Mitt Romney’s Constitutional Theology
February 15, 2012
James R. Rogers
Speaking at a campaign event on Monday, February 13 in Mesa, Arizona, Mitt Romney made a bold suggestion about the Constitution and Declaration of Independence: “They're either inspired by God or written by brilliant people or perhaps a combination of both.”
Inspired by God? It sounds like just another sop tossed to Tea-Party constitutionalism, but Romney was in fact invoking a longstanding Mormon doctrine which views the U.S. Constitution as not only great, but literally divine.
A few years back, at the behest of a couple of fresh-faced missionaries, I read through the Book of Mormon. Its focus on politics surprised me. Of course, the Old Testament is a hugely political set of books, setting down God-given laws for Israel and directing her relationship with other nations, but Latter Day Saint scriptures carry accents quite distinct from the Bible.
A repeated theme is that this new “chosen land” of America is to be “the land of liberty” (Alma 46:17). Referring to America in 2 Nephi 10:11, for example, the text states that “this land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles, and there shall be no kings upon the land.”
So, too, the identification of national “liberty” with republicanism in the book (or at least with anti-monarchicalism) explains what otherwise would be a striking oxymoron. In Alma 46:35, the LDS prophet Moroni puts to death those Amalickiahites “who would not enter into a covenant to support the cause of freedom.” The otherwise Pythonesque threat to kill someone unless he agrees to be free disappears if we understand the action is addressed to royalist rebels in a civil war. (Think of the loyalty oaths offered to defeated Confederates during and after the Civil War.) The “covenant to support the cause of freedom” is the repudiation of royalism for the nation.
A substantive commitment to republicanism is not controversial in the U.S. today. But our Constitution provides for republicanism not because it’s divine revelation, but because it’s consistent “with the genius of the American people” (Federalist No. 39) and with the American experience. LDS political thought, then, stands in a very different relationship to the American experiment than does, say, orthodox Roman Catholic, Lutheran, or Methodist thought.
The divinization of the Constitution is explicit in LDS scriptures. The Doctrine & Covenants, which form part of LDS scripture, states as divine revelation that the U.S. Constitution was established by God by men whom God raised for that purpose.
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 (D&C 101:80).
During the Revolutionary War, Whig pastors preached the need for and legitimacy of the conflict. These pastors often too easily conflated spiritual freedom in Christ with political freedom from Britain. But even by these standards, LDS scriptures ratchet up the degree of identification between God’s aspirations and the political aspirations of the American project. 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).
I am second to few people in my admiration for the U.S. Constitution. But the Electoral College? Six-year terms for Senators? The three-fifths clause? These are divine establishments it would be “evil” to violate?
In a 1987 article in The Ensign, then-LDS President Ezra Taft Benson discussed and celebrated an event recorded in LDS history—the deceased founding fathers of the United States ostensibly visiting then future-LDS President Wilford Woodruff, asking to be baptized by proxy through Woodruff. Benson relates:
President Wilford Woodruff spoke of it in these words: “Before I left St. George, the spirits of the dead gathered around me, wanting to know why we did not redeem them. Said they, ‘You have had the use of the Endowment House for a number of years, and yet nothing has ever been done for us. We laid the foundation of the government you now enjoy, and we never apostatized from it, but we remained true to it and were faithful to God.’”
Aside from the surreal picture of the spirits of deceased framers gathering in an LDS temple to plead for baptism by proxy, is it really true that adherence to the form of government of the United States is something that someone not metaphorically, but literally, apostatizes from?
The upshot to this credo is that LDS politicians serious about their beliefs have a significantly different understanding of the relationship of their religion to the U.S. government than almost any other religious politician in the U.S. I do not at all suggest that this disqualifies LDS members from holding political office. But it does raise honest and legitimate questions about unique implications of LDS scriptures for the U.S. Constitution, the American project, and the vocations of LDS politicians. What’s more, because of the highly political nature of these beliefs, these questions cannot be waved aside as unrelated to public life. Campaign reporters need to ask Romney to expand on LDS political theory and its implications when he suggests his belief in the LDS doctrine that the Constitution is divinely inspired.
Abraham Lincoln once called the United States an “almost chosen” nation. The adjective matters. There is a great difference between America being an “almost chosen” nation and its being a “chosen” nation, as LDS scriptures would seem to have it. In a wry turn of the phrase that he nonetheless meant seriously, Richard John Neuhaus would articulate his assessment that, “On balance, and considering the alternatives, the United States has been a force for good in the world.” It is difficult to see room in LDS revelation for a similarly nuanced understanding.
James R. Rogers is associate professor and department head in the Department of Political Science at Texas A&M University.
RESOURCES
Ezra Taft Benson, “Our Divine Constitution,” The Ensign, 1988.
