If you thought the confusion surrounding the Iowa caucuses was bad, wait until you see Nevada.

When the traveling Republican circus moves on after Tuesday’s Florida primary, it will head for the Silver State — giving Newt Gingrich’s most generous backer, casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, a chance to cast a vote for his candidate.

But with the caucuses scheduled for a Saturday morning, Adelson, an observant Jew, originally would not have been able to participate. So, largely at his urging, the state’s Republicans will hold a special extra caucus, hours after the rest of the state has finished voting and reporting its totals.

In case the symbolism wasn’t clear enough, the extra caucus, scheduled for 7 p.m. Pacific time, is being held at the Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Educational Campus, an Adelson-funded private school in Las Vegas.

Party officials insist that’s just a coincidence, but insiders say without the influence of Adelson, a generous donor to local candidates and causes, the rogue caucus almost certainly would not exist.

Here’s how it is supposed to work, according to a conference call with Nevada GOP officials Friday afternoon. Nevada has 17 counties, but more than half the Republican voters are in Clark County, which encompasses Las Vegas.

Each county was allowed to set its own caucus procedures this year, leading to a divergent array of start times and rules across the state. Some precincts will open their doors as early as 8 a.m.; others won’t get under way until noon. But all must wrap up the action by 3 p.m.

At 5 p.m., the party will publicly announce the results of the caucuses for the 16 smaller counties. (Since these results will have been announced at the precinct level, the campaigns and media likely will already have a sense by then.)

At 7 p.m., just as the special evening caucus is getting under way, the results for the rest of Clark County will be announced.

Now, dear friends, this blogger has not one lick of trouble holding a late caucus or two to accommodate our Jewish friends – BUT ANNOUNCING THE RESULTS OF THE OTHER CAUCUSES FIRST?!?!?!?!?! Please – particularly when the population figures stack up like they do.  Never in all my born days have I seen such a naked and public set-up to cheat an election.  If it is anywhere near close, all our colleagues at the Adelson  caucus have to do is go out and drum up some more Gingrich voters to show up at their caucus.

The RNC has no choice but to threaten Nevada with withholding credentials from all Nevada delegates to the convention unless the results of all caucus’ are withheld until all the caucus’ are complete.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

I know my Internet stature compared to his is like comparing Nathan Fillion’s coolness to my own.

He is a lawyer trained in debate and I learned to argue defending Bart Starr’s Packers in junior high from Steeler fans.

Still I would enjoy debating him on the notion of Mr Gingrich’s fitness for office. I would let him set the rules.

What do you think Mr Erickson?

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Since they are all the rage: let me challenge Mr. Erickson of Red State to an online Lincoln-Douglas debate on the question: “Is Newt fit to serve?” An alternative question might be: “Is Mitt Romney a conservative?”

If he agrees, I promise a civil argument between allies in the bigger political fight. Perhaps this would help our community makes some decisions in the weeks ahead.

I am open to variations that he finds better. Of course, his on-line status is larger so perhaps he can find a foe more his equal, but I would love to see such a debate. Since I am not a political expert, I would be willing to defer to a better choice for the chance to see this issue discussed.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Is there a religious angle?  Well, given that Perry’s campaign more or less launched with the long-echoing Robert Jeffress Mormon shot – What do you think?

Watch this space.

An Oh! – By The Way A couple of hours later – Do you think it is possible that Gingrich added to the pressure on Perry to get out given what is going to happen to him tonight?  Distraction perhaps?

New News at 9AM – There are the first leaks from the Gingrich ex-interview:

Marianne Gingrich is going public with personal details of her marriage to Newt Gingrich, telling ABC News in an interview to be aired Thursday night that the former House speaker “was asking to have an open marriage.”

That’s gonna leave a mark.  And Perry has made it official – here’s the speech – note this:

The fact is, there is forgiveness for those who seek God and I believe in the power of redemption, for it is a central tenet of my own Christian faith.

Veiled reference (Perry said it in regards to his and Gingrich’s differences in the campaign) to the bombs that are dropping on ABC tonight?  Reference to his/Newt’s faith as compared to Romney’s?

Hewitt has the best take-away of the moment: (and things are changing on a momentary basis)

This is a 13 state election: Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico. These are the states into which will pour perhaps as much as two billion dollars in advertising and campaign ground game for they are the states “in play” in the fall.

