Comment (60)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
Technorati
diggTough questions for Mitt Romney
Can the presidential hopeful assure Americans that his position on fundamental issues will not change?
As most Americans following the political press know, Governor Mitt Romney, the first Mormon candidate popular enough to actually become the President of America, will give a speech today. It is a speech which everyone has compared to a famous speech by John F. Kennedy in the 1960 presidential campaign. The American electorate, in the general election of 1960, was concerned that Kennedy would take marching orders from the Pope in Rome. Kennedy went far, a bit too far, to assuage their concerns.
I would like Governor Romney to answer a few tough questions.
Let’s get rid of all the cheap shots against Mormonism first. I don’t want Mitt Romney to disavow polygamy; I don’t want him to tell me how happy he is that black people were allowed to become Mormon; I don’t want him to defend himself or his religion against old practices which no longer pertain to him or to his religion.
I don’t have a problem with the past. My problem with Mormonism concerns the present and the future. While I applaud the religion for having changed from polygamy to monogamy and from race-excluding to race-including, I am primarily concerned with the reasons for the changes. From what I can gather, the 12 leaders of the Mormon Church, called the Apostles, and particularly the eldest Apostle, called the Prophet, continue to give prophecies and hand down new teachings.
But what are the criteria for these monumental decisions? The conventional Christian view is that monogamy and racial equality are mandated by the natural law. In other words, they are consistent with upright reason. Because the Christian view of God is that he is reasonable, his revelation supports and ratifies what is in the natural law. Even God cannot change it. Hence, the New Testament, which represents the fullness of God's revelation for Christians, orders monogamy and racial equality. It supports and ratifies the natural law, but never contradicts it.
But the Mormon position seems to be different. The Mormon God can change the natural law. He can allow polygamy and then ban it. He can decree the inferiority of blacks and then raise them to equality. His judgements, or at least his prophet's judgements, seem arbitrary and not altogether in accordance with reason.
Herein lies my concern with Mitt Romney as President of the United States: if, as believing Mormons say, the Prophet and the 11 other Apostles of LDS truly offer inspired prophecy which can be wholly new and which is not subject to scrutiny or reproach from the natural law; and if Mitt Romney is indeed a believing and faithful Mormon and therefore obliged to follow these prophecies; then why should I not be greatly concerned about the future prophecies of the 12 Apostles of the LDS? If their new teachings have the status of prophecy that must be obeyed and adhered to, then, in order to trust a Mormon President of the United States, wouldn’t I have to trust the Prophet of the LDS as well?
I happen to agree with the shift to monogamy and the shift to a pan-racial LDS. But unless the LDS’s 12 Apostles have some reliable, explicable, rational basis for these changes, then I cannot adjudge any fundamental belief and policy flowing from those beliefs which Mitt Romney might adhere to in the campaign as anything more stable than the prophecies of the LDS. And history shows that these can fundamentally change.
Since such issues as monogamy versus polygamy are fundamental issues for society and leadership in our government, I am unable to support a devout Mormon for President without a detailed explanation of either (a) the rational criteria which underpins these prophecies; or (b) doctrinal grounds allowing for conscientious objection in the event of fundamental changes in the Mormon faith.
I doubt that Mr Romney will say that the Mormon faith has no serious or effective influence over the hearts and minds of believing Mormons. This cannot be true. Otherwise, the ban on polygamy would never have been made, or, once made, the majority of Mormons would never have followed it. And I hope that he does not say that he has always followed his own conscience and ignored his faith on all matters pertaining to politics and leadership. This I very much doubt, anyway, because Governor Romney has said he is a devout Mormon, and we know that indeed he was a Mormon bishop and stakeholder.
Either Governor Romney is honest, and therefore very serious about his Mormon faith, in which case I need a detailed explanation of why the Prophet and the 11 other Apostles of LDS will not hand down new and binding prophecies while a coreligionist is in the White House, or he is not honest, and therefore will ignore any future prophecies of the LDS. I hope the Governor is honest, and so I hope he will address my difficult questions.
Matthew Mehan is a Contributing Editor for MercatorNet
Our understanding of God is limited because he is God and we arent. To claim that God cannot due two mutually exclusive things at the same time makes logical human sense. But his ways are not our ways.
