Pensees: With Romney the Ultimate Question is Authority.

What if, for example, the Bible commands something that is unconstitutional? Will you be Christian or will you be American?

Bob,

Considering the alternatives include a professional actor (in other words, do we know he’s real or just pretending?), a mega-church-esque pragmatist, and who knows what else, it seems to me that the man’s religious background offers no more of an obstacle, particularly when you examine that such concerns have not caused the type of conflicts you theorize about in his administration of the state of Massachusetts, nor his father’s administration of the state of Michigan. Besides, while it is obvious that the position of President is significant, it would seem that sufficient checks and balances remain in place to insure that any “revelation” given through the LDS church could not overrule the rule of law.

It is a “hold your nose” selection process, to be sure. You make compelling reasons for concern for the candidate. However, given the alternatives, I’m not sure they are compelling enough to completely rule out Mr. Romney.

Does everybody know what the historical LDS position is on the United States Constitution?

Political views aside, two questions jump out at me.

Would you have opposed Pat Robertson on the same grounds when he ran?

Would you have opposed JFK because the Roman Catholic Church affirms continuing revelation under the rubric of the teaching authority of the church?

Naturally we would expect that should a Christian president be forced to decide if he is Christian or American he would sacrifice his American credentials without hesitation.

But we would also expect a Christian president to resign, should he become convinced that upholding the Constitution would go against his Christian beliefs.

Besides, Romney’s spokesman has already addressed your concern in this manner:

Another consultant with ties to the Democrats suggested that I address a more substantive question, raised by Harvard Business School dean Kim Clark’s recent decision to leave HBS for the presidency of Brigham Young University-Idaho. In May, Clark, who is Mormon, received a call from his church’s president asking him to leave Harvard and head for Idaho.

So would Romney likewise feel obliged to follow the dictates of the church’s president, whom Mormons believe to be a divinely inspired prophet? John F. Kennedy faced this same question concerning his loyalty to Catholicism during the 1960 election, and addressed it in a famous speech to Protestant ministers in Houston. ”I am not the Catholic candidate for president,” Kennedy said. ”I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for president who happens also to be a Catholic . . . I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me.”

Romney’s spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom says the governor’s ”first obligation is to fulfill his duty of office, and that would take precedence over anything. If he were to get a Kim Clark-like call, he would not react in the same way. This is a governor who has signed a law permitting Sunday alcohol sales, and who has been open to an expansion of gaming. [Observant Mormons do not smoke, gamble, or drink spirits.] This is by no means someone who is marching in lockstep with his church.”

Source

In other words, whatever he says about his fervency, his politics will come first.

But what makes all of this seem like fear-mongering to me is that we don’t have any reason to expect the Mormon president to ask Romney to violate the Constitution. Especially for the last fifty years or so, the Mormon leadership has worked hard to make itself as indistinguishable from American culture as possible. In many ways it promotes the “American Dream” more than evangelical Christians do.

Along with that, the Mormon leadership is loathe to do anything that would hurt its reputation, as interfering with the office of the President would in the eyes of most Americans. And were Romney actually to do something crazy at anyone’s behest, we have a system of checks and balances that could counteract his moves and, if necessary, remove him from office.

Finally, an evangelical is possibly more open to abuses of authority, depending on how he invokes the “priesthood of the believer.” Consider, for example, how Bush talks about how he thinks God supports some of his actions, including war-making. In that case, there is no authority except Bush’s sense of what God wants; it seems to me that an in-flesh authority with demonstrated interest in saving face has less potential variability.

I think Mormonism beats Catholicism hands down for conservative patriotism and concern for the welfare of American democracy.

Has anyone ever been to an American Freedom Celebration during Fourth of July in Idaho Falls, Idaho?

I think it is one of the biggest American celebrations west of the Mississippi.

Seriously.

When most people don’t even wave the American flag anymore during war time, you will hardly find an LDS house in the I-15 corridor that does not wave their country’s flag proudly.

This is compelling.

It is what America was 50 years ago.

Just saw Austin’s comment. I would echo the thoughts about Mr. Mitt Romney.

I thought that Evangelical Christians believed in personal revelation; i.e., pray to God for direction and He will guide you. Thus, an Evangelical Christian president can pray to God about whether to violate the Constitution and God can tell him to.

What, fundamentally, is the difference between a president who says, “God told me to” and one who says, “My church told me to”? (To be clear: I think both are wrong.)

(Thanks to Todd Wood for the link here.)

Brian, some evangelicals might think they have ongoing personal revelation (big problems, e.i. Pat Robertson). But the Bible declares sufficiency of revelation. We look to the Spirit for ongoing illumination and assurance.

If I see the phrases, “God told me to” and “My church told me to” and whereas in a particular context, it is not fundamentally ignoring or damaging to inspired revelation, I can more easily get into the conversation.

If this country can be founded on “Christian” principals in part by a number of Deists, Unitarians and Masons could’nt those same foundations be adhered to by a Mormon?

Also, considering that we have three equal branches of government and that a president cannot make laws can you give an example of something Romney could do to compromise the constitution?

Bob,

I love you, but I think your reasoning is flawed. You write:

“I don’t think many of my readers understand that having an evangelical or a liberal methodist in office is not as bad as having a Mormon because both the evangelical and liberal methodist are, ostensibly at least, under the authority of fully-known and historic authorities: completed revelation and the constitution.”

It seems that your use of the word “ostensibly” completely undermines your argument. You and I both know (I think this is why you use that word) that liberal Methodists and secularists and any number of other groups are in no meaningful, practical way operating under the authority of completed revelation or the constitution. Neither are many who consider themselves evangelicals.

Their authority may be personal sensibility or reason, conscience, political expediency, or gut emotion, but these things are not revelation or constitution. And I think those kinds of people are FAR more likely to shift with the wind than the dogma of the Mormon leadership is.