[...]

But if your life, the lives of your family, your fortune and future prospects all depended on the data before you, and you knew how the media would be aggressively assailing whomever is the GOP nominee, which candidate would you support? Got an answer? Then ask if your answer would be the answer of a majority of voters in those 13 states.

Are they even watching this drama?

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Am I the only one horrified at the racist dog whistles?

In South Carolina, where rebellion against the Union began, the Governor of Texas could not be bothered to defend the Voting Rights Act and gave a full throated defense of state’s rights. He ignored a question on voting rights to do so.

I am for state’s rights, a strong federalist, but the party of Lincoln knows that when states refuse to grant the right to life, liberty, or property the Federal government must intervene. As Bill Buckley admitted, conservatives were wrong to oppose the Civil Rights bills. African-Americans had no recourse, because state power was tyrannical and abusing them.

Tonight I heard, at least I think I did, “rebel yells” at a Republican debate.

Newt was the worst offender apparently unaware that working as a janitor, being forced to work as a janitor, feels differently to his kids than to the children of African-American parents. Is he unaware that racism continues? I am for work and for some of his ideas, but he showed no sensitivity, no nuance, and risked pandering to the worst in us.

A Southern politician like Gingrich must do better and I am calling him out for it. He was race-baiting and that disqualifies a man from office.

And then he quoted the founder of the Democratic Party, Andrew Jackson, on terrorism.

Slave owning Jackson ignored the Courts to launch the Trail of Tears one of the worst moments in American history. He brought on a national depression by his economic ignorance.

Does Newt the historian know these truths? It is not o.k. to glorify this man and his lawlessness that my party was founded to oppose.

I hated those dog whistles in my party. Call me a RINO if you must, but that is not my party at her best and I refuse to be silent.

Newt Gingrich did not represent me tonight and will never represent me.

I thank God the competent conservative Mr. Romney was there.

I blogged the whole debate at www.johnmarkreynolds.com.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Don Quixote is amusing and sometimes inspiring, but he would make a bad President. The perfect become the enemy of the good and the Quixote serves as the clown for the ruling class. We might learn from him, but we cannot be governed by him and live in the world as it is.

Perhaps that is a problem with the world, but the world will not be as it should be if we indulge in Utopian dreams.

And yet a certain kind of Pancho loves following Quixote, because it delivers them from any responsibility to govern. Whatever happens in a culture, they stayed pure. Certain fringe Evangelicals hold themselves from the arena so that they can comment safely on the sidelines. Theodore Roosevelt was right that such men who refuse to enter the arena can be ignored.

If you are tempted to follow the voting advice of our Evangelical political leaders ask a version of Reagan’s question:

“Are we better off now, than before we were led by such men?”

Cowardice is not just refusing a necessary fight, but choosing sham fighting in a fool’s cap for the amusement of the ruling classes.

Rick Santorum has suffered for our causes. He is a good man, even a noble man, but he is not equipped by character or experience to govern a nation where his views are in the minority. If a Presidential nomination were given for suffering for our cause, then Rick Santorum would be our nominee, but there are not enough conservatives simply to nominate one of our own. Rick Santorum offends his friends, let alone our enemies.

President Obama inspired many moderates to vote for a progressive, but Santorum would inspire many young conservatives to bolt. He has a habit of saying the right thing in the wrong way. Theodore Roosevelt’s bully pulpit can not be safely left to Santorum. He is right, but sounds wrong and we cannot afford giving up any cultural advantage.

Even if conservatives were a simple majority, then Rick Santorum would not be the best choice for our executive.

Senator Santorum has no executive experience and no great success as a legislator. Senator Santorum has not built a sound campaign and while some good candidates are bad Presidents no bad candidates ever become President.

Rick Santorum is running a Quixotic campaign and support for him is not noble, but a waste of valuable resources. He could not even get on the ballot for every state. How will he defeat President Obama’s billion?

I fear that bigotry against our LDS friends may be a root of the refusal to accept Governor Romney’s political evolution. Why is Gingrich a “conservative” and Romney not? Why is Senator Santorum’s “earmarks” given a pass and Romney’s attempt to work with a Democratic legislature in Massachusetts not?

