As a post-mil, “Thy Kingdom Come” kinda guy here is where my difficulty lies. For a Christian to actively support a person for a position of authority over the State is to also promote that person to a position of authority over the members of Christ’s body, the Church. To promote a non-Trinitarian to that position is, I believe, very problematic. If God is Lord over the State, which I believe he is, then to elect someone within the LDS to the presidency is to give tacit approval to, or at least gross ambivalence toward, the doctrine of Joseph Smith and the LDS Apostles.
So, what is different between this case and supporting someone who advocates for example an unjust preemptive war or is ambivalent to homosexual unions? We all make compromises when we vote these days. What makes this more significant than Ron Paul’s ambivalence toward the Morning After Pill, Senator Santorum’s desire to treat Iranian nuclear scientists as Al-Qaida members, or Newt Gingrich horrid personal life? Two things…
First, our primary call as Christians is to expand the Kingdom of Christ. We are his workmanship created for good works and the first and greatest work is that we should go out and make disciples of all men, teaching them and baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Why would we actively work to promote the Mormon god and his disciples?
Second, the other candidates I mentioned may be addressed within the governance of the Church and, God willing, one day with a state in submission to Christ. We can even call a man like President Obama back to the truth of his God as revealed in Scripture, pray for him as a Christian who may yet return to the Triune God of his Baptism. If our particular Church were in authority over him – we could discipline him in accordance with the Scriptures that he might repent. None of these things are an option with a Mormon.
This is the key for me.
I welcome your thoughts…