The Possibility of A Mormon in the White House?
Why Reasoning Christians May Have a Problem Voting for a Mormon

 

Hesitancy About Mitt Romney
As a reasoning, evidential and rational follower of Jesus Christ, I am reluctant to vote for Mitt Romney based on his trust in Joseph Smith. There, I said it. Some would say that I am a bigot for taking that position, yet I don’t believe this to be true, and I know that I represent a large number of Christians who are hesitant about voting for someone who thinks Joseph Smith was telling the truth. Now I realize that many people won’t vote for a Mormon simply because they don’t agree with his theology. But that is NOT why I have reservations. Some people won’t vote for a Mormon because they think the claims of Mormonism are simply too ‘outrageous’ or ‘wacky’. But that is NOT why I have reservations. Some people won’t vote for a Mormon because they fear that his presidency would expand the strength and influence of Mormonism. But that is NOT why I have reservations. I have reservations because I believe in the importance of evidence, and I believe that HOW a candidate evaluates evidence is an important part of his or her decision making ability, and a fair issue for voters to consider. PERIOD. And there is something unique about Mormonism related to evidence. Mormons are faced with the challenge of believing that Mormonism is TRUE in spite of DIRECT PHYSICAL evidence that its founder was lying. This challenge is not faced by any other faith system. The DIRECT evidence against Mormonism (I will describe it in a moment) is unique to Mormonism. It’s not a matter of faith in the unlikely or in the supernatural (all believers find themselves believing in supernatural things); Mormon believers must either ignore DIRECT PHYSICAL evidence, devalue it, or compartmentalize it in order to believe in the claims of Joseph Smith, and it is fair for us to consider the decision making ability of candidates who would treat evidence in such a way. Let me explain the critical difference between CIRCUMSTANTIAL and DIRECT PHYSICAL evidence and why this is so important to the candidacy of Mitt Romney.

The Value of Evidence
I am a cold case homicide detective, and like all detectives, I have learned the value of evidence. I may believe that someone is guilty of committing a crime, but I know that in the end I am going to have to build a case with evidence. Sometimes I get lucky. Sometimes I can build a strong case with direct physical evidence; eyewitnesses, the weapon used in the crime, a written confession, fingerprints, DNA, etc. But sometimes the case is not that simple; direct evidence is not available. In more difficult cases, I’ve convicted murderers on strong circumstantial evidence; the defendant had a bad alibi and a good motive for the crime, he had an opportunity to commit the murder, and displayed unusual behavior following the crime. I’ve learned over time that circumstantial evidence may lead us to believe something is true, but direct evidence may refute what we think we believe. If, for example, I come to believe from circumstantial evidence that my suspect was with the victim at the time of the murder, but later find a piece of direct evidence (a credible eyewitness for example) that places the suspect somewhere else at the time of the crime, I will have to adjust what I believe. Circumstantial evidence is open to interpretation, and requires a CUMULATIVE case to help us decide what the evidence says. The more pieces of circumstantial evidence we have that point to the same conclusion, the more comfortable we are with our conclusion. But direct physical evidence is so powerful and conclusive, that cases are often sealed with a single piece of evidence. That is the difference.

When I first came to faith as an adult, I recognized that many faith systems are supported on strong circumstantial evidence. As a detective, I understood and valued this form of evidence in particular, and the role of evidence in seeking truth in general; not just in the examination of criminal cases, but in the examination of ALL beliefs. See, even before I had ever read Francis Schaeffer or Nancy Pearcey, I already had a sense that TRUTH is TRUTH, and evidence should be the path to ALL kinds of truth, whether religious or otherwise. I also discovered that theists did not always have the kinds of direct evidence I had come to value as a detective, but there WAS an incredible amount of circumstantial evidence to support the claims of those who say that God exists. And more importantly, there was no direct evidence that theism was false.

