Musings on Mitt Romney’s Speech
Yesterday, I stayed home and spent more time tiling some more of the floor in our house. During this manual labor, I had time to listen the whole day to conservative talk radio. And what an experience that was! It will leave you jangling for weeks.
I heard Rush Limbaugh on Mitt’s speech. Then locally in Southeastern Idaho, LDS Neal Larson (the “extreme fisherman” caller is hilarious.). Then Sean Hannity. Then LDS Glenn Beck. They all had me laughing at various turns on their highly favorable perspectives on the speech.
As a great storyteller, Glenn described the whole experience of sitting in the audience of around 200 VIPs and listening to Mitt Romney. And he also talked about sleeping for only a couple hours the night before and then sitting with Richard Land yesterday morning and trying to communicate the “deep doctrine” of Mormonism in 40 seconds. I could hardly tile my floor, I was laughing so hard.
Glenn basically said, If you have questions, look up the professors at the LDS universities. [Sidenote – Doesn’t one of his daughters attend BYU-Idaho in Rexburg? I am sure from Glenn’s angle, Rexburg is a land of sagebrush out in the middle of nowhere.]
And the local media on Mitt? Yesterday, the front page of our local Post Register quotes Kirk Jowers, a Romney supporter and director of the Hinckley Institute of Politics at the University of Utah:
I had no expectations that he would get into the theological weeds of Mormonism. There simply isn’t the time to address all of the issues that some people may have with the Mormon faith.
I don’t expect Mitt Romney to do this either. I wouldn’t want him to do this. But beyond the BYU professors, I do expect LDS apostles to step up to the plate and dialogue with evangelicals in 2008 over “theological weeds of Mormonism”.
I have a couple questions that have been emailed to me by friends, so I will place them in the thread later.
Musings on Divine Logic – the Bible
I believe that Scripture is divinely inspired, the very breathed-out words of God. I believe that it is illogical to say that living, inspired words of prophecy from an open heaven are contradictory. I don’t understand all God’s words fully because of my limitations, but I do trust that the Bible is perfect logic. I believe in the incarnation of Christ (100% God who became 100% man) this Christmas season.
My presuppositional faith maintains that the biblical oracles are not illogical. Therefore my inductive reasoning studies continually operate off the divine text.
But I tend to believe that Joseph Smith rejected the Bible text as infallible divine logic. I believe he would have made the OT JST changes even with the evidence of the DSS material, etc. and etc. Joseph Smith simply did not accept the Bible as being logical. And if he thinks that the text in many parts is illogical, why does he say the biblical scriptures are inspired?
My friend, Jacob, would say I am anti-logic. He is correct in this sense: I am anti to the logic that impugns God’s holy texts as anti-logical or incoherent. It is my premise that the JST in seeking to solve “alleged logical contradictions” spawns more illogical inductive reasoning with the biblical scripture. Hence, more confusion for Christianity.
Does this make logical sense?
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
I didn’t even come close to seeing the political impressions that Glenn Beck was trying to communicate by reading Mortensign, today. Whoa buddy. Hopefully, no one in America is going to go around and start killing Mormons or Anabaptists.
http://killbuckcreekpolitics.wordpress.com/
Todd, I’d say there are two parts to the word “inspired”:
1) That which inspires (God being the ultimate source of inspiration) and
2) That which is inspired (we human beings)
The Bible represents an interesting interface of both parts.
By the way Todd, I’m trying to research the topic “compassion” and my limited Mormon sources are coming up short.
Do you have any links to some good sermons or writings on the subject?
I found this take interesting from a comment over at DMI:
Nice commentary. BTW, when is Huckabee going to give “the talk”?
As a Mormon I fear a Southern Baptist in the White House. What guarentee’s [sic] do we have that a president who thinks my church is a “cult” won’t try to shut it down much in the same way the German government is doing now to the Scientologist.
This relates a little to a few questions I have posed here several times but don’t recall a very clear answer:
Is the non-Christian, non-fundamentalist life worth living and deserving of equal respect and dignity as the fundamentalist Christian life? . . . .
What God does at the Judgment Seat is not in issue here. What is in issue is whether fundamentalist Christians are dangerous or not. If, based on their fundamentalist beliefs, they believe that non-fundamentalists, whether Christian or not, and all non-Christians (which apparently Evangelical creedalists insist includes Latter-day Saints), deserve less rights in society or deserve higher scrutiny or separate treatment of one kind or another as to rights and obligations of civil society, then it would be no wonder if those so designated find fundamentalists dangerous.