I agree with you that belief always affects behavior. But you seem to equate the profession of a belief with authentic belief. To conclude that a liberal Methodist or a Southern Baptist or a Roman Catholic or whatever is necessarily better than a Mormon for the presidency essentially assumes that these other people really possess core beliefs that are both right and non-negotiable. I think that’s rather optimistic.

That doesn’t mean I’d trust Romney any farther than I can throw him, but I still can’t accept your argument that he is necessarily inferior to others.

You’re also not including competence as a factor in your equation. I would take eight years of a competent pure pragmatist over four years with a wholly orthodox but equally incompetent evangelical.

The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is often accused by Evangelical pastors of not believing in Christ and, therefore, not being a Christian religion. This article http://mormonsarechristian.blogspot.com/ helps to clarify such misconceptions by examining early Christianity’s comprehension of baptism, the Godhead, the deity of Jesus Christ and His Atonement.

The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) adheres more closely to First Century Christianity and the New Testament than any other denomination. For example, Harper’s Bible Dictionary entry on the Trinity says “the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the New Testament.”

One Baptist blogger stated “99 percent of the members of his Baptist church believe in the Mormon (and Early Christian) view of the Trinity. It is the preachers who insist on the Nicene Creed definition.” It seems to me the reason the pastors denigrate the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is to protect their flock (and their livelihood).

MAC, your comment is off the mark of this thread, but I would be glad to discuss your comments over at my blog. Please email me sometime over who this “Baptist blogger” is. That is worth a post in itself.

And you are dead wrong on the last sentence for the preachers worth their salt. The passion is for the glory of the one, true eternal Yahweh. And how Jehovah is expressed in the Person of Jesus Christ.

But speaking of LDS authority, I don’t think the LDS Church today could handle an LDS prophet like Joseph Smith with his plethora of prophecies.

The well-oiled, checks and balance, business savvy machinery of LDS hierarchy just doesn’t operate that way anymore.

Change comes ever so slowly, just like what you see in American government.

I don’t think the LDS Church today can boast of ongoing, spontaneous prophetic revelation.

Todd, thanks for your reply. I understand that there is a large diversity of opinion/doctrine within Evangelical Christianity. It makes the question difficult to ask, because I would have to identify a political decision that would be in line with the Bible (and your interpretation thereof) but against the Constitution.

“I don’t think the LDS Church today can boast of ongoing, spontaneous prophetic revelation.” Nor did the early church have ongoing, regular Pentecostal experiences. Establishing a church and maintaining it are two very different things with different revelatory requirements.

My intent is not to stray from the topic of the post into a debate about LDS v. early church. Just to point out that Mormons continue to believe that radical new revelation is still a possibility, and that there are at least two major examples within my lifetime: 1978 priesthood and the more recent introduction of small temples (you may not appreciate that as a radical change, but I do and every Mormon I know does).

Brian, I have completely missed the “introduction of small temples” as prophetic LDS revelation.

Sometime soon, I will be writing a reflective article entitled, “The Baptist Preacher in the LDS Temple.”

Watch for it.

Thanks, All. I want to answer and interact with these questions for the sake of my own edification. Some say my logic is flawed, but I think my presentation is flawed. Nonetheless, I appreciate the feedback. I’ll write more to the specific challenges next week.

In the meantime, I’ll respond to one subtle insinuation suggested in Austin’s post: that my post is fear-mongering.

Hardly. Fear-mongering could possibly describe the panicked evangelicals who will do almost anything to prevent Hillary from coming to office, who say “it is all about beating Hillary.” I’ll sleep like a baby no matter who becomes President.

I think (although your arguments are making me see how difficult my thought is to maintain) that there are Christian principles at stake that make the nominating process completely different than the voting process. As I scan back through history I simply cannot see Christians proposing heretical candidates for positions of authority.

As Fred asked, does this mean (political views aside) that I would refuse to nominate Pat Robertson who claims to have a direct line with God Almighty for new revelation? My answer is yes. I would never nominate a charismatic.

I need to take some time next week and examine my argument. I appreciate the feedback.

In the meantime, I’ll respond to one subtle insinuation suggested in Austin’s post: that my post is fear-mongering.

Hardly. Fear-mongering could possibly describe the panicked evangelicals who will do almost anything to prevent Hillary from coming to office, who say “it is all about beating Hillary.” I’ll sleep like a baby no matter who becomes President.

Bob, sleeping soundly doesn’t make someone free of fear-mongering. I’m more concerned about the “sleep” of people who would think—thanks in part to posts like yours—that a President Romney would be getting secret instructions to subvert the Constitution, or whatever.

I’m not even a Romney supporter. There are much better reasons to reject him than his religion.

I have no reason to think that Romney would be “getting secret instructions to subvert the Constitution.” That has not been my concern.

My issue is more theoretical perhaps. Authority matters. It is possible to be a Christian and represent no threat whatsoever to the integrity of the Constitution as it and historic Christian dogma relate. The Christian who claims special revelation (i.e. Pat Robertson) is not touting historic Christian doctrine and, in my mind, he would represent the same kind of vulnerability.

Whether Pat or Mitt would ever actually do anything unconstitutional is irrelevant to my argument because my point is that historically the Constitution could never be threatened by a true believer because it was formed with the beliefs of a fully-revealed Christianity in mind. Mitt’s religion, however, is not fully revealed and there remains, therefore, the possibility, albeit remote, that his religious authority could have undue lobbying power on his executive decisions and authority. This is also true for the charismatic evangelical.

The reassurance from the Romney camp is that we should not worry. Mitt is basically only a nominal Mormon. What a bizarre defense.

Only in a nation of nominal evangelicals could the assertion that someone is nominal anything be reassuring.