Is it that Romney is a Mormon? Some of the fringe characters in the Evangelical world whisper such bigotry to me, but Evangelicals are people of the Golden Rule. We will treat Mormons as we wish to be treated in the political sphere.

If Rick Santorum is the nominee of my party, then I will vote for Senator Santorum. His vision is preferable to that of President Obama. He may not be a good executive, but we know the President is not. But we need not make that choice.

We have the choice of a man with executive experience in the private and public sphere. We have the choice of a man of personal integrity who has chosen to associate himself with our unfashionable causes. He has made mistakes, but every politician, including Senator Santorum, has made mistakes.

We do not have time to confuse windmills with giants, the Mormon faith with our political foe. Instead, we will embrace our fellow citizens and make common cause to defend the Constitution of 1789 against expanding government. We will vote our conscience, but not our fantasies.

He is a conservative of the heart.

Let’s tell Evangelical leaders that competence and character trump quixotic idealism in the race for President and vote for Mitt Romney. Governor Romney is no sliver knight, no Quixote off to slay giants of secularism, but he is a gentleman and a competent executive. Republican have never asked for more from their leaders. We are not Pancho, but we are Republicans.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Ron Paul ran behind Pitch-fork Pat. Commentators like Andrew Sullivan miss the fact that a huge chunk of Paul support is Paleoconservative and no friend to his social causes. Paul is pro-life, after all. He hates the UN and the Fed. The folk I know that back him support him for those reasons.

I am betting that not many media types know these folks. They are more likely to know a different group of Paulites.

Paul came to one of his best potential states and unperformed, but so did Rick Santorum (to my surprise). Why? Because Mitt Romney took a third of the very conservative vote. Mitt Romney won the “born again” vote. Romney won his “weak” groups or did very well amongst them.

Santorum and Paul split the Buchanan Brigades, but Paul added some college libertarians to the mix as well.

Mitt Romney is the presumptive nominee. The US is not Britain and never will be. The Republican Party is not the Tory Party and never will be.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

Every four years outsiders try to “understand” Iowa and fail just as many in even conservative media do not understand Evangelical culture. Few media types can write about my own school, Biola University, without calling it the “Bible Institute of Los Angeles,” and not in an admiring tone, though we have not been called that for decades.

Sometimes it is tempting just to vote for the candidate that will irritate these snobs the most. If that is the goal of your vote: give Ron Paul your ballot. But remember this, it will help nothing.

Those invincibly ignorant will not care about our virtues and they will trumpet our vices whatever we do. Voting for a candidate who cannot be nominated, who probably should not be nominated, will accomplish nothing.

Let’s not waste our vote on other candidates that like Mike Huckabee four years ago lack the campaign organization to win. Good candidates can make bad presidents, see Jimmy Carter, but no bad candidate will ever be president. Part of being a good candidate is the discipline and structure to run a good race.

Only one candidate has the national infrastructure, money, and talent to go the distance in the primaries. He is the man good conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santorum backed four years ago: Mitt Romney.

Now many of these same conservative are not satisfied. Romney will owe them nothing if he is the nominee. He is his own man and they imagine some better choice. There is no such person and this imagined conservative perfect will be the enemy of the good.

If Romney were merely good at running for office, he would not deserve your vote, but Romney is good at running things. He was good at running his business. He helped save an Olympics. He was a successful governor.

You don’t have to like everything he did. Romney’s views on abortion have improved, but so did Ronald Reagan’s. Romney made some bad calls trying to run a liberal state with a Democrat legislature, but so would any human.

If you think he is pretending to be a conservative to get our votes, then ask why this Harvard man bothers. Why did he stick with the party of his father? Why didn’t he become a Democrat? Can anyone doubt that such a man would be lionized by the media if he had done so?

Ask Harry Reid if people with Romney’s background can become leaders in the Democratic Party. Romney stuck with the GOP, because he is a fundamentally conservative man: the product of generations of conservative men and women.

Governor Romney is a good man, a brave man, but a man. As a man he has been wrong, said stupid things, and fallen short of our expectations in an ideal candidate. He is not messiah and if he is elected, neither ignorance nor want will magically vanish.

But we conservatives don’t put our trust in princes. We look for the man or woman best qualified for the job. That man is Governor Mitt Romney.

What makes a successful president? There is no easy answer, but most successful presidents share a few traits.

