The Evangelical Politics of Romney's faith

The Evangelical Politics of Romney's faith June 1, 2011

The thing I like least about Evangelicals of a certain mindset is the way they go around throwing everybody out of the boat – the way Warren Cole Smith does in his recent post “A vote for Romney is a vote for the LDS Church.”

Smith says that Mitt Romney’s religious worldview will be vital to his governing philosophy, and thus shouldn’t be overlooked when discerning whether evangelicals ought to vote for him or not.

Specifically, Smith takes to task conservatives who were dismissive of Romney’s religious beliefs in the last election: “If we were endorsing Mr. Romney for head of the Southern Baptist Convention,” said Paul Weyrich, “the objections of Evangelical Christians would be wholly appropriate. Be we are not.” Smith notes that Weyrich eventually retracted his endorsement of Mitt Romney, and begged forgiveness from social conservatives.

Personally, I might have told them to kiss my shiny white-hiney, but then again, I can be belligerent that way.

To be clear the only people who consider me a conservative are West-Coast lefties who can’t understand how a person can love Jesus and think at the same time. The minute they discover I’m a Christian, they assume that I’m a fan of She-who-will-not-be-named-who-had-lunch-with-Donald-Trump.

I am not. And in fact, I’ve forbidden myself from ever using her real name in public again. I’ve learned it’s like dropping the F-bomb. Whenever you say it, you offend somebody. And in the sake of Paul’s admonition to not offend, I simply don’t say her name, but you know who I’m talking about.

The arrogance inherent in such an assumption is as bad as the self-righteousness inherent in Smith’s argument, which he sums up this way: The Christian world-view 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?

Oh. Yeah. Right, buddy, because Evangelicals never, ever change their minds on things, do they? Wonder where Smith has been while the battle around women in church leadership rages on? Or the one about gay marriage? Or how about the conversation about hell that’s been dominating evangelical circles lately?

I’m not saying the Mormon position on blacks in leadership roles was right, but Evangelicals have absolutely no bragging rights when it comes to this issue. The bulk of evangelical churches around the country continue to struggle with segregation.

Good grief.

Harold Camping would be considered an evangelical in most circles, but imagine someone like him in office. He would have figured it success to blow us all to smithereens on May 21st. The last thing we need in the White House is an arrogant evangelical who thinks that God has anointed them for such a time as The Ending.

Smith says: “If Mitt Romney believes what the Mormon Church teaches about the world and how it operates, then he is unfit to serve. We make him our President at great peril to the intellectual and spiritual health of our nation.”

Is it just me or does Smith’s proclamation carry the same dire tone of Camping’s erroneous Doomsday prediction?

Despite the suggestion embedded in Smith’s remarks, Mitt Romney’s faith is not the problem. You can be an Evangelical and vote for a Mormon — if you so choose — without compromising one’s theology in the process. (Not that conservatives are opposed to compromising their theology when it serves their pocketbooks, mind you. Anyone ever heard of Blackwater? ).

Smith seems to have forgotten that Jesus didn’t go about tossing people overboard – he was too busy caring about them. The primary thing we need to know about anyone we elect to office is whether or not they truly care about people. Any leader who puts the welfare of the people first is going to be following the very example that Christ modeled, and fulfilling the vision of a Democracy.

Karen Spears Zacharias is author of Will Jesus Buy Me a DoubleWide? ’cause I need more room for my plasma TV. She can be reached on Twitter @karenzach

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • So…. is the inverse also true, that if my beliefs are “true” (as opposed to “false”), then my behaviors are guaranteed to be 100% correct–or as close to 100% as that “short tether” can make them? Yup, bygolly, if I could just get my belief system in tip-top shape I could purtyneered save myself. God would be so impressed! Not to mention all those I look down my nose at, yessirree!

    Years ago, J.B. Phillips wrote “Your God is Too Small”. He had no idea. We be making ourselves bigger and God smaller every day.

    • Karen Spears Zacharias

      You are spot on about this Roger. Why is it we continue to insist that we can rightly think our way to salvation?

  • Ouch! I’m one of those folks who might eliminate a candidate from consideration based on his particular belief system but you make an interesting point here. I get your point that this can smack of hypocrisy when we oppose one candidate on the basis of the potential conflict between his belief system and mine while conveniently disregarding any such potential conflicts when it doesn’t suit my purpose.

