Religious Dishonesty and Politics
Of course, if I had said "Political Dishonesty..." that would have been redundant.
First off: Time for a "worldview check". My worldview is basically that anyone who accepts Jesus Christ into their heart and acknowledges Him as their Lord and Saviour will, through the grace of God, find salvation. As such, many Mormons should fit into this. The question here is that the Jesus that Mormons believe in isn't necessarily the same one I believe in, so I don' t know how that will work.
Now, on to the post. In this article, Mormon and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney tries to ally himself with the Christian Right of the Republican party. He does so by trying (in a nice ecumenical spirit) to point out critical areas of agreement between his beliefs and those of Christians. Unfortunately, while he may use terms that sound familiar, they carry different meanings.
1: “I think I’ve found that people across this country want a person of faith to lead the country, and they don’t particularly care as much about the brand of faith as they do the values the person has. And my values are as American as you can imagine”
A: I will not presume to speak on behalf of the Body of Christ ("Christianity" to the layman) but the brand of faith *does* matter. There *is* and issue that people of faith must come to terms with, and that is where to draw the line. Do Sunni's draw the line at Shiite's, or elsewhere? As Methodist, I call my Lutheran, Baptist, Pentecostal, Anglican and (even) Catholic friends "brothers and sisters in Christ". Keep in mind, I'm only speaking to the issue #1 above. I want a person of faith leading this country, and that person needs to be someone who can recite the Apostle's Creed with a straight face. Unfortunately, this would exclude some people in the denominations I mentioned above, but it would not exclude one who follows the *teachings* of their denominations.
2: “I believe in God."
A: Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet, claimed that God was once a man as us, and is now exalted. Mitt may believe in a god, but it's not the god of Christianity. Furthermore, Mormons believe they will become gods themselves (well, the men do. The women need to have their secret name called by their husbands to reach the highest level of Heaven. No husband? Sorry...)
3: "I believe that all the men and women in this country are children of God"
A: For Christians, we are children of God being his creation. For Mormons, it's a literal "children of God" who procreated (as Adam) on Earth and is our literal penultimate grandfather.
4: "The kind of values which I have in my heart are the kinds of values which America needs."
A: This may be true, but I prefer them to not be represented by one whose faith contains many articles I would consider a heresy. It is important to me our leaders share a worldview that we may hold them accountable to, and that worldview must furthermore make sense and be for the benefit of the country. A man who wishes to be a god is not a man I want leading the country.
I'll make a bold statement. I would sooner vote for a man of no faith than an Mormon. A man of no faith who is a secular humanist has a worldview that has internal consistency and, though morally corrupt and held to no higher standard, would be preferred over one who has picked his higher standard, and it is to be a God.
-Brian
First off: Time for a "worldview check". My worldview is basically that anyone who accepts Jesus Christ into their heart and acknowledges Him as their Lord and Saviour will, through the grace of God, find salvation. As such, many Mormons should fit into this. The question here is that the Jesus that Mormons believe in isn't necessarily the same one I believe in, so I don' t know how that will work.
Now, on to the post. In this article, Mormon and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney tries to ally himself with the Christian Right of the Republican party. He does so by trying (in a nice ecumenical spirit) to point out critical areas of agreement between his beliefs and those of Christians. Unfortunately, while he may use terms that sound familiar, they carry different meanings.
1: “I think I’ve found that people across this country want a person of faith to lead the country, and they don’t particularly care as much about the brand of faith as they do the values the person has. And my values are as American as you can imagine”
A: I will not presume to speak on behalf of the Body of Christ ("Christianity" to the layman) but the brand of faith *does* matter. There *is* and issue that people of faith must come to terms with, and that is where to draw the line. Do Sunni's draw the line at Shiite's, or elsewhere? As Methodist, I call my Lutheran, Baptist, Pentecostal, Anglican and (even) Catholic friends "brothers and sisters in Christ". Keep in mind, I'm only speaking to the issue #1 above. I want a person of faith leading this country, and that person needs to be someone who can recite the Apostle's Creed with a straight face. Unfortunately, this would exclude some people in the denominations I mentioned above, but it would not exclude one who follows the *teachings* of their denominations.
