The powerless God of anti-Mormons

For five years I've heard not a few Southern Baptists declare that they would never vote for Mitt Romney or any other Mormon, lest they promote and make Mormonism more acceptable to the public.

Aside from the usual politico/religious non sequiturs that we have adopted (think 2008 when we preferred "I am not a born again Christian" McCain to "I am a devoted follower of Jesus Christ" Barack Obama or perhaps thrice married, former Southern Baptist now Catholic Newt Gingrich in 2012,) the aversion to a candidate who is a serious member of what most SBCers would call a religious cult, I'm wondering if we think that God is completely powerless in the matter and a Mormon president would be more than He and the true Gospel could possibly endure.

Ridiculous, of course.

We are already seeing an alternative to the concept of Mormons gaining the ultimate respectability and mainstreamism in America. That alternative is a far broader presentation of the oddities of Mormon teaching and practice.

Most Americans connect Mormonism with polygamy a practice officially ended by the main LDS body in 1890; however, few are familiar with the Mormon practices of baptism for the dead, the sacred undergarments, and a fuller history of the violent practices of Mormons. Toss in the golden plates, reformed Egyptian, Jesus appearing to native Americans, and all the rest and you've got some pretty serious oddball stuff.

The closer Mitt Romney comes to the Republican nomination the more reporting will be seen on some of these ancillary Mormon practices. To wit:

Mitt Romney's family baptized Ann Romney's atheist father into Mormon church a year AFTER his death Seminarians and many SBC pastor are familiar with proxy baptism, as is any serious genealogist who greatly appreciates the LDS' seriousness of proxy baptisms. You mean Mormons think if they are baptized for someone already dead that has some efficacy? Yep. Odd.

David Brooks, NY Times columnist highlights the Romney clan's Mormon history in his column The Wealth Issue. The piece is replete with polygamy, hyper-authorianism, and the mindless obedience of adherents the early Mormon movement which include Mitt's ancestors. Do we really admire Mitt's ancestors for jumping through Joseph Smith's and Brigham Young's hoops? Not me.

In A Brief Guide To “Mormon Underwear” we are introduced to the first presidential candidate underwear discussion since Bill "boxers not jockey" Clinton. What's that? Good Mormons have to wear certain underwear? Uh huh.

No doubt serious reporting will include the core differences between Mormon doctrine and that of orthodox Christianity - the Trinity, Scripture, person of Jesus. I'd speculate that the idea of having your own planet to populate, as good Mormons have, will come up.

Or, consider this: Many of those theologically uneducated Southern Baptists who populate our pews will come to church and ask the resident expert about these things. Those pastors and teachers who have eschewed educating their congregations about Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses et al will be forced to do it. Such cannot hurt and will undoubtedly help. Good.

I think God can handle Mitt Romney as president of the United States.

I plan to vote for him in the Georgia primary on Super Tuesday and again in the election this fall, Mormonism or not.

Thank the Republicans for great prime time entertainment

These debates have been wonderful theater and quite entertaining. I confess to watching all of all of them. Perhaps I should get a life.

Ah, the irony, the spectacle, the agony:

Newt: I like Newt. Newt hits home runs, bunches of them, in the debates. But Newt is a walking political time bomb. I lightly defended his adultery and multiple marriages in past months but the latest renewal of the marital revelations makes it tough. Can South Carolinia evangelicals dismiss these and feel comfortable with Newt, his moral failures, and his former adulteress, third, current, and hopefully last wife as First Lady?

I'd vote for Newt for Visionary-in-Chief but not president. His ability to debate Obama will be far less important than his lack of ability to put forth a record of character, consistency, and integrity.

Santorum: He described himself last night as not the flashiest candidate but steady, slow, consistent. Hmmm, a plodder. I kinda like the concept there, Rick. The more I hear Santorum, the more I like him. I just don't think we need a plodder as our candidate in 2012.

Paul: Unelectable. I'm still with Krauthammer who says that libertarianism is not a governing philosophy. Paul can be the Goldwater of our time - get waxed in the election but successfully frame the debate for future successes. I'd rather win the election.

Romney: I'd settle on him were I in SC.