    As a born-again, evangelical Christian, many of my friends (Christian and otherwise) are confused and dismayed that I voted for Barack Obama for President in 2008 and not the Republican candidate on the ballot. After all, all true Christians are Republicans, aren’t they? I’m not a single issue voter. Politics is more complex than a single issue. I don’t agree with President Obama on every issue but neither do I agree on every issue with any Presidential candidate for whom I have voted in my lifetime.

    The question that I think we have to ask ourselves about a Presidential candidate is this: Which candidate is best equipped to lead our country at this time? It’s in the context of answering that question that I think it’s fair to explore the belief system of that candidate and determine how that belief system is likely to impact that candidate’s decisions and ability to lead. For some of us, a candidate that embraces the teachings of the Mormon church may find that to be a disqualifier and for others not. In either event, I still think that considering the belief system of any candidate is fair game in the process of consideration.

  • JGS

    What a great article. I have often wondered how individuals, in their attempt to follow Christ, could despise and put other religions and people of other religions down just because they don’t believe the same way. Wasn’t it Christ who commanded us to love all people. That doesn’t mean you have to agree with them but it means you treat them with love and respect. Wasn’t it Christ who made whole the ear of his enemy after he had suffered infinitely in the garden of Gethsemane. Wasn’t it Christ who comforted the thief on the cross after he had endured all things prior to giving up His life for each one of us. What a great example to follow. It would be nice to see people treat all others with the respect they deserve. Aren’t we all God’s children, regardless of our beliefs. Doesn’t he love all of us the same, unconditionally? I think so.

    • One of the things that got Joseph Smith (the founder of Mormonism) into hot water with some of his neighbors was the way he put their religions “down.” Here are some quotations from Smith, with links to the official Internet site of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints where you can read them in full context (the Mormon Church still publishes this stuff):

      “I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” [JS History, 1:19]

      “And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the bother is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.” [1 Nephi 14:10]

      • bradlee

        Blasphamous! Oh, sorry. It’s not. Every church in the world believes that. There is one church(or christianity or Islam as a whole) and the rest are whores of Babylon. Funny that you post something written 150 years ago, but the church doesn’t publish what is wrong with others beliefs like you have. They show respect to others beliefs.

    • JAF

      I have love for the Mormon people- I used to be one, but I would certainly not like to see a Mormon elevated to the position of President of the United States. If you love them like Christ does, you would want them to know the truth. They want to be recognized as Christians, and they truly are not. Anything that validates their religion gives them credibility and leads more people away from Christ. Jesus had a lot to say about false prophets and teachers too. They believe they are God’s children, not adopted by grace through faith – but literally as they evolved from being spirit children and siblings of Jesus Christ and Satan. The mormons believe in a Church, not the true and living God and Jesus Christ of the Bible. Treat them with love and respect, pray for them to learn the truth, and pray that mormonism will be exposed for the oppressive lie that it is through this high profile examination in the name of a run for the white house.

  • Indeed! Your last sentence sums it up right nice.


  • Okay, I am back again. I followed the link to the aforementioned article. Wowzer. It reeks with all manner of stink. I am so baffled by the view that I don’t know quite what to say in the comments over there.

    It’s interesting that you both are Patheos writers. It’s a good thing one of you speaks Truth.


    • Karen Spears Zacharias

      Ah… but Darlene, I suspect we are both a bit shy of plumb, don’t you?

      • I reckon so.

        It’s just that his piece seems so filled with venom and vinegar that a non-believer reading his opinion might decide to drink from another cup or none at all.

  • C. Ehrlich

    I think you’ve missed the more central and compelling thrust of Smith’s argument, which I’d put like this:

    1. Although it presents a similar-looking gospel, Mormonism is in fact a serious perversion of the gospel.

    2. As a serious perversion to the gospel, Mormonism poses the most serious of threats: the threat to the eternal salvation of souls.

    3. As it presents a similar-looking gospel, Mormonism poses this most serious of threats in a particularly deceptive way.

    4. The deceptive power of this most serious of threat would be significantly increased both by a widespread Christian endorsement of an outspoken Mormon for President, and by an outspoken Mormon’s status as President of the United States.