First, there is executive experience: a good president will generally run something. In the Republican race only Governor Perry and Governor Romney can make that claim. Romney, however, has run big enterprises in the public, non-profit, and private sectors.

Second, a president is not just “head of a government” but represents America to the world. You may not like President Obama, but a huge majority of Americans voted for him and still like him. They believe he is a good family man. They are right to believe this, because President Obama’s personal life is the best advertisement for his own values.

Mitt Romney has a personal life that can stand the comparison.

There was a day when in blissful ignorance voters could ignore private failings. Those days are long past.

Third, a good leader will be smart. This does not have to equal formal education: Lincoln had less than a year of school. Go read a Lincoln speech. He educated himself. A candidate that cannot articulate his views in a Republican primary will not be able to defend his administration from critics.

Theodore Roosevelt could lecture in European universities and talk to cowboys on the range.

That ability is rare, and Romney may or may not have it, but if he doesn’t, we can be sure none of the other candidates do. He is a serious man, well educated, who grasps issues at a deep level. We will not have to watch debates holding our breath hoping he does not blow his chances with a lack of attention to detail.

At the same time, Romney has grown by running for office. He is showing a comfort in dealing with “regular folk.”

Fourth, there is character: Romney has a good character.

How can you know? Look and see which candidates keep their teams in place. How loyal are their subordinates? Mitt Romney inspires loyalty.

They call Romney a “flip-flopper.” I say that Romney, like any conservative, knows that the politics is an art and not a science. On any given issue, there is no “right answer” sent from God to the theocrats ear.

No president is Moses and about tariff policy God has been silent in His Word.

As a result, an astute politician will govern the best he can. Lincoln compromised to win and so radical abolitionists opposed him. Romney compromised to run Massachusetts and so purists and ideologues can never support him. The need to compromise makes politics a dirty game and nobody escapes perfectly clean.

Churchill had to work with Stalin to defeat Hitler. The English hero had to speak to the Russian devil in his language to beat the monster in Berlin. Of course, most political compromise is between decent men each only partly right and both partly wrong, but the essential point is the same.

Compromise is the language of the devil only when eternal issues are sold out. The prudent man, the conservative man, knows the language of Heaven can motivate, but it cannot govern this side of Paradise. Compromise is the language God’s men use on issues where God has not clearly spoken or to avoid setting up their own opinions as God’s.

Temporizing can be dangerous, but conservatives know there is a greater danger. The moderate man may become useless to the government, but he inflexible politician, the purist, will become a devil chasing utopian dreams in a fallen world.

Mitt Romney has adopted conservative social views and lived them out in his own life. He has made serious mistakes, particular on the issue of abortion, and learned from them. He believes in free markets, but markets checked by the rule of law. He is no zealot or utopian about either the magic of either big business or big government.

He will do what can be done and not fritter away his political bankroll chasing impossible dreams. Government grew incrementally and Romney will shrink it incrementally.

Finally, a conservative should vote for Romney, because Romney might win, but none of the other candidates will. Conservatives are not a majority of Americans. We need to reach out to other voters . . . to gain the ten percent that can be persuaded to join us to form a governing coalition.

All my life extremists promised that if a “pure” candidate was just placed on the ticket a silent majority would appear at the polls. It is a delusion of losers. Think of the last set of Senate races. Republican primary voters got what they wanted, but those candidates lost. The tendency is then to blame the candidate, but this is just loser talk.

Americans are right-of-center on many issues, but not on all issues. We need a right of center man who can begin to move the nation in our direction. Romney is the only candidate to win “blue state” votes for executive office.

Why not Governor Romney?

I don’t believe Iowa Evangelicals will pass on Governor Romney because he is a Mormon.

Why? I know our Evangelical political history.

Lincoln directly appealed for our votes on moral grounds and got them despite his own ambiguous religious beliefs. I know my great-grandfather, a circuit riding preacher in West Virginia voted for the Unitarian Taft and his religion was never an issue. He never voted for fundamentalist WIlliam Jennings Bryan, because great-granddad shared his religion, but not his politics and he was voting for president. Iowa Evangelicals liked Ike in droves though the General was vague on religion and only baptized in the White House.

Iowa Evangelicals should ask: would they rather see the nation governed by values that look more like Utah or Illinois.

