Interesting article on Mormon belief of divine Constitution

I'm not sure what to make of this article. Is the author suggesting that because we (Mormons) think the Constitution is divinely inspired that this is somehow a miguided belief that could prove bad for the country should Mitt win?



The introduction and body of the article are well researched, I'm just not making the same jump the author is in his conclusion. I don't see from where his concerns stem given the text up to that point.



Thoughts?



http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/02/mitt-romneyrsquos-constitutional-theology" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He obviously has seen that all the other LDS politicians currently in office have used this belief to make everything the government does subservient to the LDS church. :roll:



This an obvious attempt to resurrect the now waning Mormophobia that derailed Romney's first run at the nomination. It has been there all along, but they have stopped talking directly about it as why they don't like Romney. He clearly sees that they need to talk, not about Mitt's being a Mormon, but about how the doctrine makes him dangerous.

Newspaper headlines if they were forced to tell the truth: We Want Anybody But Mitt!

I just don't see what is concerning about an American thinking the Constitution is a divinely inspired document. Wouldn't most believing Americans be somewhat impressed that a politician thinks God approves of the Constitution?



I guess if you don't believe in God or the Constitution, I can see how this could be upsetting to you, thought.

DiffiCult wrote:



I guess if you don't believe in God or the Constitution, I can see how this could be upsetting to you, thought.

which unfortunately is the direction our country is headed.

declocoug wrote:

I guess if you don't believe in God or the Constitution, I can see how this could be upsetting to you, thought.

which unfortunately is the direction our country is headed.

Hey! Are you saying I'm difficult?!

I read the article as a subtle attack on the church and thus Romney...But Romney can take it head on: I do think the Constitution was inspired. For the first time man separated the powers of govt and in doing so provided an ingenious way of checking that govt.'s power. For the first time a people put in writing the power they wanted their govt to have and not have For the first time a people based the govt.'s power as coming from the people. For the first time, a people reserved to themselves in writing freedoms of religion and expression and freedoms from unreasonable govt seareches and seizures. Do I run away from that? No.

Evidently he's threatened by the concept that anything extra-Constitutional (whether it be more or less than what the Constitution says) is frowned upon.

Perhaps these are just my contrarian views, and I mean absolutely no disrespect to anybody who disagrees, but I don't find much wrong with the article. What part of the article is inaccurate or misleading exactly? Especially if you look at it from the point of view of someone that genuinely feels there should be a strict separation of church and state, how is this misrepresenting mormon doctrine? Heck, I'm a mormon and even I've often contemplated if it is appropriate for someone to serve as President when he has promised to give quite literally everything he has--even his life if asked--to a fallible institution that has attempted to use its weight in political matters before. I'm not saying it should disqualify Mormons and neither is the author here, but just that there should be a bit more discussion both inside and outside the church of what the church is actually trying to imply through their doctrine and religious rites. The idea that the Church is neutral in political matters has never really even been a reality. You add all those things up and I think there is quite a bit of room for questions and clarification.



So IMHO, this is a pretty tame and generally accurate article.

So wouldn't a LDS President uphold the constitution better than the Presidents we have had lately. Or fight Justices who think it is obsolete or want to revise it?

DarthMagnus wrote:
Perhaps these are just my contrarian views, and I mean absolutely no disrespect to anybody who disagrees, but I don't find much wrong with the article. What part of the article is inaccurate or misleading exactly? Especially if you look at it from the point of view of someone that genuinely feels there should be a strict separation of church and state, how is this misrepresenting mormon doctrine? Heck, I'm a mormon and even I've often contemplated if it is appropriate for someone to serve as President when he has promised to give quite literally everything he has--even his life if asked--to a fallible institution that has attempted to use its weight in political matters before. I'm not saying it should disqualify Mormons and neither is the author here, but just that there should be a bit more discussion both inside and outside the church of what the church is actually trying to imply through their doctrine and religious rites. The idea that the Church is neutral in political matters has never really even been a reality. You add all those things up and I think there is quite a bit of room for questions and clarification.



So IMHO, this is a pretty tame and generally accurate article.

I agree to a certain extent, that's what had me confused. There wasn't anything blatantly inaccurate or misleading. He wasn't really misrepresenting Mormon doctrine either. I thought the conclusion made a huge jump in logic that wasn't warranted by what he written up to that point. I didn't have much to disagree with in the introduction and body. It was his conclusion that confused me.

I'd say the only thing that is misleading, if that is even the word (misunderstood would probably be better), is this reference:

Given its teaching that the U.S. Constitution is a divine establishment, any “law of man” that is “more or less than” constitutional “cometh of evil” (D&C 98:7).

The author probably doesn't understand how similar "more or less than" or "adding unto" citations in the scriptures are understood by members of the church in Rev 22:18-19 and Deut 4:2-4.



They conclusions are all legitimate concerns though and I would like to hear what Romney has to say about them. I don't expect an answer though. He'd probably just defer to the constitutionalist in the room.

