Leadership, Mormons, Evangelicals, and Morals in Politics
By Mary Mostert (12/08/07)
The mostly positive reaction to Mitt Romney's speech yesterday on Faith in America(1) indicates to me that a large portion of the electorate in the USA has gotten really tired of the negative attack strategy we are being deluged with in this warming up period to the 2008 Presidential Election.
Even CBS News' found something positive to say. Scott Conroy wrote
yesterday, shortly after Romney spoke that "the event felt more like a State
of the Union address than a campaign stop." He even noted that Romney quoted
another Massachusetts politician, Samuel Adams, a Massachusetts
representative to the First Continental Congress of 1774 when a suggestion
was made to open the Congress with prayer. John Jay from New York objected
because of the diversity of religions in the room. In his speech Romney
reminded this generation that Samuel Adams then arose and said he would
"hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were
a patriot.
"And so together they prayed, " Romney observed, "and together they fought,
and together, by the grace of God, they founded this great nation."
Of the many times applause greeted Romney's comments, this reminder of
public prayer in our history received the longest and most enthusiastic
applause. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and most of their callers s were
enthusiastic about what they heard.
I think this reaction to Mitt's speech is significant. Most people seemed to
feel better about America, and their own, future after hearing Romney speak.
If that prompts them to get out and vote, this could mark a major turn in US
politics. At this point, the Iowa polls show Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee
each with 25% or more of the vote. That indicates that about half the voters
in Iowa are interested in finding a candidate with some moral values, as
well as some demonstrated executive leadership experience. Both of them have
been governors of states.
Together they appear to have about half the Republican voters in Iowa. Back
in the olden days of political thinking, that would have caused many
political commentators to begin talking about a Romney-Huckabee Republican
Ticket for 2008. Could a Mormon and a Evangelical work closely together as
president and vice-president? I think they could, especially if they were
Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Such a ticket would not only attract the
nearly 50% of the Republican voters who are current supporters, it would
also attract people of no religious background or other religious faiths who
are looking for moral and competent leadership during these troubled times.
This is an issue that I feel uniquely qualified to comment on, because of my
own life history. For most of my life, until age 46, I was an agnostic
humanist. Many writers assume that agnostics would never vote for any
religious politician. Actually, that is incorrect. I was an agnostic because
it appeared to me that most of the religions I investigated seemed based on
different interpretations of the Bible, while largely ignoring the
importance of actually living by the principles taught in the Bible.
So, I studied Chinese philosophy, numerous churches, the Koran, Eastern
religions etc. One of my brothers was an evangelical, who eventually became
the minister of his own church and the other brother was a non-believer. My
sister adopted most of the tenets of Buddhism, without abandoning her belief
in Jesus Christ. When, back in the 1970s, I was baptized as a member of The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I became a "Mormon." I served
as local public director and later served a mission as public affairs
director for the Africa Area.
What I found over the years is that rarely do outspoken opponents of LDS
doctrine actually know anything about LDS doctrine. Many in the media, prior
to Romney's speech, seemed to think that Mitt Romney was going to "defend"
and "explain" his religion. Mitt wisely suggested to those who want to know
about the Church to go look it up on the Internet. That is easy to do since
the LDS Church has a website, www.lds.org, and teaches its doctrine in 178
different languages.
Because so many people apparently did what Mitt Romney suggested, the LDS
Church posted the following comment on its website yesterday:
< http://www.lds.org > "The Church's Mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus
Christ, not to elect politicians. The Church's neutrality in matters of
party politics applies in all of the many nations in which it is
established."
So, as a former agnostic, what do I think IS the major difference between
Mormon and Evangelical Christians? Evangelicals and most other Christians
believe in the doctrine of original sin - meaning that babies are born with
the burden of sin inherited from Adam and Eve, and have to be quickly
baptized to remove that stain. Babies are not baptized in the LDS Church.
They have to have reached the age of accountability - which is at least age
8. Nothing in the Bible supports the notion of baptism of babies. This is a
doctrine of Augustine of Hippo who taught that unbaptized babies that die go
to hell.
LDS doctrine, on the other hand, teaches that we are all children of God and
we have to learn how to sin. This naturally tends to encourage optimism,
rather than pessimism. Mitt Romney's talk on Faith is an excellent example
of how, as president, he could help bring us together for the challenges we
will face as a nation in the coming years.
Mary Mostert
http://www.bannerofliberty.com/
1) http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Faith_In_America_Address
(Printer friendly version) Email: Mary Mostert