You might wonder if Romney is “real” or just a suit of clothes for the Washington establishment. Nothing could be sillier.

Do you really think this Mormon family man is the hero of the cocktail circuit or the ruling elite? Mitt Romney is not anybody’s creature. Nobody owns him and nobody pays his bills, but Mitt Romney.

These are tough times and the crisis in Europe means that things could get tougher. Romney is willing to serve and we should be glad he is. The rest of the candidates, with the exception of Romney, need to be president to salvage battered reputations or to be somebody.

Romney could retire a rich and successful man, but he is willing to serve.

We might make the mistake of passing on this chance, because Romney is not “one of us.” He is not in our “inner circle” and does not speak our insider language. At the caucus it will be sad for Evangelicals to se that none of our own are ready for the White House. There is nothing wrong with pulling for the “home team.”

Truth demands admitting we have failed to raise up a generation of qualified Evangelical politicians.

Humility suggests acknowledging our need for a good leader from outside our community. Evangelicals now in their prime political years are from a generation that did not put sufficient treasure, time, or talent into raising up a generation of leaders as other groups have done. Too often we have embraced a shallow faith, anti-intellectualism, and an “insider” language that does not communicate outside our own circles.

A generation of home-school mothers is solving this problem, but we need time. Meanwhile the nation cannot wait for graduates of programs like the Torrey Honors Institute at Biola University to reach their prime political years.

The people of Israel were delivered by Cyrus, a noble Persian ruler. They had to accept that even if he was not part the Chosen People, God had raised him up to deliver the nation.

Imagine the people of Israel refusing to go home, because Cyrus was not a “true believer.” Cyrus was God’s man, but he did not come from approved places!

I would not dare to claim that Mitt Romney is a Cyrus for this age, but the example proves one thing: God can use people we deem “outside” to help his people. If God can call Cyrus His man, then surely an Evangelical can cast a caucus vote for Mitt Romney.

We cannot know for certain God’s plan in history, because God’s ways are often mysterious to us. We can know this for certain: Mitt Romney is a gentleman, an honest man, and a conservative man. Nobody ever was ashamed of voting for such a man.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

And this is from a VERY left wing source (Talking Points Memo) with no interest in bolstering Romney.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.

So rare is collegial discourse on the issue of Mormons in politics, I wanted to promote the kindest commentator I have met who disagrees with me by posting in full on his beliefs.

His response is, I think, wrong, but he is a good man. Of course, he thinks I am wrong, but then I am less good so that may make sense! If you can read to the end do so, because I make my main point there.

We all pray: Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.

My critic says:

As the “thoughtful critic” I thought i would reply. First i would like to thank you for your gracious approach, civil manner of discourse and representing me fairly…all virtues often lacking in cyberspace.

I reply:

It is less charity than a passionate love of discourse and a longing to discover the truth. When I meet a good critic, my first thought is that he has discovered something I do not know. Losing an argument is a great blessing not a curse!

My LDS friends have often modeled this passion to me as have my fellow Evangelicals. We are not best represented by politicians or loud Internet trolls any more than my atheist/agnostic teachers in graduate school were anything like Richard Dawkins.

My thoughtful critic says:

1. My point about challenging your initial analogy was not an attempt to say a Latter-day Saint is disqualified from becoming president but rather to say that his/her mormonism is not incidental to the question “is ______ fit for the presidency.” Would you say that someone’s homosexuality is not relevant? A homosexual can serve in our military and may be very “gentlemenly” in interpersonal relationships but wouldn’t you be concerned about their overarching worldview that has expressed itself in a deviant sexuality? To be clear, I am not equating mormonism and homosexuality but simply trying to show that it seems that a larger principle of qualification for one does not equal qualification for the other. It seems that we do accept a homosexual as a homosexual in fighting for our freedom so by your argument we shoudl also not let it have import into our perspective on voting for the presidency.

I reply:

First, I think bringing up homosexuality is as unwise in a debate as talking about Harry Potter at a homeschool convention. Everything else we say is likely to be lost. I shall continue withe analogy, but it is perilous!

Second, I would encourage you to stop using examples that are vice ridden. Since I think homosexual practice is a vice it is not like Mormonism. I do not think Mormonism is a civic vice. As a matter of fact, I think it on the whole a religion that promotes civic virtue. Whatever the theological vices I see in it, they are not relevant to my vote for the civil leader of the nation.

