There's More To Romney Than Mormonism

National Review Online: GOP Hopeful Must Refocus Voters Away From Religion

(National Review Online)  This column was written by Douglas W. Kmiec.

---

This weekend at a gathering in New Hampshire, former Gov. Mitt Romney was asked, yet again, whether he would give a speech outlining his religious beliefs. He said he would be happy to do so, but that some of his advisers caution against doing so, since it would “draw too much attention to that issue alone.”

It’s too late - the governor and his faith have our attention. For better or worse, Mormonism is on the public table. The “good news” part, for Romney, is that the public interest signifies how important he has become in the presidential sweeps. Romney leads in Iowa and New Hampshire, and he is now being taken seriously as a prospective nominee. The “bad news” part is that, despite Romney’s desire to think only the best of his fellow citizens - to think that no one would disqualify a person merely because of faith, 218 years after the promise of religious freedom in the First Amendment - such a vision of religious freedom is not yet a reality.

Governor Romney would be wise, in this discussion, to remind the nation to stick to its founding ideals. There is no religious caste here. Article VI, section 3 provides that “...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Romney now has little choice but to pursue the course taken by John F. Kennedy in 1960, when he used a major speech to Baptist ministers in Houston to defuse Protestant concern over his Catholicism. Even as the situations differ somewhat, the reasons for confronting the issue squarely were poignantly summarized by Kennedy: “While this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew, or a Quaker, or a Unitarian, or a Baptist” Or, as it turns out, a Mormon.

At the time JFK spoke, Rome still advocated for Catholicism to be an established church. This was commonplace in Europe even well into the 20th century. Pontiffs like Leo XIII held to the Catholic contention that “error could be given no rights.” So propagated, Catholicism and the constitutional freedoms secured by our First Amendment were incompatible, and it was little wonder Kennedy was held suspect. The modern Catholic Church would back off this view in the mid-60s after the Second Vatican Council. While giving no ground on the Catholic belief to be the “one true apostolic faith,” the church fathers nevertheless conceded that faith coerced under law could never be consistent with the dignity due each person.

Romney’s plight is different. Mormons ask only the equal freedom to believe and practice consistent with the public order. Because of Rome’s prior insistence upon favored legal treatment, Kennedy had a special burden to indicate that, as he said, “no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act.” Romney’s burden is lighter. It is perhaps enough for him to observe that the modern Mormon or Latter Day Saint (LDS) prophets (“revelators”) do not assert revelations that could trump the presidential oath. Faith matters, of course, and part of Romney’s attractiveness for many voters is that he is a faith-filled and faithful man. In the words of Justice William O. Douglas, “We are a religious people and our institutions presuppose the existence of a Supreme Being.”

Of course, the Mormon faith indulges some unique beliefs that non-Mormons do not “presuppose.” Many, perhaps most, Americans are unfamiliar with the Book of Mormon, or even the names Joseph Smith, or Brigham Young - let alone their prophecies. But no one can legitimately ask Romney to deny his belief in missionary service, or the reward of the “celestial kingdom,” any more than Kennedy should have been expected to renounce the Catholic belief in the true presence of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine at Mass.

In truth, those objecting to Romney’s faith usually know little beyond its one-time attachment to polygamy. Here, Romney must be the patient teacher, reminding, as he has, that polygamy has not been a tenet of Mormon practice since it was set aside by the President of the church in September 1890. Romney gives no quarter to false cults that distort the Mormon faith. “It bothers me no end that the term polygamy keeps being associated with my faith,” the Governor explained in an interview some years back with The Examiner. “There is nothing more awful, in my view, than the violation of the marriage covenant that one has with one’s wife. The practice of polygamy is abhorrent, it’s awful, and it drives me nuts that people who are polygamists keep pretending to use the umbrella of my church,” he added.. “My church abhors it, it excommunicates people who practice it, and it's got nothing to do with my faith.” Case closed. Asking for more would have been like asking John Kennedy to assure us that he, too, thought the inquisition a bad idea, or that Galileo got a bum rap.

Almost a half century ago, Kennedy observed that “because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured . . . So it is apparently necessary for me to state…not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me - but what kind of America I believe in.” Substituting Mormonism, Romney should similarly and properly refocus voters on the positive vision he offers America. It is better that we debate how to meet the terrorist offensive against the free world, or the economic imbalances at home, or our health care and education needs, than to invidiously disqualify one of our brightest prospects on the basis of his religion.

Whether or not he ultimately succeeds, Romney’s candidacy reminds us anew that citizens may pray differently, but equally desire America’s well being.