Reid Esptein reporting from Mesa, Arizona
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
2.15.2012 | 2:22am
Gian says:
Wasn't empire a divine institution for Dante, co-equal to Papacy?
2.15.2012 | 11:19am
collegeadam says:
I know for me (a Mormon), I grew up in a home where the Constitution was seen as a divine document in as much as it led to the creation of the United States as it stands as a beacon of democracy to the rest of the world. I doubt a Mormon could ever argue or believe that everything in the Constitution was divinely inspired (slavery for instance), but it is a general belief that God led the forefathers to create the document and government in a way to provide the means where the LDS church could be founded and flourish (again think of England at the time, or most any other countries in the world at the time). Many saints reference the claim (I can't remember who from right now) that to have so many intellectual geniuses at the same place and same time in such a small population as the forefathers suggests divine intervention. The United States was the perfect place for a new church to start and have an honest chance at surviving (hence so many doing so, as the burnt-over region of New England suggests). This is also why when the Tea-Party took to prevalence many Mormons were interested in their message. To many Mormons the Constitution is the most divine aspect of the United States and we have only digressed since its creation.
That is not to say Mormons are averse to or discriminate against other countries and their importance in the international community. More than half of the members of the LDS Church are now located outside of the US, so obviously they would see things differently. But, in a careful study of the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants, as you have started and quoted above, international members, too, would see how the U.S. was and will be critical to the accomplishment of spreading Christianity and moving the Church forward. I spent two years in Japan on my church mission and Japanese Mormons did not see it as an American religion, though the average Japanese citizen often labeled us as such (usually grouping us with all Christian churches, including Catholicism). Japanese Mormons who studied it out in their head understood that the U.S. was just where it all had to happen (playing in part to the story of the Book of Mormon of the people that lived on the American continents before Columbus and were visited by an ante-mortal Christ and led by inspired prophets, the same as in the bible and the Middle East).
So it is not that the government is perfect, or the Constitution itself is perfect, but that in the founding of the Mormon Church and in where the Work will progress next is heavily contingent on the divine role of the United States in the world.
That is not to say Mormons are averse to or discriminate against other countries and their importance in the international community. More than half of the members of the LDS Church are now located outside of the US, so obviously they would see things differently. But, in a careful study of the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants, as you have started and quoted above, international members, too, would see how the U.S. was and will be critical to the accomplishment of spreading Christianity and moving the Church forward. I spent two years in Japan on my church mission and Japanese Mormons did not see it as an American religion, though the average Japanese citizen often labeled us as such (usually grouping us with all Christian churches, including Catholicism). Japanese Mormons who studied it out in their head understood that the U.S. was just where it all had to happen (playing in part to the story of the Book of Mormon of the people that lived on the American continents before Columbus and were visited by an ante-mortal Christ and led by inspired prophets, the same as in the bible and the Middle East).
So it is not that the government is perfect, or the Constitution itself is perfect, but that in the founding of the Mormon Church and in where the Work will progress next is heavily contingent on the divine role of the United States in the world.
2.15.2012 | 11:51am
Fr. Kev Kevin, SJ says:
While I enjoyed this article, it suffers from ignoring some key theological distinctions.
God is the sustaining and providential cause of all events. He makes all things to be and draws all things to himself. This includes free human activity.
So did God "inspire" the Constitution? Well, he informs and guides all human understanding--so in that respect, sure. But this article suggests something more. And what is that "more"? It's unclear. I take it the author does not mean "inspired" in the sense that it is something with no immediate natural cause.
Our talk about God's activity in the world is sloppy these days, and this article is not immune to that. Whether it's Tim Tebow or the US Constitution, our implicit understanding of God's relationship to the world seems to see God capriciously intervening from time to time. This is not a Catholic understanding.
God is the sustaining and providential cause of all events. He makes all things to be and draws all things to himself. This includes free human activity.
So did God "inspire" the Constitution? Well, he informs and guides all human understanding--so in that respect, sure. But this article suggests something more. And what is that "more"? It's unclear. I take it the author does not mean "inspired" in the sense that it is something with no immediate natural cause.
Our talk about God's activity in the world is sloppy these days, and this article is not immune to that. Whether it's Tim Tebow or the US Constitution, our implicit understanding of God's relationship to the world seems to see God capriciously intervening from time to time. This is not a Catholic understanding.
2.15.2012 | 12:29pm
Rodney Ross says:
As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I agree with most of what callegeadam says. An LDS politician would be very loyal to our Constitution which we view as inspired, but not perfect or scripture. I don't think Mitt Romney, Harry Reid or any other LDS politician has an obligation to explain the relationship between LDS theology and the Constitution. That is available from Church sources.
