It's OK to Vote for a Mormon POTUS

As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons), I am free to vote my conscience. The Church goes to extreme lengths not to dictate to its members what their political choices should be. It might stem back to our early days as settlers in the slave state of Missouri.

Governor Lilburn W. Boggs

As abolitionists, the Mormons voting in a bloc represented a threat to the political status quo and our ancestors were driven from that state under an extermination signed by Governor Lilburn W. Boggs, essentially giving his citizens the green light to shoot Mormons on sight. Mormons have a special kinship with minority populations wherever we find them, which might help explain our affinity for the Jews and their plight in modern Israel today. The Jewish people will not find a more committed and devoted friend than President Mitt Romney.

In more practical modern terms, I suppose the reason the Church doesn't tell its members how to vote is that it just doesn't want to put their tax-exempt status in jeopardy.

I overheard a conversation yesterday that continues to gnaw away at me this morning, hence this post.

The two were discussing whether or not they would even vote in this election, because in their minds the choice between "the Muslim" and "the Mormon" was not one they even cared to make. There were a few comments about "the lesser of two evils." Each had discussed it with their respective pastors and each seemed to still be conflicted.

So in the spirit of trying to help my two Christian friends who don't know me from a jar of Vicks, I offer the following insights.

It is my considered judgment that America needs a Mormon president now more than ever before. I have debunked the White Horse Prophecy before on these pages. I have no illusions about a Mormon elder riding into the fray on his White Horse to rescue the U.S. Constitution. The very thought is repugnant to me, as if somehow the Mormons would even want to assert such a claim. The leadership of the Church constantly renounces those who promote the idea. And by the way, the quote often attributed to Joseph Smith that "the Constitution would someday hang by a thread" and need rescuing by a Mormon POTUS, is nothing more than a faith promoting rumor and simply isn't true.

Mitt Romney

So why would Americans act now and why would a majority of Americans now be poised to vote for a Mormon POTUS for the very first time in American history?

This may seem at first combative and somewhat repulsive, but I'll offer it anyway. In recent years, America has been failed by its population of Christians, whether they be Catholic, Protestant, evangelical or otherwise. Failed? How? As an "American Christian Church" - the national body of believers - our society has failed to do what the Mormon Church has succeeded in doing - standing up for marriage between a man and woman, encouraging their members to solidify their families through selfless service to others, requiring a commitment to support and sustain one another, especially for those less fortunate regardless of their circumstances whether here in America or abroad. Mormons oppose abortion. Mormon philanthropic outreach activity is second to none. There is a deep-seeded demonstration of commitment among Mormons to values and practices that might even be called old-fashioned or out-of-date. Sexual purity, abstinence from alcohol, coffee, tea, tobacco and illegal drugs, a reach higher for that which is "lovely, praiseworthy and of good report" are other indicators. For the most part Mormons are decent, law-abiding, Constitution-loving people. The Mormons routinely excommunicate members who do not contribute to the society of believers. We hold people accountable.

Think how few churches, by contrast, require accountability from their members. Nominal membership is acceptable. Studying and applying the scriptural truths Christ taught are sometimes viewed as arcane and passe efforts, but among Mormons gospel scholarship and subsequent action taking are prized qualities. We're a church of good works, not just lip-confessing Christians. Occasional attendance on holidays is about all that is required by most churches, in contrast. Mormons of all ages routinely leave home at their own expense for extended periods to give service and spread the gospel throughout the world. That's commitment.

America is about to step over the thresh hold into a new era of re-awakening, revival or restoration - call it what you will, it's coming in about a week. We have flirted with the embodiment of progressive socialism, and we have witnessed its devastating effects on our national psyche. We have been laden with debt and very little to show for it, except perhaps the most expensive entitlement program, Obamacare, in the history of our Republic. Our national economic engine has all but been on life support for four years because of the damaging policies of this administration.

