Something to support every kind of prejudice.

Patheos is hosting a symposium, which this week turns on the question, "Can Christians Vote for a Mormon for President?"

Warren Cole Smith says "no" because of Mormonism's ahistorical and anti-historical beliefs and because it would be a major boost for Mormon missionaries:

What Weyrich understood was that you can't have it "both ways" when it comes to Romney's faith. You can't say that his religious beliefs don't matter, but his "values" do. The Christian worldview teaches that there is a short tether binding beliefs to the values and behaviors that flow from them. If the beliefs are false, then the behavior will eventually—but inevitably—be warped. Mormonism is particularly troubling on this point because Mormons believe in the idea of "continuing revelation." They may believe one thing today, and something else tomorrow. This is why Mormons have changed their views, for example, on marriage and race. Polygamy was once a key distinctive of the religion. Now, of course, it is not. Mormons once forbade blacks from leadership roles. Now they do not. What else will change?

J.E. Dyer says "why not?" because Mormon politicians look remarkably like every other politicians:

Mormons in politics run on party platforms, but while their voters tend to espouse socially conservative positions, the best-known LDS politicians don't always do so. Mitt Romney came late to favoring limits on abortion, for example, and Jon Huntsman is passionate about legalizing narcotics. Senators Bob Bennett, Orrin Hatch, Jake Garn, and Mike Crapo have been largely indistinguishable from centrist Republicans in terms of their voting records and stances on issues. The political "product" of Mormons, while variable, has been the opposite of radical and scary.


LDS politicians work within the limits of constitutional government. They have no history of failing to respect First Amendment protections, nor do they advocate applying religious principles inappropriately to the activities of the state. This, it seems to me, is what we need to know about Mormons when we are contemplating voting for one.

And Jeremy Lott offers his Catholic version of "Two Cheers for Mormonism" and a simple rule to guard against a bigotry that can all to easily be turned against everyone:

The exact question put to the symposium was "Should traditional Christians be comfortable supporting Mormon candidates for office?" Allow me to answer the question with another one: "Why should they not be comfortable supporting Mormon candidates?" So far as I am concerned, the only legitimate answer is not a sectarian one.


There may indeed be good grounds to oppose a Mormon candidate for office. Yet they ought to be the same grounds that you would use to oppose someone from your own religious tradition. Random traditional Christian voter X should not vote for Mormon candidate Y for the same reason that he would not for a Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish candidate—because you disagree with the candidate about political matters of great import.

If you care deeply about limiting abortion, as many traditional Christians do, then you probably ought not support former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, even if you both happen to be Catholic. Instead, you should consider supporting Jeff Flake, Rob Bishop, or Mike Crapo—Mormons legislators with solid pro-life voting records all.

When I put the case to evangelicals like that, they usually concede they can agree with most Mormons on, say, abortion, gay marriage, and the importance of family generally. But then they insist that Mormons believe "weird things" that make them suspect and probably members of a cult.

So: no sale.