Laissez-Faire Leadership – Is Less More?

            Michelle McQuaid, a leader in positive psychology

interventions in the workplace, conducted a study on 1,000 American Executives (Kiisel, 2012). In the survey only 36% of the respondents reported being happy with their job (Hall, 2013). This is consistent with a study by Harris Interactive which reported that 74% of employees would consider finding a new job. Later in the survey, the participants were given the option to either to get a better boss or to get better pay, which they would choose. An astonishing 65% of all participants reported that, given the opportunity, they would rather work for a better boss than get better pay. Not only do people seem to dislike their bosses but studies have found that they don’t trust them. A Harvard Business Review study showed that employees are more likely to trust a complete stranger than their own boss (Harvard Business Review, 2012). 

          So why are people generally so dissatisfied with their bosses? Can business leaders not live up to their name? If leaders cannot inspire people to follow them, or to even like them, than what is their point?

          In the west individualism is emphasized and collectivism is looked down upon. Correspondingly, a common complaint of employees is that they are not given enough autonomy. Indeed, many dream of becoming their own boss, setting their own schedule, and relying on themselves to make things happen. A study by Accenture reported that 22% of executives desire to start their own company (Hall 2013). Further, it seems that more and more people are desiring autonomy.  Mellissa Llarena reported that 54% of the young working generation wish to work for themselves (Hall, 2013). In these instances, management is often seen as more of an obstacle than a help.

          Is not the idea of coming to work and not having a superior interfere with your self-directed work idyllic? Is it true that the most satisfying jobs go by the philosophy that in supervision “less is more”? There is definitely a leadership theory that incorporates these ideals; it is the laissez-faire leadership theory. In this article, here will be examined the attributes, effectiveness, and implication of a laissez-faire leadership style in context of recent academic literature and studies.

Laissez-faire Leadership in Leadership Development

          In 1938, psychologists Lewin, Lippitt, and White set out to classify and study different types of leadership. Through this study they identified three different leadership styles: autocratic, democratic, and laissez-faire.

          Autocratic leadership is typified by authoritarian direction and expectations of results. Democratic leadership is almost the polar opposite, collaboration is encouraged and an integrative leadership where leaders and employees participate together is cultivated. In contrast to these methods, laissez-fair leadership is something altogether different.

          The phrase “laissez faire” is French and means “let it be”. Typically this phase with laissez faire style economics where governments do not interfere, impose restrictions, or subsidize private businesses. Similarly, in leadership, laissez faire leadership involves little to no supervision or traditional leadership role fulfillment.

          Laissez-faire leadership exist in a business for any number of reasons and in a spectrum of conditions and structures. It could be a well-crafted business plan for success or simply a leader typified by inaction and laziness. While some see laissez-faire leadership as an oxymoron and use synonymously with indolence and lethargy (Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, & Hetland, 2007), some claim that under the right conditions, laissez-faire leadership can be the most effective method to lead with (Goodnight, 2004; Widener University, n.d.).

          While many employees complain about their jobs and look for greater autonomy, would the laissez-faire kind of leadership really benefit the team or the business? So much effort and money has been expending in to the research and training for leadership development, could it be that the best plan is “no plan”?

Assumptions of Deliberate Laissez-faire Leadership

          To purposefully adopt a laissez-faire leadership style it takes certain precautions, assumptions, and basic beliefs about behavior and leadership. Without these assumptions and precaution in place, the laissez-fair leadership is not a leadership at all, but merely a neglect, a defaulted inaction.

          Firstly, by adopting a “hands-off” approach to leadership you need to have trained qualified team that will require littler direction or feedback. This works well for veteran positions where employees have demonstrated formidable skill sets and work ethics, but less well with workers that are more inexperienced. If the team cannot perform their expected tasks on their own then applying a laissez-faire will only cause frustration and ineffective work.

          Secondly, by implementing laissez-faire, you are assuming that by leaving employees on their own mean, you give them the opportunity to use cultivate their creativity and innovation to provide benefits that would not have otherwise surfaced. Some companies such as Atlassian have capitalized on this assumption. Every quarter, Atlassias gives all their employees the chance to work on anything that relates to our products. They can choose anything they want to do; however, they only have 24 hours to do it. They have found great results from this meager one day of autonomy (Atlassian, n.d.).