As the US Constitution is "inspired," not word for word revealed from God, the difference between "almost chosen" and "chosen" is rhetorical to me. I congratulate the author for doing his homework (a rarity in the media), however, I disagree with him on that point. A careful reading of the "Book of Mormon," first published in 1830, will show that the prophecies contained there about the United States have come true and this is indeed a choice land, not perfect by any means, but preeminent among nations. That being said, the LDS Church honors the sanctity of each nation as the homeland for the people who reside there. They are taught to sustain their governments and as they do so, their nations will be blessed.
There is great political divergence in the Church, unlike the stereotype would have one believe. Yes, most are conservative to moderate Republicans, but there is a strong contingent of Democrats and independents. As we are in a presidential election year, it would be my hope that the media leave the religious test out of their coverage and deal with the political issues at hand.
As the US Constitution is "inspired," not word for word revealed from God, the difference between "almost chosen" and "chosen" is rhetorical to me. I congratulate the author for doing his homework (a rarity in the media), however, I disagree with him on that point. A careful reading of the "Book of Mormon," first published in 1830, will show that the prophecies contained there about the United States have come true and this is indeed a choice land, not perfect by any means, but preeminent among nations. That being said, the LDS Church honors the sanctity of each nation as the homeland for the people who reside there. They are taught to sustain their governments and as they do so, their nations will be blessed.
There is great political divergence in the Church, unlike the stereotype would have one believe. Yes, most are conservative to moderate Republicans, but there is a strong contingent of Democrats and independents. As we are in a presidential election year, it would be my hope that the media leave the religious test out of their coverage and deal with the political issues at hand.
2.15.2012 | 2:19pm
AzRep says:
"But it does raise honest and legitimate questions about unique implications of LDS scriptures for the U.S. Constitution, the American project, and the vocations of LDS politicians...Campaign reporters need to ask Romney to expand on LDS political theory and its implications when he suggests his belief in the LDS doctrine that the Constitution is divinely inspired."
Rank anti-Mormon bigotry disguised as scholarly inquiry coming, big surprise, from Texas A&M. No one ever felt the need to ask John Kennedy about the Borgia popes or papal infallibility, Joe Lieberman about the tzitzits he wears under his shirt or Bill Clinton about the participation of Methodist and Baptist leaders in the violent oppression of blacks in the South, which many Methodist and Baptist leaders both lead and celebrated. Only Mormons (and Muslims) come in for the special standard.
The founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, explicitly stated that the Constitution as it existed in his day was not a divine document. He sought redress over the confiscation of property and murder of church members in Missouri, was told that there was no remedy against a state and stated that the Constitution was inadequate because "it fails to cover the whole ground" - he then stated this meant it failed to provide for redress from wrongful state action. That problem was remedied 24 years after his death, with the passage of the 14th Amendment. He also ran for political office as an abolitionist seeking that the Constitution be amended, 22 years before the 13th Amendment outlawed slavery. At the time he was running, the Constitution still upheld slavery as an institution and counted slaves as .6 of a person for electoral purposes. Apparently, they did not mention this in anti-Mormon materials from which you drew most of your article.
Throughout my life and I am almost 50, Catholic and Protestant politicians were free to say that God blessed us with the Constitution. Romney says at a rally that wise people wrote the Constitution and they may have been inspired by providence and this becomes a pretense for an attack on his religious beliefs emanating, as always, from the South.
Rank anti-Mormon bigotry disguised as scholarly inquiry coming, big surprise, from Texas A&M. No one ever felt the need to ask John Kennedy about the Borgia popes or papal infallibility, Joe Lieberman about the tzitzits he wears under his shirt or Bill Clinton about the participation of Methodist and Baptist leaders in the violent oppression of blacks in the South, which many Methodist and Baptist leaders both lead and celebrated. Only Mormons (and Muslims) come in for the special standard.
The founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, explicitly stated that the Constitution as it existed in his day was not a divine document. He sought redress over the confiscation of property and murder of church members in Missouri, was told that there was no remedy against a state and stated that the Constitution was inadequate because "it fails to cover the whole ground" - he then stated this meant it failed to provide for redress from wrongful state action. That problem was remedied 24 years after his death, with the passage of the 14th Amendment. He also ran for political office as an abolitionist seeking that the Constitution be amended, 22 years before the 13th Amendment outlawed slavery. At the time he was running, the Constitution still upheld slavery as an institution and counted slaves as .6 of a person for electoral purposes. Apparently, they did not mention this in anti-Mormon materials from which you drew most of your article.
Throughout my life and I am almost 50, Catholic and Protestant politicians were free to say that God blessed us with the Constitution. Romney says at a rally that wise people wrote the Constitution and they may have been inspired by providence and this becomes a pretense for an attack on his religious beliefs emanating, as always, from the South.
2.15.2012 | 2:21pm
Mike Bennion says:
Since the Constitution contains the legitimate means for its alteration, as Mormons we would maintain that any stepping outside the bounds of that process is at odds with God's will. Certainly there are items within the Constitution with which we may disagree. We simply believe that any changes should be made by the means provided in the document itself.
