishment based on his or her vote.

    Now could any given president be THE president that shuts down the church and thus the Gospel in this country? Not likely one, perhaps an organic underlying movement on both sides but not likely one due to the balance of powers (a bigger ship to manipulate). But hell, why would the devil want to do that, we already increasingly put a very low value on doctrine. From the devil’s point of view if it ain’t broke don’t fix it, this is far more successful than sword persecution which tends to fertilize the church and the Gospel as opposed to poisoning it outright as loose doctrine does.

    This later issue may be the real rub for Romney when he portrays himself AS a Christian but then is unbaptized as a Christian. For his works, the norm by which most sects determine one’s true Christianity (thus one could understand Romney’s confusion here), from all known appearances and actions would pass him as signs of “being saved/elect” etc… After all that IS what passes for proof among sects as “Christian for sure”, or at least highly likely. But he’s not baptized in the name of the holy Trinity and of course that brings up the defense of the sacraments and we know how that goes. Yet, when Romney asserts he’s Christian as a Mormon with all his good works and 99% of that which parades itself around AS Christian, AS saved, AS born again, AS elect, AS truly converted is the same “fruits of good works” – then one can understand why Romney might wonder, “Why don’t they then think I’m a Christian?”

    Thus, the public discussion as to what is and what makes the “Christian voting block” that gets confounded over into “what is a Christian” is all about good works when all is said and done, just ask your pagan friends they will tell you honestly.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “sg: But that is committing a fallacious appeal to authority. It is not worth learning from a statement simply because someone we view as authoritative said it. The statement should stand on its own merits.”

    Yes, of course. I agree.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “sg: But that is committing a fallacious appeal to authority. It is not worth learning from a statement simply because someone we view as authoritative said it. The statement should stand on its own merits.”

    Yes, of course. I agree.

  • helmut hopton

    I would not. . i. have lived in utah as a non mormon raised three children non mormon . if you want your politics , with mormon beliefs vote for amorman

  • helmut hopton

    I would not. . i. have lived in utah as a non mormon raised three children non mormon . if you want your politics , with mormon beliefs vote for amorman

  • Kathy

    Anyone who casts an “Anyone but Mitt” vote because of his religion is exhibiting the height of anti-USA tenets and traditions, is against a hallmark of democracy — freedom of religion. I’d be ashamed if the narrow minded conservatives voted for a hothead (Newt) over the best solution to today’s problems (Mitt). Moderates and Independents will NOT vote for Newt. So, take your pick. Win the battle and nominate Newt, or offer a candidate who’ll win. If Obama wins, the conservatives deserve four more years of the big government, spend your money, entitlement focused president we now have. Problem is: the rest of us don’t deserve Obama.

  • Kathy

    Anyone who casts an “Anyone but Mitt” vote because of his religion is exhibiting the height of anti-USA tenets and traditions, is against a hallmark of democracy — freedom of religion. I’d be ashamed if the narrow minded conservatives voted for a hothead (Newt) over the best solution to today’s problems (Mitt). Moderates and Independents will NOT vote for Newt. So, take your pick. Win the battle and nominate Newt, or offer a candidate who’ll win. If Obama wins, the conservatives deserve four more years of the big government, spend your money, entitlement focused president we now have. Problem is: the rest of us don’t deserve Obama.

  • tom cramp

    The lesser of 2 evils is still evil. Christians are spinless people, here’s a chance to “practice what you preach” Obama has 1 wife, no divorces or adulty like Newt, says he is a Christian, but no , they vote for a cult member, they only reason Mitt doesn’t have many wives is because of a state law. Santorum was worried about birth control when his own preist could NOT control themselves around little boys. Practice what you preach!

    What Does Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney Really Believe?

    He believes that Jesus Christ is Satan’s brother.
    He believes that God lives near a planet called “Kolob.”
    He believes in baptizing dead people.
    He believes that Jesus is married to a goddess wife.
    He believes that The Garden of Eden was in Missouri.
    He believes that it was impossible for Negroes to go to Heaven before 1978.
    He believes that Jesus has children from his wife or wives.
    He believes that he is going to become a god.
    He believes he will own his own personal planet after he dies.
    He believes the real Christian God is not eternal but rather that He was once a man on some other planet besides Earth!
    He believes he needs to wear magical underwear created by Mormons and he is never to take it off unless he is bathing.
    He believes it is a sin to drink anything containing caffeine. And that even includes True American™ drinks like Coca-Cola!
    He believes children between the ages of 18-21 should wear name badges, ride bicycles and always smile.

  • tom cramp

    The lesser of 2 evils is still evil. Christians are spinless people, here’s a chance to “practice what you preach” Obama has 1 wife, no divorces or adulty like Newt, says he is a Christian, but no , they vote for a cult member, they only reason Mitt doesn’t have many wives is because of a state law. Santorum was worried about birth control when his own preist could NOT control themselves around little boys. Practice what you preach!

    What Does Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney Really Believe?

    He believes that Jesus Christ is Satan’s brother.
    He believes that God lives near a planet called “Kolob.”
    He believes in baptizing dead people.
    He believes that Jesus is married to a goddess wife.
    He believes that The Garden of Eden was in Missouri.
    He believes that it was impossible for Negroes to go to Heaven before 1978.
    He believes that Jesus has children from his wife or wives.
    He believes that he is going to become a god.
    He believes he will own his own personal planet after he dies.
    He believes the real Christian God is not eternal but rather that He was once a man on some other planet besides Earth!
    He believes he needs to wear magical underwear created by Mormons and he is never to take it off unless he is bathing.
    He believes it is a sin to drink anything containing caffeine. And that even includes True American™ drinks like Coca-Cola!
    He believes children between the ages of 18-21 should wear name badges, ride bicycles and always smile.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X