Tough questions for Mitt Romney

THIS DISCUSSSION IS NOW CLOSED.

Thanks to all those who contributed.

The Comments Editor
MercatorNet

I am in agreement with your latest post. As someone who values the opinions of others and who is always striving for a spirit of humility in all things, I am grateful for this discussion. I enjoy the opportunity to learn new thoughts and concepts. “May the Lord bless you and keep you, may the Lord make his face shine upon you and be gracious unto you, may the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace”.  ~ In Fellowship
Brian Morgan

Linda, you are right there is a question to be answered. Personally, I do not have any more worries about a Mormon than I would have with many Protestants. I state this because as a Catholic I believe Divine Revelation ended with Jesus Christ’s Ascension into Heaven (CCC 65-73). This is not the case with Mormons or many Protestants.  Since these religions are open to future Revelation I am a little nervous about what these revelations might be.
At the same time, while I have my concerns, I admit I am not aware of this being a problem to date. Additionally, I think we should look at the individual. In cases of Romney, Huckabee and the like they have been in positions of authority already and haven’t done anything crazy and seem unlikely to do so. Of course politicians should honestly answer how they balance Faith and Law when or if they contradict, this seems fair to me. I also think a politician of any faith should be willing to step down from office if for some reason their faith disabled them from carrying out their political duties. I would have respect for this individual.
What I find ironic about this whole situation is that one of my greatest criticisms of the Mormon church is that some revelations seem to occur simultaneously with governmental pressure (i.e. Government will not admit Utah to union due to polygamy; soon after this decision a new revelation banning polygamy).  This is not to start a new debate but to make the point that Mormonism has a history of conceding to the state and not battling it. I do not currently back Romney but it is not because of his faith and do not see his faith being problematic.

I apologize for my inaccurate conclusion.  These forums can be frustrating. I believe that we have gotten off track and this format doesn’t provide the ideal opportunity to progress in this discussion. For example, I have no idea what your thesis is on the limitations of God and I don’t believe ANYONE can write a thorough explananation within 2000 characters.
I do think that some progress is being made though in that I agree that the Holy Spirit and reason work together. My understanding is this. The Holy Spirit “illuminates” the intellect.  Knowledge is transmitted by the Holy Spirit into the receiver which is the human intellect. The product of this process is known as reason. The better formed the intellect is the better able it is to receive the Spirit, the result is better reason. This is why I am so defensive of the intellect and reason. I also think we may differ on our definitions of some of these terms. Elevating the value of reason necesarrily means we value the Spirit even more. To reduce the importance of reason also reduces the role of the Spirit using this logic (which many in the Magisterium would agree with in some form).  I hope this explains my position.
I would say that nothing exists that is “exclusively reason” in this sense that this is impossible due to the fact that reason generates from the Spirit. Also, my higher levels of study are in pholosophy not theology, theologians are on a higher level, just ask them! This is also why Aquinas began his Summa with the statement: This if for beginners. He was referring to those with masters in pholosophy! Thanks for the promotion though.

I must admit to a certain degree of irritation regarding your claim that I am at all playing games here with this discussion. I also resent the implication that I am somehow less of a Catholic because I disagree with your views concerning the issue of “cant” vs. “wont”.
In addition, where did you ever get the idea that I believe in or subscribe to the Protestant belief of “sola scriptura”?? Nothing in my comments would at all lend any reasonable person to come to this conclusion.

It is the Holy Spirit which ultimately gives the church its teaching authority, now and in antiquity, and not human reason alone.

If Roman Catholicism has become nothing more than human reason, and the Holy Spirit is somewhat relegated to the back burner of mere theological debate, then in fact I did join the wrong church. But I dont think that mainstream Catholicism relies as much upon reason as you.

The Roman Catholic Church is a very large community with disparate and often times conflicting branches. I choose to stick with the traditional view of the church as it relates to theological disputes. It is just as I said in my previous message. We are supposed to be infused with the power and wisdom of the Holy Spirit and not rely either exclusively OR primarily upon our own reasonings.