          Thirdly, you assume, by using this method, that your team’s moral will improve because of it. Not everyone enjoys, or can minting, autonomy and self-direction. You need to know that the people you have, and the people that you will hire, are compatible with a laissez-faire environment. More and more people are working at home either full time, or part time.

          Fourthly, by giving the employees such power and freedom of choice, you are assuming a lot about the motivation of people, and the motivation of your team. You are assuming that your team is motivated by personal satisfaction, pride in oneself, the company, and their work, and pride in task mastery. If these assumptions are met, your team can see more work output, better quality, less worker attrition rates, and greater job satisfaction. You are putting your trust in the employees that they know how to do their work best and they will take personal pride in doing it in an effective manner. However, if these assumptions are not met, you will likely be met with low performance, low worker satisfaction, and frustration.

Current Research on Laissez-Faire Leadership

          As many see laissez-faire leadership as a “non-leadership”, very few studies have been aimed directly to understand it. The research that has included laissez-faire leadership in comparison to Transformation or Transactional leadership styles find it lacking in term of effectiveness, fulfillment, and motivation. The few studies which directly focus on laissez-faire leadership generally take a very traditional view of laissez-faire in which it is a leadership of default rather than a leadership of purpose. As such, almost every mention on laissez-faire in literature is negative.

          Even in the original 1938 study comparing the three different leadership styles, the effectiveness laissez-faire leadership styles was the least effective (Lewin, Lippitt, and White, 1938). The children’s leader were instructed offer little or no guidance to group members and leave decision-making up to group members. The children the group more demands on the leader than either of the other groups, showed little cooperation and were unable to work independently.

          Serious research into Lewin’s categories of leadership was stimulated by a groundbreaking measure created by psychologist Bernard Bass (1985). Bass created a measure called the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), which has been said to be the basis of recent research in this area (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2008).

          Using the MLQ researchers Skogstad, Einarsen, Torsheim, Aasland, and Hetland found that leaders demonstrating a laissez-faire as positively correlated with role ambiguity, role conflict, and workplace bullying and psychological stress (2007). This study does not offer any causal conclusions, and while much of these variables are correlated and mediated by each other, this study does demonstrate that a clear link between laissez-faire leadership and increased bullying in the workplace.

          In another study on bullying, it was found that compared to respondents experiencing low of laissez-faire leadership, high levels of laissez-faire leadership had three times the risk of bullying behaviors (Nielsen, 2013). Further, in this study, the only statistically significant factor to predict bullying was is they were being managed by a laissez-faire leadership style. However, as this study relied on what the participants report their bosses were like it is possible that those who were bullied were more likely to see their boss as more aloof and distant than those who had not experienced bullying.

          Other studies have shown that laissez-faire leadership negatively predict innovative work behavior (Khan, & Riaz, 2012), are more prone to have higher incident rates in medical facilities (Krouse, 2011), and a negative correlation in self-efficacy in social workers. Indeed, almost all the research done on laissez-faire leadership shows that it pales in comparison to the other two counterparts.

          While most of the literature regarding laissez-faire is negative there are some studies which point so some very positive aspects. In a 2008 study of the effectiveness of different leadership styles of clergy, it was found that laissez-faire leadership was the most effective. Barbuto found that laissez-faire leadership was positively correlated to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (2005). Similarly, Chaudhry and Javed found that laissez-faire was positively correlated with motivation, though not as strongly as transactional or transformational leadership style (2012).

Discussion of Research, the Spectrum of Laissez-Faire Leadership, and Suggestions for Future Research

          Finding any generalizable study in which shows laissez-faire leadership in a positive light is very rare. However, the vast majority of laissez-faire leaders are leaders of default and inaction, not leaders with a purposeful leadership philosophy. Such leaders of default demonstrate aspects of laziness, inhabitation, and apathy. They practice an extreme laissez-faire leadership style which has not guidelines, just inaction. Their employees are working for them with false expectations of leadership, deficiency of training, and unmet needs. They are left to guess if their employer will complete his job or his involvement.

          As this is the case, it is not surprising that the results are as such. It would be of interest if further research were to focus in on purposeful leaders which adopted a form of laissez-faire leadership. Such leaders would be forthright with their leadership style letting their team know what to expect. They would hire a capable team compatible with laissez-faire leadership. They would be adept in their job possessing all the skills necessary to perform their tasks with self-judgment and minimal supervision. They would have demonstrated reliability and self-motivation. This would minimize the aforementioned potential liabilities of a laissez-faire leadership style.