2: “I believe in God."
A: Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet, claimed that God was once a man as us, and is now exalted. Mitt may believe in a god, but it's not the god of Christianity. Furthermore, Mormons believe they will become gods themselves (well, the men do. The women need to have their secret name called by their husbands to reach the highest level of Heaven. No husband? Sorry...)
3: "I believe that all the men and women in this country are children of God"
A: For Christians, we are children of God being his creation. For Mormons, it's a literal "children of God" who procreated (as Adam) on Earth and is our literal penultimate grandfather.
4: "The kind of values which I have in my heart are the kinds of values which America needs."
A: This may be true, but I prefer them to not be represented by one whose faith contains many articles I would consider a heresy. It is important to me our leaders share a worldview that we may hold them accountable to, and that worldview must furthermore make sense and be for the benefit of the country. A man who wishes to be a god is not a man I want leading the country.
I'll make a bold statement. I would sooner vote for a man of no faith than an Mormon. A man of no faith who is a secular humanist has a worldview that has internal consistency and, though morally corrupt and held to no higher standard, would be preferred over one who has picked his higher standard, and it is to be a God.
-Brian
Comments
While each of us have a litmus test we use when aligning one candidate's viewpoints against the other, the character and integrity of a candidate can be a determining factor when viewpoints are similar. Therefore, I would support a candidate whose personal integrity and character most matches those of my perceived requirements of a national leader. Could that person be a Mormon? Yes, in the same manner that the person could be a Jehovah's Witness.
While a secular human relativist's views on society and the economy may match mine, I would look for someone who has a faith-based lifestyle (even if that faith based life is diametrically opposed to mine).
His statement which was (in part) "I believe in God. I believe that all the men and women in this country are children of God..." sounds good and Christian, but has a different meaning. This is a deliberate deception to gain a vote. He's playing the "faith card", hoping we'll take his Joker as an Ace. It is not an Ace.
It is because of this manipulation and deceit that I could not vote for this man. Could I vote for a different Mormon? Unlike before, I will not rule out this possibility. I could vote for a mormon, but I don't consider it particularly likely, because I perceive that the nature of the beast (or Beast) is such that this is how an active Mormon politician will present himself.
However, if he truly believes his faith lines up with mainstream Christianity (even if it doesn't), does that make him a fraud? Isn't fraudulent behavior knowingly misleading the public?
Therefore, after all of the primaries, and pre-election bru-ha-ha, if it becomes a decision between a Mormon whose values line up with mine, and another candidate who can frequently be seen exiting mainline Christian churches, but whose values exhibit anti-Christian behavior, then I gotta go with the Mormon.
I'm reminded of a Cub Scout incident we had recently in my boy's pack. We invited someone from another culture to come speak with the boys. A wonderful gentleman from Pakistan came and spoke with us about the game cricket and life in Pakistan. He then went on, knowing we were a Christian-heavy organization, to talk about the "similarities" such as our shared belief in much of the Old Testament.
He then threw out as an example how God asked Abraham to sacrifice Ishmael, and how God stayed Abraham's hand at the last moment...(for a reference on the differences between Judeo-Christian and Islamic views on this, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael) Meanwhile, the parents were hemming and hawing and knew that they'd need to chat with their children afterwards to "straighten them out".
Honest mistake? Probably. Bad example? Yes. Had the guest speaker taken time to learn about his audience? Yes, at a very fundamental level.
Not a big deal in a Cub Scout pack, but a much bigger deal in a national election, *especially* since most Christians are not aware that there is a key difference in the two religion's views of God (and many other things).
Now, to your last point about whom you would vote fore. I think this will be the subject of an up-and-coming post. Let's say I'm a Fundamentalist Christian (I'm not). If I want my agenda met, whom should I vote for? A Republican or a Democrat?
I say a Democrat. A Republican will allow my "cause" to stagnate. A Democrat will challenge me and make me feel like I need to fight for every decision. Of course, I would agree with most of the stances of the Republican, but that very lack of conflict will cause relative stagnation since I feel my causes are being fought for me at the highest levels.
So I may just vote against the Mormon to help further my cause.
Might.
Hypothetically.