Every member of the Majisterium knows this. It is not their personal opinions, based upon their own pure reasonings which does determine church doctrine. It is a parterniship BETWEEN human reason and the Holy Spirit which gives the Church its true deposit of faith.

I am sorry that you have spent 6 years studying theology. You are a very learned man I can tell. But no man, however intelligent or studious, can truly know God, or even properly interpret the teachings of the Body Of Christ without FIRST knowing the Holy Spirit.

All this isn’t answering a question that I think is implied here.

What revelation could God give the prophet that would cause Mitt Romney to choose the church over the constitution?

(as if this COULD happen)

Monogamy vs. polygamy aside, and blacks holding the priesthood (BTW, RFM was right when he said that Mehan was wrong that blacks could not be members, they always could be members, they just couldn’t hold the priesthood), the “revelations” that have come from Salt Lake only bolster Romney’s assertions that he would NOT favor any particular church or religion over any other, and that the General Authorities of the LDS church have authority over him ONLY in spiritual realms, and not in his job (should he be elected president). There is no way he could do anything that any of his predecessors could not, such as throw the first amendment out the window. And contrary to what some anti-Mormons would have you believe, we do NOT have a replica of the Oval Office in the Salt Lake temple or the Washington D.C. temple, or any where else for that matter. If we WERE to take over the US (by some total stretch of the imagination), the Oval Office in the White House would work just fine! I saw the tail end of a program that was showing the press conference that JFK had to re-assure everyone that he would NOT be a puppet of Rome while in the White House. One reporter gave him a snippet of a qote from the pope and asked if JFK agreed or disagreed with the Pope. JFK said, he didn’t know the article and not knowing what the Pope was referring to, he couldn’t comment, and the reporter said “So, you disagree with the Pope?” and Kennedy got just a little upset, and I thought, gee, doesn’t that sound familiar!

Finally we are making progress. Brian, why did you not just say where you were coming from in the beginning?  Why the fake attempt at theology and philosophy? I really was trying to help. And this whole time you were being not being genuine?  By the way, C.S. Lewis was a protestant.
I respect Protestants. Faith is of utmost importance in Christianity. I tried to accept the Sola Scriptura / individual interpretation argument. It is simply incomplete. Every emotive cell in my body wanted to accept it…it would have made my life easier but God gave us minds, powerful minds and they are not to be dismissed. We have asked the question, can God create a boulder so large that He cannot lift it? This is a fun little exercise professors may run in a philo 101 course. We are now into serious business. God by definition is Truth. Truth is attained through both prayer and study.  The drive to find Truth is a drive to discover God.  I have spent the last six years of my life studying philosophy for the purpose of defending and promoting Christianity. I ask that you don’t make a game of it.
I know the faith and reason debate. I am more familiar than most would ever like to deal with. I will not play Biblical ping pong either. I have attended Scriptural debates between truly qualified people and enjoyed them. Less qualified people like me would make a mockery of Scripture so I refrain. I don’t know your position completely but I have attained a fair amount of information. You have had plenty of questions now I ask you a few. If through reading Scripture I ascertain that my god started as a man and raised himself to the level of a god through good works, would it be true? This sir is Mormonism. Born of individual interpretation and revelation. How can a protestant, while staying within protestant interpretive rules refute this? Furthermore, without using reason, (I’ll even give you Tradition) how can one refute Arianism, Albeginsianism, Communism, Marxism, or Catholicism?

Thank you for sharing the references concerning St. Thomas Aquinas. I always welcome the opportunity to study early church fathers and theologians. As I referenced a few minutes earlier, it is not by our intellect that we will either obtain ultimate wisdom or convert any of our fellow beings to Christ. Everything we do must be infused with the Holy Spirit, the same Holy Spirit which was and is the instrument by which our church was granted its teaching authority over the Body of Christ.

Since we are dealing with spiritual matters (with necessary physical entanglements), it is therefore necessary to let our hearts and minds be guided by the “great comforter” sent to us by both the Father and the Son.

