Would you vote for a Mormon?

12 Responses to “Would you vote for a Mormon?”

1. stevez

   December 21st, 2007 at 10:59 am

   I sure wouldn’t. They actually believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers and that we will be deified one day. Sheesh, if you can’t tell the difference between deification and glorification can I really trust you to have your finger on the Button? Plus, they have all those “weird rituals done behind closed doors.” Everybody knows that eating the flesh and drinking the blood of a man who rose from the dead and then floated up to heaven is what perfectly sane people do. (I might be able to give credence to those who pray to a deified Virgin and follow a man in a pointy hat…nah, they’re crazy, too; just only people who think the man who rose and floated lived the life and died the death they were supposed to.) Christianity is the most natural, unweird thing in the world, and anyone who deviates from it simply cannot be trusted to do that which is natural.

   I hope I am discernible, what with my tongue so far deep in my cheek and all.

2. Rusty O.

   December 21st, 2007 at 1:03 pm

   “Blame DGH for turning us all into 2K secularists!”

   I remain totally unconvinced by 2K views because of that second K. I earnestly ask ya’ll how it is we can use “kingdom” language to describe the modern nation-state? THERE IS NO SECULAR KING. In the nation-state all intermediate fealties (churches, local and state level civil authorities, etc.) are absorbed by the contract between individual and the central government. There is a foundational conflict between personalism and impersonalism that is not being addressed if we ascribe kingdom language to the modern leviathan.

   As far as voting for a non-Christian goes, I’ll be glad to give my vote to whoever will kill the beast (and he will fail, Ron Paul or whoever).

   Rusty

3. D Hart

   December 21st, 2007 at 6:22 pm

   If Bill Clinton had been a practicing Mormon he might have left Ken Starr better things to do.

   In 1848 I would not have voted for Joseph Smith. Liberalism has done a pretty good job since then of domesticating most faiths. Mitt seems pretty tame to me.

4. sixteenninety

   December 22nd, 2007 at 5:37 pm

   An emphatic “no” to the mormon question.

5. Josh M.

   December 22nd, 2007 at 7:00 pm

   No. Most Mormons might be tolerant liberals, who know little of the strange cult they are in, but one would never know how high up in the church hierarchy the Mormon candidate is. Do we want to vote for a man who is part of or aspires to be one of the “Twelve Apostles,” or who says Jesus is the “Son of God” but is clearly deceiving people because his religion certainly does not teach that?

6. larryb

   December 27th, 2007 at 11:20 pm

   I can’t see willfully putting myself in a position of submitting to the authority of someone who did not submit themselves to the authority of the biblical Jesus Christ

7. sixteenninety

   December 29th, 2007 at 6:32 am

   larryb, I concur and wonder if you, like myself, see a distinction between the authority of government as dissimilar to, say, an employer?

8. D Hart

   December 30th, 2007 at 9:02 am

   So, Larryb, to which province of Canada did you go during the Clinton years?

9. stevez

   December 31st, 2007 at 11:28 am

   Larryb and 1690,

   I’ll see your government/employer question and raise you a parent (as it were): should a believing child seek emancipation from an unbelieving parent?

   It seems a disengenuous convenience to draw a line between government and employer in order to wriggle out of submission. Authority is authority is authority. Of course employment and citizenry and famililal relations are certainly different phenomenon but they all comport within the KoM (soory, Rusty) and under the sovereignty of God. Yes, I know that a liberal democracy may make citizenry a dicier question but the other two institutions of family and work (where “choice” as to authority is greatly reduced) seem to suggest that religious belief ought not into the equation.

10. sixteenninety

    January 1st, 2008 at 8:40 am

    stevez,

    You rightly note that the child doesn’t pick the parent, but the citizen does pick the magistrate. This may even weaken the “employer” argument, save that the two are not quite the same in scope.

    I still won’t vote for a pagan, ergo: Romney.

    Let’s not forget Romney opened himself up by pointing out his mormonism to the public. Therefore, he made it part of the question for us all.

11. larryb

    January 2nd, 2008 at 8:40 am

    God has placed me in a country where i am able to elect my civil authorities. So yes, i am obligated to elect those that are in submission to Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

    In God’s design we do not elect our parents, so it has nothing to do with the question at hand.

    And no, i didn’t move in the Clinton years…but i didn’t vote for Clinton. While it is wrong for me to elect someone who doesn’t submit to Christ, i am still called to submit to those who are elected. I am responsible for my individual vote before God, not for the outcome of elections. God is responsible for the outcome.

12. stevez

    January 2nd, 2008 at 12:47 pm

    1690,

    That is what I meant by dicey: there is “before and after the fact” which attends these phenomenon differently, it seems. And that is why I suggested that what the “after the fact” (parent or even employer, even times and places in which authority is not chosen by the people) seems to suggest is that religious belief doesn’t have any bearing on legitimate authority. If that is true, why would it matter in “before the fact” just because our time and place is “democratic”?

    Larryb, that said, I know that God has commanded us to submit to our authorities…I just don’t see where we are “obligated to elect those that are in submission to Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.” That sounds like a glorified personal preference.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.