An Unwise Decision: Romney Allowed to Speak at Liberty

Open letter to the Liberty “Kens” (Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski, professors at Liberty University).

In a Huffington Post article from 5/11, two professors from Liberty University in Lynchburg, VA, wrote an article (“Evangelicals will Rally for Romney”). They wrote in support of Liberty hosting Romney in today’s commencement exercise. In my blog, I am including their article in full (underlined), with my comments given underneath.

Elections are about choices, and 2012's pivotal election showcases two very different visions for America's future. Governor Mitt Romney is quickly consolidating the Republican base to enthusiastically support him this November. His speech this weekend at Liberty University illustrates these efforts, providing an opportunity to underscore Romney's embrace of American exceptionalism in both his public and private life.

First, I need to introduce myself as the father of a future Liberty student. This fall my daughter is transferring as a junior to Liberty. This was a decision she made with her mother and me last year.  In fact, my daughter took a year off from school in order to work fulltime at a secular job to earn money for next year’s tuition. I must say, if she hadn’t already put her eggs into the proverbial one basket one basket (Liberty), there’s a good chance she would not have chosen this school. She along with her mother and I are seriously disappointed with the decision of the school’s leaders. Here are several reasons why:

1.  Having Mr. Romney come a conflict of interest. If you’re going to have a Republican nominee speak, why didn’t you invite the President as well? (Perhaps he was invited; if so, let everyone know. Somehow I doubt it.)

2.  Having Mr. Romney address the graduation overshadows the accomplishment of the students who worked their tails off the get their degrees. Some might be honored that someone of Romney’s stature would come.  However, it’s very clear that the media descended upon Liberty solely because of Mr. Romney, not because of the graduates. To me, it’s akin to inviting a movie star you don’t know to your wedding. He accepts your invitation, but while the focus rightfully belongs to the bride and groom, everyone instead spends the wedding/reception watching every move of the actor. (“Oh look, he’s getting more dip for his chips.” “Isn’t he gorgeous?” “His girlfriend is hot.” “Do you think I could cut in on his date and get the next dance with him?” And so on.)

3.  Who’s getting the greatest benefit from Mr. Romney’s speaking at a major Christians institution? Let’s be serious, he’s not coming as a friend of Liberty. He’s using the school for his own purposes. And while he’s at it, the invitation sure makes his Latter-day Saint (Mormon) views look “Christian.”

4.  Speaking of which, there is an obvious blurring of the lines here. This is not just about a political scenario. It’s about religion. What are people thinking when they see Romney at Liberty? It’s not that Liberty supports the Republican candidate, which is obvious given its political viewpoints. Instead, the natural inclination is, “Ahhh, this must mean this Mormon is a ‘Christian’ since a conservative Christian school—largest in the country—is having him speak. “

In 1 Corinthians 8 and 10, Paul dealt with the issue of whether or not a person should eat meat offered to idols. Is it OK? Yes, if you do it in a way that doesn’t cause others to stumble. No, if it causes problems or confusion with other people. Here, in the situation of an Evangelical Christian school asking a Mormon presidential candidate, I think there is a blurring of the lines. How many will become confused and could even possibly convert to this religion down the road because they let down their guard. It is a mixed message.  In fact, one Mormon I know is having a great time with this situation because it sure looks like his religion is legitimized. He is right because it sure looks that way.

Liberty University is the perfect venue for Governor Romney to make his case. With over 50,000 students, it’s America’s largest Evangelical school. Founded by Jerry Falwell, it’s affiliated with the largest Evangelical denomination in America, the 16 million members of the Southern Baptist Convention. Liberty University wisely offered Romney a platform to speak to social conservatives.

No, professors, it wasn’t the “perfect venue.” Allowing this mixed message is too great of a price. As it was said by the Jewish leaders when they wanted Jesus crucified, “let the blood be on our shoulders and future generations.” And Liberty, I just don’t think God is pleased with your jockeying to get PR for your school by giving up its integrity. (Could this be a move to increase the enrollment of your online school?)  Imagine if there was a “graduation” ceremony in Jesus’ day. Would Jesus or Paul have recommended, “Hey, let a Pharisee speak at our ceremony—that’s only fair.” Liberty is anything but the perfect venue for this political candidate.