It has been my greatest pleasure in life to discover (and give credit to) the Holy Spirit for any small degree of spiritual insight I have obtained. My ego would wish that I credit years of theological study. The world would tell me that its really ME who knows anything at all about God. But it truly isnt. Any knowledge that any of us truly obtains about God (and we wont know all of it until we enter eternity in his presence) is from God himself through the Holy Spirit.
Just as salvation is by grace and not of works, so is only true and authentic knowledge about God only known through the Holy Spirit.

We must not let an unhealthy attachment to the human intellect become a barrier to faith. In the end, its only when we allow our intellect to be infused with the knowledge and power of the Holy Spirit, that we can obtain a true knowledge of God.  It truly IS a divine partnership between the two which gives us the truth.

I always thought that natural law applied both to morals and to the physical and biological world around us. Natural law concepts use biology when it comes to issues like abortion and homosexuality.
Many church theologians (and even the Vatican itself) equate abortion with a violation of natural law. Since life begins at conception, any attempt at ending such a life before it is born, is the unlawful taking of a human life. Hence abortion is a violation of natural law both because it is immoral and because it violates biological precepts (life begins at conception).

In terms of the resurrection of Christ, I do not view this as a fufillment of natural law. It is an act of supernatural grace, purchased by the blood of the lamb of God. It was the fulfillment of prophecy.  There is nothing in biology, which is compatible with the resurrection. Its a miracle, just as is the Eucharist. Most of all it is divine mystery.

As for being defensive about comments concerning the human intellect, its simply a paen for humility. Any doctrines that the church fathers have adopted “en majisterium” are ultimately due to the Holy Spirit, working in cooperation with human reason.  This is of course the teaching authority granted to the church by Jesus himself originally through Peter.

Most importantly, we cannot do battle with the forces of secularism and atheism and all manner of heresy through our intellect or debating skills alone. Its only when we allow the Holy Spirit to infuse our thoughts with the words of God and not men that we can succeed in overcoming the adversaries of grace.

Brian, I think that you might be getting a little too hung up on natural law. Natural law simply refers to what we as humans can reasonably descern. For example, without any training or education whatsoever my young son will know that murder and stealing are wrong.I ask that you philosophy majors give me some slack here as I’m trying to keep things short, I know I’m cutting corners. What I am saying here is that “Natural Law” refers to morals and not so much science which deals with the “laws of nature”.
Now as far a Jesus laying down his life. It is critical that we keep in mind the fact that Jesus is “one person with two natures, divine and human”.  The miracle here is incomprehesible in its’ entirety and I would rather step aside for a strong theologian to take it from there. Maybe a good parish priest. Just remember there is a difference between natural law and the laws of nature.
Both theologically and pholosophically this is why Christmas is such a big deal. THE DIVINE ENTERED SPACE AND TIME!! This is where those definitions that you were working on get tricky. Yes, the Word being born is a supernatural event outside of the laws of nature. This would have given the Greeks a fit. However, I might be willing to argue that for anyone who witnessed the life of Christ would have recognized Christ’s resurrection as part of “natural law”. ( If there are any Thomistic philosopher’s out there I would leave this to you, once again try not to attack that.)
This is one reason that I am so defensive against comments that somehow imply that since our intellect is wounded it cannot be trusted. This argument saws at the argument for Natural Law. I know all this seems to be picky but there is a reason the Church Fathers spent so much time criticfally analyzing these questions. Without knowledge and sound reasoning we allow the ground to be fertilized with nonsensical philosophies such as those spouted by Nietzsche, Marx and the like.