          This style of leaderships is more akin to subcontracting than to traditional leadership -- the worker is given a clear objective and is left to autonomously complete his object using his own skills and work management.  Further research into this type of laissez-faire leadership would be very beneficial to better understand some potential gains of taking a more deliberate and structured “hands-off” approach.

Laissez-Fair, a Critical Aspect of Future Leadership Development

          As technology increases, working at home have been on the rise. Several companies now allow employees to work at home periodically once they have established their work ethic.  One study has reported that the number of Americans working from home increased 40% from 1999 to 2010 (Fox, 2012). According to an international survey of almost 10,000 participants, 26% of employees were working at home at least one day a week in 2012.  This is up from 18% just two years prior in 2010.  Further, in 2012, 12% of employees spend some time doing work in public venues such as coffee shops, or restaurants, this being twice the 6% that reported doing so in 2010 (Forrester, 2012).

          As people are spending more time working out of their home it gives them more flexibility and autonomy.  This, by necessity, creates more of a laissez-faire, or “hands off” type of environment.  A manager will not have constant communication with a worker which is at home.  Their relationship will be much different, and more emotionally distant.  The manager is likely to give less thought to the employee at home than to the employee in the office. It would be wise to go into such situations with a clear plan so it does such relationships do degenerate into a laissez-faire leadership style of default-inaction.

          To do so, we must research the conditions in which a more laissez-faire leadership style can survive while maintaining order and efficiency. Not only will future research tell us how laissez-faire can work, but it will also give us further information as to why most laissez-faire relationships do not work.  Thus, the laissez-faire leadership style is a critical area of leadership development which should be given more prominence and thought in future research.

Work Cited

Atlassian. (n.d.). ShipIt Days at Atlassian. Retrieved from https://www.atlassian.com/company/about/shipit

Barbuto, J. E. (2005). Motivation and Transactional, Charismatic, and Transformational Leadership: A Test of Antecedents. Journal of leadership and organizational studies, 11(4), 26-40.

Chaudhry, A. Q. & Javed H. (2012). Impact of Transactional and Laissez Faire Leadership Style on Motivation. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(7), 258-264.

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.

Forrester. (2008). Forrsights Workforce Employee Survey, Q4 2012. Forrsights for Business Technology. Retrieved from http://www.huduser.org/Datasets/IL/IL08/in_fy2008.pdf

Fox, J. E. (2012). Work from home soars 41% in 10 years. CNNMoney. Retrieved from http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/04/news/economy/work-from-home/

Goodnight, R. (2004). Laissez-Faire Leadership. Encyclopedia of Leadership (820-823). Sage.

Hall, A. (2013). 'I'm Outta Here!' Why 2 Million Americans Quit Every Month (And 5 Steps to Turn the Epidemic Around). Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/alanhall/2013/03/11/im-outta-here-why-2-million-americans-quit-every-month-and-5-steps-to-turn-the-epidemic-around/

Harvard Business Review (2012). Managing Talent in Troubled Times. Harvard Business Review, Retrieved from http://appli7.hec.fr/hrm/diversity/HBR_HEC_Executive_Survey1.htm

Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2008). An examination of 'nonleadership': From laissez-faire leadership to leader reward omission and punishment omission. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1234-1248. doi:10.1037/a0012875

Khan, M., Aslam, N., & Riaz, M. (2012). Leadership styles as predictors of innovative work behavior. Pakistan Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9(2), 17-22.

Kissel, T. (2012). 65% of Americans Choose a Better Boss over a Raise – Here’s Why. Forbes, Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/tykiisel/2012/10/16/65-of-americans-choose-a-better-boss-over-a-raise-heres-why/

Krouse, J. E. (2011). Leadership characteristics identified within successful safety cultures: A study of transformational, transactional and passive/avoidant leader behaviors. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 71,

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 271– 301.