Yes there are concepts of natural law, established for all eternity. Yet by your own admissions, miracles do occur. Miracles by their very nature represent a supernatural contradiction of natural law and logic.
I am glad that C.S. Lewis and my conservative theological friends have God all figured out. I however choose to intimately commune with the Holy Spirit who will in due time give me the answers I need on a daily basis.
Was it not St. Paul who said “we see things dimly” in this life? I will give greater reverence to the teachings of a Saint over C.S Lewis anytime, as godly a man as he apparently was.
I find it strange and somewhat troubling that after my last post, a post in which I made significant concessions concerning your positions about this whole issue, I am told in a rather condescending way to study this issue further.
We can neither worship nor love a God who becomes a mere extension of human logic. God then becomes something “out there”, totally beyond human understanding and sovereign only in a “supernatural” way.
It is always my hope that whenever I encounter needless opposition, opposition which apparently stems from human reasonings and ego, that the Holy Spirit, which can enlighten us as to these issues, will overcome the flesh, represented most prominently in the human intellect.
Yes God could theoretically sin and change natural law at will. He is God after all. He most certainly will not so either because of his inherent perfection and immutability. It is sheer human ego and hubris that claims to have God all figured out. Our minds are limited. He is God, we arent. Anytime anyone in any faith tradition claims through logic to put God into a metaphysical box, one should be wary. We are given the “natural light of human reason” (Vatican 1). Things which offend this sense of reason need further exploration within the context of Christian fraternity, not within any ideological context.
The views of logic that you express concerning these issues represent human reasonings. Scripture and tradition, taken together, form the basis of Roman Catholic belief. But so called “higher criticisms” or “higher analysis” based upon concepts of human logic tend to bend this deposit of faith into the mere doctrines of men.
I would suggest a large dose of humility whene examining such issues.
SMA, with all due respect, I do not believe that the best place to learn about what Mormons believe is from the Catholics. I mean, I am not Catholic, never been Catholic, and the LAST person you want to tell you what Catholics believe is me! There are way too many things taught by Catholics that I just do not believe, and I might be able to do a credible job of turning many people off of Catholicism, if I were so inclined.
If you want to know what WE believe, then mormon.org is the best place. I would only go to catholicanswers.com or any similar link if I wanted to know what CATHOLICS believe. The best place to learn about Catholics is from Catholics, and about Mormons is from Mormons.
First, I’d like to say that my difficulties with Romney do not arise from him being Mormon but from his political history. Every candidate should explain their beliefs. For Romney though I reject him before we even get to that point. Many psychiatrists will use a seven year time period as the mark of someone who has truly changed their way of thinking and acting. Less than seven years ago Mr. Romney was pro-abortion. I would have to see a strong history in anti-abortion positions before I could ever support him.
Secondly, I have recently begun to study Mormonism more seriously. What I have found is that this is an extremely complicated topic that should be dealt with independently, away from politics first. For starters, a language barrier exists that must be dealt with. For example, the definition of God/god is not the same for a Mormon and a Catholic. There are issues that must be painstakingly dealt with before a good conversation can be had. There is also a lot of confusion due to Joseph Smith. Smith’s teachings varied greatly between his early and latter years. I would love to go deeper into this but due to constraints I would suggest everyone read Mark Shea’s and other writings on this topic on catholicanswers.com.
Finally, back to natural law. I briefly read several postings that referenced natural law and what God “can do”. We should all remember that God is indeed above natural law since God is by definition “supernatural”. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception and other miracles. Also, can God make a rock so large He cannot lift it? Here I suggest reading C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity, where the question was directly answered. Essentially what Lewis says is that you are asking if God can achieve what is logically “nonsense”. “It is not possible for God to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense, even when we talk about God.”
Learning humility as I get older, I acknowledge that I am learning from this exchange with you. I believe this is all a matter of communication.
I believe that we both agree that God is both sovereign and immutable. Given this fact, god cannot “change” the natural law, not because he is not fully sovereign but because his complete sovereignty is intricately linked with his perfection and immutability. His nature is such that he cant change the natural law.
Looked at this way, I can agree with the statement that “even God cant change” (natural law).
I would have preferred language more descriptive of Gods immutability. This is an area of theology that I must admit that I need to study further.