Third, in fact I would accept a homosexual as a homosexual as a fit soldier. Imagine a trooper: let’s call him Major Dumbledore. Major Dumbledore is a pious Christian and celibate. He struggles with homosexual desires and when asked reports that his victory over that desire has made him a gentleman. Far from condemning him, this commends him. He has acted nobly.

Of course, I do not commend him because he has any particular sexual proclivity. I would not commend a man as an officer and a gentleman merely for being heterosexual! Instead, I commend that which has led him to gentlemanly behavior.

Now suppose that Major Dumbledore is motivated to his gentlemanly behavior by his LDS faith. This is not surprising, because it is a natural outcome of that faith.

In the issues relevant to being both an officer and a gentleman, as Washington, Grant, or Eisenhower would have understood the terms, Mormonism contributes rather than detracts from relevant character formation.

I apologize to LDS reading this post if this seems condescending. They do not, of course, need me to affirm their citizenship or their commitment to republican values. The evidence is in Mormon blood spilled in defense of our country and over a century of adherence to Constitutional principles in areas where they are dominant.

My thoughtful critic replies:

2. I appreciate what you have said about civics as a subset of “worldview” and that is a helpful thought. But it seems to me that two issues remain:
a) I don’t think that the subsets of worldview (civics, domestics, general ethics, epistemology, etc…) are as easily compartmentalized as you seem to be saying.

I respond:

They are not easily compartmentalized, of course. However, we have to ask is there anything about the LDS epistemology, ethics, or life style that would make a man or woman unfit for the presidency.

I would say to the contrary that the LDS majority adopt a mainstream epistemology (though few I know are Platonists, sadly!), have a commendable ethical system, and promote a healthy and wholesome lifestyle.

I do agree that those areas in which we have disagreement must, in some manner, impact the thinking of the LDS politician, but I fail to see an aspect relevant to civic affairs that outweighs the overwhelming evidence that if a man is a good Mormon he wlil be a good citizen.

Of course, not all Mormons are good Mormons, but then a quick glance in the mirror shows me that not all orthodox Christians are good Christians.

My thoughtful critic replies:

b) I do think epistemology comes to bear directly on this issue and I think this is very important. This is true in two ways. First, in LDS epistemology feelings play the primary role as “testimony” forms the citadel of personal religious confidence in the mormon psyche. Testimony is a feeling that is actually used to provide personal confidence in the midst of contrary or inexplicable facts. The data on this seems entirely conclusive to me as someone who lives in the heart of the mormon belt. I don’t want a leader who is overblown in reliance upon existential verification for decision making. I am not saying that Romney is, I am only saying that LDS epistemology is relevant to the discussion whether or not Romney holds an epistemology consistent with the history of major mormon policy decisions (polygamy reversal, removal of racial discrimination for the priesthood) is not clear to me.

I respond:

At last an area, epistemology, in which I am (on paper at least) qualified to respond!

For those tempted to stop reading, don’t! Epistemology is merely the area that studies knowledge and how we know what we know (roughly).

The argument from my thoughtful critic is that a Mormon who is a good Mormon irrationally clings to his experience over the evidence or in the light of contrary argument.

This would, of course, be relevant to serving in the White House. Nobody should vote for a man who would base important decisions on his “hunch” only and against the evidence.
Sadly for my thoughtful critic, I do not think this describes actual Mormon epistemology.

Of course, my thoughtful critic describes his experience as evidence for his contention and I cannot argue with this, but I will counter by saying I frequently meet Evangelicals who cannot defend their Faith. They have been given no reason to doubt it, so this is not irrational. When suddenly confronted with doubt, these lightly educated, but good souls rightly hesitate to change a means of thinking that has worked so well for them.

They look to clever Evangelicals like Professor Moreland at Biola (a fine school I hear!) and hope an answer is in his writings. So long as they follow out their doubts and look for intellectual answers to the depth of their abilities, then they have acted with intellectual responsibility.

We should not demand of my pious grandmother, simple of heart and faith, answers to our doubts. One need only answer questions one has, not one that one’s neighbor has.