SpiffCoug wrote:

I agree to a certain extent, that's what had me confused. There wasn't anything blatantly inaccurate or misleading. He wasn't really misrepresenting Mormon doctrine either. I thought the conclusion made a huge jump in logic that wasn't warranted by what he written up to that point. I didn't have much to disagree with in the introduction and body. It was his conclusion that confused me.

Yeah, I agree with this. As you state Spiff, it wasn't so much that the conclusion is upsetting or inaccurate, just that it is pretty confusing. It was a bit of a jump given what he had written. Kind of a disconnect between, "Mormon doctrine teaches the Constitution has divine authority/origins and Romeny needs to answer for this." I think there are some legit questions that could be discussed about how the church regards their involvement, as I stated before, but the article didn't really delve into that too much. Still a pretty tame article in my opinion.

DarthMagnus wrote:

I agree to a certain extent, that's what had me confused. There wasn't anything blatantly inaccurate or misleading. He wasn't really misrepresenting Mormon doctrine either. I thought the conclusion made a huge jump in logic that wasn't warranted by what he written up to that point. I didn't have much to disagree with in the introduction and body. It was his conclusion that confused me.

Yeah, I agree with this. As you state Spiff, it wasn't so much that the conclusion is upsetting or inaccurate, just that it is pretty confusing. It was a bit of a jump given what he had written. Kind of a disconnect between, "Mormon doctrine teaches the Constitution has divine authority/origins and Romeny needs to answer for this." I think there are some legit questions that could be discussed about how the church regards their involvement, as I stated before, but the article didn't really delve into that too much. Still a pretty tame article in my opinion.

I think the question is legitimate. Mormons believe the Constitution is divinely inspired and should not be deviated from. Mitt Romney is Mormon. So Mitt Romney will not deviate from the Constitution. (I don't think that is exactly true but that is the author's conclusion).



I think it is a great question actually: What does it mean to you Mitt Romney that you believe, as do other Mormon's, that the Constitution is divinely inspired? Does that mean you would never deviate from the Constitution?



Even better would be if Mitt or Santorum or Gingrich were asked if they could envision a situation in which they would not follow the Constitution. Like say if Pres Monson called Mitt or the Pope called Santorum or Newt.

Divinely inspired to me means that the principles it sets out (individual freedom, limited central government, separation of powers, etc) is a good form of government. It does not mean it is perfect nor infallible. It does mean that God approves of it and that we should adhere closely to it. It does not mean it cannot be changed or amended.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Divinely inspired to me means that the principles it sets out (individual freedom, limited central government, separation of powers, etc) is a good form of government. It does not mean it is perfect nor infallible. It does mean that God approves of it and that we should adhere closely to it. It does not mean it cannot be changed or amended.

This is what I was going to say. If I believe that Columbus was divinely inspired to explore west, doesn't mean that I think everything about the voyage was done perfectly.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Divinely inspired to me means that the principles it sets out (individual freedom, limited central government, separation of powers, etc) is a good form of government. It does not mean it is perfect nor infallible. It does mean that God approves of it and that we should adhere closely to it. It does not mean it cannot be changed or amended.

I like what you're saying here. I think the constitution was and is the best foundation a government can build on. It means that Mitt has a lot of work if he is serious about upholding those virtues the constitution outlines (individual freedom, limited central government, separation of powers, etc). Those have all been attacked for the past century such that our government and society would be unrecognizable, except in the form of pure structure, to the men who wrote that document.

declocoug wrote:

Divinely inspired to me means that the principles it sets out (individual freedom, limited central government, separation of powers, etc) is a good form of government. It does not mean it is perfect nor infallible. It does mean that God approves of it and that we should adhere closely to it. It does not mean it cannot be changed or amended.

I like what you're saying here. I think the constitution was and is the best foundation a government can build on. It means that Mitt has a lot of work if he is serious about upholding those virtues the constitution outlines (individual freedom, limited central government, separation of powers, etc). Those have all been attacked for the past century such that our government and society would be unrecognizable, except in the form of pure structure, to the men who wrote that document.

Great comments here by both of you. I like it.

hawkwing wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:
Divinely inspired to me means that the principles it sets out (individual freedom, limited central government, separation of powers, etc) is a good form of government. It does not mean it is perfect nor infallible. It does mean that God approves of it and that we should adhere closely to it. It does not mean it cannot be changed or amended.

I like what you're saying here. I think the constitution was and is the best foundation a government can build on. It means that Mitt has a lot of work if he is serious about upholding those virtues the constitution outlines (individual freedom, limited central government, separation of powers, etc). Those have all been attacked for the past century such that our government and society would be unrecognizable, except in the form of pure structure, to the men who wrote that document.

Great comments here by both of you. I like it.

Who knew we had such scholars among us? As I said above, what is divinely inspired to me is the "revolutionary" way the constitution divided up powers, identified where those powers come from (the people) and set forth a process by which the constitution could be adjusted to address new issues. We do not have to believe that every word in the Constitution is of divine imprimatur or that we cannot deviate from it as provided for (Amendments; repealed amendments etc.) I really think Romney should embrace this--one of America's greatest export ever is our idea of govt. and constitution.

Good comments, Boise. Divinely inspired is different from the unfettered word of God.