    Given that many evangelicals are persuaded of the truth of the individual claims, Smith’s line of though seems quite sensible. On the one hand, it is highly principled in upholding a standard evangelical assessment both of Mormonism, and of the importance of faith in the true gospel–putting the importance of this even above the more visible social and political conservative agendas. On the other hand, Smith’s argument is also highly pragmatic in its shrewd eye to the consequences of electing an outspoken Mormon to the world’s most powerful and public office. It is shrewdly pragmatic not to do anything that might reduce Mormonism’s culturally marginal status–given the threat that its false gospel poses, when such a threat is assessed through the eyes of the evangelical faith.

    • JAF

      You are absolutely right. There are tens of thousands of mormon missionaries out knocking on doors every day leading people away from salvation as it is. A mormon president would be devastating.

      • JonH

        1) LDS Missionaries talk with evangelical on his doorstep. Missionaries point out a powerful truth that shakes Evangelical. 2)Several days later at church services, same evangelical brings up missionary visit and what was said. Other evangelicals defend evangelical belief position and direct evangelical who spoke with missionaries to christian bookstore to purchase anti-Mormon book.

        3) This scene is played out all over the world–daily. Anti-M book author gets very wealthy from book. many Anti-M authors makes loads of cash from their writings. Turns out LDS Missionaries are the motivation for many books sold and much wealth generated (or the anti-M books would not keep on coming so much). The many books bolster more broadly the “falsehoods” of Mormonism.

        When a LDS POTUS generates more attention to his Mormon faith, the process takes place more often. Ultimately, more books sold equal broader and wider spread of light being shed on the Mormon falsehoods.

        How devastating is that?

        Seperating the good a talented Mormon POTUS can do for his country from his false religious beliefs puts pressure on true christians to stay on their toes and vigilantly watch and pray for their christian neighbors and church members. This is something that should be done to avoid sin and transgressions anyway.

        God moves in mysterious ways. Keep the faith and remember from past biblical history God uses people and leaders outside of the faith for good!

  • Record. Gov. Romney, having already served in a high elected office, has a record. We may look at that record and ask if we could expect more of the same or different if he were elected President of the United States. And if the former, how was that dangerous to Massachusetts; how would it be dangerous to the US (or to the gospel as we know it, for that matter). We have a constitution, laws, and four branches of government. Yeah, I actually think “We the people” are the fourth branch and that whatever might be wrong with the other three is directly attributable to us. Either we’ve made it happen, or we’ve allowed it.

    • Dandini

      I agree. I also feel that one’s personal and family life are open for scrutiny when one runs for public office.

      His family life is exemplary and has high standards compared to most others.

      His work/job ethics and standards are also very high, as well as very successful.

      He is very well educated and understands world economics, and helped Domino’s Pizza and Staples to grow and be successful, as well as many others.

      He commits and is willing to work with others who don’t see it his way.

      He believes in service, even if it means personal sacrifice, as evidenced by his not taking any salary for his term as Governor where he took their 2 plus Billion dollar deficit and turned it into a surplus when he left office, without raising taxes.

      And also took only a 1 dollar salary to turn the losing 2002 Olympics into one of the most financially successful in history.

      So don’t listen to the diatribe of the uneducated. It is going to be about the economy and who can best fix it.

  • POLL: Is Mitt Romney a hypocrite for saying he’d repeal “Obamacare” when he supports “Romneycare”?

    I think he is. There’s almost no difference between the two.

    • As best I know, Gov. Romney’s most recent position is that Romneycare was a “mistake”. That’s troubling. However, I don’t believe he believes that in his heart of hearts; but I think it tells us what a powerful vise (perhaps also a “vice”) party ideology has become. When your party has dug and fortified a hole for three decades, you can’t get past it without spending at least some time in it.

      One party has for so long preached that government IS the problem that it now can’t effectively use government to address things that only government can address (while at the same time it uses government for the biggest big-government purpose of all, war, without being willing to pay for it with anything but borrowed blood or money). The other party has perhaps an outsized concept of what government can and should do but seems to lack expertise to distinguish effectiveness from failure while having become too timid and defensive to actually fight for its own position on just about anything.

      What both sides lack these days, from my six+ decades of experience on a small farm and in very small business, is a basic understanding of value-added productivity in the economy. That means starting with land or raw materials and doing something with them to make them useful and more valuable, thus supporting the worker and the community along the way. Importing all our goods, sticking them on the shelves and marking up the price 200-600% adds cost but no value. That’s where we are today, and I don’t think either party’s leaders understand that. Their previous experience in doctoring, lawyering and preachering has not prepared them or informed them. So the default posture ends up being ironically the same. That is, if we just continue to adhere to the party line (because we are terrified of departure since the campaign money would dry up–and THEN what would we do???), we’ll wake up some morning, find ourselves magically back in 1952 and magically begin to experience the greatest industrial expansion and prosperity boom the world has ever seen. Then all our problems will dissolve. Get a clue! We’ve already had that time here and it’s over. Flat over.