2.15.2012 | 2:27pm
Rick says:
This is just to raise a side issue that occurred to me while reading this essay. According to the Book of Mormon, the prophet Moroni puts to death some intransigent "Amalickiahites". This is obviously a name derived from Semitic languages, considering the unique phonetic pattern, including the "-hite" suffix--a common denominator for tribes of the ancient Near East. And, of course, the Book of Mormon presumes that these people were actually the Lost Tribes of Israel who migrated to the Americas. So, why haven't any studies of any actual Native American languages found even a shadow of a resemblence to Semitic languages?
2.15.2012 | 2:41pm
Matt says:
In my experience, most Mormons interpretations of their scriptural texts would put them closer to Mr. Neuhaus than to the view Mr. Rogers is ascribing to them.
To understand how this would be, a reading of the scriptures Mr. Rogers has cited in broader context would be instructive. They suggest it is the principles of freedom (particularly of conscience) and self-government that are divinely inspired and not necessarily the specific mechanics. They also make clear that the land will remain "chosen" only so long as its people choose to be so. (This is elaborated on more fully in other passages of Mormon scriptural texts.)
It is, however true, in my experience, that Mormon loyalty to the Constitution is informed by the belief that its principles were inspired by God, and are intended for the benefit of all humanity.
To understand how this would be, a reading of the scriptures Mr. Rogers has cited in broader context would be instructive. They suggest it is the principles of freedom (particularly of conscience) and self-government that are divinely inspired and not necessarily the specific mechanics. They also make clear that the land will remain "chosen" only so long as its people choose to be so. (This is elaborated on more fully in other passages of Mormon scriptural texts.)
It is, however true, in my experience, that Mormon loyalty to the Constitution is informed by the belief that its principles were inspired by God, and are intended for the benefit of all humanity.
2.15.2012 | 3:10pm
A.M. says:
Good to read this article, since it is important to know what are the core values and beleif systems that move persons and in turn , make them want to move others into ; this esp. important , in a country that does profess trust in God .
As it is , many already possibly wondering if the spiritual influences are playing a great (may be not even fully willed ! ) effect in the present administration , that seems set against The Catholic Church and Christain values of dignity of the person .
Thus, any antagonism carried against the basic belief systems of the majority in the country , an attitude that they are 'poor' that one need not care about, other than , to advance one's own agenda of establishing kingdoms for the next world , even if that might bring sacrilege, to the belief systems held
by those same very persons - one cannot just ignore such !
We are to love God , with all our heart , mind and strenght , a God, who promised through His only Begotten Son , that gates of hell will not prevail against His Church ; to put authority in one , who want the rest to believe that they have been massivley fooled , instead of looking at the extent of same , in one's own origins - what are we telling The
Lord ..what are we telling those who subscribe to these systems, whom we owe to help to bring to the truth , if we say we cast our votes in favor , even if for any promised financial benefits , which , like on the Obama promise of health care , could rightily become the very source of problems !
http://www.irr.org/mit/neuhaus.html - here is the article from Fr.Neuhaus , to help to clarify the issues .
The overcontrol mentality in Mormonism too might want to dictate , to just forget about all diffrences , for now , until it becomes expediant , to use any measures , to get persons , into that system !
The article only higlights another venue of such attitudes !
May the Lord have mercy on us , on those who carry the leaven of diselif , that God is not that good, to take on our nature, unless he is only a man , like us, to begin with, that we are here to plan our own kingdoms of endless progeny , which woud make us Gods too !
May The Lord have mercy on all who have gone ahead of us and bring us all, to The Kingdom of the Triune God , for endless joy of loving and adoring Him , in the company of all His children , saints and angels !
As it is , many already possibly wondering if the spiritual influences are playing a great (may be not even fully willed ! ) effect in the present administration , that seems set against The Catholic Church and Christain values of dignity of the person .
Thus, any antagonism carried against the basic belief systems of the majority in the country , an attitude that they are 'poor' that one need not care about, other than , to advance one's own agenda of establishing kingdoms for the next world , even if that might bring sacrilege, to the belief systems held
by those same very persons - one cannot just ignore such !
We are to love God , with all our heart , mind and strenght , a God, who promised through His only Begotten Son , that gates of hell will not prevail against His Church ; to put authority in one , who want the rest to believe that they have been massivley fooled , instead of looking at the extent of same , in one's own origins - what are we telling The
Lord ..what are we telling those who subscribe to these systems, whom we owe to help to bring to the truth , if we say we cast our votes in favor , even if for any promised financial benefits , which , like on the Obama promise of health care , could rightily become the very source of problems !
http://www.irr.org/mit/neuhaus.html - here is the article from Fr.Neuhaus , to help to clarify the issues .
