Today’s Reading List – December 4, 2006 | Article VI Blog

This is better than the average "Mormon in politics" piece, but only a little. Now here are some interesting questions. Reid, Mormon, pretty darn liberal. Romney, Mormon, pretty darn conservative. Will there be a battle for the "political soul" of the CJCLDS as we see for Evangelicals? Will one or the other get disciplined by the CJCLDS, ala Kerry and the Roman Catholics given his abortion stand? Will some numbskull claim they are both maneuvering for a cultic takeover of government? I would say the best odds are on the latter, but hopefully, it will be a numbskull with little or no audience. Lowell: My prediction: The CJCLDS will be silent as the Sphinx about both politicians.

This is the first near substantive piece I have run into on how Mormon theology might actually lead to governing differently than evangelical theology. The issue at hand is what we creedal Christians call "original sin" and its denial in the socialistic and communistic schemes of the last couple of centuries. Having said that; however, as I understand it, the Mormon view on the issue is closely aligned with the Jewish, and Evangelicals and Jews don't seem to be having much trouble getting along politically. Lowell?

Lowell: The fourth paragraph expresses three core LDS doctrines erroneously. That's very common, so we won't get into accuracy issues. Mormons do not believe in original sin; instead, we believe that "men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression." Don't get carried away with a quick interpretation of that statement, however. The writer John links wildy misconstrues Mormon doctrine if he thinks it leads to any tendency among Mormons to Great Society-style handout programs. With all due respect, anyone who knows anything about Mormonism would find that notion downright laughable. We believe that every human being is responsible for his or her own choices, and that self-sufficiency is a goal every man and woman should strive for. In 1936, appalled by the "dole" programs of the New Deal, the LDS Church established its Welfare Program, which has been described as a "hand up rather than a hand out." The Church's First Presidency said at the time:

Our primary purpose was to set up, in so far as it might be possible, a system under which the curse of idleness would be done away with, the evils of a dole abolished, and independence, industry, thrift, and self respect be once more established amongst our people. The aim of the Church is to help the people to help themselves. Work is to be re-enthroned as the ruling principle of the lives of our Church membership.

Ronald Reagan admired the LDS welfare program. If Mitt Romney happens to follow the same principles in his approach to social programs (and I have no idea whether or not he will), the only people who will be upset will be liberals.

You know why the Dems have a problem with religion in politics? - they think titles matter, not heart. Few Evangelicals think anything of Jim Wallis. They might win a few "religious" votes with this stunt, but not evangelical ones. In the meantime, Wallis sacrifices all claims he has ever made to political neutrality – not that anyone bought them to begin with. I am really fed up with the false dichotomies this guy creates – who says conservative Christians don't want to feed to poor?

John Mark Reynolds begins a very scholarly blog series defending Christian action in the cultural/political arena. We'll keep track of this one; deep, but good stuff.

What does this say about the two-step Newt's been doing lately?

They are asking "The Question" in Denmark. It's in Danish, of course, and I don't really know what it says, but I find the fact that there is a Danish blog post on Romney's faith utterly fascinating. I've been to Denmark by the way, lovely place to visit.

Some interesting, but inconclusive, analysis from a purely political perspective. I don't think it can be broken down that simply, but nice try. Lowell: Not much new there.

Bayh's in. Hugh Hewitt called him "another dull Midwesterner" on Friday. Maybe, maybe not. While Hillary's name is active, ALL other Dems are dull, it's just that simple. Absent Hillary, Evan gets pretty interesting, provided he has the organization – which I am not sure about. The Dems would be really smart, if Hillary does not run, to stay away from the coastal liberal establishment; it's the only credible campaign they could offer.

Share and Enjoy: