A Few Thoughts about Romney's College-Station Speech
At the Bush Presidential conference center today, Mitt Romney said, “Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.”
Romney also said, “I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.”
The question is the consistency of his two claims, and the consistency of those claims with others that Romney advanced in his speech relative to the teachings of his Mormon faith.
What follows are a few observations from my reading of Romney’s speech. I’m no expert on Mormonism. My only entry into the tension between what Romney claimed in his speech and what Mormonism teaches is that, at the invitation of two Mormon missionaries this last summer, I read through the Book of Mormon. Given what I read in the book, there seem to be some inconsistencies between Romney’s claim to believe the Mormon faith, on the one hand, and his claim that no authorities of his church – including, presumably, the Book of Mormon – “will ever exert influence on presidential decisions.” That is, if Romney is a faithful Mormon, then there would seem to me to be some obvious points at which his faith must influence some executive decisions.
So here are a few observations, in no particular order.
1. On separation of church and state.
Romney said in his speech that, “We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion.”
In chapter 25 of Mosiah, in the Book of Mormon, the chapter heading states that King Mosiah “authorizes Alma to Organize the Church of God.” Verse 19 of the same chapter provides, “And it came to pass that king Mosiah granted unto Alma that he might establish churches throughout all the land of Zarahemia; and gave him power to ordain priests and teachers over every church.”
In this passage, the king is the official who “grants” authority to establish churches, and “gives” Alma the “power” to ordain church leadership.
The teaching in this passage provides an example in which the government quite literally establishes a church. Given the close relationship between church and state a little more than a century ago in a U.S. state filled with “the faith of [his] fathers,” I don’t think it unreasonable to ask how Romney squares the commended example of his faith in Mosiah 25 with his affirmation of the separation of church and state.
2. The divine role of America in Mormonism – who defines right, wrong, and liberty?
The Book of Mormon is largely a book claiming to be a history of Israelites who left Israel around 600 B.C., and migrated to North America. A number of passages in the Book of Mormon directly speak to America and to “liberty” in America. I’d assume that Romney does not want to distance himself from passages in the Book of Mormon that endorse liberty in the U.S. Those same passages, however, seem to me to raise policy-relevant questions.
For example, Mosiah 29 provides:
“[I] desire that this land be a land of liberty, and every man may enjoy his rights and privileges alike, so long as the Lord sees fit that we may live and inherit the land . . .”
In this text, which is Scripture for Mormons, we have a teleology spelled out for the U.S., that this land be a land in which individuals may “enjoy rights and privileges.” That’s entirely fine with me as a general commitment. But who defines these rights and privileges? If the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with the Mormon god about the content of those divine rights and privileges, which commitment trumps the other?
Just a few verses earlier, the Book of Mosiah endorses specific mechanism to correct wrong judgments of the land’s high court:
“If your higher judges do not judge righteous judgments, ye shall cause that a small number of your lower judges should be gathered together, and they shall judge your higher judges, according to the voice of the people” (Mosiah 29.29).
Given that Romney affirms his desire to be faithful to Mormon beliefs, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me that he be questioned about the status of a specific policy implication like this that is endorsed by the scriptures he believes in.
So if a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court contradicts a teaching of his church, how would Romney square the circle of being true to his faith and yet not allowing his faith to influence presidential decisions?
Which is the higher commitment? It seems to me that that was the critical question that Romney needed to answer today in his speech, and yet ultimately left it unanswered.
3. Similarly, “democracy” seems to be a matter required by the Book of Mormon. This raises questions of such things like the religious standing of a Supreme Court decision like Bush v. Gore, or the need of Mormons to prefer the “political” branches of government (elected executives and legislatures) over unelected judges:
“Now this Amlici had, by his cunning, drawn away much people after him . . . and they began to endeavor to establish Amlici to be a king over the people. Now this was alarming to the people of the church . . . for they knew that according to their law that such things must be established by the voice of the people” (Alma 2.2-3).
And so:
“Therefore, it came to pass that they assembled themselves together in bodies throughout the land, to cast in their voices concerning who should be their judges, to judge them according to the law which had been given them; and they were exceedingly rejoiced because of the liberty which had been granted them” (Mosiah 29.39).
What happens if the courts seek to protect rights that the “voice of the people” oppose? Which law is determinative for a Mormon president? “Their” law, positive law, or something else?
4. These issues take on an even more pressing importance because the Book of Mormon reports an instance in which those who disagreed with “the cause of freedom” were, somewhat oxymoronically, put to death by Moroni:
“Now, Moroni being a man who was appointed by the chief judges and the voice of the people, therefore he had power according to his will with the armies of the Nephites, to establish and to exercise authority over them. And it came to pass that whomsoever of the Amalickiahites that would not enter into a covenant to support the cause of freedom, that they might maintain a free government, he caused to be put to death; and there were but few who denied the covenant of freedom” (Alma 46.34-35).
Would it be unreasonable to ask a presidential candidate who affirms the Book of Mormon as God’s revelation to humanity, what he makes of this example of executive action?
5. This takes on added significance because Romney’s church believes in the continuing revelation of the word of God. This means that he, and we, do not know that what his church teaches today is what his church will necessarily teach tomorrow. The book of 2 Nephi reports this woe:
“Wo be unto him that shall say: We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough!” (2 Nehpi 28.26-28).
It seems as though there are high-profile examples of policy-relevant doctrines of Mormonism changing. For example, the Book of Mormon pretty clearly condemns polygamy (Jacob 2.24) – yet Mormon leaders claimed to have a revelation that endorsed polygamy for decades in the 19th century. Mormon leaders (as I understand it) then later had another revelation that instructed them to reject polygamy. Who’s to guarantee that in a system of continuing, binding revelation, Mormon leaders won’t again announce that polygamy is a commendable state of marriage?
So, too, the Book of Mormon teaches that a sign that a certain people was cursed was that their skin was turned black (2 Nephi 5.20-23). As I understand it, black skin is no longer a barrier to enrollment in the Mormon priesthood. But in a system of continuing, direct, and binding revelation, where’s the guarantee that Mormon leadership won’t again communicate their belief that God once again has an issue with dark-skinned people?
6. I thought there were other unresolved tensions between Romney’s affirmations and those taught by the distinctive scripture he claims to believe in. For example, Romney said, “I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own.”
This seems to me to be an odd affirmation from a member of a church whose missionaries introduce themselves on your doorstep with the claim that every church except their own church is apostate. As the Book of Mormon states:
“Behold there are save two churches only: the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth” (1 Nephi 14.9-10).
7. Romney stated in his speech: “As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution . . .”
Is Romney really suggesting that what his church teaches has nothing to do with what he understands to be “right”? That what he understands as doing “right” has nothing to do with the teachings of his faith seems to fit uncomfortably with his claim to “believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it.”
8. Romney claimed that “There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution.”
This is wrong on two levels. On the first basic, level, and as Romney and every presidential candidate ought to know, the Constitution only prohibits the government from legally imposing a religious test. The Constitution is entirely silent about whether voters should or should not inquire into a candidate’s religious beliefs as a condition of their support. Romney’s argument on this point was disingenuous.
On a second level, Romney's argument is obviously wrong. To be sure, there are many religious doctrines that have little to do with running a government. I do not think that candidates need answer those sorts of questions. But it is equally obvious that some distinctive church doctrines can have policy implications. Asking about those doctrines should be entirely permissible. Huffing and puffing about “religious tests” should not deter voters, reporters, or other candidates from candidly asking about policy implications of a candidate’s religious views. And if that candidate belongs to a religious organization that few people understand, it seems entirely appropriate to ask the candidate about the possible policy implications of his religious views.
Romney made the point himself when he (appropriately) decried “radical Islamists.” This is just an obvious example of religious opinions that, to say the least, have policy implications. Radical Islam, however, does not exhaust the set of policy-relevant religious beliefs.
So, overall, I thought it was a speech without real substance. Romney wants his cake and eat it, too.
Romney also said, “I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.”
The question is the consistency of his two claims, and the consistency of those claims with others that Romney advanced in his speech relative to the teachings of his Mormon faith.
What follows are a few observations from my reading of Romney’s speech. I’m no expert on Mormonism. My only entry into the tension between what Romney claimed in his speech and what Mormonism teaches is that, at the invitation of two Mormon missionaries this last summer, I read through the Book of Mormon. Given what I read in the book, there seem to be some inconsistencies between Romney’s claim to believe the Mormon faith, on the one hand, and his claim that no authorities of his church – including, presumably, the Book of Mormon – “will ever exert influence on presidential decisions.” That is, if Romney is a faithful Mormon, then there would seem to me to be some obvious points at which his faith must influence some executive decisions.
So here are a few observations, in no particular order.
1. On separation of church and state.
Romney said in his speech that, “We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion.”
In chapter 25 of Mosiah, in the Book of Mormon, the chapter heading states that King Mosiah “authorizes Alma to Organize the Church of God.” Verse 19 of the same chapter provides, “And it came to pass that king Mosiah granted unto Alma that he might establish churches throughout all the land of Zarahemia; and gave him power to ordain priests and teachers over every church.”
In this passage, the king is the official who “grants” authority to establish churches, and “gives” Alma the “power” to ordain church leadership.
The teaching in this passage provides an example in which the government quite literally establishes a church. Given the close relationship between church and state a little more than a century ago in a U.S. state filled with “the faith of [his] fathers,” I don’t think it unreasonable to ask how Romney squares the commended example of his faith in Mosiah 25 with his affirmation of the separation of church and state.
2. The divine role of America in Mormonism – who defines right, wrong, and liberty?
The Book of Mormon is largely a book claiming to be a history of Israelites who left Israel around 600 B.C., and migrated to North America. A number of passages in the Book of Mormon directly speak to America and to “liberty” in America. I’d assume that Romney does not want to distance himself from passages in the Book of Mormon that endorse liberty in the U.S. Those same passages, however, seem to me to raise policy-relevant questions.
For example, Mosiah 29 provides:
“[I] desire that this land be a land of liberty, and every man may enjoy his rights and privileges alike, so long as the Lord sees fit that we may live and inherit the land . . .”
In this text, which is Scripture for Mormons, we have a teleology spelled out for the U.S., that this land be a land in which individuals may “enjoy rights and privileges.” That’s entirely fine with me as a general commitment. But who defines these rights and privileges? If the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with the Mormon god about the content of those divine rights and privileges, which commitment trumps the other?
Just a few verses earlier, the Book of Mosiah endorses specific mechanism to correct wrong judgments of the land’s high court:
“If your higher judges do not judge righteous judgments, ye shall cause that a small number of your lower judges should be gathered together, and they shall judge your higher judges, according to the voice of the people” (Mosiah 29.29).
Given that Romney affirms his desire to be faithful to Mormon beliefs, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me that he be questioned about the status of a specific policy implication like this that is endorsed by the scriptures he believes in.
So if a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court contradicts a teaching of his church, how would Romney square the circle of being true to his faith and yet not allowing his faith to influence presidential decisions?
Which is the higher commitment? It seems to me that that was the critical question that Romney needed to answer today in his speech, and yet ultimately left it unanswered.
3. Similarly, “democracy” seems to be a matter required by the Book of Mormon. This raises questions of such things like the religious standing of a Supreme Court decision like Bush v. Gore, or the need of Mormons to prefer the “political” branches of government (elected executives and legislatures) over unelected judges:
“Now this Amlici had, by his cunning, drawn away much people after him . . . and they began to endeavor to establish Amlici to be a king over the people. Now this was alarming to the people of the church . . . for they knew that according to their law that such things must be established by the voice of the people” (Alma 2.2-3).
And so:
“Therefore, it came to pass that they assembled themselves together in bodies throughout the land, to cast in their voices concerning who should be their judges, to judge them according to the law which had been given them; and they were exceedingly rejoiced because of the liberty which had been granted them” (Mosiah 29.39).
What happens if the courts seek to protect rights that the “voice of the people” oppose? Which law is determinative for a Mormon president? “Their” law, positive law, or something else?
4. These issues take on an even more pressing importance because the Book of Mormon reports an instance in which those who disagreed with “the cause of freedom” were, somewhat oxymoronically, put to death by Moroni:
“Now, Moroni being a man who was appointed by the chief judges and the voice of the people, therefore he had power according to his will with the armies of the Nephites, to establish and to exercise authority over them. And it came to pass that whomsoever of the Amalickiahites that would not enter into a covenant to support the cause of freedom, that they might maintain a free government, he caused to be put to death; and there were but few who denied the covenant of freedom” (Alma 46.34-35).