I have spent most of my adult life studying the teachings of the Latter-day Saints and sharing the Truth with the Latter-day Saint people. Perhaps the professors didn’t know that Mormonism teaches that God was once a man and that faithful Mormons have the opportunity to become Gods of their own worlds; that all humans once existed in a premortal life where they chose Jesus as Savior; that Jesus was a created being; that salvation comes by grace after all you can do; that baptism into the Mormon Church is a requirement;  that the Bible is true “only as far as it is translated correctly;” and that only its faithful members who pay a full tithe, wear special undergarments, refrain from hot drinks, and who haven’t had regular compromising contact with those opposing their faith can attend their secret temple ceremonies, allowing them the possibility of one day going to the Celestial Kingdom.  Again, it makes no sense that a Christian university like Liberty has given a platform like this to someone whose religion has so blurred the lines, claiming to be Christian and desiring to convert Evangelicals to their religion.

Romney wisely accepted, showing both support for cultural issues, and also his desire to have a large and diverse political movement behind him to unseat one of the most radical big government presidents in America's history. Some seek to make an issue of the fact that Romney is a Mormon -- the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS). But those attacks will deservedly fail in a choice between Romney and Obama.

He “wisely” accepted? How about he “astutely” accepted? And why not? Could you imagine Brigham Young University inviting Newt Gingrich to speak at its commencement? Trust me, it would never have happened…unless, somehow, the leaders at BYU thought they could use such a scenario for their religion's own gain.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees that in America you have the legal right to be theologically wrong. This protection for diversity of belief includes matters large and small, covering not only Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, Catholics and others, but also 422 Protestant denominations. While there are very significant theological differences between LDS and Evangelical doctrine, none of them are significant for national policymaking.

This is a cop-out, gentlemen. The First Amendment? This is a non sequitur. Of course everyone has the right to free speech. But a university has an obligation to its community. To compromise its integrity by overshadowing its graduates and allowing a political candidate hailing from a religion claiming to be Christian is a poor decision. It’s unwise. It should have never been made. It’s just a bad decision.

For all that has been said, the two professors need to realize that special oaths are made in Mormon temples. The laity (this includes Mr. Romney) pledge their allegiance to follow the leadership of the General Authorities ruling from Salt Lake City. They are told that these leaders have the keys and authority to make decisions directly from God. While nobody is saying that the prophet and his counselors would tell a future President how to run the country, the candidate has so far declined to tackle this issue. When John F. Kennedy ran for the presidency in 1960, many were concerned with his Catholicism. Kennedy wisely stated that he would not be unduly influenced by the Pope. But Mr. Romney has made no such announcement. I think many would feel better about his run for the top office in the land if he would make a similar pledge.  

Yes, I agree that theological differences do not determine my voting against a particular candidate. But I know enough about this Mormon religion to understand it’s far different than any Protestant or Catholic religion these professors may know. The Mormon authority structure is not benign. There is power in the leadership. So, let Mr. Romney announce that he will make decisions for the betterment of the country, even if doing so goes against the wishes of the leadership of the church. This would be a great start for the “Mormon candidate” to distance himself from questions many of us have about the future political role of the LDS prophet.

That's because most voters only focus on religious beliefs insofar as they inform policy decisions. On those issues, there is little difference, for instance, between the faith teachings of Evangelicals, Catholics, and Mormons. All are pro-life, upholding the dignity of human life. All fully support marriage between a man and woman. All embrace the value of religious faith and practice, and pursue religious liberty.

There’s no doubt that many Mormons have political similarities with Christians. But not all do. Ever hear of the senator from Nevada, Harry Reid? Just this week this temple-recommended Latter-day Saint announced that he’s politically for homosexual marriages. Thus, professors, I’d be careful to use the word “all” here. Not all Mormons are pro-life. And not all fully support marriage between a man and woman. And let me ask, Would Liberty have allowed a conservative atheist presidential candidate to address its graduates? I highly doubt it. So why allow the Mormon candidate.