The overcontrol mentality in Mormonism too might want to dictate , to just forget about all diffrences , for now , until it becomes expediant , to use any measures , to get persons , into that system !
The article only higlights another venue of such attitudes !
May the Lord have mercy on us , on those who carry the leaven of diselif , that God is not that good, to take on our nature, unless he is only a man , like us, to begin with, that we are here to plan our own kingdoms of endless progeny , which woud make us Gods too !
May The Lord have mercy on all who have gone ahead of us and bring us all, to The Kingdom of the Triune God , for endless joy of loving and adoring Him , in the company of all His children , saints and angels !
2.15.2012 | 3:12pm
Scott Miller says:
When Mormons refer to something as "Divinely Inspired," it does not have the same impact as when Christians talk about the Divine inspiration of scripture. For Mormons, divine inspiration is a temporal status that is subject to being changed under the ongoing divine inspiration of their present prophet. Therefore Mormons are not in the least disturbed to find that their present doctrines are at odds with the Bible, or even the Mormon scriptures, since God, through his prophets, is free to change anything he may have said in the past. Therefore the Constitution being divinely inspired poses no problems for them. The Constitution of 1859 was divinely inspired for 1859, and the subsequent amendments were divinely inspired for our time. If it's changed again, it will be fine as ongoing inspiration. Clear thinking Christians can immediately spot the danger that this existential revelation poses, but so far, for most LDS, it's not an issue of concern.
2.15.2012 | 3:55pm
Scott Wallace says:
Inspired not not perfect. God helped in the design but politics influenced it too. I would have no problem with changing the electoral collage or adding new amendments to it. The main goal of it is to insure freedom of religion.
2.15.2012 | 4:36pm
harry says:
Hello, Fr. Kev Kevin, SJ,
"Whether it's Tim Tebow or the US Constitution, our implicit understanding of God's relationship to the world seems to see God capriciously intervening from time to time. This is not a Catholic understanding."
The Catholic understanding is that God's relationship to the world does indeed include His "intervening from time to time." The Scriptures contain a record of such interventions.
If what you are saying is that what many consider to be divine interventions sometimes are not, and that such interventions by God would be capricious, then I wholeheartedly agree. You aren't saying that God no longer intervenes in human history, or that it would be capricious for Him to do so, right?
Thanks,
harry
"Whether it's Tim Tebow or the US Constitution, our implicit understanding of God's relationship to the world seems to see God capriciously intervening from time to time. This is not a Catholic understanding."
The Catholic understanding is that God's relationship to the world does indeed include His "intervening from time to time." The Scriptures contain a record of such interventions.
If what you are saying is that what many consider to be divine interventions sometimes are not, and that such interventions by God would be capricious, then I wholeheartedly agree. You aren't saying that God no longer intervenes in human history, or that it would be capricious for Him to do so, right?
Thanks,
harry
2.15.2012 | 5:43pm
mrmandias says:
Mr. Rogers warns us that the LDS view is fraught with political implications, but is unable to identify any.
2.15.2012 | 6:03pm
Fred says:
This essay reads like something a freshman would write--a quick pastiche of a few articles and quotes, followed by a grandiose conclusion with no subtlety whatsoever. A little serious research would show that Mormons have in fact have a fairly nuanced view of the Constitution. Yes, it's inspired, but that doesn't mean we're having backyard slave auctions. There have been a number of reasonable amendments over the years that I doubt any of us would object to.
We also believe the organization of our church is divinely inspired, but I've never heard any Mormon claim it was perfect or not amenable to reasonable change. Far less do we believe the Constitution should never change.
I've subscribed to First Things since the first issue came out. This article is really not up to standard.
We also believe the organization of our church is divinely inspired, but I've never heard any Mormon claim it was perfect or not amenable to reasonable change. Far less do we believe the Constitution should never change.
I've subscribed to First Things since the first issue came out. This article is really not up to standard.
2.15.2012 | 6:10pm
Raymond Takashi Swenson says:
I am a Mormon, an attorney, and a 20 year veteran of the Air Force JAG Corps.
Any review of Mormon beliefs about the US Constitution should also include the role of the Declaration of Independence. Is it really that strange to believe God influenced the construction of a government (not just a piece of paper) for America, when the signers of the Declaration of Independence declared that their fundamental authority to create a new nation was granted by their Creator, who endowed them with unalienable rights? That understanding is the context of the assertion in the Preamble to the Constitution, that it was created by a sovereign "people", a people who understood their sovereignty to be an endowment from Divine Providence.
Section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants is a declaration of belief from the early Mormons that government has a duty to safeguard the religious freedoms of its citizens, and the citizens have a duty to uphold the government in reciprocity for the protection of their rights. It mirrors the theory of the Declaration of Independence.