Let me pose this question to you: If you knew nothing about churches, religious practice or anything akin to it - if Muslims or Mormons or Catholics or Protestants meant absolutely nothing to you and there were no distinctions in your mind, what could you observe in the fruits - just the fruits - of those you knew nothing about? What would you look for to give you evidence of the sincerity of their beliefs? What would it be? What fruits would you look for professionally, politically and civilly? What have you observed globally in the Mormon community? Anything leap out at you worthy of emulation?

I submit to you that deeply stamped into the DNA of Mitt Romney is the decency and caring his Mormon roots would suggest he possesses. He is a trustworthy vessel who can lead America through this new awakening that is about to spread from sea to shining sea on election night.

This year, as perhaps never before in our history, it's okay to vote for a Mormon POTUS! And for reasons totally unrelated to religion, Ann Coulter agrees.

She concludes, in part:

Romney is the Red Adair of his profession. He's like a doctor who specializes in multiple gunshot wounds or an oncologist who takes only Stage 4 cancer patients. Yes, there were layoffs, but also lots and lots of jobs, profit, success, efficiency, saved businesses and saved lives.
Romney will be the most accomplished incoming president since Dwight Eisenhower.
Not only has Romney promised to issue a 50-state waiver from Obamacare on his first day in office and then seek a formal repeal and replacement, but he'll know how to do it. The savior of dying companies will fix health care in this country so that no Democrat will be able to wreck it again.
The only way to rid ourselves of this national poison pill, set to destroy both health care and the nation at large, is to elect Mitt Romney our next president.

Mormons and Political Neutrality

There's a simple reason The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints makes such a point in every election year about maintaining its neutrality position on politics - to do otherwise would threaten its tax-exempt status.

In every election year in my lifetime there have always been statements issued by the Church's leaders encouraging members to become involved in politics. However, leaders never tell members how to become involved, which party to support or how to vote. This year in particular with a Mormon heading the Republican ticket, the Church has come up with a creative way to illustrate its position:



I have no idea how Mitt Romney will fare in the general election in November. Frankly, there are days I am almost ambivalent about the presidential race. I don't fear the attacks on the Church, and I am quite certain Romney will be a great candidate. What concerns me more is taking back a majority from Democrats in the Senate, which would depose another Mormon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

If anyone needs an illustration about how bi-polar Mormons tend to be as a voting block, one need look no further than Harry Reid vs. Mitt Romney.

Even more surprising to me is how heavily-Mormon Utah in 2010 could elect Mike Lee, tea party favorite, and now in 2012 be clinging to Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Anyone who thinks Mormons vote in lock step in a block this way or that, simply doesn't know how convoluted their thinking politically can be. I have many friends who have remained independent in red Utah, claiming to vote for "the man" rather than the party. I took that position for many years as a registered independent so I could vote in whichever primary suited me that year.

Then Mitt Romney ran for president the first time and the only way I could cast a vote for him was to finally declare myself as a Republican. You're looking at a guy here who voted twice for Ross Perot in Utah where my vote literally makes no difference since in both cases the state went Republican as it always does.

This year we have a lot of interesting things happening. Peter Cooke, retired Mormon general Democrat is trying to generate some enthusiasm among Democrats to siphon off Republican support for Governor Gary Herbert. It's an attempt to revitalize the two-party system in Utah, but Herbert is a popular governor, having trounced his competition in the nominating convention and winning enough delegates to avoid a primary.

Mia Love

Mia Love is running in the general election for the newly-created 4th District seat against Jim Matheson, who changed districts for a more favorable demographic. I can't say I blame him. He's survived many attempts to oust him from office, but I've voted for him in the 2nd District in years past because I felt he was the best available candidate, until I became agitated and aroused. I backed Morgan Philpot last time around.

Matheson would become a six-term Congressman, but this year he may have met his match in Mia Love. How will he run opposed to a black Mormon woman who's smart, savvy and unafraid of anything with the name of Love? My prediction is that Utah is ready to elect her without any reservations in the 4th District.

