Leadership, Mormons, Evangelicals, and Morals in Politics

By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, www.bannerofliberty.com

December 7, 2007

The mostly positive reaction to Mitt Romney's speech yesterday on Faith in America 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: "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.