In any event this has been edifying to me, and I hope to you as well in some way.
In Fellowship
Brian Morgan
Brian,
The can’t versus won’t does not inform the value of the question. Can God sin? The principle of non-contradiction states that a thing cannot be and not be at the same time in the same respect. Can God be and not be at the same time in the same respect? To say yes would be to say that God could not be, to say no is to say that God “can’t” violate the principle of non-contradiction. Dead end right? Of course not. The principle of non-contradiction is true only as a reflection of God. He is not bound by it, it is Him. In the same way the Natural Law is God. Sin is an evil, sin is acting in a way that displeases God. But it is not proper to say that God “can’t” sin. Nor is it proper, by the way, to say “he could but he won’t.” The idea of God sinning is nonsense, in the literal meaning that the idea does not rationally exist. Our entire concept of sin assumes fallen beings acting within the framework established by God. There is no use trying to apply that framework to God himself. Not to say it does or doesn’t apply. It’s just a non-starter. It is the same with the natural law. The natural law is a perfect and permanent reflection of the Divine law applied to nature. It always was and always will be, because it is God. Change implies time and limitation. To even ask if God “can” do something entertains the idea that He “can’t” do somethings, which is logically fatal. Please don’t take this the wrong way, but you mentioned you are a convert. Perhaps this is an area ripe for more study and reflection.
Pat S,
You say, “I think we should be concerned about the Mormon church’s shifting positions on life issues. If midway through his term they changed a position on embryonic stem cells or euthanasia, we could see significant changes in how these issues are enforced.”
Why would you say that?
I can’t see that being true at all. It would not be possible. Issues are enforced according to the law, and the penalties for breaking law (which is established by the legislature as well).
It really has nothing to do with the executive, and there’s not leeway here.
Contrary to my very first comment, the comments posted here are very interesting at the very least, and sometimes well stated, and I have enjoyed the participation.
Communications is quite challenging and it is so easy to hear what we want. Some of my comments have been misunderstood and I am sure I have misunderstood other’s.
Hopefully we all have learned something we did not understand before. I have.
I think this is very exciting times in which we live, both technological and historical. I find it exciting to have a true prophet on the earth and it’s unfortunate that others are satisfied to admire the old true prophets as long as they had lived at another time (ie Moses). God is indeed interested in us at this time and while he actively inspires all peoples in their own domains, there is only a few organizations which has been designated to be his official mouthpiece. At other times in history it has been Adam and his posterity, the Hebrews, the Jews, and at present The Curch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is not to say the “designated group” has been limited to these organizations or cultures, as the world is a big place. It will be interesting to learn how God has dealt with other ancient cultures besides the Nephites and Lamanites.
I’m pretty confident changing polygamy laws would not pass the sniff test. Passing new legislation vs. enforcing it are two different things. However, I think we should be concerned about the Mormon church’s shifting positions on life issues. If midway through his term they changed a position on embryonic stem cells or euthanasia, we could see significant changes in how these issues are enforced.
The only limitation upon the sovereignty of God is the use of the word “cant” rather than “wont” as it concerns the natural law.
A truly sovereign immutable and perfect God “wont” change the natural law. His very sovereignty carries with it the explicit power to do so but because of his immutability he wont.
There is nothing that a sovereign God could not do. But given the immutable character of God, there are things he wont do.
Cant versus wont. Semantics yes but in the context of this debate, words carry meaning.
Brian,
Sorry to be so blunt, but you are just wrong. You are looking at the Natural Law as something which would restrict God, rather than as something only given meaning because it reflects him. As MTM pointed out, a perfect God has created a Natural Law perfectly reflective of Him and the Divine Law. In addition, God is outside of time, and thus your “change” element is once again approaching the question from a human perspective, and thus getting off on the wrong foot. What is a valid point is that as humans have progressed through salvation history at different “times” we have seen God implement the Natural Law in different ways, in accordance with his infinite justice, knowledge, and goodness.
mtm,
Thank you for your thoughtful response, though I think you may have been mixing up some of what Brian said with what I said, and he and I do differ in opinion on some items.
There are 13 articles of faith in the LDS faith. (you can read them here: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1) They were established in Joseph Smith’s day.