Second, Mormons are rightly conservative in making big worldview changes, just as Evangelicals are. Losing an argument, even several arguments, is not a good reason to abandon a heritage and a working view of reality. Indeed, if an atheist watches Bill Craig win a debate (a common occurrence) and “converts” only for that reason, then he has been hasty not wise.

He is lucky to be right, but luck is a bad reason to switch religious beliefs!

Indeed, Mormons demonstrate a desire to engage in apologetics for their own faith. Now their epistemology is based on experience, but then so is mine. I am a traditional Christian because it fits best experience and is reasonable. I (of course) think my views correct or to quote my grandfather when confronted on doctrine, “I would change my mind,” but arguments are long and other people mileage varies.

I read the Book of Mormon, thought if profound, but was not another Gospel. My Mormon friends who are comparably educated disagree and base their disagreement on experience and reason.
I respect that, though I respectfully wish to continue to disagree firmly!

In any case, this, with the existence of the first-rate BYU (stronger than any single Evangelical college), built at great cost by the Mormon community adequately assures me that any educated Mormon (and Romney has a better education than most of us) can be a good Mormon, a good reasoned, and so is fit for office.

My thoughtful critic continues:

Second, because Latter-day Saints are bound to heed the official proclamations of their prophet due to the doctrine of continuing revelation I am hesitant to sanction the presidency of someone who in principle ascribes to a faith that has him subservient to the aforementioned epistemology. What if the prophet has a revelation that demands the renewal of the acceptance of polygamy. Would Romney, in principle, be bound to attempt to act? Do I think this would happen, no, but that is not really the point. I am only trying to show that epistemology, especially in this case does matter.

I reply:

I am under the authority of my bishop as an Orthodox Christian. In theory, he could decide to order me to act in a manner contrary to the Constitution of 1789. In such a case, I would be honor bound to resign while I dealt with this issue of conscience.

I think a fundamentalist Baptist is in no different position. Suppose a Baptist of this sort became President. He continues to read his Bible daily, the only rule of his life. He becomes convinced the Bible sanctions polygamy, which in some circumstances it does. Is he bound to act on this knowledge?

I think he should resign, just as any gentleman would do.
Oddly, an atheist is in no different position. He will have some authority in his life (if only his own reason) and it might tell him any number of unexpected things.

I think it no more likely (and perhaps less likely) that the Mormon prophet would interfere with Romney than any other scenario of this sort for any person.

I am in fact comforted by the knowledge that Romney is a man “under authority” and that he does not make all decisions (especially religious ones) alone. This seems sensible. It might be abused, but I see no evidence in Mormon politicians (and we have generations of them) that is any more sensible than my actively worrying the plane in which I now sit will crash into the Texas wilderness beneath me.
In fact, given the history of the LDS, I think fear of the prophet would try to control someone such as Governor Romney is possible, but so unlikely I am more afraid of this plane crashing. If you are reading this, it did not and we can all relax.

My thoughtful critic says:

3. I just kindly disagree with your theological analysis. You are right that LDS theology and my own (evangelical – I realize yours may differ slightly) do not differ on every point however the disagreements are not insignificant. I am a bit unnerved by a theology that so recently (officially up until 1978) viewed blacks they way they did due to their concept of the preexistence. I think there is significantly less in common than you might grant in this discussion. However I do grant your proposition that much of theology is not overly relevant to politics.

I reply:

I have pious Southern Baptist friends who attend churches that just as recently were segregated or hired pastors who believed (at least implicitly) that “race mixing” was evil. We have Romney’s own moving testimony to his reaction to the news of the LDS change on the priesthood.

I find that refreshing and encouraging.

I doubt we disagree on much theology relevant to this discussion.
Not only do I think our theological disagreements with the LDS insignificant, I think them important.

I fail to see, however, where these disagreements impact civics. If Mormons still taught bad things about African-Americans, that would be relevant, but they do not. Given a century or more of civic virtue, the burden of proof is on the critic that Mormonism does not lend itself to republican virtue.

My critic makes a further point:
4. When you responded to my defense of Jeffress use of the word cult in the context of a reporter’s question to him after the event you smuggled in a sociological definition for the term. Jeffress’ repeated qualifications of his statement revolved around the fact that they are not a sociological cult but a theological one.

I reply:

One cannot pick, sadly, how one will be understood. I love the word “hobbledehoy” but I rarely use it, because nobody gets it and it makes me sound . . . like one of those philosophers given to saying incomprehensible things.

