Elie Wiesel, for some inscrutable reason, believes that Mitt Romney owes America and the world an explanation of the posthumous baptism of Jews carried out by some elements of the Mormon church:
“How come that he hasn’t spoken up after all? It’s not, I’m sure he’s not involved in that. But nevertheless, the moment he heard about this, he should have spoken up, because he is running for the presidency of the United States, which means it’s too serious of an issue for him not to speak up,” he added.
Issuing a statement on an obscure Mormon religious practice—one with which the candidate has no established connection whatsoever—would be unnecessary and unhelpful. Unless Romney is running to defend and vindicate every detail of LDS faith and practice (including its possibly illegitimate excesses) there’s just no reason for him to take this up.
That would all change, though, if Romney began invoking the doctrine of posthumous baptism on the stump. This is exactly what has happened with another little-known aspect of LDS belief—the view that U.S. Constitution is actually divine. Most of this Mormon belief appears to me to be a wholly mainstream and orthodox view that God in his providence sustains all history and reality, including the founding of our nation. But this belief also appears to go much further. As LDS President Ezra Taft Benson wrote in 1988:
I reverence the Constitution of the United States as a sacred document. To me its words are akin to the revelations of God, for God has placed His stamp of approval upon it.
This, I think, is a step too far in civic religion. As Politico’s Reid Epstein reported (apparently not grasping the doctrinal significance of the statement), earlier this week in Arizona, Romney invoked this Mormon belief, saying of the Constitution and Declaration “They’re either inspired by God or written by brilliant people or perhaps a combination of both.”
To ask what he means by this is a very fair question indeed. Many of the commenters in James Rogers’ article on Romney’s statement have claimed that by “divine inspiration” Mormons mean something very different from what Christians mean. Fair enough. But what, exactly, does presidential candidate Mitt Romney mean when he uses such theologically freighted language during campaign events?
February 16th, 2012 | 11:15 am
[...] http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/02/16/does-romney-believe-the-constitution-is-di… [...]
February 16th, 2012 | 11:16 am
It does give much food for thought, especially considering the changes to the Constitution since its initial ratification. Are those changes likewise inspired? If so, what of the ones that have been repealed? I certainly believe that God’s providence has sustained this nation, and He may well have guided the framers in drafting our government’s guiding document. But I don’t think the Constitution is either divine or immutable. Romney needs to tread gently and think deeply. If he can.
February 16th, 2012 | 1:03 pm
IIRC, every good Mormon, with his or her Temple recommend, should go to the Temple and be baptized by proxy for the dead. It’s usually done for relatives (part of the reason Mormons are so heavy into genealogical work). But it’s also done for all of any faith: St. Patrick himself has been baptized a few times.
Regardless, I do not see this as an offense or lack of ecumenism. As a Catholic, I do not believe in its efficacy. If they want to baptize my whole family, they can knock themselves out.
I am more worried about the attempts to limit this, since to me it seems to be promoting a false ecumenism. Ecumenism isn’t just about proper manners at the table of all ministers. If they truly believe that, out of love and by faith, they need to baptize the dead, then so be it.
February 16th, 2012 | 1:38 pm
Let me try to explain once again Mormons actually believe about the Constitution and give you some historical context.
In October 1833, the Mormons were driven out of Jackson County Missouri by mobs. There houses were burned and their property destroyed. They were living in extreme hardship as refugees on the north side of the Missouri River. They wondered whether to retaliate against their enemies or seek legal redress.
Here is the actual text of the revelation given in December 1833 on which Mormon beliefs are based. It can be found in Section 101 of the Doctrine and Covenant, which we accept as scripture:
“And again I say unto you, those who have been scattered by their enemies, it is my will that they should continue to importune for redress, and redemption, by the hands of those who are placed as rulers and are in authority over you, according to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles . . . . And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.”
The purpose of the revelation is to assure the Mormons living at that time of the legitimacy of the government of the United States and encourage them to submit to established political authorities. I makes it clear that God has “suffered” those authorities to be established and maintained. It does not assert that the Constitution is scripture or that it is perfect, infallible, or immutable.
February 16th, 2012 | 2:16 pm
I apologize for commenting twice, but I would like to point out a possible analogy to the controversy over baptism for the dead.
In 1984, a group of Carmelite nuns established a convent adjacent to Auschwitz to pray for the souls of those who had perished there, many of whom were good catholics. The Jewish community insisted that the convent, and particularly a large cross that it had erected were offensive.
In the interests of peace, the Catholic Church ordered the convent closed and the cross removed. The nuns stayed on until 1989, then eventually left and the cross was dismantled.
Since that time, local catholics have insisted in erecting smaller crosses in the vicinity, without the approval of the Catholic Church. Many jews find these crosses offensive.
Should every Catholic throughout the world who is a candidate for public office be forced to defend this unauthorized practice?
February 16th, 2012 | 6:55 pm
Since Romney actually used the phrase “inspired by God” in his own address, I fail to see the relevance of the additional LDS material cited by Schmitz (not that he’s cited much). He hasn’t adduced anything that would make the phrase problematic above and beyond its own surface.
If Catholics and other traditional Christians should probably find some other reason to get shrieky about Mormon Christianity. That a Mormon man running for high office in a polity is really keen on that polity’s constitutive documents doesn’t strike me as cause for alarm.
February 16th, 2012 | 6:57 pm
By the way, I’ve noticed that Romney’s religion has had Very Serious political implications on First Things more or less to the same degree that Santorum has started to look like a viable candidate.
I don’t say this by way of remonstrance, just wanted to let you know that I appreciated the joke.
February 16th, 2012 | 11:02 pm
George – I think the more controversial part of the quoted “revelation” is this: “And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.”
This suggests not that God just permitted the constitution to be created, but rather that it was actually a divine project that God himself established, and through it he was redeeming the land. I hadn’t heard that this was a Mormon belief, and it does strike me as politically questionable. Particularly since at the time of this revelation, slavery was constitutionally enshrined.
How did Mormons consider the Civil War? Was the South seen as fighting against God’s will, or was there concern that the North’s alterations of the constitution from its original form was problematic?
February 17th, 2012 | 12:34 am
This is why many Mormons actually like Ron Paul more than they like Mitt Romney–more pure fealty to the Constitution.
Here’s as thorough and authoritative an explanation as one’ likely to find:
http://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/02/the-divinely-inspired-constitution?lang=eng
February 19th, 2012 | 10:25 am
Disagree entirely. All Romney said here was the Constitution is authoritative. That kind of sort of IS a ‘belief’ of Americans last time I checked. I think the onus of explanation would be on those discrediting the document. Kills me how running for president means now you have ot have every idea thought out, every dot connected. SInce when has this seemed true of any White House occupant?
February 19th, 2012 | 9:39 pm
[...] for the dead is being described in some places as an “obscure” practice (such as in this First Thoughts piece here), perhaps in an effort to make something so strange seem less [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact