The Candidates
Featured Archives
Thanks to David Brody who took the time to post this great writing by George Romney on the LDS church and Religious Tolerance:
The LDS principles of tolerance are rooted in the teaching that all who have lived, now live, and will yet live on this earth are spirit children of God and are responsible only to God for their religious beliefs and practices. “We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience,” says Article of Faith 11, “and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship, how, where or what they may.” A corollary of this statement is a declaration of belief regarding governments and law, adopted by the Church in 1835. It affirms that governments have no power to prescribe rules of worship to bind the consciences of men or to dictate forms for public or private devotion. In matters of religion, the declaration asserts, “men are amenable to God and to Him only for the exercise of their religious beliefs, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others” (D&C 134). The Church has maintained these principles while accommodating to secular authority: “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law” (A of F 12; cf. D&C 134:1-12).
Related to this is a doctrine of primordial individual freedom. For Latter-day Saints agency is indestructible. All truth is “independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also” (D&C 93:30). The individual’s freedom to search for this truth should not be contravened, and in the last analysis it cannot be. Even God cannot coerce belief. The only power justified on earth or in heaven is loving persuasion (D&C 121:41).
Contrary to stereotypes, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neither a sect nor a cult. It has an extensive scriptural foundation, but no formalized creeds and no closed canon. As the Prophet Joseph Smith said to Stephen A. Douglas, Latter-day Saints are “ready to believe all true principles that exist, as they are manifest from time to time” (HC 5:215). They are taught to “gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up” (TPJS p. 316). Commitment to truth in this inclusive sense is commitment to the view that all philosophies, religions, and ethical systems have elements of truth and that all persons have a portion of light. This is a buttress for tolerance, goodwill, and fellowship on a worldwide scale (see World Religions [Non Christian] and Mormonism) “If ye will not embrace our religion,” Joseph Smith said, “embrace our hospitalities” (WJS 162).
Let alone this is nothing more than a treatise on why we should be tolerant of other faiths. But the question David Brody asks in his posting of this, is whether this kind of thinking will be the basis of a Romney speech on religion, should he decide to offer one. My guess is, in many ways yes, except probably minus any direct references to LDS scripture and theology.
What for me has been interesting to note is the fact LDS theology has become such a defining factor in peoples minds. Not that this is anything other then what I expected. I was an LDS missionary and I had plenty of rejections and plenty of doorstep condemnation. All that rejection made post-mission dating all the easier. But, if you want to nail it down, pretty much any religion has something crazy or backwards going on. Does it not take faith to believe that Moses parted the Red Sea or Jesus Walked on water? Does it not take faith to even believe Jesus died for your sins? Does it not take faith that if we believe in Jesus we will end up in heaven for all of eternity?
And now we enter into Jason Bonham’s personal religious ideas, and I hope no one minds my digressing. Faith, is the substance of things hoped for which are not seen, but beyond that, faith by definition is a necessity. Pure logic and physical evidence alone is not enough to bring someone to God. It requires a faith, or a desire to believe despite some evidence to the contrary, to bring us to whatever religion or theology we prescribe too. Faith implicitly acknowledges there is room for doubt, or more precisely, holes in the argument.
Now, what does this have to do with the presidential race? Every candidate (there are no known agnostics running) has chosen a set of doctrines to follow. I doubt any claim to have all the answers, but most claim to have the important ones. Yet, every important answer requires Faith. I doubt any of the candidates has claimed to see God himself, and if they have there is still room to ask whether it was a hallucination. And plenty of room to ask if we are brain on a lab table having thoughts and events injected into us.
I doubt any candidate claims a perfect knowledge of God, with no need of faith. Instead all believers require a belief on the words of others, and on events that enter the realm of the supernatural. Of course a believer wouldn’t call an event supernatural, they would call it a religious miracle.
So we can kick a guy who is running for office who is out of the mainstream of Christianity. That’s fine, and as George Romney noted above, it’s others right to do so. But in the end the question that really people should ask is weather a candidate will seek to force theology on the nation? Do the fruits of the religion bear values and motives which are contrary to that of president?
My guess is, if you answered that question honestly and legitimately very few would find any reason to vote against Romney on religious grounds.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:38 am
Sounds like universalism. This will hurt, not help with orthodox believers. Sorry for the early morning splash of cold water.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Gary,
Heaven forbid we allow other people to worship what they want and we say God doesn’t force people to believe in him.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:52 am
Agreed. I’m just making the point that this exposition does Mitt no favors.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:53 am
What is the relevance of this in re: Race 4 2008?
July 9th, 2007 at 7:55 am
OKcougar,
Actually good point, I need to expound on this more. I will add something.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:04 am
My feeling is: worship whatever you want to worship, as long
as its genuine who are we to say otherwise?
July 9th, 2007 at 8:19 am
added some content.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Jason – regrettably stereotypical bias is generally typified by strongly held emotions that tend to be impervious to logic, but never-the-less do guide behavior. Rational thought exercise like you propose are unlikely to sway those in the grips of deep-seated bigotry.
In any event, in seeking the GOP nomination Romney has far greater challenges to overcome than his religion.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Rational thought exercise like you propose are unlikely to sway those in the grips of deep-seated bigotry.
You are probably right, but there are people in the middle and there is no harm in trying.
Besides people deep-seated in bigotry probably wouldn’t come to a site like this that often.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:53 am
This is fine: So Mitt’s dad is not what some people consider a stereotypical Mormon “kook”(although what he writes is far from “mainstream” Christianity). No one ever said the Romney family was. Still doesn’t mean folks will be comfortable voting for Mitt.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
July 9th, 2007 at 9:01 am
Jason – But the real question is why is Romney’s position on the GWOT essentially the same as Obama’s?
July 9th, 2007 at 9:08 am
OK,
Please expound.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:15 am
someone please move ron paul up the rankings. I don’t like the guy but it’s very obvious he is doing better than shlubs like jim bilmore and tancredo
July 9th, 2007 at 10:17 am
Mitt gave a speech April 26th at Yeshiva University, Obama gave one on April 23rd in Chicago. Both are available on the respective candidate’s websites. While the rhetoric is differently styled, both speeches are remarkably similar in terms of policy:
Both would add 100K troops,
Both advocate energy independence
Both think they can prevent Iran from acquiring nukes by multilateral negotiations,
Both endorse the Nuclear Threat Initiative Fuel Bank,
Both think they can and should reinvigorate NATO as a anti-terror force.
If there is no difference between the GOP nominee and the Dem nominee on this issue, then the GOP is likely to lose in 2008.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Dude:
I agree although I think we should move Newt down until he actually
gets in the race if he is going to. Movce Huckabee to 5th (maybe even
4th once McCain collapses)
July 9th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Matt P: If so many people are uncomfortable about voting for Mitt, how did he manage to get elected governor of Massachusetts?
July 9th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Gary, it’s not universalism, rather, it’s an acknolwedgement that while Mormons believe their religion to be correct–and I might ask what religion doesn’t believe itself to be correct–Mormons believe strongly that there shouldn’t be coercion involved in making people believe a certain way. You can see this idea in effect with protestant Christianity as well: If people don’t accept Jesus, they won’t be saved, but they don’t believe in tactics that would force people to accept Jesus, like mandating a national religion. That’s what countries like Iran do.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:16 am
On the subject of the “Mormon” religion, I found an fascinating link over the weekend which sheds interesting light over the question on if “Mormons” are “Christians”. Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, debates this question with Orson Scott Card, a famous science fiction author who is also a member of the Mormon church.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Gary Matthew Miller: Sounds like universalism. This will hurt, not help with orthodox believers.
I disagree. Paragraph 1 in the blocked text above is the expression of one of our Constitution’s most cherished components…religious freedom.
Were this principle of tolerance to hurt Mitt with orthodox believers, that would be most ironic, considering just about every religious group in America can thank its existence to freedom to worship “how, where or what they may”.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:18 am
BTW, this is Orson Scott Card’s response and this is Dr. Mohler response to Card’s response.
July 9th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
17 & 19: To reiterate, I was not judging the content of the statement, only evaluating the political implications of the statement. When you use language like “all persons have a portion of light”, you lose orthodox Christians of many stripes as this statement contradicts the biblical doctrine that “all of us have become like one who is unclean and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags.”
Again, allow me to reiterate that as an evangelical I would be delighted to have Gov. Romney as my nominee and my president. I am simply commenting on the political effect of such a statement. It will do the Governor NO favors with the evangelical/orthodox community he needs to assuage if he is to win the nomination.
July 9th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Gary (#21),
I see. Were Romney to focus his efforts on convincing the public that all religions have a “portion of light”, it could come off sounding like the beginning of a universalistic argument, regardless of the merit of the narrow interpretation of what was originally said.
However, I was immediately drawn to the first paragraph. Having followed Romney for a long while, I can say that his focus is on freedom of religion, worship, beliefs, and other such constitutional apple pie stuff. He can hit the religious question out of the park every time he gets it and completely avoid the theological issues as the political irrelevancies they are.
July 9th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Again, my comments had less to do with the theological implications of the statement than the political implications thereof.
Please do not misunderstand me. While I am an evangelical who believes in the inerrancy of scripture, I do not require my CIC to have the same set of beliefs. Almost every evangelical I know feels the same way. If anything, this discussion thread is case-in-point of the minefield of language and beliefs the good Governor must navigate if he is to win the nomination (and general election) — no small task.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
I think that what the late patriarch of the Romney clan is saying here is quite impressive and strong. It is incredible how relevant portions of this are for today and how all of this dovetails perfectly into Governor Romney Global initiative for Freedom.
I think that Gov. Romney would be wise to adopt the language of following an inclusive general “Spirit Force” that will guide all of the nations of the world to truth, justice and democracy. I very much appreciate the notion of an international buttress for tolerance, goodwill, and fellowship on a worldwide scale. Romney could really run with some of these themes and expand on them.