You know the Lord has a sense of humor or we wouldn't have the scenario we have in SC:

• The best fellow evangelical candidate, Perry, was talked into dropping out by his wife this week so that he wouldn't be embarrassed by coming in behind a Mormon, a good catholic, a new catholic former Baptist, and the libertarian. He of the mammoth prayer rally back in August can get only the dregs in SC. Should be sued for political malpractice.
• Evangelicals get to choose between one member of what we always called a religious cult, a former Southern Baptist, thrice married, now Catholic or a lifelong Catholic...
• ...leaving Paul, a Baptist, as the most acceptable evangelical but who deliberately and principally refuses to cater to evangelicals on their pet issues.

It's gonna be fun...

From on high: Evangelical leaders meet to find a candidate

When the so called evangelical leadership of America meets, should ordinary workaday folks like us (a) ignore them, (b) be wary of them, or (c) thank God we finally have a word from on high about how to conduct ourselves in the remaining 2012 Republican primaries?

Plodder quickly makes a critical executive decision to cast his ballot for (a).

In a reminder that Paul Pressler was a secular political shaker and mover before and after the SBC Resurgence, the worthies met at his Houston home for their grave deliberations. I wasn’t invited. Shucks.

Gary Bauer (a forgotten former presidential candidate), James Dobson (the evangelical star whose supernova has dimmed considerably the past few years), Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and a bunch of others finally voted to consolidate around a non-Romney GOP candidate.

They settled on, get this, the non-evangelical Rick Santorum, staunch Catholic. Go figure.

This whole thing is a delightful spectacle:

• The most solid evangelical is Rick Perry, who had the mammoth prayer rally in the same city to kick off his campaign back in August but who has since flopped repeatedly. Our evangelical leaders evidently recognize that Perry is Texas toast as a presidential candidate. Oops.
• Their number two top evangelical candidate was thrice married Newt Gingrich, whose matrimonial activity must have been more than Perkins and the FRC could swallow, not to mention that former Southern Baptist Gingrich is no longer an evangelical but a Catholic colleague of Santorums.
• Ron Paul's an evangelical. His name wasn't even mentioned in reports of the summit.
• Poor Mitt Romney, not an evangelical but, having one marriage and a pristine family life, presumably meets all the moral qualifications for Pressler and his angst ridden dinner crowd but cannot get a sniff of support.

While they meet in Texas, Romney's lead in SC is over 20 points. He is almost assured of being the nominee, but I don't want to be the one to tell the evangelical leaders that their grand summit to settle on a non-evangelical candidate probably isn't worth much except as fodder for news for a day or two.

Plodder assesses presidential candidates...

Happy to be of help.

I would have caucused for Rick Santorum, were I a frigid Iowan last evening. Instead I worked down my wood pile and stayed warm at home in the basement. It went down to 20 degrees last night here.

Santorum: Sure, I told him to drop out back on October 22nd which should have been a hint about the worth of my political savvy. I admit that the more I listened to him, the better I liked him. Although he will not be the nominee, he has proven himself to have sufficient presence to be looked at as presidential...

...something to contrast to Newt Gingrich. How could fellow Georgian Newt rise and fall so far, so fast? To be so slick in the debates and then revert to form the last couple of weeks is puzzling...unless it is just Newt being Newt. Come on, Newt, drop out and be an idea guy.

Bachmann...the more I watched her the more she grated on me. All this 'titanium spine,' 'iron lady,' and 'most ready' stuff...she's been in the House for five years, one of 435 members of that body for crying out loud. After a while, just incessantly declaring yourself to be The Man needs some bolstering through real achievement. Go back to the House and get some things done Michelle.

Best move Rick Perry has made...going back to Texas to 'reassess' things. Oops, guess all those millions of dollars are gone. The pundits say Perry is really likeable one-on-one but, like a pastor has to deliver from the pulpit, so a politician has to do well before the crowds and TV. Bye bye.

Paul. Unelectable. Can get 20 or so percent of Iowans. Could get maybe 15 percent of the popular vote. Like Krauthammer said way back, Libertarianism isn't a governing philosophy.

Romney. I voted for him in the 2008 Georgia primary. The big Mormon dog in this race. Will be tough to beat.

