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
Perhaps this is a matter of semantics here and yes I do agree with your concept of divine and natural law. Yet does it not diminish the sovereignty of God to claim that “even God can’t change it” (meaning natural law?) I can and do concede that because God is immutable and perfect that he will not usually change the natural law. To claim however that he “can’t” change that which is a reflection of his divinity and perfection seems to place a limitation on his power.
Are there not divine mysteries? One of the divine mysteries concerns the immaculate conception of Mary and Jesus (there I do again). Being born of a virgin does not conform to the usual interpretation of the natural law. In fact it is a biological impossiblity (absent in vitro fertilisation).
Our understanding of the natural law is imperfect. We do “see things dimly” in this life. Scholars of theology cannot claim to have solved all mysteries of the faith.
What we do know about God is that he is sovereign in a universal sense. Being sovereign and yet immutable at the same time he is not likely to change the natural law. But to claim that he “can’t” change that which he has established diminishes his sovereignty. He isn’t likely to change natural law but to claim that to do so is a theological impossibility puts God into a man made theological construct.
Either God is sovereign or he isn’t.
this is actually a pretty good summary of the church’s position on polygamy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_marriage#Modern_LDS_Church_position
“Polygamy is just not practiced amongst the Mormons because that disobeys THE LAW OF THE LAND.”
I’m a Mormon and I disagree with this remark. Mormons in countries that permit polygamy do not practice it because it disobeys the laws of the church. The law of the church is that polygamy is not sanctioned, not only because the laws of the land don’t permit it, but the laws of the church don’t. Polygamy is something in the church’s past. It’s validity was derived from Biblical practices.
The concern seems to be polygamy, in my view, it wont be any influence of the church or it’s members that will change the law. As you have read, sensible men know how difficult it is to have more than one wife and some even prefer to have none. How many do you know want more than one?
Many Mormons that practiced polygamy were not happy about it. Sacrifices were made to practice polygamy and times were tough on many levels back then.
If you haven’t figured it out, polygamy is still practiced in the official Mormon Church (as opposed to the splinter groups). This is how: we, Mormons, believe in eternal marriage. Upon the death of a wife the man is allowed to marry again. Now he is married to two women for eternity. The wording of the marriage ceremony is interesting. I have not heard it myself but I have heard about it. As you can imagine, things get complicated and is hard to sort out (ie when a woman gets married again). However, that is the Lord’s problem and Mormons have faith that things will get straightened out in the eternities when we are more mature than we are now. For now we live life as best we can and according to the laws the Lord has given us.
It’s not unlike baptism for the dead (oh-oh, did I open another taboo?). While some thought many years ago that this is how the Mormon church increased it’s membership the truth of the matter is it maintains consistency and love for all in the Gospel. The acceptance of the ordinance by the dead (we really do believe in life after death, literally) is up to the dead and no one keeps track (duh!). All of this will be straightened out by the Lord’s sometime in the eternities.
Once one is able to realize that the Gospel is for EVERYONE then you will come to terms with the real universality of the Gospel and it’s love for all mankind. ALL MANKIND. ALL.
Back to how polygamy will be re-instated into American Law: It wont be by the Mormons, it will be by those who want to re-define marriage.
Because, first of all, the president doesn’t change law, the congress does. And congress is just chock full of Mormons. Most republicans, but a few are democrats. And most Mormons today, just as back in the 19th century, are not all that eager to start up plural marriage again. Why, you ask? Just think about it. Marriage entails responsibility, and most men have a hard enough time with being responsible for one family. Most non-LDS seem to think that the only reason Joseph Smith started plural marriage, and Brigham Young et.al. kept it, was because of the sex. But, there are ways of having sex without the responsibilities of marriage.
As president, Romney would have no more power over the nation’s religions than any other president. I know there are anti-Mormons, especially one, who would have everyone believe that the Mormons want to take over the country, but that’s just stupid. I am more worried about the evangelical crowd doing that, throwing out the Constitution (or at least, the first amendment) than any Mormon.
MacLouie:
Thank you for your comments...as I say, these are questions I have raised out of concern about what I do know, about what I don’t know, and about what Mormons do and do not know. Your comments are very helpful.
One large concern then would be this: If polygamy is still gospel but disobeys the laws of the land, then why wouldn’t a faithful Mormon lawmaker seek to change the laws of the land to match the gospel?
Brian Morgan,
The Natural Law does not change. It is a reflection of the Divine Law, which is in turn unchanging. God is Truth, so things are only true to the extent that they reflect God. This is the response to those that ask can God make a rock so big he can’t lift it? Can God not be? The idea of God not existing is false, and as senseless as saying blah blah blah. God is not limited by the Natural Law and Divine Law, they obtain all their truth as a reflection of Him. And, as a reflection of the Divine Law, Natural Law doesn’t change. It’s application might change, or even the angle of the reflection of Divine Law in accordance with God’s will, but the Natural Law does not change and stating that “God can change it” is a logical non-starter.
I find a lot of the comments posted here and the article in general to be lacking accurate information about the Mormon Church and the scriptures.
Revelation has been allowed to all people throughout all time regardless of race. To think it was only limited to “the chosen people” is small minded.
The inequality commanded by God to the Israelites was who was to hold the priesthood and have authority to officiate in holy ordinances.
Having many fathers never diluted the role, dominion, and importance of my father.
Perhaps I dont have a perfect knowledge of your definition of natural law so I am not going to try to comment on remarks posted here that seem absurd.
