Your assessment is sound. This will be a real test of evangelicals to see if they can put aside their many perceived and few actual theological differences with Mormons and realize that what is more important is supporting someone with the same values. A person of the Jewish faith is not Christian, doesn't agree theologically, but may also share the same values. I would hope that evangelicals would also vote for someone of the Jewish faith for the same reason.
I don't think anyone should hesitate to pull the lever for someone who shares their same values despite some theological differences. When theological differences come into play is when those theological differences lead to a wide separation of values. When a candidate's values are nearly the same as a voter, then the theological differences aren't nearly as relevant - if at all.
There are many very real, deadly-serious theological differences between evangelical Christianity and Mormonism, such that many (including me) cannot accept Mormonism as being within Christianity at all.
But you are right about the rest. And at this point I consider myself a Romney supporter, although I'm also open to Fred Thompson and (if he would just drop the nanny-state crap) Mike Huckabee at this point.
The stakes are high. Do conservative Christians ignore their core beliefs and vote into office a man whose religion claims to be THE restored Christianity and therefore by inference the Christianity of the conservative Christians not in that church are not 'real Christians'? The current Romney strategy is to reverse this question and make it appear that Mormonism is being attacked as not Christian, when of course the reverse is the reality as clearly seen in the founding principle claims of Mormonism. I don't think dissonance is going to work as a strategy to get this man elected Presidnet. But the Romney camp seems to think it will, when 'hold your nose' push comes to 'fall in line regardless' shove.
Listen, if the "theological differences" were really "few," Joseph Smith would have tried to be a reformer, not a restorationist. Joseph wouldn't have unloaded his try of a nuclear spiritual bomb by labeling "all" Christian creeds as "an abomination before God" and he wouldn't have labeled them as "all" corrupt.
But nice try. I mean the Reorganized Church of LDS doesn't even try to reduce their differences with the Mormon church as "few," and here both are Book of Mormon, restorationist-believing entities.
As for some of those "few" differences: Christians don't baptize dead folks; they're not polytheists; they don't believe they can become gods; their Heavenly Father wasn't a created being; they don't attempt to earn salvation or exaltation; they don't believe their only living prophet & spiritual interpreter lives in the Salt Lake City area; and I could go on and on about those "few" differences.
You also keep neglecting how it is that Mitt is supposed to inspire us when his faith keeps telling us: : "You are an apostate from Christ. Every creed of yours is an abomination before God. Your leaders are corrupt. So I can count on your vote, then?"
I mean I could head off down the street to a local major retailer and pull off a book right there published from Utah that outlines the so-called 100% apostasy of the Christian church. (100% = no true survivors outside the LDS church)
Why would we want a White House-hyped faith elevated by the Salt Lake City PR machine that specializes in diminishing the historic Christian faith and everyone who identifies with that?
“few actual theological differences with Mormons”
Like maybe the entire “Book of Mormon?”
Heck, that’s only ONE difference, isn’t it?
My take on Romney (at this point) is that he’s a poll watcher, like Clinton. He is so concerned about his image. Doesn’t say anything unless it has been fed to him and rehearsed...He’s like a news anchor. Perfect looks, and a script.