Mormons do not quote the Constitution as scripture, but believe that it was crafted, warts and compromises and all, by a body of people who had been "raised up" by God with necessary skills for creating a nation that could be both effective and free. The concept is the same as when God told Moses he "raised up" certain men among the Israelites to be craftsmen who would be needed to prepare the Tabernacle, the Ark of the Covenant, and other material objects needed in the worship of Jehovah.
A Mormon who sincerely believes that God created our nation and influenced the structure of our government and the mechanisms it includes to protect our freedoms, is not going to be in favor of the baloney about a "living constitution" that has been used by many Federal judges to turn their lifetime tenure into a license to steal power from the Constitution as written and give it to themselves. A Mormon who believes in the inspiration of the Constitution will not assume power to the White House that belongs to the Congress (as Obama has done with his non-recenss "recess appointments"). A Mormon who believes that God is concerned with the structure of our government will respect the authority of the states to govern themselves, and not arbitrarily try to take power from the states and give it to the Federal government.
Most of all, a Mormon who believes God influenced the creation of our government will use intelligence and his best judgment about what the Constitution places as limits on his authority, and will not assume that whatever he thinks is authomatically something that God endorses. He will recognize that the Constitution is an objective standard against which his actions must be measured. He will believe that his power is limited.
Wouldn't that be a refreshing change?
Any review of Mormon beliefs about the US Constitution should also include the role of the Declaration of Independence. Is it really that strange to believe God influenced the construction of a government (not just a piece of paper) for America, when the signers of the Declaration of Independence declared that their fundamental authority to create a new nation was granted by their Creator, who endowed them with unalienable rights? That understanding is the context of the assertion in the Preamble to the Constitution, that it was created by a sovereign "people", a people who understood their sovereignty to be an endowment from Divine Providence.
Section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants is a declaration of belief from the early Mormons that government has a duty to safeguard the religious freedoms of its citizens, and the citizens have a duty to uphold the government in reciprocity for the protection of their rights. It mirrors the theory of the Declaration of Independence.
Mormons do not quote the Constitution as scripture, but believe that it was crafted, warts and compromises and all, by a body of people who had been "raised up" by God with necessary skills for creating a nation that could be both effective and free. The concept is the same as when God told Moses he "raised up" certain men among the Israelites to be craftsmen who would be needed to prepare the Tabernacle, the Ark of the Covenant, and other material objects needed in the worship of Jehovah.
A Mormon who sincerely believes that God created our nation and influenced the structure of our government and the mechanisms it includes to protect our freedoms, is not going to be in favor of the baloney about a "living constitution" that has been used by many Federal judges to turn their lifetime tenure into a license to steal power from the Constitution as written and give it to themselves. A Mormon who believes in the inspiration of the Constitution will not assume power to the White House that belongs to the Congress (as Obama has done with his non-recenss "recess appointments"). A Mormon who believes that God is concerned with the structure of our government will respect the authority of the states to govern themselves, and not arbitrarily try to take power from the states and give it to the Federal government.
Most of all, a Mormon who believes God influenced the creation of our government will use intelligence and his best judgment about what the Constitution places as limits on his authority, and will not assume that whatever he thinks is authomatically something that God endorses. He will recognize that the Constitution is an objective standard against which his actions must be measured. He will believe that his power is limited.
Wouldn't that be a refreshing change?
2.15.2012 | 8:13pm
Captain Dg says:
Even if accepting the idea that the Constitution was divinely inspired, it does not preclude a less divine approach to it. In other words, the source doesn't matter but fidelity to principles and form does. The document contains within it the mechanism for changing it. The LDS's unique take on its inspiration does nothing to change its function. Fear not!
2.15.2012 | 8:52pm
Bay says:
"No one ever felt the need to ask John Kennedy about the Borgia popes or papal infallibility"
You are kidding, right?
You are kidding, right?
2.15.2012 | 8:56pm
Publius says:
@ AzRep,
The author didn't say that Mormon's believe the Constitution is infallible but rather that it is divinely inspired. Some may argue that infallibility follows from divinely inspired (most Evangelicals, for instance). But the author doesn't say or imply that. He says only that Mormons believe the Constitution is divinely inspired (in a way seeming to go beyond ordinary providence) and cites some quotations from Mormon sacred documents to back up his point. If you want to show the author wrong, you've got to get his argument right and then show that he's misunderstood the Mormon sacred texts that he's quoted. I found the article generally compelling. But if the author's wrong, you haven't helped anyone see why.
Also, whether or not the author is correct in his claims, there does seem to be something particularly intense in the Romney brand of American exceptionalism--something most Christians should be wary of (even if certain Christians have sometimes sounded like that old Puritan line--America as a city on a hill and all). Romney does seem to go beyond the framers notion that this Constitution is an invention of prudence that is on balance good.
For all that, there are plenty of more important reasons not to vote for Romney than his quixotic variant of American exceptionalism.