With regards to Mitt Romney and his integrity: There is a Mormon teaching that has been overlooked by all. That is: The Mormon Church asks and expects everyone to obey the laws of the land. This teaching applies to all lands - the Mormon church is a world-wide church.
BTW, the president does not make the laws of the land.
If the leadership of the church was to change that teaching and proclaim that it is alright to disobey the laws of the land then the Mormon Church would have a BIG world-wide problem on their hands.
2nd. The blacks receiving the Mormon Priesthood was prophesied in the 1800’s (before the Civil War) and polygamy is still Gospel. Polygamy is just not practiced qamongst the Mormons because that disobeys THE LAW OF THE LAND.
These two examples show that the teachings of the Mormon leaders are consistence and reasonable and predictable.
When Mitt Romney says that when he places his hand of the Bible and swears to uphold the laws of the land and protect this country, it will be his highest promise to God (not the Mormon Church) and will be consistent with his beliefs and Church Doctrine. I am confident that Mitt Romney can be trusted.
First, blacks were ALWAYS allowed membership in our church, they just were not given the priesthood until 1978. And the reasons for this are as varied as the membership of the church, but no OFFICIAL reason was ever given.
Also, we LDS hold the US constitution to be a divinely inspired document, and if Romney were elected president, he would REALLY mean it when he swears to protect and defend the constitution. NO Mormon would EVER dream of throwing out the Constitution of the US in favor of the church, because we depend on it.
What revelation would or could the prophet and apostles of our church receive that could POSSIBLY cause Mr. Romney to abandon his oath of office and choose the church OVER the constitution? I can’t imagine what it would be! The last one we received is the Proclamation on the Family. And no one even looked at it. A few years later, the Southern Baptist Convention came out with something very similar and it was touted from every rooftop.
The church stays OUT of politics as a policy. Unless it is FORCED into taking a stand.
I want to know, if Huckabee is elected, would he allow the Baptist church hierarchy run the country? Would he abandon the Constitution if he believed God spoke to him? I am afraid of evangelical Christians throwing out the Constitution LONG before I would be afraid that a Mormon would do it.
Thank you my Brother in the Faith for revealing that there are some exceptions to the concept of “natural law” developed by our Lord. Therefore the abject statement that God “cannot” change natural law (or have preordained some exceptions to it) is in fact theological error.
Either our Lord is sovereign or he or she isnt. Hence as those with “natural reason” (Vatican One) we can therefore recognize that we do indeed worship a Lord who is the master of his own destiny. Yes our Lord does not at whim alter the law of physics or biology or any other type of science known to humanity. Yet whether it be by “exception” or by “divine mystery”, we worship a Lord who cannot be put into a box and denied the right to alter the very “zeitgiest” which is determinative of our universe.
MTM said: “It seems you have studied Hobbes thoroughly; however, to say that Aquinas is unclear on the matter makes me think you have not thoroughly studied Aquinas.”
I’m sure your right. I’ll look further.
For starters I still intend to respond to the various arguments that were presented since my first post, but I do not have time right now to adequately answer them. However, I would like to point something out for Mr. Morgan:
Brian, if you follow the like that mtm posted right before your post it will take you to the Summa on New Advent where you can find an answer to your question from the Thomistic point of view. I encourage you read the Aquinas’ response in context, but here is the response (to a different question, but still applies): (the last two sentences are the most important)
Reply to Objection 2. In a Decretal (De divortiis, cap. Gaudemus) it is asserted that is was never lawful to have several wives without having a dispensation received through Divine inspiration. Nor is the dispensation thus granted a contradiction to the principles which God has implanted in nature, but an exception to them, because those principles are not intended to apply to all cases but to the majority, as stated. Even so it is not contrary to nature when certain occurrences take place in natural things miraculously, by way of exception to more frequent occurrences.
I hope that helps and not obscures the questions about Jesus and Mary’s births.
Thank you Sean for your reply: I am not at all offended. My criticism concerning the post of Matthew Mehan concerned his use of the word “cant” as it relates to changing natural law. While God certainly “wont” change natural law because as you say he is immutable, he certainly “could” change natural law IF by his immutable character or by some divine mystery he choose to do so.
Perhaps a truly provocative question would be: Are the immaculate conceptions of both Mary and Jesus a divinely ordered deviation from natural law? Being born of a virgin certainly violates natural law as we understand it.
David Page:
It seems you have studied Hobbes thoroughly; however, to say that Aquinas is unclear on the matter makes me think you have not thoroughly studied Aquinas.
For starters, this was emailed to me by one reader:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/5065.htm
Mr. B. Morgan,
I don’t mean to pick on you but what you wrote hit a philosophical nerve. Do not get me wrong, it is a blessing that you are a new Catholic and I welcome you to the Church. Now, welcome to the precision of discussion ;-).
God cannot change natural law! First, God is immutable. What God establishes is the highest of establishments. If God were to deviate from this it would be less than the highest establishment. Therefore it would be less than perfect. God does nothing less than perfect. This is why God is immutable. Change explicitly means the prior or present is less than perfect.
If God established natural law it is perfect. Therefore, if natural law changes it is less than perfect. Following, a change from natural law (which God created and is therefore perfect) must be less than perfect. Anything less than perfect cannot come from God. Following, natural law cannot change.
I really hope not to be a pain but these are important philosophies in religion……
God bless,
Sean
Page 3 of 4 : « First < 1 2 3 4 >