Would it be unreasonable to ask a presidential candidate who affirms the Book of Mormon as God’s revelation to humanity, what he makes of this example of executive action?
5. This takes on added significance because Romney’s church believes in the continuing revelation of the word of God. This means that he, and we, do not know that what his church teaches today is what his church will necessarily teach tomorrow. The book of 2 Nephi reports this woe:
“Wo be unto him that shall say: We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough!” (2 Nehpi 28.26-28).
It seems as though there are high-profile examples of policy-relevant doctrines of Mormonism changing. For example, the Book of Mormon pretty clearly condemns polygamy (Jacob 2.24) – yet Mormon leaders claimed to have a revelation that endorsed polygamy for decades in the 19th century. Mormon leaders (as I understand it) then later had another revelation that instructed them to reject polygamy. Who’s to guarantee that in a system of continuing, binding revelation, Mormon leaders won’t again announce that polygamy is a commendable state of marriage?
So, too, the Book of Mormon teaches that a sign that a certain people was cursed was that their skin was turned black (2 Nephi 5.20-23). As I understand it, black skin is no longer a barrier to enrollment in the Mormon priesthood. But in a system of continuing, direct, and binding revelation, where’s the guarantee that Mormon leadership won’t again communicate their belief that God once again has an issue with dark-skinned people?
6. I thought there were other unresolved tensions between Romney’s affirmations and those taught by the distinctive scripture he claims to believe in. For example, Romney said, “I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own.”
This seems to me to be an odd affirmation from a member of a church whose missionaries introduce themselves on your doorstep with the claim that every church except their own church is apostate. As the Book of Mormon states:
“Behold there are save two churches only: the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth” (1 Nephi 14.9-10).
7. Romney stated in his speech: “As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution . . .”
Is Romney really suggesting that what his church teaches has nothing to do with what he understands to be “right”? That what he understands as doing “right” has nothing to do with the teachings of his faith seems to fit uncomfortably with his claim to “believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it.”
8. Romney claimed that “There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution.”
This is wrong on two levels. On the first basic, level, and as Romney and every presidential candidate ought to know, the Constitution only prohibits the government from legally imposing a religious test. The Constitution is entirely silent about whether voters should or should not inquire into a candidate’s religious beliefs as a condition of their support. Romney’s argument on this point was disingenuous.
On a second level, Romney's argument is obviously wrong. To be sure, there are many religious doctrines that have little to do with running a government. I do not think that candidates need answer those sorts of questions. But it is equally obvious that some distinctive church doctrines can have policy implications. Asking about those doctrines should be entirely permissible. Huffing and puffing about “religious tests” should not deter voters, reporters, or other candidates from candidly asking about policy implications of a candidate’s religious views. And if that candidate belongs to a religious organization that few people understand, it seems entirely appropriate to ask the candidate about the possible policy implications of his religious views.
Romney made the point himself when he (appropriately) decried “radical Islamists.” This is just an obvious example of religious opinions that, to say the least, have policy implications. Radical Islam, however, does not exhaust the set of policy-relevant religious beliefs.
So, overall, I thought it was a speech without real substance. Romney wants his cake and eat it, too.
posted by Jim at 7:40 PM
3 Comments:
Great post, Jim. Thanks.
I wanted to comment on the substance, but all I could think was what a bizarre pastiche of names:
Mosiah = Moses + Josiah: no wonder church and state are combined!
Amalickiahites = Amalekites for a prophet who can't spell (the -ck- is a nice Anglo-Hebrew touch)
Nephites = Nephilim that lost a syllable on the way to the New World.
A few things:
1. Romney is probably like any evangelical politician, in that he hasn't got some well-formed theory of governance based on the traditions of his church, he is just winging it. Also, he would never dream of directly enforcing Mormonism on the populace, because he wants to be popular, just like Bush.
2. I think we have made a mistake as Christians if we insist that someone keep their faith apart from the government. Romeny's faith should call the shots in areas where it has opinions, as should mine.
3. On church an state in the Book of Mormon: I believe that most LDS scholars say that under the law reform of King Mosiah, freedom of belief was allowed in the land, and would probably use that precedent in the United States.
Post a Comment
<< Home