Nielsen, M. (2013). Bullying in work groups: The impact of leadership. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 54(2), 127-136. doi:10.1111/sjop.12011

Skogstad, A., Einarsen, S., Torsheim, T., Aasland, M., & Hetland, H. (2007). The destructiveness of laissez-faire leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(1), 80-92. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.12.1.80

Widener University (n.d.). Laissez Faire Leadership. Retrieved from http://www.widener.edu/about/widener_values/leadership/oskin_leadership/az/laissez-faire.aspx

A Vote for Mitt Romney is a Vote for Satan?

K

2008 Republican Primary Election Outcomes

            Religion is an essential component in the United States presidential elections. Indeed, while there have been some rather unorthodox theist presidents (such as Thomas Jefferson) there has never been a president that has not also been nominally Christian. As such, religion has become a rather decisive aspect in debates and rhetoric.  Religion is used to both gain adherents as while as used as a deterrent from their opponants. This has been seen in the case of John F. Kennedy (the first Catholic president), Barrack Obama (accused of being a Muslim), as well as Mitt Romney. In the case of Mitt Romney it came to the point where it was stated that a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for Satan.
            In the 2008 Republican primary election the three main runners were John McCain, Mike Hukabee, and Mitt Romney. Both John McCain and Mike Hukabee are mainline Christians. In fact, Mike Hukabee is an ordain Southern Baptism minister. However, Mitt Romney is a devout Mormon, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS). Mitt Romney's religion quickly became a political platform in which he was examined and ridiculed. This because many Christians view Mormonism as a non-Christian cult.

Mormon Salt Lake City Temple
Completed 1893

             Mitt Romney's devotion to his faith is almost indisputable. Mitt Romney pays a minimum of 10% of his income to the Mormon church as a tithe.  In additional to tithing, he delegates funds to various other causes within the church including welfare. When Romney was in his early 20's he served as a full-time missionary France for two year.  He later served as a Bishop of a Mormon congregation (an unpaid local congregation leader), and as a Stake President (a leader over several wards or congregations) all of which are unpaid ecclesiastical positions.  Romney regularly attends church as well as temples (dedicated buildings where Mormons perform liturgical convents and oblations to God). Romney has spent thousands and thousands of hours in service of his church and donated millions. He is by all accounts a devout member.

             To most, these traits would seem ]desirable, it demonstrates that he has deep rooted convictions, finds passion in his commitments, works hard, performs selfless service, and sacrifices time and money for what he believes to be true.  Further, just the fact that Romney is a Mormon in the face of frequent ridicule shows that he sticks to what he believes even if it is unpopular or a minority view. While devotion may be admirable trait, for many Romney has placed his faith in the wrong religion. For many evangelical and traditional Christian religions the Mormon church is not a Christian religion, that they deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, that they do not follow the bible as the ultimate source, that it is a religion inspired by the devil, and it is a satanic cult. Despite Mormons claiming otherwise, 50% of American do not believe that Mormons are Christian. Further, when asked one word to describe the Mormon religion the most common answer was "cult" (Pew Forum, 2012)).

Pastor Bill Keller

             One prominent critic is Pastor Bill Keller. Bill Keller is a evangelical pastor, a televangelist, creator of Bill Keller ministries, and the creator and host of Live Prayer (www.liveprayer.com), an online ministry which sends over 2,400,000 people regular emails in relation to Christ, their website and other Live Prayer information.  
             Bill Keller caused a national scene when he sent an email to his followers that "If you vote for Mitt Romney you are voting for Satan" and that "[Mitt] Romney getting elected president will ultimately lead millions of souls to the eternal flames of hell!!!" (2007).  This caused uproar not just in religious and political realms but also in legal circles.  The reason for this is because Live Prayer is a non-profit organization and thus it is illegal for it to “attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates”(Internal Revenue Services, 2012).  Keller’s email was seen by many as a political statement which is directed to influence his audience against voting for Mitt Romney. The American United for the Separation of Church and State petitioned the IRS to examine the tax exempt state Pastor Keller's organization.

            This story was taken up by most major news sources and provided me, as a politically minded Canadian Mormon, significant entertainment. In this blog post I would like to show you two interviews of Pastor Bill Keller which are informative, entertaining and interesting.

Interview #1 - Bill O'Reilly and Pastor Bill Keller Talk on The O'Reilly Factor on Fox News
          This first interview is between conservative Fox News political commentator and Roman Catholic Bill O’Reilly and televangelist Pastor Bill Keller, founder of www.liveprayer.com.            

