Review of A Mormon in the White House

brutha

When did you ever witness Hillary in a skirt?

Of the major three, Romney is the most appealing and McCain seems to be flailing. Anybody who would refuse to vote for Bush's tax cut in '02 can only be of the mind to raise taxes were any political pressure applied by the left - and that pressure from the left might as well be regarded as a law of nature by now. So for that simple reason, he loses my vote.

Giuliani acted heroically on 9/11, and he cleaned up the streets in NYC, but everything else about him screams a leftist nightmare. Too much on the line, especially when it comes to the two justices who will likely be stepping down in the next presidential term.

That leaves Romney. I hesitate due to his switch after 1994 from a left-leaning candidate to a conservative governor-to-be, but I also believe people can genuinely come to see the light, and that is the main investigative matter I have to take up before really throwing my support to him. I also like the fact that he has a professional background in finances. Balanced budget, please, and some tax reforms would be nice - maybe something every American can comprehend.

I really like Newt, but I hope that Newt just stays out of the game entirely. As smart as he is, his candidacy would only be a distraction from the issues. Valuable time discovering more about other candidates will be taken up with Newt's past on a 24 hour news cycle.

I also like Fred Thompson, who at this point is the only other possible candidate I see myself voting for.

Hunter, Brownback, and Ron Paul deserve a look-see, but I don't believe any of them have a big enough game to play in presidential politics.

I have been a devoted listener of Hugh Hewitt ever since he began his radio career a few years ago. His grasp of the political landscape, what it takes to win a working majority and his desire to understand and communicate these strategies are what makes him worthy of listening to. His interviews with Mitt and investigation of the Mormon faith have made me more open to consider voting for Mitt, if he is the most conservative candidate remaining.

There remains, however, a significant theological difference between classical, historical Christianity, as recorded in the Bible (regardless of its version)and the brand of faith adhered to by the LDS. The two share similar language and values, both personal and societal, but there is no way to equate them at their core. I believe the reason evangelicals distrust, or are at least skeptical of, a Mormon is because of the confusing of this language.

The irrationality of water-to-wine, Lazarus, and the feeding "The Chair" mentions is so to unbelievers but not to believers. Why? The object of those miracles was God Himself, as recorded by the observers -- many of whom went to their death either believing a terrible lie or the truth that Jesus was God in the flesh. Why do evangelicals dismiss the Book of Mormon? Because the original text clearly tells us that no other written message will be forthcoming; that the archeological record doesn't support the claims of Joseph Smith; that Joseph Smith's use of mixed languages are laughable and the explanations for their use strain credulity.

Ultimately, either classic historical Christianity is true or the Mormon version of Christianity is true, but they can't both be true. The Jesus worshipped by them isn't the same and there's just no way to alter that fact -no matter how you say it.

So why are evangelicals so adamant about this difference? I think it's because a persons' eternal life is at stake -- it is a matter of life and death, spiritually speaking. And depending on which Jesus you believe in, your decision has consequences that are eternal. So choose wisely.

Let me reiterate, if Mitt Romney is the best, most conservative, most qualified candidate receiving the Republican nomination, I will work for his election with as much enthusiasm as I can muster. He will not have to pass a "religious test" with me. His character and leadership skills are of paramount consideration.

Thanks for enduring my explanation and comments.

You are exactly right in your assessment of the difference between Christ as taught in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Christ as taught in other churches who adhere to the Nicene Creed. They are not the same. It is important to know that we Mormons understand that the chasm is wide and that many Evangelicals disagree with us. We have no problem with that and we welcome any reasoned discussion.

So, I appreciate very much your comment. And, I also appreciate your willingness to look past the religious debate as we try our best to elect a President with the conservative values we all espouse.