      The industrial expansion is happening in China, and we have allowed it to become unstoppable. If anyone doubts, spend the next one-hour shopping trip not buying anything but just looking at product labels, as many as you can. Then ask yourself how different our country might be if most of those things were made here instead. And do we really need ALL those things? Maybe fewer things, made better, to higher standards of energy use and resource recycling, and by your neighbors. Mabye they would cost a little more, but just maybe the true cost of that price would be far, far lower because the value-added portion of it would be going right back into our own communities.

      Maybe, just maybe, just maybe maybe maybe, Gov. Romney’s experience enables him to see this a little better. Maybe he has a clue. I’m a follower of Christ, a mostly Democrat, progressive/liberal, firm believer in the inherent strength of our system here. But if the West was explored by Lewis and Clark, we’re being run today by “Lose-us and Clueless”. I’m willing to take a serious look at Gov. Romney. But if we don’t think our system here is capable of withstanding his holding of the presidency, or any other office, BY REASON OF HIS RELIGION, then I guess we need another revolution and constitutional convention. Or maybe, as Paul said in Romans, we need a renewing of our minds.

    • JonH

      One of the purposes of the 10th Amend. was to keep the states (who set up the central government in the first place) free of the over reaching oppression of a king, dictator, or politburo from taking away individual rights RESERVED FOR the states. The term all politics is local can be lost. In other words, the politics of healthcare (should remain local for personal and private reasons of trust and local representation etc, etc.) A central government in control of our most private lifes concerns could be used against private citizens by a power with dictator designs in his secret heart of hearts. The Founding Fathers knew this and cited it through much of the then known world history. They placed the 10th Amend. in the Constitution to keep a central government leader(s) from encroaching on the individual inalienable rights of the private citizens just to grasp power. The 10th Amend. gave birth to the Bill of Rights.

      Romney knows history. He knows that an identical plan at a state level is safer than one at a central government level. There are TONS of reasons to keep local anything that is personal. For one, look how our local representatives climatize to the environ of Wash. DC and they don’t represent us the way we want. That’s because their new location has it’s own “politics is local” pull in Wash DC. In the states we have more state assemblymen living near us than we do National congressional reps. And they don’t leave the state. Their politics stay local. So Change and correction in say healthcare administration MISTAKES is more easily heard and more quickly and sensitively corrected.

      Mitt Romney talks states rights all the time. But many don’t know its true meaning(s). There are many, many implications. Go to wikipedia and read about states rights and the 10th Amendment.

  • Dan

    I’m a Mormon convert for 40 years with many non-Mormon friends and extended family members. I am most offended that evangelicals–especially biased pastors, who are so totally judgmental and hateful towards my church and its members. In fact, I sometimes hardly believe I’m in America, the land of the free. Please tell me how Mormon mayors, community leaders, governors, congressmen, senators, Cabinet members, and military general officers have hurt this country??? Before joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I studied the Bible to help me find the “true church” of Christ. I studied most of the top denominations and found they all had doctrinal conflicts with the Bible: like infant baptism; no baptism by immersion; no authority given through priesthood authority; denying further revelation/prophets (what prophet said that?); Jesus said to pray to the Father in his, Jesus, name–but many churches pray to Jesus or the Father; belief in the trinity as in the Nicean Creed which is not in the Bible; belief in praying to Mary and various saints; belief that people who never heard of Jesus Christ will automatically go to hell (a loving God?), while “saved” people who murder, for instance, will automatically go to Heaven–where does Judgment Day come in? Where does “One Lord, one faith, and one baptism” come in the hundreds of variations of Christianity?? It is all confusion. Believe what you want. I respect that. But, I found the LDS Church to be closer to the Bible than any other church, and because of that I and my family are condemned to hell by anti-Mormon “Christians” who would rather have America continue to go down the drain than see a “Mormon” as president. Mitt Romney saved the 2002 U.S. Winter Olympics (without pay). His desire to serve his country is his sincere goal. He believes that “When you are in the service of your fellow man, you are only in the service of your God.” Please put any bigoted feelings aside and be fair to Mitt Romney.