Now as fun as it is to see to see Bill O'Reilly treat Pastor Bill Keller as if he were five, I feel he dealt with the interview in a less-than-ideal way.  Bill Keller did make some very prejudiced, close minded, and ignorant statements. However, it is wrong, ignorant, and ironic to respond to intolerance with intolerance for the intolerant.
 In this interview Bill O'Reilly made a very good point about the validity of his claims.  In discussion he said to Keller(3:06): 

"He is not bringing anybody into anything. I mean that is ridiculous. How can you back up an assertion that the former governor of Massachusetts is bringing people into his religion? How could you back that up?"  

Keller had claimed that  "[Mitt] Romney getting elected president will ultimately lead millions of souls to the eternal flames of hell". How can Mr. Keller show evidence that this is true? In 2007 there were only 302 million people in the US (Population Reference Bureau, 2007). For "millions" to be millions it must be at least two. That would be at least 0.7% of the entire population converting, which would be an increase of about 33% for the current US Mormon Population. This is a very unlikely claim with no base.

Interview #2 - Alan Colmes, Pastor Bill Keller, and Scott Gordon on The Alan Colmes Show on Fox News Radio

            
                   This second interview is a three way interview between liberal Jewish radio host Alan Colmes of Fox News Radio, Mormon and president of the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research (FAIR (www.fairlds.org) Scott Gordon, and Pastor Bill Keller (www.liveprayer.com). This rather lengthy interview focuses on the question of the Mormon belief in Christ: Are Mormon Christian? Do Mormon believe in a "different" God and Christ than mainstream Christianity? What is he nature of god? Bill Keller claims that "a Mormon is no more a Christian than a Muslim", that they believe in a different and false God and Jesus and that the Mormon church is a "satanic cult" and that "millions of people will die and go to Hell if Mitt Romney is elected to become president".
                   This interview also examines some very sensitive issues such as polygamy, angels, racial bans to priesthood, their holy scriptures "The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, their so called "secret" temple practices, grace vs works, the atonement of Jesus Christ, temple undergarments, difficult historical issues, apotheosis, the afterlife, their ultimate authority and several other like issues.

Here are some of my favorite, or most interesting, quotes from the interview: 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(4:27)

Gordon: Don't believe in the deity of Christ?  That is clearly untrue.

Keller: You deny the deity of Christ. Don't sit there and lie to the people!

Colmes: Wait, Wait! Isn't the full name of the church "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Gordon: That is correct.

(12:12)

Keller: They try to make people believe, even your guest is trying to make people believe, that they are just another Christian denomination! But a Mormon is no more a Christian than a Muslim!

Colmes: Wait, why can't you accept what Mr. Gordon is saying if that is his faith, if that is his belief? Why can't you accept that that is what he believes?

Keller: He can believe anything he wants, just be honest!

Colmes: Are you claiming, sir, that he is misrepresenting what his religion actually stands for? 

Keller: They are deceiving people to try to make them believe they are Christians and they not!

...

Gordon: You know, I don't really even know what I can say about that. What can one say other than "he's wrong"? 

(16:05)

Keller: I would love to see you get saved because you would be a powerful man of God Alan.

Colmes: Well, and maybe I am a powerful man of God without your religion. 

(17:30)

Colmes: Whatever happened to "judge not lest ye be judged"?  Did you read that part of the bible?

(26:12)

Keller: Hey Alan, you really want to ask your other guest about the fact that they believe when you die you'll be God of your own planet, that Jesus is the brother of Lucifer, and some of these beliefs about the magical underwear.

Gordon: Well, as to the "magical underwear", I think Mr. Keller has an undue attraction to underwear items.

(29:26)  

Colmes: Are you calling [Scott Gordon] a liar?

Keller: Of course he is a liar!

Gordon: You know, That's the thing - as soon as I say something all that Mr. Keller says is to say that I am wrong. Now how is it that he know my beliefs better than I do?

(33:06)

* Gladys Knight Song Playing*

Colmes: Hey, Bill Keller, you like Gladys Knight?

Keller: Love Gladys Knight. Love Donny and Marie [Osmond] and I pray that they will turn from the lies of the Mormon cult before they die and go to Hell.