The author didn't say that Mormon's believe the Constitution is infallible but rather that it is divinely inspired. Some may argue that infallibility follows from divinely inspired (most Evangelicals, for instance). But the author doesn't say or imply that. He says only that Mormons believe the Constitution is divinely inspired (in a way seeming to go beyond ordinary providence) and cites some quotations from Mormon sacred documents to back up his point. If you want to show the author wrong, you've got to get his argument right and then show that he's misunderstood the Mormon sacred texts that he's quoted. I found the article generally compelling. But if the author's wrong, you haven't helped anyone see why.
Also, whether or not the author is correct in his claims, there does seem to be something particularly intense in the Romney brand of American exceptionalism--something most Christians should be wary of (even if certain Christians have sometimes sounded like that old Puritan line--America as a city on a hill and all). Romney does seem to go beyond the framers notion that this Constitution is an invention of prudence that is on balance good.
For all that, there are plenty of more important reasons not to vote for Romney than his quixotic variant of American exceptionalism.
2.15.2012 | 10:13pm
JDC says:
This article seems to suffer from projecting the orthodox christian understanding of divinely inspired texts onto Mormonism. Clearly there needs to be a few distinctions of degree made as far as how involved God was in the crafting of the constitution from a Mormon perspective. Of course, it sounds silly to place the constitution in the same class as sacred scripture and, as much as Mormonism is a replay of ancient christian heresies and therefore ultimately inadequate, I wouldn't accuse them of equating the constitution with the bible.
2.16.2012 | 1:35am
Jared says:
This is for the most part a very good article about Mormons relation to the origin of this nation. There is a very profound respect for this country and this land.
Truly Mormons believe that "God blessed America" and that "God blesses America".
This respect is nuanced, though, as there are many factions and efforts (some good and some bad) that co-exist in this country. Also, there is an understanding that an imperfect middle ground is inevitable. Mormon's do not want Utopia - that is reserved only for when Christ comes again as Christ prophesied (in the new testament) that he would.
Mormons take responsibility to make this country and this world as good as each person has power to do (but perfect is not possible) until Christ comes.
I personally feel a responsiblity to help others, at least until Christ comes. In the mean time I will love the government of the US, as it was set up by good men, inspired of God, but men who were never perfect.
Truly Mormons believe that "God blessed America" and that "God blesses America".
This respect is nuanced, though, as there are many factions and efforts (some good and some bad) that co-exist in this country. Also, there is an understanding that an imperfect middle ground is inevitable. Mormon's do not want Utopia - that is reserved only for when Christ comes again as Christ prophesied (in the new testament) that he would.
Mormons take responsibility to make this country and this world as good as each person has power to do (but perfect is not possible) until Christ comes.
I personally feel a responsiblity to help others, at least until Christ comes. In the mean time I will love the government of the US, as it was set up by good men, inspired of God, but men who were never perfect.
2.16.2012 | 7:17am
Aaron says:
Any discussion of the Constitution would be incomplete without referencing some of the sources of inspiration for this document which, in addition to some of the great thinkers of the enlightenment, included the Masons and the Iroquoi indians. The Constitution did not fall fully formed into the founders' laps.
2.16.2012 | 3:05pm
J. Max Wilson says:
While some people, like Rogers, do conflate the political landscape described in the Book of Mormon with American Republicanism, that reading is increasingly considered very superficial, though it is an easy mistake to make.
A careful reading shows that, while it does emphasize the importance of the "voice of the people," the government described in the Book of Mormon bears little resemblance to 19th century American Constitutionalism. It is is far more like a system of Judges based on biblical pre-Monarchy Israel between the times of Joshua and Saul, formalized and developing semi-hereditary dynasties of Judges.
Roger's recognizes this when he says "(or at least with anti-monarchicalism)".
And it is also increasingly recognized by most Mormons that the 'Land of Promise' described in the Book of Mormon is all of North and South America, not just the United States. Joseph Smith also indicated as much.
So Roger's citation of the Book of Mormon at the introduction of this essay doesn't really support his thesis at all.
A careful reading shows that, while it does emphasize the importance of the "voice of the people," the government described in the Book of Mormon bears little resemblance to 19th century American Constitutionalism. It is is far more like a system of Judges based on biblical pre-Monarchy Israel between the times of Joshua and Saul, formalized and developing semi-hereditary dynasties of Judges.
Roger's recognizes this when he says "(or at least with anti-monarchicalism)".
And it is also increasingly recognized by most Mormons that the 'Land of Promise' described in the Book of Mormon is all of North and South America, not just the United States. Joseph Smith also indicated as much.
So Roger's citation of the Book of Mormon at the introduction of this essay doesn't really support his thesis at all.
