Wednesday, September 5, 2012

Can a Mormon President Be Good for America?

Is Joseph Smith on the Way to the White House?

Putting politics and platforms aside for the moment, Americans, and more specifically believers are faced this November with choosing between theologically liberal unbeliever and a moderate Mormon. Do I hear the faint warning sounds from “Chicken Little” that the sky is falling? For some this has become a difficult choice. When previous candidates had been “main-line denominationalists” the dilemma didn’t seem so great. After all, not many so called Christians would consider Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, or Methodists as “cults.”

For American Christians this election is different. After all, most conservative to moderate “Christians” have been taught that Mormonism is a cult. What will it mean for America to be led by a Mormon president? No doubt, with a Romney White House, Mormonism will enjoy an increased visibility and popularity. It is possible that Mormonism will even have a greater influence on the American population than first imagined.

Romney of course will have no more reason or ability to “Mormonize” America than JFK Catholized it, or Jefferson Deist it, or Taft Unitarianized America. American has had six religiously and denominationally unaffiliated Presidents. They didn’t seem to do it any more harm than religiously affiliated Presidents.

When one considers this coming election I think it holds some real benefits for believing Christians. First, if Romney is elected Pastors may be forced to truly do their job. Pastors will have to teach biblical doctrine in order to enable believers to be grounded in the truth. Second, believers will need to be able to discern what biblical truth is and what not biblical truth is. This may force believers "back to the bible."

What a wonderful opportunity however for the enemy of Christ and His Church! Let’s allow a religious affiliation distract us from the business of properly, effectively, and morally governing this land. I dare say that we have enough legislative safeguards to foil a “master-minded” plot to establish Mormonism as a national religion or church. Let’s not forget that…

"Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people." (Prov 13:34, NKJV)


Scott said...

Here's my issue. How can anyone trust a man who is so easily deceived that he would believe a lie like Mormonism to begin with. What does it say about his character that he would follow this deception? I'm not worried about him "Mormonizing" the country, but I am very worried about a man who would blindly follow the voice of a "prophet", just as I'm worried about his opponent who follows nothing but his own power hungry desires.

Gregg said...

You and I both agree he is certainly not the best choice for this country. I guess I didn't think about his predilection to deception since he bought in the "lie" of Mormonism. The reason I didn't is because I think darkness is darkness. Jefferson bought into the "lie" of deism, Taft bought into the lie of Unitarianism, and other leaders buy into similar lies regularly.

I think it is easier to defend (and I am not defending Romney) a man being led into deception such as believing a false prophet, when some leaders beginning at the local level, continuing through the state and into the federal level being deceived and buying into the lie of "there is no God." Or being deceived into the lie of evolution, or believing the lie of humanism, of the lie of psychology.

You and I know Joseph Smith and those who followed were false teachers and prophets, but he doesn't understand that. He would deny being deceived.

Would you have opposed Dwight Eisenhower for being deceived by Charles Taze Russell and the Watch Tower? Or what about Garfield being deceived by Charles Campbell?

Don't get me wrong, I am not challenging you nor defending Romney - Go Virgil Goode - but I don't think his religious affiliation is going to hurt America - his politics will (maybe considerably less than Obama's politics will hurt us)

My thoughts were designed to engage discussion, you bit, oh I mean you engaged. I am playing devil's advocate hoping to generate some interest in this dying blog of mine.

Ma said...

Personally, I feel that religion should play very little part in choosing a president. If we are supposed to have freedom in our beliefs as Americans, then so should our leader. As long as we are allowed to assemble as believers, aren't being persecuted in a REAL way (no one can take away our right to pray- maybe corporately and publicly, but no one can stop us from praying to the Father)I have no problem with a Mormon, Muslim, Hindu, or Atheist in office.

Ultimately, it is God who puts whomever in power anyway, so we need to consider that as well.

Gregg said...

You are right, it is God who raises a man and it is God who brings him down. Whom ever is elected will be right in line with God's perfect plan from all of eternity.

I think you are right. With the laws that are in place, I think it would be impossible to implement a state church. I think however that our government can and will eventually rule Christianity illegal. Great thoughts Ma! Thank you.

Ian said...

It may not be an ideal choice, but I for one, would rather have a Mormon leading than a Muslim! At last count, the Mormons do not go around hollering "Jihad" or beheading folks.At least the Mormons are living in the 21st century.

Scott said...

Good post and good thoughts by everyone. My thoughts; I'm voting for the person I think will best govern over us. The only criteria I can use is their past governing records, their lives and their overall philosophy of the role and purpose of government. I agree, neither one of these men are a regenerate person and darkness is darkness but some are more deeper in darkness than others. I would feel more comfortable with Romney than say a muslim. The values he holds lead to a better possibility that he may surround himself or at least include some born again believers in his cabinet, giving him counsel. I figure, I'm voting for a President, not an elder. The qualifications for the presidency and eldership in a church are not the same. I can't apply the same criteria to both.