Moreover, in an age where some seek to drive a wedge between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives, members of the LDS church understand that family issues are economic issues. They understand that children raised by a father and mother in a low-conflict marriage are more likely to graduate high school, graduate college, stay out of jail, secure a good-paying job, and eventually have successful marriages of their own. That’s one reason why the LDS church places such a premium on the hard work of childrearing, as seen in Ann Romney’s noble choice to work at home, investing in their family in a 24−7 job whose only paycheck is a dividend of love and satisfaction, and whose employee-of-the-month awards are photographs of a woman laughing and smiling with her children.

What does any of this have to do with allowing this candidate to take the focus off the students and blur the lines of religion? Absolutely nothing.

Contrast this pro-faith, pro-family picture with President Obama’s radical agenda. It’s more than his war on people of faith (especially Catholics) or his fringe views on abortion. In President Obama’s worldview, government usurps the place of family. Big Brother becomes Big Father who brings home the bacon through government entitlements covering everything from housing, to education, to food (stamps), to government-run healthcare. You need have faith in government alone, as the collective state becomes the god in whom you trust and from whom you receive your daily bread. And they replace the family unit with the state, undermining the foundational unit of civilization.

As a liberal arts school, shouldn’t you allow both sides to be represented? Whatever happened to let the other side get a fair shake? Is allowing Romney to come more of an “anti-Obama” moment than anything else? Why are you, as a Christian institution, putting yourself in such a compromised position?

This attempt to – as President Obama puts it – “fundamentally transform the United States of America” must be stopped. And there is cause for hope, as the North Carolinians this week reaffirmed marriage as the union of one man and one woman in their state constitution. This is a fresh reminder that despite the pontifications of urban and coastal elites that supporters of traditional marriage are on the wrong side of history, countless millions of Americans embrace marriage as a sacred institution that government can only recognize, not redefine. This marriage victory in a state that is not only a swing state, but also the location of the 2012 Democratic National Convention, bodes well for Romney’s support for marriage helping him carry North Carolina and with it the White House.

As the writer of Ecclesiastes put it, there is a time and place for everything. Go ahead and use your personal First Amendment rights to campaign for the man. Just don’t bloody the image of your institution in the process.

(It also shows Obama to be on the horns of a dilemma. Whom will he alienate? His far-left base, or swing voters in swing states like North Carolina? Or will he refuse to “man up” and alienate both sides by failing to take a stand one way or the other?)

Again, more anti-Obama rhetoric. I wonder, is anyone allowed to be a Democrat at Liberty?

Both the LDS church in general – and the Romneys in particular – not only understand these truths of the family as the essential foundation for American prosperity, they embrace them. And the LDS focus on self-reliance at the family level, of responsibly stewarding financial resources and planning for a rainy day, is naturally opposed to big-government programs to redistribute wealth and centralize decisionmaking.

I agree most Mormons believe in solid families. But this is not a reason to allow a Mormon to address your commencement exercise.

Surveying the differences between both candidates and considering what's at stake (i.e., America's future), we believe conservatives will flock to Romney. In a matchup between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, it's an easy choice for conservatives like both of us to fully endorse Governor Romney in this year's election.

And by all means, endorse the man as individual professors. But your institution should stay out of the fray and not allow the lines to be blurred. The school’s hands are now dirty. It has compromised its integrity. This was the most unwise decision the school could have ever made.

GOP candidate is drawing a varied Christian response

With a Mormon candidate having a good chance to garner enough electoral votes to earn the GOP nomination, we at Mormonism Research Ministry are starting to get used to the question, “Should (or Could) a Christian vote for a Mormon presidential candidate?”

In March, Bill McKeever posted an article on our website talking about this very issue. (See http://www.mrm.org/vote)  We also produced a short video, using the article as our script. (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4Gte7A23RE) Without saying “yes” or “no” to the question, Bill discussed the issues that a Christian voter needs to consider when determining whether or not to vote for a Mormon candidate. For example, he explained how those of us in Utah would never be able to vote if voting for Mormons was inherently wrong. After all, most candidates for public office in this state are Latter-day Saints.