2.16.2012 | 4:08pm
Marcus Smith says:
inspire = "to breathe into"; was the Constitution a "heavenly" breath of fresh air, in the historical context of contemporaneous geopolitics? We Mormons think so, and we're unified in that thought because of the scriptural passages mentioned in the article.
2.17.2012 | 8:20am
Peg says:
In a real sense, we do not have to wonder how Mitt Romney's faith would affect his leadership---he has already held executive reins in Massachusetts. Most criticism seems to be that he was too liberal or secular, and not that his faith led him to bizarre actions.
I really appreciate the input of Mormons in this discussion. Too often, outsiders can have an incorrect understanding of beliefs and practices---I have seen hatchet jobs done on such things as confession, papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, etc. and am consequently following your Mormon defense with sympathy. Your explanation of the your attitude towards the Constitution seems reasonable to me. so far, I haven't seen anything to indicate that a Mormon has no place in the White House in 2012.
I have had many Mormon co-workers and friends and have found much to respect. I attribute their virtues to their faith---their integrity, honesty, consideration to others, their support of the family. I am also just old enough to remember when Kennedy was president, and remember the suspicion surrounding his religion. Please God, we are not going to have another go-round with that.
I really appreciate the input of Mormons in this discussion. Too often, outsiders can have an incorrect understanding of beliefs and practices---I have seen hatchet jobs done on such things as confession, papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, etc. and am consequently following your Mormon defense with sympathy. Your explanation of the your attitude towards the Constitution seems reasonable to me. so far, I haven't seen anything to indicate that a Mormon has no place in the White House in 2012.
I have had many Mormon co-workers and friends and have found much to respect. I attribute their virtues to their faith---their integrity, honesty, consideration to others, their support of the family. I am also just old enough to remember when Kennedy was president, and remember the suspicion surrounding his religion. Please God, we are not going to have another go-round with that.
5.25.2012 | 1:52pm
Brian Vandenberg says:
I think you're looking at this from the wrong angle. You make some great points, and I found your write-up to be interesting. However, I think you're taking things a little /too/ literally on at least one point.
As you note in D&C 98:7, it says anything "more or less" is evil. As I read it, this refers more to the "spirit" of the document (its theme, or intent) than it does the literal content. It is a document intended to spell out boundaries for our government, and safeguards individual liberties and leaves wiggle room for future government leaders to further enhance the law (as I read it, this wouldn't violate 98:7 unless the enhancements violated the "spirit" of the constitution).
Your interpretation (violating the 3/5ths clause, 6 year terms, etc) is too literal, as I see it.
-Brian
As you note in D&C 98:7, it says anything "more or less" is evil. As I read it, this refers more to the "spirit" of the document (its theme, or intent) than it does the literal content. It is a document intended to spell out boundaries for our government, and safeguards individual liberties and leaves wiggle room for future government leaders to further enhance the law (as I read it, this wouldn't violate 98:7 unless the enhancements violated the "spirit" of the constitution).
Your interpretation (violating the 3/5ths clause, 6 year terms, etc) is too literal, as I see it.
-Brian
5.25.2012 | 1:59pm
Brian Vandenberg says:
Peg,
I disagree with your sentiment:
"In a real sense, we do not have to wonder how Mitt Romney's faith would affect his leadership---he has already held executive reins in Massachusetts."
Presidential/federal positions are drastically different from that of running a state. The framers of the constitution set in place a document intended to severely limit the reach of the federal government giving more power to the states, in order to prevent the kinds of abuses we are suffering from today at the hands of both reigning political parties.
With this in mind ... states should have the option, if their people desire it, to do anything they want that doesn't violate people's civil liberties (eg, "Romneycare"). As a conservative minded individual, I have no qualms with Massachusetts doing that. That's fine, and I wouldn't hesitate to put someone skilled at state leadership in charge of running a state.
However, running our federal government as our founding fathers intended it to operate, is drastically different from running a state ... and I don't believe Romney or Obama see it that way.
Romney may be good at running a state, but I don't believe for a minute that it qualifies him for running the federal government.
I disagree with your sentiment:
"In a real sense, we do not have to wonder how Mitt Romney's faith would affect his leadership---he has already held executive reins in Massachusetts."
Presidential/federal positions are drastically different from that of running a state. The framers of the constitution set in place a document intended to severely limit the reach of the federal government giving more power to the states, in order to prevent the kinds of abuses we are suffering from today at the hands of both reigning political parties.
With this in mind ... states should have the option, if their people desire it, to do anything they want that doesn't violate people's civil liberties (eg, "Romneycare"). As a conservative minded individual, I have no qualms with Massachusetts doing that. That's fine, and I wouldn't hesitate to put someone skilled at state leadership in charge of running a state.
However, running our federal government as our founding fathers intended it to operate, is drastically different from running a state ... and I don't believe Romney or Obama see it that way.
Romney may be good at running a state, but I don't believe for a minute that it qualifies him for running the federal government.