So why can't Utah kick Orrin Hatch (78 years old) to the curb and deny him his seventh six-year term? He has served as a Senator longer than any other Utahn (36 years), and would become another Robert Byrd or Strom Thurmond who might serve until he dies in office. Dan Liljenquist is certainly a qualified and acceptable replacement for Orrin Hatch.

The answer: Utah Mormons are just a bi-polar bunch when it comes to their politics. It's no wonder the Church would never attempt to impose its will on their members.

It's kind of like trying to herd cats.

Evangelicals and Mormons - Bridging the Gap

I was en route to something else this morning, and stumbled over a wonderful analogy that caught my eye. This has been a political season of Mormons vs. Evangelicals, it seems, during the Republican presidential primary sweepstakes, but I found one writer this morning who seems willing to try to close the gap politically if not all the way on the differences in religious interpretation.

Stephen H. Webb

Others are also closing ranks behind Romney. Jeb Bush announced his endorsement of Romney this morning on the 43rd anniversary of Mitt's and Ann's marriage. He might be late, but better late than never.

Not only does Stephen H. Webb contend the Mormons believe in Christ, he avers they are obsessed with Christ. Here's the rarest of the breed among Evangelicals - he has actually read The Book of Mormon, unlike so many who engage in piling on the ad hominem attacks with which most Mormons are so familiar. Webb says he is not moved by The Book of Mormon stories, but admits there is nothing in the book to diminish the traditional views of Christ, only that it adds stories about Christ with which he is unfamiliar.

Webb offers this insight:

"Every page of the book prepares the way for its stunning climax, which is a literal appearance of Jesus to the ancient peoples of America. For Joseph Smith, the ascension of Christ after the resurrection makes possible his descent into the Americas.

"Non-Mormons, of course, do not believe that Jesus visited the Americas, but why should they be troubled if Mormons tell stories about Jesus that seem far-fetched? Imagine the following scenario. Your family gathers at the funeral of your dearly beloved grandfather, a world traveler. Your relatives begin telling the familiar stories about his great adventures. Soon, however, you notice another group of mourners at the other end of the room. As you eavesdrop on them, you realize they are talking about your grandfather as if they knew him well, yet you have never heard some of the stories they are telling. These new stories are not insulting to his memory, though some ring more true than others. Indeed, this group seems to have as high an opinion of your grandfather as you do. What do you do?

"Do you invite them over to meet your family? That is a tough call. Many of your relatives will dispute the credibility of these stories, and some might make a scene. Others who think the stories are true will feel left out — why didn’t Grandfather tell us? The funny thing is, though, that this other group knows all of the stories your family likes to tell about the deceased, and the stories they add to the mix sound more like mythic embellishments of his character than outright lies. Clearly, the two groups have a lot to talk about!

"However you decide to handle the situation, there is no need for you to change your love for your grandfather. There is also no need for you to react to this other group’s love for your grandfather as if they are intentionally threatening or dishonest. Whether or not you decide to expand your family to include this group, you can still welcome them as promoters of your grandfather’s memory. And the more you love your grandfather, the more you will be drawn to discover for yourself whether these new stories make any sense.

"Of course, Jesus Christ is not your grandfather, and the stories we tell about him are grounded in Scripture, not family lore. Still, the Book of Mormon raises a question for Christians. Can you believe too much about Jesus? Can you go too far in conceiving his glory? Let me answer that question by posing another. Isn’t the whole point of affirming his divinity the idea that one can never say enough about him? And if Smith’s stories are not true, aren’t they more like exaggerations or embellishments than outright slander and deceit?"

David French

As I read the article, the logic was inescapable. I asked myself if we had an Evangelical Christian in the presidential sweepstakes with a chance to win the nomination and beat Barack Hussein Obama in the fall, what would Mormons do, all things being equal? My bet is they would unite behind the candidate who had the political clout and will to win. David French is suggesting after last night's Illinois victory that Evangelicals need to unite behind the eventual winner, suggesting the big numbers don't lie, all other considerations aside.

