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
Mr. Mehan said: “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.”
I’m a little shaky on what is meant here by Natural Law. If your talking about Hobbes’s 12 natural laws, then I agree with the statement above. If your talking about Aquinas then I don’t think it necessarily follows.It might, but it’s not as clearcut as it is with Hobbes. I agree almost completely with Hobbes.
Ramesh Ponnuru at National Review:
Matthew Mehan is worried about having a Mormon president. I’d like to hear Mehan spell out a scenario he would fear. Does he think the Mormon Apostles might ask Romney to nuke someone? It seems to me that the only awful possibilities are highly, highly unlikely. As in: no more likely than that President Edwards would get it in his head to do something crazy.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/
?q=YzkxMzdmMzBjODU1YTU3ZDRjNzdmZGQzZmU3ZjA0NDc=
My reply:
Ramesh,
That I am worried is probably not the best way to put it. Having just heard the speech, Governor Romney seems to have gone a long way to answering the questions I put to him. I don’t think it is incumbent upon me to provide scenarios. The point is clear enough: if all Mormons must follow the teachings of the Prophet, and the Prophet can declare polygamy a good or a bad, then it seems that a Mormon President’s beliefs regarding such fundamental things as the nature of family can change on the basis of one prophecy. That ought to cause any reasonable person to worry or at least, as I have, to ask a few questions. As for comparing Edwards going nuts to a Mormon following his faith, I’d be careful not to call a believing Mormon nuts for following their prophet. I think it is very good to follow ones convictions and one’s faith, provided it is in accord with reason, a matter Governor Romney did well to discuss in his speech.
As ever,
Matthew
[This is in the combox because, frankly, I don’t have a blog.]
I can’t really see any disagreement between the various posters…
I think the point is that natural law is indeed very clear, just poorly studied. Polygamy is against nature, and God’s permitting it does not make it natural or good (if it did, then by that logic sin too would be natural and good). God doesn’t change natural law. Permitting bad things to happen in pursuit of good things, e.g. polygamy while working out redemption, does not make natural law unclear or weak or any sort of blunt tool to measure such things.
I hope that helps. I can give a few strictly philosophical arguments in link form if need be.
mmehan,
Actually, your explanations about polygamy don’t hold up. Nowhere in scripture does it say that the practice of polygamy was due to the weakness and perversion
In fact, at one point God says to David, through (I believe) the prophet Nathan that his WiveS were given him of God, one of the blessings.
Look, I’m a Mormon and NO fan of polygamy, but your statement just doesn’t hold water. I don’t like polygamy on a lot of levels, but that doesn’t mean my feelings about the matter mean anything.
If polygamy is a biblical problem, it’s a Jewish and Christian problem (any people of the Book, really) as much as a Mormon one.
Drex
I’m with Kevin. Jacob/Israel’s polygamy was not only not “smite-worthy,” but the means of producing the family which God chose to be the head of His covenant people from there on out. There were plenty of other families that could have been chosen without giving implicit endorsement of polygamy by choosing Jacob’s.
Moreover, the post-gospels New Testament teaches racial equality, but Jesus is quoted in the gospels as telling his disciples NOT to teach the gospel to the Gentiles. Mormons would point out that this included not giving them the priesthood, as Mormons did not give blacks the priesthood at first. Was Jesus a racist? Of course not. But did He have reasons that are not explained for making that distinction? Must have had.
Abraham had more than one wife. Isaac had more than one wife. Jacob had more than one wife. They were prophets of God through whom the priesthood authority was passed, which required not only God to look the other way, but to assent to the arrangement. Christ revered these patriarchs and just claiming that they were fallen is not Biblical.
Mr. McBride,
God explicitly allows polygamy in Sacred Scripture:
“If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish” (Ex. 21:10)
Also, adultery was punishable by stoning (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22-23), and yet acts of polygamy in the Old Testament are not judged as adulterous (as they would in the new). In other words, King David wasn’t stoned to death because he had more than one wife.