[icon121]

I had the oppertunity to read all the comments, and oppinions about Mitt Romney and to be honest he has my vote. I as of right now am not a register voter, however I told myself when Hillary Clinton runs for President thats the day Im registering to vote, to vote againts her. All I have to say about any of this is God has his hand in this election as well as we do as citizens. Amen.

[logicanada]

Mitt romney should convet to Judaism to satisfy N.R.O.
Then he should be perfected into Christianity to please Ann Coulter''s crowd.
Then he should be converted into a Muslim to help him deal with the middle east.
Then he should pray to Budda so he understands the far eastern society.
The he should surrender to atheism to gain a little sanity.

[timpsond]

According to the AP:

"While Mitt Romney condemns polygamy and its prior practice by his Mormon church, the Republican presidential candidate%u2019s great-grandfather had five wives and at least one of his great-great grandfathers had 12.

"Romney%u2019s great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, married his fifth wife in 1897. That was more than six years after Mormon leaders banned polygamy and more than three decades after a federal law barred the practice.

"Romney%u2019s great-great grandfather, Parley Pratt, an apostle in the church, had 12 wives. In an 1852 sermon, Parley Pratt%u2019s brother and fellow apostle, Orson Pratt, became the first church official to publicly proclaim and defend polygamy as a direct revelation from God."

Does Romney "abhor" his ancestors (prominent early leaders of the faith) the way he does current polygamists? To me, this is the key question Romney must answer. I want to hear him denounce these early mormons in the same harsh language he uses with the mormon polygamist sects. He simply cannot have it both ways. Polygamy is a definite part of Mormonism, both past AND present. Until the Mormon church eliminates polygamy from its canon, and until the modern Mormon church denounces Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as "abhorrent," the polygamy questions will continue to be raised.

[eagle19561]

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE AS THE CHURCH THAT SOMEONE GOES TO???? AREN''T WE ALL BELIEVING IN A HIGHER POWER?

[dlounsbury1]

I guess everyone who went served religious missions and who got married were draft dodgers. Give me a break. A mission is an expected rite of passage. It was not like it was a planned effort to avoid military service. Of the numerous reporters and liberals who keep mentioning that none of Mitt''s sons served in the military, none of their sons have either. What a bunch of hypocrites to keep bringing that up. The VAST majority of americans with sons (over 90%) DO NOT HAVE SONS IN THE MILITARY. What a genuflection from the fact that Romney''s sons are intelligent, educated, successful and sincere. If all the fathers world all raised such sons there would be no war.

[davek455]

I get the feeling that there''s more than meets the eye with Romney. Too perfect, too coiffed, too polished. I have a hunch there''s a teenage daughter out of wedlock out there somewhere, or a h.o.m.o.se.x.ual boyfriend out there ready to pop up at any time. Something smells fishy with Mitt.

[davek455]

I don''t think the taxpayers should have to pay for Secret Service protection for more than one first lady. How many first ladies would Romney get protection for?

[roger_inkart]

Bottom line is Mitt Romney is the most qualified candidate running for president from either party.

Posted by perception5 at 08:12 AM : Nov 15, 2007

He''s certainly preferable to Guliani IMO. From what I can tell he''s not a neocon, he''s not Evangelical who would shove his beliefs down the throats of the nation, he''s likely not start foolish wars to prove how tough he is and so forth.

Of course, after suffering through the worst administration in US history, my first concern is the next one will inflict limited damage on the county. GW set the bar so low anyone ANYONE will be an improvement.

[perception5]

There''''s more to Mitt Romney than Mormonism?

Well, of course! He''''s also a flip-flopping panderer! That should count for something!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by briannorwood

........briannorwood, didn''t Hillary Rotten-Clinton just flip flop on drivers licenses for illegals in New York? I guess since you have "principles" you won''t be voting for her now. BTW did you vote for the "mother of all flip floppers John, liberal snob, Kerry in 2004? Please advise.

[briannorwood]

There''s more to Mitt Romney than Mormonism?

Well, of course! He''s also a flip-flopping panderer! That should count for something!

[perception5]

FYI.......Mitt is running for Commander-in-Chief not Pastor-in-Chief.

We have also had others Mormons from both parties run for president like Democrat Morris Udall.

Bottom line is Mitt Romney is the most qualified candidate running for president from either party.

[gkc99]

"Vote for Romney. He''''s awesome! Top 5% of Harvard MBA''''s; Top 20% of Harvard Law school at the same time; worked his way from bottom to CEO of Bain Consulting (one of moste elite co.''''s in the world"--Posted by jasonroiz



Worked from bottom eh? Guess his daddy being governor of Michigan and rich to boot didn''t have a *** thing to do with it.