The 12th reads: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”
I know that there has been considerable discussion in the church about what this means and its limits.
You may take issue with this from a *religious* standpoint, but from Romney’s standpoint, it actually bolsters the case. As an executive, his job is the administer and execute the law, not make the law. In a situation where his personal religious conviction may he is under obligation not only by his presidential oath, but by his religious oaths, to uphold the law.
There is a strong sense of common sense that runs through the church, however. There have been conscientious objectors in the history of the church and, to my knowledge, this has never been frowned upon, but has mostly been left up to the individual. But the principle is to support.
You did say “I see that LDS does indeed see the law of the land as more important than the law of God.”
LDS people would not see it that way. Because Polygamy was never intended to be practiced at all times, just at certain time.
Joseph Smith said, “I have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs otherwise.” Additional scriptures in the Book of Mormon (Jacob 2:27-30) confirms this (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/jacob/2/27-30#30). Abandoning polygamy isn’t abandoning a central tenant of the faith, as polygamy is something instituted from time to time to help “further” the work.
I don’t speak for the church.
I wish I could say more, but I’m at the 2000 word limit!
Reinstitution of polygamy was not my major concern for the future under a Romney presidency, but the conversation has certainly revealed that polygamy is not so far gone from Mormonism as I had thought--or am I still mistaken? One comment says it is still gospel.
In any case, I know enough theology to respectfully disagree with you, Drex, regarding Mormonism as Christian in any historical sense of that term, though I am sure now that Mormons prefer the term for themselves--or perhaps not, since your last remark seems to identify the “Christian community” as something other than Mormon...?
I think the major concern is what you have pointed out, namely that the LDS is still actively in a prophetic era of some kind, in which believers respond to direct statements from their god by means of their leader and that those prophecies do not seem to be in harmony with reason.
The prophecies of recent memory are not physically dangerous, but they are dangerous ideas, some of them: that the “gospel” is subject to the laws of the state, or “of the land” seems to me a very bad idea and/or practice. The laws of the land need to be brought into harmony with the Gospel with which the natural law is also in harmony--therefore there is no state > God’s law hierarchy as there seems to be in the LDS.
This is not to say Romney must therefore not become president; but it is to say that difficulties with his religious beliefs give me pause, esp. now that I see that LDS does indeed see the law of the land as more important than the law of God with respect to the present moment. That religious belief held widely in a government might cause no small degree of trouble.
A very interesting discussion....
To Drex,
One of the concerns, perhaps the major concern, of the author is that polygamy will be re-instituted under a Pres. Mitt Romney. It can be argued that Church leadership in 1890 found it necessary to ban polygamy to be able to join the United States. I just wanted to make it clear that the Church emphasizes compliance with local laws.
Good point about other countries that allow polygamy and yet the Mormon Church still bans the practice. Between our two points, no one should be uneasy about the resurgence of polygamy from a Mormon President. Just between you and me I think the big problem with a Mormon president is it will make Mormonism more main-stream. I think that is the reason for the resistance or making it an issue.
So people can be clear about the beliefs of true Mormons: The priesthood given to ALL of God’s children when it happened in the 1970’s under Church President Kimball (ie blacks) and the discontinuance of the practice of polygamy in 1890/1904 (see Wikipedia) is because God, thru the Lord Jesus Christ, manifested by the Holy Ghost made his, God’s, will known by revelation to the President and Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ. It was not a decision of human leadership.
Yes, we believe in God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ, the Savior of mankind, and in the Holy Ghost. Is there another definition for a Christian Religion that I dont know about?
BTW, I liked the comment about polygamy being an OT problem and thus a Hebrew problem, Jewish problem, a Christian problem, a Catholic problem, and a Mormon problem. hehehe.
I just hope it does not become an American problem as the definition of marriage is modified to include people who are sexually-oriented challenged.
I have seen more flip-flop from the Christian community regarding “their” doctrine than I have from the LDS church or Mitt Romney. I hope we dont get a flip-flop president who will bend with the wind of public opinion. I dont think we’ll be disappointed with Mitt.
Actually, Brian, to say what you’re saying is the real limitation on God: he made a true reflection that did not truly reflect him.
Page 2 of 4 : < 1 2 3 4 >