We can choose to believe what religious scriptures say, but cases FOR or AGAINST each system of belief can only be made with internal or circumstantial evidence. The major world faith systems are very old, sometimes ancient, and we don’t have access to the original documents, the original eyewitnesses, or other forms of direct evidence that can help us assess their claims. We have to take many of the claims on ‘faith’ (albeit a ‘reasoned’ and ‘examined’ faith), and build cases for or against, using circumstantial evidence. When Christians claim, for example, that Jesus really lived and said what the Gospels record, we can do our best to examine the reliability of the Bible (we do that HERE), but much of what we rely on to do this is circumstantial in nature or relies on the internal consistency of the Bible.

Why Mormonism Is Uniquely and Demonstrably False
In my early search for spiritual truth, I began an investigation of five faith systems in an effort to see what kind of case could be made for each. One day, while examining the claims of Mormonism, I discovered the Book of Abraham, a part of the Pearl of Great Price, a Mormon book of canonized SCRIPTURE. I remember the day so well. I was actually shocked by what I discovered. It was a piece of rare direct evidence; direct physical evidence that demonstrated the truth about Joseph Smith and his claims related to the translation of ancient documents that he called Scripture. Without going into much detail in this article (you can access the truth about the Book of Abraham HERE), this book is a direct piece of physical evidence that demonstrates that Joseph was simply not telling the truth when he said that God had given him the ability to translate ancient documents and was speaking to him through these translations.

To illustrate the nature of the Book of Abraham, we need to imagine that, as Christians, we discovered the true, verifiable original manuscripts of the four Christian Gospels. Imagine that even CHRISTIANS, and recognized CHRISTIAN AUTHORITIES (if there were such people) upon their discovery, agreed that these ARE the originals. Then, imagine that we found a translator and discovered that all of the agreed upon manuscripts said nothing about Jesus at all. Imagine discovering that everything we’ve accepted as true about these Gospels is now refuted by the truth of the original documents. If this were the case, Christians would have to confront (for the very first time) direct evidence that our faith has been built on a lie. Christians would have to deal with the direct evidence of OUR OWN DOCUMENTS, now shown to be falsely translated. In a nutshell, this is the Book of Abraham. To trust Joseph Smith’s truth claims, one must not simply have faith in things that cannot be proven; one must have faith in something that is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE by way of direct physical evidence. This is the unique nature of the evidence that challenges the claims of Joseph Smith, compared to the evidence challenging other faith systems.

It’s important to remember that ALL worldviews require us to trust in something we cannot fully demonstrate, especially when we are trusting in events that are so distantly removed. My atheist friends often argue that Christians are putting their faith in something unreasonable or un-provable. But we have to be honest with each other. Atheists also do this. None of us knows everything that can be known from the beginning of all time. All of us have to eventually trust in something that cannot be proven. I have no direct “smoking gun” evidence that atheism is false, for example, but I think I can make an excellent cumulative and circumstantial case. I’m sure my atheist friends feel the same way about the case they might build against Christianity. But Mormonism is different than both of these worldviews. Mormonism has direct physical evidence demonstrating that Joseph Smith was not telling us the truth when he claimed to translate what has become Mormon scripture. As a Christian, I have done my best to examine the TRUTH of what I believe, yet FAITH is involved. In spite of my best efforts, I cannot understand all the mysteries my faith system; I still have many unanswered questions. But as a Christian, I don’t believe in something IN SPITE of direct physical evidence to the contrary. Mormons must do just this; they must believe that Joseph Smith was speaking the truth in spite of what has been discovered evidentially. Mormonism clearly suffers from the fact that it is a recent part of our history and can be fully examined in a way that is unique among world faith systems.

So What Does All This Have to Do With Mitt Romney?
Does the fact that direct physical evidence exists demonstrating that the founder of Mormonism lied have any bearing on whether or not we should vote for a Mormon? To answer this difficult question, it might just be easier to examine some of the reasons that people might (or might not) vote for Mitt Romney in the next presidential election. In talking to people about this issue, I’ve listened to some good reasons to vote for him, and sadly, I’ve also heard some bad reasons to vote for him. Perhaps more significantly, however, I’ve also heard some bad reasons NOT to vote for Romney! As we examine the landscape of opinion on this matter, let’s see if we can uncover the hesitancy that appears to exist among Christians as they consider whether or not they can vote for Mitt Romney for president.