Mutt is just another spoiled rich kid born with a silver spoon. What challenge has he ever dealt with? His rich daddy even got him out of the Vietnam draft--I''m sure that''s very important to all the "patriotic Neocons" who made such a big deal about Clinton--isn''t it? Or are you total hypocrits, neoconscum?

[farmerbb]

Justice Douglas said "our institutions presuppose the existence of a Supreme Being%u201D ??? Hmm. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn''t the Constitution specifically eliminate the mention of religion at all, other than in the First Amendment ? Adding "In God We Trust" was done in the 1950''s ???? The trend towards a theocracy started a long time ago. Try reading some of the more recent books on the subject, like The God Delusion.

[dlounsbury1]

A whole bunch of talk about polygamy, theocratic form of government, and many other objections to supposed Mormon doctrine appear in these posts.

Let''s apply the same logic to mainstream Christianity:
Jesus'' followers in the New Testament had all things in common. (Acts 2:44 and Acts 4:32) Does this mean we should worry that Huckabee (or any other Christian candidate) is a communist or will lead the government into communism? Of course not.

[sloagm]

A former leader of the Mormon Church said this, speaking of the members of the church as a whole: "we teach them correct principles and they govern themselves." In terms of commitment to the doctrines of the gospel, I believe that both Mitt Romney and Harry Reid are faithful and upstanding members of their local congregations. They are, however, extremely different in terms of their political ideologies.

To say that Reid and Romney would see eye to eye on anything politically is unlikely, despite their similar religious tenets. Therefore, the risk that a Romney President would be governed from Salt Lake is completely ludicrous, otherwise they would both march in lockstep on every point of legislation.

[frb01]

I don''t know much about Romney other than he presents an image that often times looks too pretty and perfect. He needs to have a press conference to discuss his faith and how and how it doesn''t impact his life.

[cpaide]

"My church abhors it [polygamy], it excommunicates people who practice it..." --Mitt Romney

True enough, but polygamists are not excommunicated because the LDS Church has severed "its one-time attachment to polygamy", as the writer of this National Review opinion piece suggests. Rather, it is because current LDS Church President Hinckley speaks for the Lord and anyone who contradicts him (or should I say Him?) on the subject of plural marriage or anything else is subject to administrative actions, including excommunication.

In 1890, after losing a Supreme Court case involving polygamy, another LDS Church President declared in a "Manifesto" that Latter-day Saints should "refrain from contracting any marriage forbidden by the law of the land." Hence the position of the current Prophet (Hinckley).

Theoretically, if someone could successfully litigate an anti-polygamy law all the way to the Supreme Court, there would be no reason why the Lord or LDS President Hinckley (or U.S. President Romney) should oppose the reinstitution of plural marriage.

Oh, except for what the Lord said in the Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:23-35.

Maybe it''s time for President Hinckley and the Lord to get together and revisit (or revise) Doctrine and Covenants Section 132.

[cpaide]

"The practice of polygamy is abhorrent, it''s awful, .... and it''s got nothing to do with my faith." --Mitt Romney

I agree. However, I think that candidate Romney is speaking of his personal faith or beliefs, rather than the doctrines of the Mormon Church.

Latter-day Saint revelation regarding the plurality of wives (aka polygamy) can be found in Section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka Mormon Church or LDS Church).

This revelation was given to LDS Church Co-Founder and Prophet Joseph Smith in response to his queries regarding the many wives and concubines had by various prophets, including Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David and Solomon (see Verse 1).

This "new and everlasting covenant" includes two parts: #1-the eternity of the marriage covenant (Verses 15-21) and #2-the plurality of wives (Verses 29-66). Clearly, both of these components of the new and everlasting covenant were and are "essentials for the attainment of the status of godhood" (small g), although the plurality of wives is acceptable only when commanded by the Lord.

While it is true that "polygamy has not been a tenet of [Orthodox] Mormon practice" since 1890, as the writer of this National Review opinion piece states, it remains an essential part of Mormon belief. Otherwise, Doctrine and Covenants Section 132:29-66 would have been repealed.

[jasonroiz]

Vote for Romney. He''s awesome! Top 5% of Harvard MBA''s; Top 20% of Harvard Law school at the same time; worked his way from bottom to CEO of Bain Consulting (one of moste elite co.''s in the world)

[jcr103]

What the matter One_American? Is a little honesty a little uncomfortable for you?