I was troubled by a cable news network interview last month with a prominent Evangelical who proudly boasted that by his estimate over 30 million Evangelicals stayed home in the election of 2008 as a protest against the eventual nominee, John McCain, who went on to lose badly to Obama. If that statement is true, then we have the Evangelical Christians to thank for the failed presidency of Obama. That said, after the economic meltdown we witnessed at the end of the Bush administration and its bungled attempt to right the ship with TARP, there appeared to be no chance of rescuing John McCain, so let's be honest about that.

But this campaign cycle one thing is clear - Mitt Romney has made no attempt to do two things: Court the voters from the Tea Party, and court the Evangelical vote. Rather, this cycle he has moved ahead without making a concerted effort to round them all up. Because Gingrich and Santorum have continued to split their votes, Romney has outdistanced both of them in the delegate count.

After last night in Illinois, Romney is about halfway in the delegate count needed to secure the nomination. Assuming he is successful in securing the nomination, as Webb points out, the Evangelicals and the Tea Party will then have a very clear choice to make. They can put aside their ideological purity requirement of the nominee and come join the party, or they can sit it out in protest and hand another four years to Obama.

One would be foolish to think all can be forgiven in that coalesced constituency, but time and chance will have worked its magic for Romney in much the same way events worked in favor of the Obama candidacy.

We sometimes forget how nasty and contentious the primary battle between Obama and Hillary Clinton became. They found a way to work together, nonetheless, and making her Secretary of State was a master stroke of coalescing two very bitter rivals into a common agenda.

The so-called "Mormon Moment" is now becoming much more than a contest of competing religious traditions. Before this campaign is over there will be a full and no-holds-barred frontal attack on Mormonism, the fury of which we can scarcely imagine today. All the calls for civility aside, there will be no stone left unturned in attempting to marginalize Mitt Romney because of his Mormon tradition.

It seems the Obama campaign strategy will relish the opportunity to take on Romney and Mormonism. I think we are going to see an ideological battle of gargantuan proportions. The ideology of Marxist government where the state controls and taxes everything that moves so the redistribution of wealth is complete and comprehensive, or the Mormon view that the Constitution is divinely inspired and must be re-enthroned to ensure individual liberty and self-actualization. We are staring down the barrel of what portends to be the most interesting presidential debate this country has ever witnessed, and political pundits and junkies are now poised to have that battle play out.

In recent weeks, Obama's campaign has already attempted to deflect the conversation from his administration's abysmal record on its policies. How they can go on ignoring the Constitutional requirement to at least take up the House's budget proposal in the Democratic-controlled Senate is baffling. It's more than baffling, it's unconstitutional. I predict that will also be the fate of the Obamacare law, and Romneycare right along with it. The constitutional issue over the individual mandate will be settled by summer in the SCOTUS, and many of us believe it will go down in a 5-4 vote.

We have heard in recent weeks about the Obamacare requirement for free contraception, a Republican war on women, a Democratic sympathetic response to a woman who turned out to be nothing more than their hired shill in a Congressional hearing, and boastful misleading rhetoric like, "Osama bin Laden's dead and General Motors is alive." The American public deserves a better debate than one centralized around such trivial pursuits. Let's bring on the debate about what we want America to be - another socialist nation or one that is free from tyrannical government interventions.

If the Evangelicals and the Tea Party continue to wait for the perfect candidate to satisfy all their ideological requirements for purity, they will be left standing on the platform as the train pulls away from the station. Time to get aboard and focus on what matters most. . .

And that would be defeating Barack Hussein Obama.

Religion needs to become the interesting footnote in this story, as Article Six of the Constitution mandates, rather than the headline to every primary race in every state. Don't underestimate Romney's conservative creds - he's the real deal who will win the hearts and souls of conservatives everywhere, not just in Utah.