While voting is an important right, there are many things to consider in determining the right candidate for such an important office as president. We must consider the candidates’ world views as well as how determining how they will handle topics that are important to us (i.e. abortion, finances, health care, foreign policy, etc.). While there are no perfect candidates, we must determine who would be the person most likely to lead the people in a way that aligns with a biblical perspective.

There are, Bill said, three possibilities if a person decided not to vote for the Mormon candidate: Abstain from voting, write in another candidate, or vote for the incumbent. We encourage Christians to pray on their knees for God’s will in this coming election. However, because MRM is a 501c3 nonprofit organization, we’re not allowed to tell people how to vote.

There are typically two responses to our position. One side says that we are not being forceful enough because they feel that  it’s mortally wrong to ever vote for a Mormon candidate, regardless of the choices.  (I wonder, What if a candidate is secular humanist? Shouldn’t that be an automatic disqualifier too?) One responder to the video even took us to task, accusing us of being in cahoots with the LDS Church, exclaiming that “this is a sneaky mormon video pretending to be a christian (sic) made video but yet a mormon made video!!! mormons are evil !!!!!” Another side feels that because we run a ministry showing how Mormonism is not Christianity, we are somehow automatically opposed to any LDS candidate.  As one man told us recently as a public meeting held at a church, our opposition to Mormonism may cause what he felt was a good candidate from winning the election.

This is not an easy issue, and no matter where we try to land, we’re bound  to get criticized. Pray for us at MRM as we have opportunities to not be political but rather deal with the Mormon issue that is now a current topic and being discussed in many different places.

Stories that make the heart ache

Living in Utah is a different experience. Of course, there’s the cold—it’s been in the teens this past week and no snow in sight, so it’s a bit chilly  out there. There’s the inversion layer, which makes downtown skyscrapers look like fingers reaching into dirty water.  And last but not least, there’s the Mormon influence. Truly, there are so many people in Utah just entwined in this religion, never considering the idea that perhaps they have been misled.

One of the joys of working in ministry here is getting to listen to people’s stories. Last night, my friend Bill McKeever and I hosted a young couple from St. George. They have a zeal for living for God ever since they left the Mormon Church in the summer of 2010. It was a 16-month process for them to leave, but leave they did and now they are sold out for Jesus. Talking to them last night, they recounted the painful stories of dealing with family and the feeling of near-abandonment, where they visit close relatives who no longer speak intimately, just about the weather and other benign issues. (I understand what this feels like from a first-person perspective.) From their LDS friends, this couple has received little compassion, just questions, such as “Have you divulged temple secrets?” or “Have you properly disposed of your temple clothing?”  Trust has been lost. So superficial and so sad.

Today, I spent the afternoon manning the Utah Lighthouse Bookstore in Salt Lake City, which is run by Sandra Tanner. She’s in Tennessee at a television taping, so they needed help watching the store.  Yes, books are sold there, but even more important is having a visible place (right across from Spring Mobile Park, the home of the AAA Salt Lake Bees) where people from any persuasion can feel safe to come in and ask questions.

That’s exactly what 25-year-old  J____ did early this afternoon. He walked in the door as I was working on a chapter for the book Bill and I will have available this summer (Kregel Publications). My initial reaction? Honestly, it was, “Shoot, I’m smack in the middle of this, hope this guy doesn’t bother me.” Geez, what a carnal and selfish reaction, but hey, I sin, just like you! J_________ wasn’t in the store for more than 30 seconds when he looked at me and blurted out, “I’m LDS and I’m searching.”

I asked him to sit down and, for three hours, we conversed on a variety of issues, everything from the reliability of the Bible to the Trinity and authority in the church. He’d ask a question and I’d talk for 20 minutes. He’d ask another, more commentary from me. At the close of an issue, I’d ask if he understood my explanation. “Yes,” was the typical response. But when I asked him to tell me what I said about the Trinity, he still had a misconception (thinking the Father is the Son), so we had to work extra hard on that issue. Then he said, “You know, I think I’m getting this.” Progress was being made.