Good Reasons TO Vote for Mitt Romney for President
It would be unfair to say that there are no good reasons to vote for a man who has clearly demonstrated his ability to manage large endeavors (like the Olympic Games in Utah) and lead corporations successfully. He also has the ability to garner political support and has a record as Governor of Massachusetts that is examinable. But in my discussions with people who are looking hard at Mitt Romney, there are a couple positive issues that seem to come up repeatedly:

 
He Shares Our Values
This is the big one. Romney seems (at least recently) to share our values, particularly when it comes to issues related to family. I’m not going to spend any time here dealing with his change of heart on the abortion issue. That is not the point of this article.

But it would be untrue for us to say that Romney has not developed his values from his faith. In fact, his faith has been the source of the very set of values that we, as Christians, would list as the PRIMARY reason we are voting for him in the first place. As Christians, we believe that while times may change, our fundamental values do not, and we want to understand a candidate’s core values because we believe that these are the unchanging principles that will guide his decision making process today and in the future. We also understand that values are tied to your worldview, and in the case of theistic believers, we know that values are the offspring of our faith, expressing the very nature of our God (who we believe to be the author of morality). As Christians, we believe that core values don’t change because God doesn’t change.

But that is NOT true from the Mormon perspective. Mormons believe that God DOES change in a couple of important ways. God is eternally progressing in wisdom and power. He was once a man who became a God, and he is preceded by an infinite number of ancestors who are also now Gods of their own worlds. These Gods have had more time to progress, and as a result, are further along in their development. The God of this world is always growing and changing, and he also changes his mind. The Mormon view of progressive revelation is not that God slowly reveals more and more of his unchanging character, but that God is revealing CHANGES in the very way that he thinks. HIS values are changing over time, and he lets us know as these changes occur. So when Joseph Smith and Brigham Young wrote that polygamy was God’s plan for the family and that polygamist marriages were REQUIRED for anyone who desired to be with Heavenly Father, exalted in Celestial Kingdom, they believed they were simply revealing the mind of God. Based on changes in the Mormon view of polygamy, it appears that God later changed his mind on this matter.

If values are rooted in our worldview, and as theists we understand that these values are the direct result of our faith and understanding of the nature of God, then it is reasonable to expect Mormon believers to change their values over time. After all, the God who is the source of these values is always changing as well.

This is not a condemnation of Mormon Theology. It is simply an observation of the historical truth of the Mormon view of the family and how foundational values are established if it is assumed that God changes his mind about such things. If we are voting for a candidate based primarily in the fact that he shares our values, is it not reasonable to examine the manner in which he comes to accept those values?

 
He Has A Good Chance of Winning
Christians also seem to focus on Mitt Romney’s incredible ability to raise funds and position himself within the Republican Party. He has become VIABLE. He has the organization and financial ability to be able to make a run for the White House. Christians who mention this fact will usually bring it up in order to explain why it is that they are not supporting other candidates on the table who actually BETTER represent their views. After all, I am writing this in June of 2007. We are well in front of the primary election season, and there are still a NUMBER of candidates who are on the ballot and may hold the same high regard for the value of direct physical evidence. Many of them are Christians. Why are we even talking about Mitt Romney this early in the game? We’re talking about him because we simply don’t think those other candidates have the financial power to get elected. It’s sad but true. Even this early in the game, we are looking to settle for the guy who has the best chance.

We recognize that this is part of the reality of elections. We may not like it, but it’s true. But, if I can be a bit bold here, I would like to suggest that we are helping to CREATE the condition we are complaining about. We are settling for something less than we really want and claiming that it’s the only practical choice, long before this is necessarily true. When we start talking about settling for the compromise candidate this EARLY in the primary season, don’t we simply marginalize second tier candidates who could benefit from the national exposure? Hugh Hewitt’s recent book on Mitt Romney (A Mormon in the White House?) is now serving to assist Romney in raising support and funds from Christians. All the while there are Christian candidates who hold to our values much more closely than Mitt Romney and they are falling even further from the field. We can’t bemoan the fact that better candidates don’t get the national exposure and can’t raise the needed funds if we are only providing this exposure to the compromise candidate. We are creating the very situation we are complaining about.