This will be an entertaining year up un till the GOP has the clear nominee, then a depressingly negative grind until the November election with the two spending a couple of billion trashing the other.

Plodder advises presidential candidates...

...and, no, they didn't ask so I will not charge for the advice.

Herman Cain: Hummon, stop winging it, bro. Running for president isn't like doing your radio talk show. Next opportunity, thank all the other candidates for talking exclusively about your 9-9-9 plan (or, 9-0-9 plan). Keep up the good sense of humor which makes a nice contrast with several snit-infused other candidates.

Mitt Romney: Love your congeniality but once every day let's see a great big scowl because if you are elected there are some world leaders that respond only to angry scowls and a few predator drones. Stick with your 642 point economic plan and don't apologize it but pick a few simple points to push. Mormon/Schmormon - tell 'em you aren't running for pastor-in-chief.

Rick Perry: Drop the swagger. Drop the cheap shots. Drop the Texas stuff. Drop the little ruse of announcing that you will have an exciting new position on whatever the next week. Heck, drop out before all the evangelicals fall into a deep depression over your underwhelming performances. If you have any original ideas, by all means now is the time to let us know. Drop Jeffress from your Christmas card list. He didn't do you any favors.

Newt Gingrich: Since you are obviously the candidate who actually has something to say, just show up and keep talking but when the question is on faith, you might make your answer as short as possible. See my advice to Romney on running for commander-in-chief, not pastor or moral example-in-chief.

Ron Paul: Stick around as long as you can. You don't have a snowball's chance of being elected but I love your consistency. Don't get any big hopes of being anyone else's VP...I think you have successfully burned all those bridges.

Rick Santorum: We already know you have umpteen kids. Is that why you always seem mad at everyone? In fact, astute observers note that you have about six more kids than percentage points of supporters. Drop out.

Michelle Bachmann: Find something to say that doesn't start with, "I was the leader in congress against...." And we know you had several dozen kids and foster kids and commend you for it but my gaggle of astute observers note that you have about a dozen times more kids that you have percentage points of supporters. Drop out.

Jon Huntsman: Skip all of the remaining debates like you did the last one. Treasure your earlier shining moment with the shovel ready dog poop jobs and call it a day.

Always happy to help...

Too early for 2012 politics? How about the Mormon candidate, Romney?

I voted for Mitt Romney in the Georgia primary in 2008 and McCain in the general election...and don't apologize for it.

Mike Huckabee, John McCain, and Romney pretty much divided the Georgia primary votes into about a third each (about 34%, 32% & 30% respectively) although Huckabee ending up with about 70% of the delegates. Huckabee didn't have a chance of getting the Republican nomination much less of beating Obama. McCain was an extremely weak candidate. Romney would have done much better, I think.

But that was last election.

How about this headline: Christian Backs Mitt Romney; Says Mormonism Doesn't Matter

Hmmm. Imagine that.

It is a long time until the Georgia Republican primary which will be held sometime between January and June of next year, our state Republican brain trust preferring to wait and read the political tea leaves before committing to a specific date. Romney will be on the ballot unless something happens and he drops out.

While it is too early to know the full list of choices for our primary ballot next year, we have a number of declared candidates: Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Gary Johnson and some fringe folks.

I agree with commentator Charles Krauthammer that Ron Paul doesn't offer a philosophy that is suitable for governing and is a fringe figure. Herman Cain is catching on. He is pure dynamite and I like him but he has no chance. Unlike some of my colleagues, I would have no problem voting for Gingrich. If highminded Baptist preachers found it expedient to vote for John McCain with his past moral failures, I don't see how they can object to Gingrich. The others I just don't know much about.

Romney is serious, intelligent, experienced, and presidential. He has all the moral qualifications that some of the brethren say are important.

Ah, but he is LDS whisper, or shout, some of the brethren.

And?

While some of my SBC friends see that as an absolute disqualifying factor, I don't. In fact, those who say that they would vote for Romney if he just weren't a Mormon might look up the definition of religious bigotry. I bet that most of us would find a way to vote for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama, Mormonism or not.

The fun starts about now and goes until November 6, 2012.