We were in the middle of our second hour of conversation—nobody else has bothered us—when a midde-aged couple walks in. In this small 700 square-foot store, there’s no whispering because you’ll be heard anywhere in the room. So I continued my talk with J______________. Meanwhile, I feel that this couple is superficially looking at the store’s book offerings but is listening to the conversation (which is fine). Finally, S_________ stands across the table, causing J_________ to look at her. I turn and ask, “Hi, ready to check out?” “No,” she said, “I’m just listening.”

Then she pulls up a chair and motions for J________ and I to continue our talk. So we did, for another 20 or so minutes. During a pause in the conversation, S________ hesitantly put her hand up and says, “I’m LDS, but I just found out last week that Mormonism is false.” Her words are a jolt to J_________ and I, as I think we assume this was an Evangelical couple. Tears fill her eyes. My heart became sad.

Then S_______ looked up at J_______ and asked, “Are you LDS?” “Yes, sort of still,” he said. “Oh, OK, I thought that might be the case. Let me tell you, if I had observed this conversation last week, I would have felt sorry for him (pointing at me). I would have thought, that young man is having to listen to this lost man who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. But I don’t think that anymore. Now I feel sorry for both you and me.”

It was apparent that I had an invitation to share the Christian gospel. The three Mormons in the room knew that their religion offers no hope and is not based in truth. But none of them were ready to jump ship quite yet. They all have searching left to do. The husband of S___________ decided that there is no God, that he’s tired of getting deceived, and therefore he wants nothing to do with God. He’s not arrogant, just hurt. (Unfortunately, we see more people jump into atheism after leaving the church—it’s a natural reaction to not be burned twice.) Meanwhile, the couple’s two kids (16 and 12) are fully engulfed in the church, not knowing that Mom and Dad are planning to abandon the faith they grew up in. They don’t know what to do and fear a splitting of their family. They are tempted to stay status quo and finish raising their children, but S_________ said, “How would I be able to look them in the face when they find out it’s not true?” She knows this is not a good choice, but how will she tell them? Will they be angry? Will this cause division in their family?

Before they left, I had a chance to pray for the couple, and then I finished the conversation with J_________. In just a few short hours, I was greatly reminded why I’m here in Utah. This is not a game, folks. So much is on the line. Even though he is 25 and served a mission, J_________ doesn’t want to disappoint his parents, as his dad is a bishop. What will the reaction be from his dad’s congregation when they realize that the bishop’s son is considering becoming an “apostate”? (None of his family or friends know about his search. Can you blame him?) And the couple feels burned. “What are we supposed to do after spending our entire lives in this church?” S_____________ asked. These are good people who just don’t know where to turn.

If you’re a believer, would you take a minute to pray for these folks? J__________ and S___________ can trace their genealogy to the days of Joseph Smith.  For the rest of the story, please know that I am asking a Christian couple who have been through a similar situation to call S___________ and her husband—they said it was OK. And Bill and I will have lunch with J___________ in a few weeks, as he took a copy of The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel and promises to read the first six chapters on the Bible. I bet he devours the book.

Perhaps I’ll go visit the bookstore tomorrow and see who’s next to come through the door.

Keeping “our radar focused” on the membership

Pity the poor singles who live in the Salt Lake City area of Utah.

According to an article in the Salt Lake Tribune (“Loss of young adult members spurred changes to LDS wards,” 4/27/11, p. B1), 5,000 single Latter-day Saints between the ages of 18 to 30 who gathered at the LDS Church’s Conference Center were told by Apostle M. Russell Ballard that 147 student and Young Single Adult wards between North Salt Lake and 4500 South in Taylorsville are being dissolved.

In its place will be 121 new Young Single Adult wards. 

The reason for the change: too many Latter-day Saints in this age range are abandoning the faith.  Redrawing the boundaries has been tried in other parts of Utah and, according to the article, helped retain the singles membership. In fact, Ballard begged those in attendance to use this new system to bring at least one other person back to the fold.

According to the article, “Ballard repeated LDS President Thomas S. Monson’s recent admonitions to young single Mormon men to stop ‘hanging out’ and start dating with an eye toward marriage.”

Listen carefully to the next paragraph: “’We hope you’ve got the message: You have no option to bounce around,’ he said, referring to a common practice dubbed ward-hopping in which young Mormons shop around for congregations they like. ‘We know where you are. We’ve got our radar focused on you.’”