Webb concluded his article with these words, acknowledging the differences still exist in religious traditions: "If you had to choose between a Jesus whose body is eternal and a Jesus whose divinity is trivial (as in many modern theological portraits), I hope it would be an easy choice."

I would say in conclusion, if your choice about who you put into the Oval Office this November is between an avowed Mormon or an avowed Marxist, I hope it would be an easy choice.

Choose well, America.

Mitt Romney's Religion

Salt Lake Temple

I read a letter to the editor this morning about Mitt Romney's religion. The author suggested Romney should used his political platform to advance his religion. This is what the letter writer advocated:

". . . he should actively make his Mormonism an issue and show how its tenets and values support his candidacy, and not downplay his faith or its contradictions with what other Christians believe."

I'm certain the writer is a faithful member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), but he is sadly misinformed about the role religion must never play in the political arena.

I write a blog about my views on politics and religion, attesting these topics are not taboo topics. There is nothing wrong with merging those two topics in the public discourse of America, particularly today in the desperate straits where we find ourselves. We can and we must advocate, testify and boldly declare true religious doctrine, and not be afraid to mix it up, take the incoming bullets of criticism and be prepared for a vigorous and enlivening exchange of ideas in the public square.

I believe that. But when you announce as a candidate for elective office in this country, you leave your religion on the doorstep when you step over that threshold. If anyone is paying attention to what the leaders of the Church are doing and saying publicly, when it comes to politics and their influence over the political hearts and minds of members of the Church they would know there is a well-established and consistent affirmation of a strict policy of neutrality in place contradicting the very idea the letter writer has suggested.

As a stake president, Mitt Romney should preach doctrine to his heart's content, which he did when he served in that capacity. But he would be well-advised to keep his mouth shut about his Mormon beliefs as a political candidate, and point his questioners to the governing document we have erected in America -- the Constitution -- for their answers about his suitability as a candidate for the presidency of the United States of America.

His suitability as the potential Commander in Chief may indeed call into question his religious beliefs in the minds of the voters (no one can force the human mind, now can we?), but the founders did everything they could do, going as far as the written word would take them, to assure what their intent was in these matters.

If only Americans would read the Constitution, believe it and act accordingly:

Article VI, paragraph 3, states:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

The problem with Mitt's candidacy has nothing to do with Mitt's religion, or whether or not he should advocate its tenets and defend his membership. Rather, the problem is we have strayed from our Constitution's founding principles.

America is the only country on earth that was founded on a creed, codified and written in a few pages of collective wisdom by the best minds among the luminaries living here at the time. It has been emulated repeatedly in attempts by other self-governing people to duplicate its results.

The guidance and foresight of our founding fathers have endured far longer than any of them envisioned.

At the time they were worried their union would not last ten years.

They invested their lives, fortunes and sacred honor for what? For a principle that free men, endowed with the moral compass of a divine Providence would triumph over all their enemies, foreign or domestic through self-governance.

I still believe it. Do you?

Then act on that belief and choose your candidates for public office based on all the factors before you, but don't limit the debate to which religion he or she espouses. The majority (68%) of Americans now say it doesn't matter if a Mormon is a presidential candidate.

To make a choice about who you will or won't vote for based solely on religion is un-American.

Test Your Religion IQ

I took this 15-question quiz tonight, created by the Pew Research folks.

Survey findings and full analysis are available at pewforum.org.

Take the quiz and see how you do.  I got 14 out of 15.  Missed the one about the Catholics' interpretation of the emblems of the sacrament.  I thought they gave up the transubstantiation doctrine.  Apparently not.

Give it a try.  Good luck.

Here's a "news flash."  Another study indicates Mormons are the most conservative religious group in the United States.

And in Utah, headquarters of the Mormon Church, it's no wonder Utah has earned the moniker as the "reddest" state in America.

So, the natural corollary (drum roll, please, can you guess?) -- Mormons rate President Obama with the lowest approval rating of any other religious group.