Polygamy was allowed because of hardness of heart and concupiscence and it is abolished by Christ who reestablishes the order of natural law and fulfills it supernaturally.
Look, I’m not saying that the Mormons should get a free pass on their strange flip-flop positions on racial curses and polygamy. I’m just saying that we can’t build up a straw man and make a general appeal to “natural law”.
Mr. Mehan, thank you for your thoughtful reply.
Taylor,
What a tricky business it is playing devil’s advocate. In what sense do you mean that “God allowed polygamy”? If you mean that God gave man the license to marry more than one woman, then I challenge you to show me where in Scripture God does this explicitly. However, if you mean “allow” in the sense that God is not going to violate our free will then of course it was allowed. This sense of allowing is much like how Moses allowed divorce and God allowed the Israelites to have a king. These instances are in violation of what God wanted; however, God will not violate our free will. Therefore, the actions of the Israelite people are against the Will of God, which God “allows” but in no way implies God has changed natural law.
The issue of racial inequality is a bit harder to answer. Suffice to say that even though the Israelites were the only people to directly receive Divine Revelation, it doesn’t mean that the other ethnic/religious groups were not also witnesses to the Power and Love of God. And in this way they were not excluded from the message. One could also answer this rebuke by referencing Christ’s Harrowing of Hell.
David Page:
That is right. I simply forgot. The thrust intended was that he may actually be the first Mormon president...which got obscured after a few drafts. I mention this here because I plan to edit it to reflect the clear point you mention.
Taylor: The point is that Mormonism has regressed to polygamy before--a change that did not seem necessary in the way that it was in the OT. God permitted polygamy because of the weakness and perversion of the OT chosen people. The natural law did not change...it was still wrong, just not smite-worthy...for a little while.
Mormon faith admits to a head god, which gets complicated, because then it may be that there is only a watering down of the term “god” and not an actual natural law issue.
The point is that the changes given by the prophets need to be shown to be somehow reasonable and stable and not shifting with various exegencies...this is important if a Mormon president is in office because Mormons are asked to obey the Prophet. Catholics obey the Pope, but the Pope never says anything different on the crucial-to-governing morals--Rome just keeps repeating the same tough stuff.
I am not a Mormon. I am a newcomer to the Catholic Faith. Yet I do believe I have sufficient knowledge of the concept of natural law to disagree with Matthew Mehans comment that even God cant change natural law.
If God is indeed a sovereign God, he chould, IF he so chose to do so, regularly change natural law at will. Its because he is infinitely wise and all knowing that he chooses not to do so. But to claim that a God of the universe, who created the stars and all living things, seen and unseen (even Satan), could not change natural law, is to be a theological error.
Matthew,
To play devil’s advocate, God allowed polygamy in the Old Covenant and yet he didn’t “change natural law”. One might also say that there was a kind of racial inequality since only Israel received divine revelation.
A solid critique from a natural law perspective would be to highlight the polytheistic tenants of the LDS. The natural law does in fact prohibit polytheism and this is where the LDS initially disavow natural law.
I think Mr. Mehan is confused. Four other Mormons ran for president. They are; Joseph Smith 1844, George Romney 1968, Morris Udall 1976 and Orrin Hatch 2000.
As a citizen of the United States, I must vote for the candidate who I believe will best support the interests of the country as a whole . If Governor Mitt Romney can keep the interests of the United States as his first priority in the office of President, I am willing to consider voting for him. However, if his Mormon beliefs prove more important to him than the Constitution, I do not believe him to be in a position to govern the country justly. P.S… Would this man as President mean no more champagne toasts at the Whitehouse?
heheheh The only thing certain in this world is change. And Mercatonet’s current videochoice, “B******* Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters,” adds to it. Sad but true. Watch it!
ck :-)
Page 4 of 4 : « First < 2 3 4