“We’ve got our radar focused on you”? Seriously? Certainly this admonishment cannot come from a general authority representing a church claiming to be Christian, could it? 

Correct me if I’m wrong—the followers of this blog are very perceptive—but this is nothing more than membership control. The goal: Push marriage on the young people (hardly a new tactic with the LDS leadership) so that they will settle down and become faithful little ward members, possibly evolving into future bishops and, according to Ballard, even apostles. Yet this control directive sounds like something out of Orwell’s 1984 than anything else. Can anyone say “cult”?

Criticizing these young people for “ward-hopping” and reestablishing the boundaries of the Young Single Adult wards sounds absolutely desperate. After all, could it be that single members were doing their best to find mates by looking outside of their own restricted boundaries? Is there anything wrong with this? I’m surprised Ballard didn’t suggest that the Church would now be setting up marriages as well. Of course, such a practice could take place only if the couple belonged to the same ward! Interward marriages are bad, bad, bad. How dare a member desire to draw outside the lines!

Of course, Ballard’s charge drew praise from the faithful. General LDS Relief Society President Julie Beck said,” These are wise, inspired decisions. This is the Lord’s way to bless you in your lives!”

Somehow, I imagine that not all 5,000 members at this meeting walked out whistling “We thank thee O God for a prophet.” If I were them, I’d start asking more questions and consider why this religion is having such a hard time keeping its young people engaged. Peel back the layers and see what stinketh.

Making friends in Utah a different experience

The following is a blog that is going up on the Christian Research Journal's website soon (www.equip.org), and I will be a radio guest on the Bible Answerman program on January18th.

I live in Utah. That’s not earth-shattering news for several million people who live in a state most known for its skiing and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of which 70% of all residents are members. Yet there are a number of cultural differences between living here and the other 49 states.

For one, they celebrate July 3 and October 30 when the actual holiday lands on a Sunday. It was unique to have a busy July 3^rd this year, complete with a parade down our street, two picnics, and fireworks going off everywhere. July 4^th was just a quiet Sunday, and unless you looked at the calendar, you would have never known this was the actual holiday.

Speaking of Sundays, many stores are closed. Great deals at restaurants and entertainment venues can be had around town on Monday nights because it’s typically the day Mormon families gather together for “Family Home Evening.” And instead of hearing cursing everywhere you go, “heck” is the typical four-letter word they use to show exclaim.

As far as our neighborhood, most neighbors have been very friendly, including one neighbor who has gone out of his way on a number of occasions. For example, when we realized that our swamp cooler wasn’t working, he took it upon himself to come to our rescue. Together he and I inspected the unit that is on top of our roof and discovered that a new motor and pads were in order. Three hours and two trips to Home Depot later, it was now possible to make our house cool. “No problem,” was his aw-shucks response. Lately, whenever there has been a heavy snow the previous night, he lets me borrow his snow blower. I feel that I could ask him for anything and he would oblige.

In December, he came over, excited to tell me about how his local LDS congregation was joining hands with a Methodist church to perform a Christmas musical program. Although I do not think it’s biblical to join together in worship services with those belonging to another religion, I could see that this event meant a lot to him. Besides, his wife was in the production. Afterwards, he told me how much he appreciated my effort to come.

The term “friendshipping” was coined by Mormons as an evangelistic tool. Show them by our love, is the idea, and perhaps the recipients of the friendly efforts may want to join “the Church.” Let me say that I’m not saying that this is what my neighbor is officially doing. To the contrary, he and his wife honestly seem to want to be friendly for friendship’s sake and not because he sees my family and me as a conversion project.  At the same time, "friendshipping" has been greatly encouraged by LDS leaders as a way to bring people into Mormonism. Watch the LDS-produced movie Mobsters and Mormons and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Which brings me to the question: Is this idea of "friendshipping" wrong? In other words, is desiring somebody to have a relationship with God allowed as part of a legitimate motive for wanting to pursue a friendship? This is a tricky one, especially for those of us who believe evangelism is more than just being a good neighbor.