One of the reasons that we’ve been following the campaign of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney so closely is that we’re very curious how the Republican Party’s evangelical voters are going to feel about him. (Another reason is that we just can’t wait to see what position he takes next on the central moral questions of our day, like gay marriage, abortion and hunting!)

Anyway, religion has always been something that’s interested us, and given that Romney is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and most evangelicals are Protestants, we’ve anticipated a sectarian storm brewing. Will Protestants, most of whom consider Latter-day Saints, aka Mormons, to be cultists, reject Romney on that basis?

While reading the Las Vegas Gleaner today, we think we found one answer: Hell, yeah, they’ll reject him! Apparently, Republican U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback had to reprimand a staffer for raising the question of whether the "Jesus Christ" worshiped by Protestants and the "Jesus Christ" worshiped by Mormons is the same guy.

To which we respond: What’s the question? Of course they’re not!

We don’t want to get too deep into theology here, since we know if our readers wanted a sermon, they’d go to church, but just consider this: In Mormon theology, God the Father and God the Son (aka Jesus Christ) are two separate people. In Protestant theology (as well as Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and others) there is a Trinity, in which God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are all the same guy. You can read about it in the central statement of Christian belief, the Nicene Creed, if you’re so inclined.

And don’t forget that the Mormon church’s current President, Prophet, Seer and Revelator Gordon B. Hinckley said in 1998 that "The traditional Christ of whom they [people outside the church] speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with his father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages." Joseph Smith, of course, went on to write the Book of Mormon.

Open and shut case, no? (There’s plenty more, but that’s pretty much all we need for today’s lesson.)

The question now arises: Who cares? And the answer: The evangelicals and the Mormons, that’s who! For years, evangelicals have been taught (wrongly, we think) that the Bible is a pretty good basis for civil government, even in a pluralistic society. Don’t vote for people who have beliefs that differ from those in the Bible, they’re taught. No pro-choice candidates. No pro-gay-rights candidates. No atheists, if such a thing could be found in American politics. Catholics are suspect, even. Liberals especially so.

So how, against that backdrop, can evangelicals who make up a noisy if not terribly successful part of the Republican Party’s base embrace a candidate who is a member of a religion that differs on the central question, the nature of Jesus? (There’s myriad other differences, too.) That’s a fascinating question, especially given Romney’s "latter-day" turn toward much more conservative beliefs, given the most recent revelation that he wants to run for president.

At least it interests us. Sorry if we’re just ranting here. But we know that Brownback’s staffer is not the only person wondering about these things. Plenty other evangelicals are, too. And that’s going to have an impact at the ballot box, we think.

COMMENT FROM A READER: We were delighted to hear from our old friend Bob Leinbach, a hardworking and now retired county employee, in response to this post. For some reason, the Fort Knox-like security system wouldn’t allow him to post his remarks, so we take the unusual step of posting his comments for him right here:

"Now, for some of the column details: there should really be no question on the stand Romney has taken on gay marriage and abortion since he has declared his candidacy: he has stated his position clearly and without equivocation on numerous occasions (which I am certain you, Steve, have read for yourself);  Joseph Smith didn’t write the Book of Mormon, he translated it from the writings of inspired prophets who testified of Christ."

And our briefest of brief responses: Our intent, as always, was to provoke thought and debate, so to the extent we’ve done that, well, yay for us. We’re not sure who "well respects" Lou Sheldon, but it certainly isn’t us; we think he’s a hateful bigot, and claiming him to your side is actually a point in our favor. Then again, we don’t much care for Al Sharpton or his comments, either, some of which have even proven to be true. Romney may have been consistent in his stands since announcing for president, but he’s been anything but consistent before that. (And given that abortion is a fairly black-and-white issue, a change of heart on that one in the lead up to a presidential run should always be viewed with suspicion. And finally, not being a member of the LDS faith, we don’t believe Joseph Smith translated anything. We rather believe what UCLA history professor Fawn Brodie said in her classic and comprehensive biography of Smith, No Man Knows My History: Smith would have made a talented novelist.

How sad Richard Ziser must be. The poor bastard has only done one thing successfully in Nevada politics, and that was way back in 2000-2002, when he qualified the anti-gay marriage ban Question 2 into Nevada’s Constitution. Since then, however, he’s toiled in relative obscurity as head of Nevada Concerned Citizens. Sure, he ran for U.S. Senate that one time, but he lost to nobody in eight rural counties and he ended up giving perennial close-call U.S. Sen. Harry Reid his highest re-election percentage ever, 61 percent, in 2004.