I agree generally with your statement that the only limitation upon a sovereign God is that he cant limit his powers. However how can therefore one explain the statement that Jesus made and I paraphrase (sorry I dont have the scriptural citation here), “I lay down my life so that I may take it up again”.  This statement reflects the fact that Jesus, the Son of God, and part of the Trinity of God (all sovereign), was able to humble himself to become a man and to willingly become a ransom for many.
If defined as a supernatural miracle beyond the natural law, then I agree. But this goes beyond the issue of natural law for Jesus is stating that he is able to die and then resurrect himself at will.
Therefore God has indeed placed a limitation upon his powers by even sending his son to this life in order to become the salvation of humanity. A sovereign God would not need to endure death and suffering for the sake of his creation. He could only do so by choice.
Therefore did not God, out of love for his creation, place a willing limitation upon his powers by even allowing himself to become a man and enduring death?
It is the love of God that we should focus on. A love which, while God is indeed sovereign and immutable, is able to perform miracles well beyond the natural law.

I hope I wasn’t condescending to anyone. I was trying to point to resources that I have found helpful. Linda, as a Catholic I did first speak with the missionaries on multiple occasions as they visit my home on a biweekly basis. I also visited the LDS website. One problem we were having is that I was trying to discuss and the missionaries were trying to convert (not that I fault them for this).  The larger problem, as mentioned before, a language barrier exists and the missionaries were using theological terms that I was familiar with but Mormons define differently. After visiting the Catholic site I was able to make sense of what was happening. It was like investing in a translator. Since then my communication with my Mormon neighbors has been much more productive.
Brian, obviously no one has God completely figured out. I am well aware an infinite being cannot fit into a finite mind.  And yes, we do see things dimly but we still see and it is our obligation to further work toward increasing both faith and reason. Our intellect is damaged but still well functioning. As far as the dismissal of Lewis’ thought: I used him because he keeps things simple. However, I have not read a Saint that disagreed with this. This makes sense due to the fact that Lewis studied Chesterton and Chesterton studied Aquinas who studied Augustine who studied Anselm who studied Jerome….. Since you would rather have the teachings of a Saint I would recommend Augustine’s Sermo VII, De Trinitate and De Civitate Dei.  I read these because I had to. I love St Augustine and named my first son after him but 9 out of 10 days I prefer to read Lewis.

This conversation is beginning to remind me of Gulliver’s Travels. Are the Mormons the Big-Enders or the Little-Enders? You might as well argue about whether the Tooth Fairy leaves dimes or quarters.

It is amazing to me how editors (Matthew Mehan is a Contributing Editor for MercatorNet)continually get things wrong.  I quit taking a newspaper years ago because you cannot believe what you are reading because all articles are biased.

1. Mr. Mehan stated: “I don’t want him to tell me how happy he is that black people were allowed to become Mormon...” This is a false statement created by the editor and anyone else who has not done basic research.  Baptism is required for Salvation and no person who has been denied that right.

2. Mr. Mehan stated: “From what I can gather, the 12 leaders of the Mormon Church, called the Apostles, and particularly the eldest Apostle...” It would be very interesting to know how many nanoseconds he spent “gathering” his information.  The leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints begins with the First Presidency which consists of the Prophet (President Gordon B. Hinkley today) and his two counselors.  Next in authority is the Quorum of the 12 Apostles.

3. Mr. Mehan also stated: “Because the Christian view of God is that he is reasonable, his revelation supports and ratifies what is in the natural law.” Do you really believe that Christ being born of a virgin is “reasonable” and that the birth was a result of “natural law?” It would be very interesting to have you apply your reasonable and natural law view point to the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.

When the children of Moses crossed over the Red Sea the Bible says: “But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand and on their left.” After the sea parted they crossed on dry ground and on each side of them was a wall of water?  Please apply your reasonable and natural law principles to this and many other things that happened between Egypt’s Pharaoh and the Prophet Moses.

To Mercator Net: shame on you.

This can’t vs. won’t discussion reminds me of a topic we discussed at length in one of my Christian philosophy classes in college.

The questions was, “If God is all powerful, can he create a boulder so heavy that he can’t lift it?”

Of course, the answer lies in the fact that there is one limitation a “being without limitation” has - and it’s that the being cannot limit its own power.

I think we could be agreed that there is one limitation that God has.  He cannot limit his own power.  He is all powerful (implicit that he’s powerless to strip himself of that power).  If he could strip himself of that power, he would cease to be all powerful.

See, my head exploded when we discussed this in class.