 
Bad Reasons NOT TO Vote for Mitt Romney for President
Now in addition to some good reasons that some Christians have expressed about their support for Mitt Romney, I must also sadly admit that I’ve heard Christians offer a plethora of BAD reasons not to vote for him:

 
Because We Think His Theology is “Bad”
More than likely, when a Christian says something like this, they are really simply saying that they don’t like the fact that the candidate’s theology is in ANY way different than their own. But let’s get real here for a minute. Have you EVER been able to vote for a candidate who precisely shared your theology? I haven’t. I think Richard Land (the President of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission) is correct when he says that we are not voting for a “Theologian in Chief”. As we’ve already discussed, each of us has to examine the truth of our beliefs, and all of us hold to some view that must be trusted on faith. And we will all find differences in what we believe, even those of us who sit under the same religious teacher or belong to the same church. Absolute agreement on matters of theology would eliminate EVERY candidate from the field.

Because We Think His Beliefs Are in Some Way “Kooky”
Some Christians are simply staggered by the extreme nature of Mormon truth claims. They find the notion that all of us can become Gods, for example, too preposterous to accept. The idea that Jesus is the brother of Satan, or that there are an infinite number of Gods also seems unreasonable. But is that really a fair objection on the part of a THEIST? After all, theists accept the possibility of the supernatural, and once we’ve done that, we’ve opened the door to all kinds of religious beliefs that the unbelieving world will find equally preposterous. How about the notion of the TRINITY for example? How about anything miraculous that is described in the Bible? It’s ridiculous for us to use “belief in the ‘unlikely’” as a litmus test for candidacy, since we too hold beliefs that are viewed in a similar manner.

Because We’re Afraid the Mormon Church Will Grow in Numbers
Fellow Christians have also expressed their concern that a competent Mormon President would only legitimatize what they see as a Christian cult. They are concerned that Mormonism will spread as a result of the publicity and promotion it might receive under a Mormon President. But this too seems unlikely, given the truth about the Book of Abraham and the claims of Joseph Smith. Surprisingly, not many people understand the history of this piece of direct evidence, and a Mormon presidency would only serve to initiate investigations into Mormonism, and frankly, any public investigation of Mormonism will NOT advance the growth of the faith system. Even if Mormonism was not wrought with evidential problems, there is good reason to believe that a Mormon President would not impact the growth of the faith system, given the prior example of John F. Kennedy. His presidency did not favorably grow Catholicism here in America or across the globe.

Because We Hold a Bigoted View of Mormonism
I also know some people who will not vote for a Mormon, but have not truly examined the REASON why they would refuse to do so. They would say that they are ‘weird’ or ‘different’ or whatever. They don’t have a specific concern they can put their finger on. They simply don’t like Mormons. Maybe they had a bad experience with someone in the past. This type of unexamined bias or reaction to ANYONE is simple bigotry. But we need to be VERY careful how we use this word. Some supporters of Mitt Romney believe that if voters say that they won’t vote for a candidate simply because he is a Mormon, they have revealed themselves to be bigots and are religiously intolerant. I would agree that a person’s theological beliefs should NOT be the litmus test for his candidacy. But if a person has demonstrated an inability to examine direct historical and document evidence, that may be something that we want to look at, and unfortunately, in order to accept that Mormonism is true, its followers have to do just that.