    • Alan


      Oh please. Enough of the “poor persecuted us” act already. When your church repudiates the statements of your “prophet” Smith that God supposedly told him that all of the Evangelical and other churches are false professors, an abomination, and churches of the devil himself, then we might be willing to listen to you. Stop the hypocritical whining until you clean out the “hate speech” your own church perpetrates. Until then, no one is going to take you seriously.

  • C. Ehrlich

    There is, as we are witnessing, a great deal of yearning on the part of Mormons to gain acceptance within Christianity. Their prize is to be regarded as Christians by the broader culture. As we might therefore expect, many of the displays of outrage and indignation we see in the responses to Smith’s essay and the supporting comments are premised on a refusal to acknowledge what our most highly respected evangelical pastors and bible teachers have always affirmed: Mormonism preaches a false gospel, and Mormonism’s resemblance to Christianity is a form of deception.

    If it is sinful to retain this conclusion about Mormonism, then Smith’s concerns are baseless and the Mormon indignation is apt. However, if Mormonism does preach a deceptively false gospel–as our pastors and bible teachers generally affirm in their more principled moments–then Smith’s warning is of first importance: the consequence of electing Romney, an outspoken Mormon, to the world’s most powerful and public office is entirely foreseeable: Mormonism will make great gains in shedding its marginal status, lending even greater deceptive power to its message. If Romney is elected with a widespread evangelical endorsement, this effect will be deep and enduring.

    Unfortunately, this central issue is getting lost in the temptation to make more shortsighted political gains. Amidst all the noise Mormon readers are making, evangelicals are getting cowed by their fears of appearing “judgmental.” Some now are writing as if it were sinful to even suspect that a clean-cut family man who can run a business belongs to a false religion. As if Satan does not have his own angels of light.

    (cross-posted under Smith’s article)

    • Nate R

      Wow, are you always this hateful? You fail to realize that Mormons belong to other parties. Do you know that Harry Reid is a Mormon? The Senate Majority leader – has he led the nation to Hell yet? Get of your judgmental high horse.

    • Dan

      I feel like you favor throwing us “Mormons” to the lions. Who are you to judge us as deceptive non-Christians and call Mitt Romney a Satanic angel of light! Wow! You, sir, use the vile and dangerous language of a hateful, religious bigot. You obviously don’t believe in freedom of religion and are a threat to that very freedom in America and abroad. Your type thinking will help bring down our great country, not Mitt Romney and Christ-centered “Mormons.” If you are a product of “true” Christianity and what you call “most highly respected evangelical pastors and Bible teachers,” it’s down right scary to me and my family!

  • Nancy

    Thanks for this. Looks like Warren Cole Smith wrote a great article. Your snideness and sarcasm made his points look even better.

  • Tony

    I’m a life-long Latter-day Saint. I find the anti-Mormon statements of Warren Cole Smith and other so-called born-again Christians (such as those who post on this site) to be amusing, maddening, ironic, and disheartening.

    It is amusing to read how infantile and twisted the anti-Mormon logic can be. Frankly, I have to laugh out loud when I read that the anti-Mormons are afraid of how Mormonism will get a boost if Romney is elected president. Let’s see, Jimmy Carter is a so-called born-again Christian. Did he give a boost to evangelism while he was systematically ruining our country’s economy and letting the ayotallahs take over Iran? Don’t think so! Let’s see again– Bill Clinton is a life-long Southern Born-again Baptist. (I’m not sure if he ever claimed to have been “born again” but he sure liked to sing in the church choir so everyone could see he was a true believer.) Did Clinton give a boost to evangelism while he was playing around with Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office or lying under oath? Don’t think so once again. But Mitt Romney, as straight an arrow as there ever was,is the real danger to America? Yea, sure.

    After a while, however, I have to quit laughing and I get angry at the anti-Mormons who think they are Christians. It is maddening to me as a Latter-day Saint to read their vile comments about me and my brothers and sisters in the Church. It almost seems as if I can feel their hatred emanating from my computer screen. Most of the time the bulk of their information about Latter-day Saints and our beliefs are grossly inaccurate. My anger is coupled with fright. When I read so-called born again Christian writers like Warren Cole Smith abd some who have posted on this site, I fear for the civic fabric of this nation. Do they really believe in religious liberty and the Constitution which explicitly states there can never be a religious test for political office? Frankly, I think not. I fear for my religious liberty from both the left and the right. The left will take it away from me to impose progressive political correctness and the right–meaning, so-called conservative born-again Christians– will take it from me out of sheer nastiness because my beliefs are deemed too subversive.