(34:06)

Gordon: I find it interesting that [Bill Keller] berates us, calls us a satanic cult, he calls us evil, and then he says "and by the way, come over and join my group". Why would we want to do that? You know, you treat people that rudely, it's certainly not a very good missionary effort. 

...

Keller: ...let me tell you something: there is only one truth, and I know it is tough to hear, but it's the bottom line and it is out of love that I share that truth tonight with you. 

Colmes: I haven't heard much love on these phone lines.

Gordon: I haven't either.

Keller: Hey Alan, truth is the greatest love their is my friend.

Colmes: I'm not feeling the love.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Colmes and Gordons attempt to have a respectful interfaith discussion with the hysterical, interrupting, snickering Keller. However, all Keller seems to be interested in doing is rehashing his original article and to close off the minds of the public by demonizing Mitt Romney and the Mormon religion.  Keller also seems unwilling to talk to Gordon directly, rather, he seems to refer to him only as "your other guest" and address any comment he wishes to make to Gordon through Colmes.  Nearing the end of the interview it seems that Keller breaks down and desperately starts throwing out every trick in the book to discredit Mormons (most of which were misleading, unsubstantiated, or false) while alluding that he hasn't even scratched the surface of the wild and outrageous beliefs of the Mormon church (27:23).  As Gordon and Colmes pointed out you can make almost any unfamiliar practice seems crazy by the way you word it.

Are Mormons Unchristian and Non-Biblical?

Pastor Keller based his claim that "a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for Satan" on the grounds that Mormons are not Christian. During his interview with Colmes, Keller answered why it was unacceptable for Mitt Romney, or any Mormon, to become president. He initially states that he would not support anyone who "denied the deity of Christ". Later he clarified this statement by sayin that Mormons do not believe in the same Jesus Christ as was presented in the Bible and in historic Christianity; Bill Keller implies heavily that Mormons are ignorant in the Bible and of true Christianity. Lastly, he made the statement that he would fight against any candidate that "masquerades as something they are not".  Are these accurate claims and criticisms?

Do Mormons Deny the Deity of Christ and purposefully Misrepresent themselves as Christian? 

             Do Mormons deny the deity of Christ? What does that even mean? The word deity is defined as "god, or divine nature, especially that of the supreme being: divinity". Thus, the idea that Mormons deny the deity of Christ is easily tested by examining the scriptural canon of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and their prophets.

The Book of Mormon is a Holy book for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which portrays various historical events between 2000 BCE and 600 AD.  In it, it states that the people "...serve the God of this land,who is Jesus Christ..." (Ether 2:12, The Book of Mormon).

In 2000, the leading head of the Church came out with an official declaration of belief concerning Jesus Christ.  It states that:

"[Jesus] was the great Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Messiah of the New... He gave His life to atone for the sins of all mankind... We bear testimony, as His duly ordained Apostles -- that Jesus is the Living Christ, the immortal Son of God. He is the great King Immanuel, who stands today on the right hand of his Father. He is the light, the life, and the hope of the world. His way is the path that leads to happiness in this life and eternal life in the world to come. God be thanked for the matchless gift of His divine son." (The Living Christ)

             It is quite obvious from the texts and words of the official works of the Church for Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that Mormons do believe in the deity of Jesus Christ.  So, are they misrepresenting themselves? By what other measure would you gauge them by other than their words, their official doctrine and ministerial teachings?  These sources are the most basic source of theology for the Mormons faith and I see no reason to accept the claims of Keller according to this information. I sympathize with Gordon's statements statements to kellers claims: "I don't really even know what I can say about that. What can one say other than "he's wrong"?" (Int-2, 21:26).

A "Different", Unbiblical, Jesus?

             Jesus stated that "this is life eternal, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent"(John 17:3 KJV).  But who is Jesus? Who is God? This is a subject that has been debated through centuries. From the creeds of Nicea, to the definition of Chalcedon, to the reformation, theologians have argued the nature of God and Jesus Christ. Why are there separate churches? Because they can't all agree on the same nature and laws of God or Christ! So a claim that Mormons believe in a "different" Christ is meaningless.