The ‘bigot’ label is simply an ad-hominum attack that appears to be designed to silence the hesitancy that many of us have who know the truth of the Mormon evidence. But let me try to put it into perspective with an example. If I express a hesitancy to trust those who repeatedly break the law, am I a bigot? I think I may simply be wise! Now if I tell you that I am hesitant to trust anyone who is living in a maximum security prison, am I a bigot? You might say, “That’s a bigoted view! You’re applying a judgment to an entire category of people and that’s not fair! In fact, it’s bigoted! You can’t say that you are hesitant to trust anyone who happens to live in there; you don’t even KNOW them!” But I would simply remind you that my distrust is NOT in the fact that they are maximum security prison dwellers, it’s in the fact that they had to repeatedly break the law to become maximum security prison dwellers! Similarly, I don’t have doubts about people because they are Mormon, I have doubts with them because they have to deny obvious direct evidence in order to become Mormons! Can you see the difference?

The claim of intolerance on the part of Christians who doubt the reasoning capacity of those who trust Joseph Smith is ironic and unfair, given the initial statements of Smith when founding the Mormon faith. Joseph claimed to speak to God in a vision in the spring of 1820. He asked God about the Christian denominations that were present at the time in his hometown of Palmyra, New York (Methodists, Presbyterians, and Baptists existed in the town at the time). According to Mormon literature that documents the conversation, God told Joseph that ALL of these faiths were WRONG. God gave Joseph these instructions:

 
“…join none of them, for they were all wrong, and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: 'they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof'" (Joseph Smith History 1:19).

 
It appears that we, as Christians, have to play by a different set of ground rules. Mormonism can be FOUNDED on a distrust of our protestant faith system. Mormonism BEGINS with a distrust of those who were teaching Christian doctrine, but we, as modern day Christians, cannot question the reasoning capacity of those who trust Joseph Smith without being accused of bigotry. That’s a double standard that we, as Christians, don’t have to accept.

Because We Hold a Hypocritical View of Irrational Believers
I have been criticized for applying such a high bar to Mormonism. Some would say that it is hypocritical to require such introspection and self examination on the part of Mormons when there are millions of Christians who have not examined their own history or their own faith. These Christians have not even looked at the circumstantial evidence that may challenge what they believe.

It is absolutely true that there are many Christians who are equally ignorant of what they believe and why they believe it. But I can honestly say that I would be no more supportive of their candidacy than I am of Mitt Romney’s candidacy. In the first Republican debate of 2007, held at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, the moderator asked how many of the candidates did NOT believe in evolution. Four of the candidates raised their hand. I would have been even more interested in the important follow-up question that was never asked: “Why don’t you believe in evolution?” That single question would have forced each of these four men to demonstrate their capacity to evaluate the evidence. I want to know how people evaluate evidence. That’s important to me. And I expect even MORE from the Christian candidates. In a world that is skeptical not only of what we believe, but in the reasoning capacity that would lead us to believe it in the first place, we need to be able to demonstrate that Christianity is REASONABLE. It is NOT plagued with the kind of direct evidential problems that exist for Mormonism.

But I’ve also heard a disturbing secondary concern that is sometimes raised when discussing this issue. I’ve heard Christians say that we should NOT require this kind of examination of Mormon evidence and reasoning capacity on the part of Christians, because this will then cause atheists to require the same kind of examination of the claims and reasoning capacity of Christians. In essence, there is this fear that we may be opening a door of sorts, and if we do this, the secular world will begin to examine all theists. Perhaps I simply have more confidence in what I believe as a Christian. I think our faith will hold up to the scrutiny. In terms of categories of evidence, there is on “Book of Abraham’ lurking in the shadows and dark closets of our faith. In fact, every dark corner of our faith has already been examined by the non-believing secular world. In case you haven’t been paying attention, the naturalists in our world are already beating us up (take for example, Christopher Hitchens recent book: “God Is Not Great: How Religion Spoils Everything”). Christianity can, and will, survive the scrutiny. Let’s require more of both Mormons and Christians alike.