    I might find some consolation in the fact that the anti-Mormons would probably also deny political office to many of the founding fathers, almost none of whom were born-again Christians. Some were diests. Some, like George Washington, were Christians of a decidely not born-again type. Certainly in the religious correctness of today’s evangelicals they would be unacceptably corrosive.

    I am always struck by many other ironies every time I read anti-Mormon diatribes as the ones posted here. The anti-Mormons attack the Mormons for the Mormon rejection of “historical” orthodox Christianity. As a result, Mormons can’t be real Christians. Oh really? The sad irony is that anti-Mormons don’t know the history of so-called orthodox Christianity. If they did, they would know that most “orthodox” doctrines are rooted in Greek philosophy, not the Bible. For example, the concept of the Trinity came from attempts to square Christian teaching with Platonic concepts of God. Augustine’s interpretation of Paul, not the actual beliefs and practices of the first Christians, inform Protestant Christianity. Remember in 2008 when the evangelicals’ official candidate Mike Huckabee derided Latter-day Saints for believing that Satan might somehow be a spiritual brother to Jesus. This was somehow offensive yet the “orthodox” belief is that all things were created by God, which means Satan is among God’s creations. What is more offensive: that Satan was not created by God but might be a spiritual son of God like Jesus and others are spiritual sons of God OR that Satan was created by God? So-called “orthodoxy” is full of contradictions and puzzles which it cannot answer, not the least of which include the fate of the unevangelized and theodicy. I just wish born-again Christians would learn more about the history of their orthodoxy before they start slinging so many arrows at Latter-day Saints. They might even realize as they learn how the New Testament came to be that maybe reliance on “sola scriptura” has its limitations.

    Born-agains owe much to John Calvin. Primary to his and their orthodoxy is the concept of the total depravity of man. How ironic that American born-again Christians so readily can serve as Exhibit “A” for proof of the depravity of man. After all, aren’t those who live in this great land of liberty and enjoy its great blessings but ferociously hate a small group of their law-abiding countrymen so much that they spend great energies attacking them as a danger to their country and want to create a religious test for their participation in civic life depraved, at least in some way?

    I will end by noting how I am disheartened. Civic life in the U.S. with so many different religions and races has flourished because we have accepted the basic concept that a person should be judged primarily on his actions. (How non-Pauline– we judge others’ fitness to be our leaders by their “acts”.) In other words, by the person’s “record”. Mitt Romney has a record of great accomplishment. We should judge him primarily on that basis, not by whether his religious beliefs match ours. Warren Cole Smith and those who post on this blog who are attempting to impose a form of religious test for political office are more dangerous to the Republic than Romney can ever be simply because he is a Mormon.

    My wife is a convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. She has some relatives who are born-again Christians who think my wife has purchased a sure ticket to hell and they have been more than willing to express that opinion. My wife has other relatives who are agnostics and atheists. It is interesting to me that the agnostics and atheists admire my wife and her Mormon husband, children, in-laws and friends for their upright living much more than the born-again relatives whom they see as busy-body gossips. The agnostics and atheists aren’t bothered by the Mormons who believe such wild and crazy things as that heavenly beings restored Christ’s gospel to Joseph Smith but they are bothered by the born-again relatives who are both “kooky” and hypocritical.

    I hope that the sheer hypocritical, anti-American and anti-Christian nature of the rantings of Warren Cole Smith and others like him will cause all so-called born-again evangelicals to cower in shame. May they finally grow up some day.

    • JonH

      Try googling and article6blog. Give your intellect some broadening Brothers.

    • Alan

      Let’s see. Warren Smith says that from an Evangelical perspective Mormonism is a false religion and should not be supported by said Evangelicals (in this case by voting for a Mormon president). That makes him a hate mongering, anti-Christian bigot and anti-American to boot. Joseph Smith says that all Evangelical churches are a satanic abomination to God that no real truth seeker should join and the church he founded continues to promote and publish that view to this day. That makes him a great prophet and restorer of the truth.

      So if Evangelicals say your religion is false, they are bigots and hate mongers. If you say their religion is false, you are a harbringer of lost truth. Seems pretty hypocritical.