I too am looking for a speech from Huckabee explaining why his religious beliefs should not be a concern for me, an adherent of a non-Evangelical creedalist minority religion. I don’t share the religious beliefs of Scientologists but I do not believe that their religion should be banned in Germany. Mormonism is next, if that happens, and on the same ostensible grounds. What guarantee do Mormons have that Huckabee won’t pursue a similar policy against such “cults” in the United States?
More specifically, we already know what Huckabee wants with relation to the Mormons. It seems he made an appearance while a sitting governor at the Southern Baptist convention meeting in Salt Lake City when the Evangelical creedalists were trying to convert the Mormons in 1998. If Huckabee wants to “take back this country for [the “one substance”] Jesus”, then how do I and other Mormons know that this desire will not affect his domestic policies relating to such cults as the Mormons should he take office?
Two quick questions on the politics:
First from Chuck: “Todd, the concern about Mitt becoming President touches people from many walks of life, even the LDS people. A SLC talk show read a copy of his speech before it was given this morning. I believe that host is LDS and he commented, Wait a minute. Mitt says, “When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God.” And he went on to say something like, Mitt Romney, a Mormon, says this is his highest promise, so then what about his oaths and temple vows?
That becomes a fair question. What is a man’s oath or vow if you neglect to keep it? In the mind of sincere followers, Mormons should be able to expect more loyalty to the LDS faith, implying logically, loyalty to God in order to just avoid just playing the hypocrite as religious people do.”
Secondly from Julie: “In about the 17th paragraph of his speech, Gov. Romney says that he believes that every religion he has encountered draws it adherents closer to God. I am not a very studied theologian. I have a simple understanding of God’s Word. The Bible clearly teaches that Yahweh is the one true God (Is. 45:22, John 14:6). How can every religion draw its people closer to God if they do not hold to this teaching?
And I [Todd] have a question. Where can I find a good link among contemporary LDS authorities celebrating religious pluralism?
Seth, two Old Testament books immediately come to my mind on the theme of compassion [and from different angles]: Jonah and Hosea.
John f., Huckabee will never make it to the Presidency. The media and Washington politics will make sure of that.
But on your question, our local paper already did an article this past week of Huckabee staying away from question over whether Mormonism is Christian.
In this Presidential campaign, he won’t touch that theological question with a ten foot poll.
But as a politician, I bet he would make the same speech as Mitt.
I think he ought to team up with Mitt. That would be the media firestorm of the century. But I think it would be a good political team for conservative values in our country.
Mitt Romney, a Mormon, says this is his highest promise, so then what about his oaths and temple vows? That becomes a fair question. What is a man’s oath or vow if you neglect to keep it?
In order for this to be a fair question, you need to tell me what temple vows conflict with his oath of office, keeping in mind that the LDS church has a long and consistent record of political neutrality. Does the presidential oath of office conflict with Mitt’s committment to absolute fidelity in his marriage? to his commitment to tithe? The leadership of the LDS church has proven over many decades that they will not exert influence on Mormon politicians, so I don’t think this “fair question” is really fair once it is scrutinized.
The question isn’t one of conflict. It’s just the way Mitt worded it sounded jarring to some few LDS. He stated that the presidential oath becomes his “highest oath.”
Really? I would consider my marriage vows to be a “higher” oath than any I make in political office, no matter whether they conflict or not.
Personally, I don’t think Romney’s words require this reading. But that’s were this particular criticism is coming from.
Thanks Todd. Jonah… interesting…
Seth,
If there is no conflict between them, then the fact of one being “higher” than the other can never manifest itself in any appreciable way. As a pragmatist, it starts to look to me like a distinction without a difference if there can’t be a conflict.
The point of his comment is that if he were to become president, his oath of office would be THE overriding oath which he would have to be true to in the execution of his duties. Not his membership in the church. So, for example, even if President Hinckley were to call him up and tell him the church is against (fill in the blank), his oath to uphold the constitution would be more important than his loyalty to the church.
So, I agree with you that perhaps his wording was jarring to LDS (it wasn’t really meant for them anyway), and I agree with you that his words don’t require the reading you refer to. I think that in context it is a very reasonable and meaningful thing for him to say, and it is something that would not necessarily be obvious to non-Mormons listening to the speech even though it is what you and I would likely expect without him saying anything.