I do that enough without cultivating it.

As a smart man, Jeffress must use words as they will be understood and not smuggle in meanings from our community. He was at an event with people of many faiths. Why use a word in a way that is bound to be misunderstood and distract from his main point?
He could always not answer the question, after all!

My critic presses his best point:

But you seem to redefine “cult theologically” to mean “far smaller, more dangerous, more ephemeral, and less open to change.” But at least the first three of these are primarily sociological and not theological. It is a cult because of the level of its theological deviance and its allegiance (at times a sense of worship [note the LDS hymn "Praise to the Man" referring to Joseph Smith]) to a particular human leader (Smith and the present day prophet). The allegiance is theologically motivated because of their doctrine of revelation, hence their epistemology.

I reply:

I concede that the term “cult” can mean a group that deviating so far from creedal Christianity that it is no longer theologically orthodox. I just don’t think that use of the term works outside of an agreed on religious context. For example, are non-Trinitarian Pentecostals in a cult? From a Baptist point of view is the ancient Church of Antioch with her icons?

The problem is setting the boundaries and deciding on the level of deviance allowed. That can be done, but I don’t see how it is anything but confusing in a secular meeting or even an ecumenical (let alone inter-Faith one).

There are manners; I am sure, where Christianity could be described as a Jewish cult. We do after all deviate from the Jewish mainstream. What use would it be for a rabbi to say this at the end of a political meeting?

Boundary setting in a community is good. You and I are “in” and X is “out” . . . nobody could have a group otherwise, but everybody has to agree on the words used for the boundaries to be meaningful.

There are many senses of Christianity as a term, as it is used in Standard English, where Mormons are obviously Christian. Any other use of “cult” might make sense when we both are at the Evangelical Theological Society, but not to outsiders. It is jargon and jargon should not be used outside the guild.

This is especially true if the jargon has a negative meaning outside our guild. (“Myth” is a good word in Plato studies, a bad word to most Christians. I use it at risk.)

I am not a Mormon, don’t play one on television, and am not even in the pay of Salt Lake City (whatever my less thoughtful critics say), but if I were a Mormon I would tempted to say that the hymn you cite points to “veneration” and not to worship.

People in Standard English used to say: “with my body I thee worship” to describe marriage. In that sense, I surely worship my wife. LDS members, if they are right about the Prophet, would be in their rights to “worship” Joseph Smith in the sense of veneration.

I worship the American flag in that sense of worship.

Sadly, outside the LDS context the hymn strikes me as likely to be confusing. Just as I would advise Evangelicals to avoid using the term “cult” in their political discourse, so I would advise (if he reads this) President Romney to avoid this hymn for his Inauguration. Many will be confused, though it is a nice tune.

(Equally if we ever elect an Orthodox president, he might avoid veneration of icons at his Ball as it would be hard to explain!)

Finally, I cannot help but think that many people lack charity toward Mormons and calling them names plays to this hatefulness. I have seen it happen and it is ugly.

Aren’t we accountable for how we will be heard? There are dog whistles to racists and there are dog whistles to irrational religious bigots.

Dr. Jeffress has evidently done many good deeds, far more than I. He is bright and serves his community well. However, I think this speech (with others about Mormons and Roman Catholics) betrays his best self. That seems a great pity to me.
God help me never to destroy any good I have done by ill-considered comments.

I conclude:

If you are still reading, you are patient and interested in rational discourse! I hope we have demonstrated it.

If you believe that Utah, with a Mormon majority, has maintained a republican form of government for over a century, then your experience tells you a Mormon can be trusted with power in a republic. If you live under the shield of American justice, then Mormons are now armed to the teeth to protect you, but are not abusing that power. If you wish to live in peace, then you are being served by Mormons all over the world sitting in our embassies representing our interests globally.

That is your experience, your civic testimony.

Against this, you have the arguments of my thoughtful critic and my replies, such as they are. Do these arguments outweigh what you have experienced? Is my thoughtful critic so smashingly successful that you will abandon Governor Romney’s entire life of service out of doubt?

In my case, best reason and best experience say that we are lucky someone like Governor Romney wishes to be president. All we need for evil to triumph is for enough good men to be disqualified by ideologues.

©2012 Article VI Blog. All Rights Reserved.