 
A Good Reason NOT TO Vote for Mitt Romney for President
So, there are a number of BAD reasons NOT TO VOTE for Mitt Romney. Sometimes when I take a stand on this issue, I get accused of holding one (or more) of those bad reasons. But I am here to tell you that I simply DON’T. I hold one singular concern as I ponder the dilemma of the impending election. I think it is reasonable for Christians to hold this reservation. There is a good and reasonable reason to be very hesitant about casting a vote for Mitt Romney:

  
Because We Don’t Trust His Ability to Examine Evidence
It all comes down to this. It all comes down to the Book of Abraham. This original papyrus exists in a category of evidence that is unlike any other issue facing other major world religions. What do you do with the repeated direct evidence that the founder of Mormonism was lying, and lying about the very text he wanted us to believe was from God? Romney, like other Mormons, has put his faith in Mormonism IN SPITE of the evidence surrounding the Book of Abraham. In doing so, he may still claim that is his using GOOD reasoning and is capable of examining evidence correctly. He may take one of these three positions:

 
1. He isn't using poor judgment because he didn’t even know about the Book of Abraham. But if this is the case, then we may be wise to be hesitant to vote for someone who won't at least make a cursory attempt to examine all the possible issues before making a decision. I discovered the Book of Abraham in my very first Internet search of Mormonism and was able to purchase books from MORMON sources on-line within a week. People who won’t make the same simple effort should be critically examined because as public policy makers, they may also overlook important issues on the way to an important policy decision.

2. He isn't using poor judgment because he doesn't think the Book of Abraham evidence is all that compelling. But in light of the evidence, isn’t this in itself poor judgment? You put that direct physical evidence in front of ANY jury and let's see what they decide. People like this should be critically examined because they don't seem to be able to weigh the value of important evidence, and may easily fail to assign proper value to important issues when making public policy decisions.

3. He isn't using poor judgment because he sees a divide between religious and secular issues that call for their own independent methods of examination. Now let’s take a minute to examine this final point. It is important. I hear respected apologists make this point all the time, and it is true that Mormons DO use a ‘spiritual’ method of discernment when considering what they believe to be ‘spiritual’ matters. As Chip Thompson has correctly observed:

 
“Spiritual visitations are encouraged by the LDS religion and are believed to be personal revelations of the truth. Therefore, factual data such as archeology and ancient manuscripts, etc., are not considered necessary when validating ‘spiritual matters’.” (Chip Thompson, “The Mormon Scrapbook” page 30)

 
When questioned about the methodology that they have used to come to believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God and that his claims are true, I’ve NEVER encountered a Mormon (and I’ve talked to literally HUNDREDS of LDS believers) who has told me that he or she has simply examined the evidence. Instead, they will tell me that they prayed about it and God revealed that it was true. There appears to be one way that Mormon believers look at evidence when thinking about spiritual matters, and another way (at least we hope there is some other way) for them to look at evidence in non-spiritual matters.

Many voters, particularly secularists, EXPECT and ENCOURAGE this approach on the part of theists who run for office. They want to ENCOURAGE the divide between religious truth (which they consider to be unverified and unsubstantiated opinion) and other forms of foundational truth that can be verified empirically. Francis Schaeffer wrote eloquently about this growing division of truth, and Nancy Pearcey also warned about allowing truth to be divided in such a way.

But as a rational and reasoning ambassador for Christ, I don’t personally want to affirm this approach to faith from either the Mormon or the Christian. I want to hold both to the same standard. Some would say that we should not worry about Romney’s reasoning ability or his ability to examine evidence as demonstrated by his faith in the demonstrably false claims of Joseph Smith, because he’s promised us that he won’t use that kind of judgment in non-religious matters. On the one hand we seem to be saying that we should vote for a candidate who holds values derived from his faith, while on the other hand we are hoping that he WON’T use the same reasoning methodology for matters of national importance that he uses to form values from his faith! Doesn’t that seem a bit contradictory?

As a Christian, I’ve been consistent in my concern that believers be able to respond to those who might question what we believe. That REQUIRES us to examine every piece of evidence. Other Christians may not require this of people of faith, but this entire website is built on the hope that we WILL look at all the evidence and do our best to evaluate that evidence so we can silence critics and allow a hearing for the Gospel; so we can be good Ambassadors for our faith. I will not accept the truth divide that many have already accepted. And I’m looking for a candidate who understands the importance of this battle for truth.