How Ziser’s heart must have lept when he learned the presidents of all eight of Nevada’s institutions of higher learning were planning to go to the state’s public employee benefit board to get domestic partnership benefits for unmarried couples in order to attract better employees. (The matter had come up before the university system’s Board of Regents, but, given that it was a matter that required balls and didn’t involving pointless arguing amongst each other, it quickly fell by the wayside.)

Finally! Ziser’s chance at political relevance, fighting his favorite foe, gayness!

We think that’s probably why he gave it all away in his quote to the Review-Journal, which put the story on the front page, gayness not being something at all favored on Bonanza Road, either.

"If nobody’s watching, they’ll squeeze it on by," Ziser said. "They’re trying to backdoor something that goes against the public policy that’s already been established."

Yes, with all that hot squeezing and backdooring action going on, it’s a wonder anybody can concentrate, huh? But Ziser sure can, because the public policy that’s already been established was established by him, in the form of Question 2. Everybody remembers Question 2, right! It was big in the early 2000s!

(By the way, for those keeping score at home, Ziser is not only against gay people getting married, he’s against them having any of the benefits of marriage, including health benefits. He declined in 2002 to endorse a proposal to allow for gay people to visit loved ones in the hospital.
He once attacked a candidate for having voted to repeal the state’s sodomy law. As far as Ziser is concerned, he’s fine with gay people, so long as they aren’t gay.)

Anyway, give Ziser credit for consistency: He says he’s against the latest benefit proposal because he fears it will lead to children being taught that gay relationships are the same as straight relationships. And while we think that’s a perfectly reasonable thing to teach children, it seems it’s something that Ziser fears very, very much.

Wonder why.

» So U.S. Sen. John Ensign announced the Nevada U.S. attorney’s office will be able to hire seven lawyers and six support personnel. These aren’t new positions, mind you, just jobs that have gone unfilled thanks to budget cuts. With these hirings, the Nevada office should be up to full strength. (Oh, except for the top guy; the U.S. attorney’s job has been filled by an acting attorney since poor Dan Bogden got dumped by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the George W. Bush administration.)

So now we know! Now we know why Ensign has been holding his tongue while tons of other people have called for the clearly incompetent Gonzales to quit. Ensign was holding out for some money from Main Justice! But our junior senator sure scored…

…actually, now that we think of it, he didn’t score jack. These were jobs that already existed. And while it’s probably better that they’re filled, we still have a constitution-ignoring, lying political hack as the head of the Department of Justice! And by keeping silent in exchange for the money to fill these jobs, Ensign has made himself into something of a political whore. A high-priced, classy one, of course, but a whore nonetheless.

Too harsh? Not at all. Ensign told the Review-Journal for a story that "Enough people were calling for his resignation. I wanted to make sure that instead of playing politics, we were solving a problem and that I think that is what we have done."

Isn’t it cute how Ensign thinks that not calling for Gonzales’ resignation in order to get him to dole out more money to Nevada isn’t itself playing politics? It’s almost as cute as his use of the royal "we" all the time. Hell, the guy is as cute as a box of kittens! (Don’t tell Ziser. He’s got enough on his mind without thinking about that.)

Although Ensign has called on the Justice Department to "restore" Bogden’s tattered reputation, officials have done nothing. And while Ensign is preparing a list of nominees for the U.S. attorney’s job in Nevada for the White House, Bogden’s name will not appear thereon. Why not? (After all, wouldn’t getting his job back be a great way to restore his rep?)

Ensign has said it’s not possible, according to a story in the the Las Vegas Sun.

Well, thank God Ensign’s not playing politics, huh?

» And finally today, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney announced that two longtime Republican political operatives in Nevada are signing on to his presidential campaign. Joe Brezney, the former executive director of the Senate Republican Caucus, will be state director. And political consultant Ryan Erwin, who has headed up the Nevada and California Republican parties, will be senior adviser.

The move shows Romney is serious about locking up top GOP talent in Nevada, and with former Erwin partner Mike Slanker back in Washington, D.C. to run the National Republican Senatorial Committee and GOP major domo Sig Rogich already attached to U.S. Sen. John McCain, Romney scored with these two appointments. There are only a couple of GOP consultants left, people, and they’re going fast!

UPDATE: Upon reflection, we believe we were too hard on the Review-Journal in this post, when we implied the paper dislikes gays. An alert reader called us to note that the R-J editorialized against Ziser’s anti-gay marriage Question 2 amendment (both times it was on the ballot). The paper also urged the repeal of the state’s sodomy law, and cheered the U.S. Supreme Court in its repeal of sodomy laws elsewhere. It’s all consistent with the paper’s libertarian editorial philosophy, which is of the live-and-let-live variety. If anything, the R-J is neutral on gays, editorializing that they should be treated no differently than anybody else.