             A more interesting question is if the Mormon view Jesus is unbiblical.  Biblical interpretations vary from person to person and from church to church.  While several churches proudly proclaim that they follow "the Bible only" they disagree about even basic concepts of God and theology. As such, I believe that it is impossible to fully answer the question "is the Mormon idea of God, Jesus, theology exactly concordant with the Bible." Rather, I will present some sources demonstrating that Mormons do know and read the bible. It it to be assumed that both reading reading and understanding the bible is positively correlated with an accuracy of the teaching from the Bible (if more you read and understand the bible the more likely you will have an accurate understanding of the laws and the deity found in the Bible).

             The Pew Forum constructed several religious surveys in the US.  They found that on average, Mormons answered correctly more questions about historical Christian than any other surveyed religious affiliation.  

             They also found that Mormons outperformed all Christian denominations in the overall religious knowledge quiz and percent of people with more than 53%.  Mormons also performed better than any other religious affiliation in the quiz of biblical knowledge (see chart 1) (Statistics of Interest are Mormons and Evangelical Christians (pastor Keller religious standing)). 

Chart 2 (click to enlarge)

Mormons also answered correctly more questions about historical Christianity and Judaism than any other quizzed religious affiliation.  Mormons also performed better on the world religion quiz than any other Christian denomination (see chart 2).

Chart 2 (click to enlarge)

Mormons also were seen to read the scriptures, attend church, and praying more frequently than other Christian religions and the US general public. (see chart 3). 

Chart 3 (click to enlarge)

What is more interesting is that Mormons with a higher education (and presumably better informed in science, history, religion, culture, and world affairs) find Mormon believes easier to believe than those with less education. In fact Mormon college graduates are less than half as likely to report having a hard time some things than are people with a high school diploma or less. So while I don't think it is appropriate or plausible to claim that anyone's perspective of Jesus is biblical or not as both measures are very subjective I do believe that Mormons do have a good belief and practice of reading the Bible (and presumably have a fairly reasonable interpretation of the Bible and Christ).

   

Conclusion

Overall I was entertained by the interview but was very disappointed with the arguments Keller made.  While there are legitimate concerns and criticisms of  the Mormon faith Keller choose to demonize the teaching of the Mormon church.  Keller was using fear tactics, not trying to understand others' belief systems, turning to misrepresentation and straw man arguments; It appears his motive was not the truth but rather to convince his audience of the monstrosity which is Mormonism. Further, Keller makes several blanket statements which are obviously untrue (e.g. (Int.2-1:34)The false teaching of the Mormon Cult are in 100% contradiction to biblical Christianity) and several times employ very obvious and overt logical fallacies which not only do not help his arguments but hurts his legitimacy and authority of everything he says (e.g. (Int.2-32:00) "We must only accept what is in the bible" (Why do we accept that law? Because it says that in the bible?(circular logic)), (Int.2-32:34) "the basic tenants of the Christian faith is agreed upon by all those who follow Christ" (So the basic teachings and laws of Christianity is all agreed upon by all those who follow those same teaching and laws?).).

             It seems to me, as it did to Gordon, that Keller has a deep fear that Mitt Romney being president could give the Mormon church some sort of legitimacy, respect, and greater understanding.  It seems Keller is afraid that  This is a rather informative and enlightening interview to see some of the contention and friction between evangelical Christianity and Mormonism.

Presidential Republican Candidates
From Right to Left: Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum 

             Currently Bill Keller continues his anti-Mormon and anti-Romney campaign and has on his webpage a "Judas Gallery: Christians who have sold out Christ to back Mormon Cult Member, Mitt Romney" with a list of Christians who support the Mitt Romney campaign.

             Whatever is to happen in these 2012 elections I hope that people will see the good in every political candidate.  I hope that one's religious beliefs will not be a stumbling block or a shew-in for any voter but rather the convictions, issues, integrity, and morality of the candidates.

A banner found on www.liveprayer.com

References

Population Reference Bureau. (2007). 2007 World Population Data Sheet. Retrieved from http://www.prb.org/pdf07/07WPDS_Eng.PDF

Pew Forum. (2012). Romney's Mormon Faith Likely a Factor in Primaries, Not in a General Election. Retrieved from http://www.pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/Romneys-Mormon-Faith--views-of-the-mormon-religion.aspx

Internal Revenue Services. (2012). Exemption Requirements - Section 501(c)(3) Organizations

Keller, W. (2007). If you vote for mitt romney you are voting for satan. Retrieved from http://liveprayer.com/ddarchive3.cfm?id=2931