 
Whichever of these three positions Romney may take on the issue of the Book of Abraham, none seem to reflect a reasoned approach to the examination of evidence. It’s FAIR for us to evaluate this aspect of his decision making ability as we try to decide whether or not we should vote for him. Imagine that a friend tells you about a wonderful man named Jason who works as an investment planner. You’re about ready to retire and you’re looking for advice about how to invest your life savings. Jason has had some success with similar types of investment strategies, although he’s never done anything quite like what you are asking him to do now. But from what you can glean about Jason, he appears to have had some success in the past and he appears to hold your values. So you meet with him for lunch. You begin to get to know one another and Jason tells you that he has had some success as an investment planner by examining the HISTORY and CHARACTER of the companies he invests in. He also examines the NATURE, HISTORY and personal CHARACTER of the CEO’s of these companies in an attempt to determine whether or not he should invest in their company. That sounds good to you. His approach to investigating the character of companies (and their leaders) sounds reasonable. You are feeling good abut this guy. He just may be the right guy to work with as you decide how to invest your life savings.

As you continue to talk with Jason, the conversation moves on to issues of family and leisure. He tells you that he is planning a trip to Graceland next month. He says that he belongs to a group that goes to Graceland every year in hopes of seeing Elvis. Not the HOME of Elvis, but Elvis HIMSELF. You see, he believes that Elvis is still alive. He’s examined some evidence on the internet and come to the conclusion that Elvis has been seen alive over the last three decades. You are kind of surprised by this. You offer the evidence of the autopsy, the numerous eyewitnesses, the DNA still on file demonstrating that Elvis’ body is in the grave. He dismisses that evidence as part of a grand conspiracy to prevent people from believing that Elvis is still alive. After all, he’s been watching videos on YouTube with people who say they’ve seen Elvis over the past 30 years, and he trusts them. OK, now here is the $64,000.00 question. Are you going to allow Jason to invest your life savings? Would you not have at least a little bit of concern regarding his ability to examine the NATURE, HISTORY and CHARACTER of eyewitnesses, particularly when you know that the examination of this kind of evidence will be critical in future decisions he is going to make with YOUR money?

You might even begin to express your concerns to Jason. But he’ll respond by saying “Hey, now my beliefs about Elvis are really my private pursuit, they have nothing to do with business! I look at things differently depending on what sphere of truth they belong to!” Maybe that explanation will be enough for you. But I bet that unless Jason is the last investment planner alive, you are going to look for another option.

So, Is “May Have A Problem” the Same as “Just Can’t Do It”?
And that brings me to where we may find ourselves in the Fall of 2008. If Jason is the ONLY investment planning option, we may find ourselves hiring Jason and hoping for the best; hoping that he will not use the same judgment he uses for personal beliefs when he is making decisions with our money. And as we approach the election of 2008, we may also find ourselves having to make a tough choice. Mitt Romney or someone who is even less able to evaluate clear direct physical evidence. We’ll have to wait and see. But if it gets to that point, even as a reasoning Christian who has ALL the doubt that I have written about here, I recognize that general elections are always a choice between the ‘lesser of evils’. I know that sounds harsh, and I don’t mean it to sound that way, but I cannot remember an election in my adult life when I had the blessing of being able to vote for a candidate who was precisely what I was hoping for. And many times the choices are actually quite far from what I would prefer. Haven’t you also been in that position?

That’s why this article has the subtitle: “Why Reasoning Christians May Have a Problem Voting for a Mormon”. There is a difference between ‘having a problem’ and saying that I ‘just can’t do it’. Each of us has to decide which candidate will either ‘do the most good’ for the country, or at the very least, ‘do the least harm’. We’ll have to cross the general election bridge when we get there. But along the way, I think it’s important that we examine how we choose presidents and be careful to honor those of us who truly have a reasoned hesitancy about candidates who would trust that Joseph Smith was telling the truth.