Romney as Missionary

Yes, presidential candidate Mitt Romney was one of those young men in a suit who knock on your door to try to get you to become a Mormon. This story from the Washington Post tells about his time as a missionary, and he was a very good one. He served in Paris, France. After barely surviving a car crash in which the leader of the mission was killed, young elder Romney took over. Before, hardly any Parisians listened to the Mormons, but once he took the helm, the mission won over 200 converts.

David Broder, in another sympathetic piece, recalls how Mitt’s father, who also ran for president, handled the Mormon issue:

We quoted George Romney’s 1966 Lincoln Day speech in Boston: “I believe that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are divinely inspired documents, written by men especially raised up by their Creator for that purpose. I believe that God has made and presented to us a nation for a purpose — to bring freedom to all the people of the world.”

We commented that this is “purest Mormon teaching. . . . Thus a paradox in Romney turns out to be a paradox in Mormonism itself. These people, whose beliefs and practices are so idiosyncratic, and who actually took arms against the United States government, are also as hyper-American as a rodeo or county fair.”

Right. But this is exactly what worries me about a Mormon President. To say that America’s founding documents are on a par with the Bible goes way too far. Mormonism exalts civil religion into, well, a regular religion.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://www.lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com/ Erich Heidenreich, DDS

    “I believe that God has made and presented to us a nation for a purpose — to bring freedom to all the people of the world.”

    As far as his qualifications for public office, that is a far more disturbing statement to me than anything Mitt Romney has said. I wonder if Mitt agrees with this statement of his father’s. The United States should not consider itself the savior of the world. Nevertheless, this is unfortunately a typically American sentiment. I believe our current President would agree with George Romney on this. To see how we got there, read:

    The War for Righteousness: Progressive Christianity, the Great War, and the Rise of the Messianic Nation

    by Richard M. Gamble

  • http://www.lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com/ Erich Heidenreich, DDS

    “I believe that God has made and presented to us a nation for a purpose — to bring freedom to all the people of the world.”

    As far as his qualifications for public office, that is a far more disturbing statement to me than anything Mitt Romney has said. I wonder if Mitt agrees with this statement of his father’s. The United States should not consider itself the savior of the world. Nevertheless, this is unfortunately a typically American sentiment. I believe our current President would agree with George Romney on this. To see how we got there, read:

    The War for Righteousness: Progressive Christianity, the Great War, and the Rise of the Messianic Nation

    by Richard M. Gamble

  • Bror Erickson

    It’s hard to find a more patriotic state than Utah. That’s to its credit. But then often times it is a blind and naive patriotism. And when the constitution is an inspired document what isn’t? I suppose the constitution of France. Your fears are shared Veith.

  • Bror Erickson

    It’s hard to find a more patriotic state than Utah. That’s to its credit. But then often times it is a blind and naive patriotism. And when the constitution is an inspired document what isn’t? I suppose the constitution of France. Your fears are shared Veith.

  • Joe

    The hyper-patriotism of Mormons (I think) is a result of their past ostracism. It is like saying look at me I am an American just like you. This is a religion that even went so far as to change its doctrine so Utah could become a state. That speaks of a deep need to be accepted. Again, this is all my opinion.

  • Joe

    The hyper-patriotism of Mormons (I think) is a result of their past ostracism. It is like saying look at me I am an American just like you. This is a religion that even went so far as to change its doctrine so Utah could become a state. That speaks of a deep need to be accepted. Again, this is all my opinion.

  • http://www.lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com/ Erich Heidenreich, DDS

    A friend of mine (whose book I plugged above) just wrote to me: “Brigham Young’s claims for an American Zion sounded like the Puritans on LSD.”

    Heh!

    Actually, I think all of Mormonism sounds like a bad LSD trip. Joseph Smith must have dug up and ate some weird mushrooms before he dreamed up the Book of Mormon.

  • http://www.lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com/ Erich Heidenreich, DDS

    A friend of mine (whose book I plugged above) just wrote to me: “Brigham Young’s claims for an American Zion sounded like the Puritans on LSD.”

    Heh!

    Actually, I think all of Mormonism sounds like a bad LSD trip. Joseph Smith must have dug up and ate some weird mushrooms before he dreamed up the Book of Mormon.

  • http://www.lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com/ Erich Heidenreich, DDS

    Rev. Erickson of Utah,

    I don’t wish to argue the “inspiration” point too much, but consider this argument that another wise friend (chair of the history dept. at Hillsdale College) just sent me:

    http://www.calvin-coolidge.org/html/the_inspiration_of_the_declara.html

    As my friend says: “It seems to me that all truth is God’s and that our ability to find that truth is itself a gift. To the degree that the declaration gives voice to enduring truth, at some level God gets the credit.”

    Remember, “inspired” is not the same thing as “infallible.” Do you believe Scripture is the only inspired writing in the world? I believe the Lutheran Confessions were inspired by God.

  • http://www.lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com/ Erich Heidenreich, DDS

    Rev. Erickson of Utah,

    I don’t wish to argue the “inspiration” point too much, but consider this argument that another wise friend (chair of the history dept. at Hillsdale College) just sent me:

    http://www.calvin-coolidge.org/html/the_inspiration_of_the_declara.html

    As my friend says: “It seems to me that all truth is God’s and that our ability to find that truth is itself a gift. To the degree that the declaration gives voice to enduring truth, at some level God gets the credit.”

    Remember, “inspired” is not the same thing as “infallible.” Do you believe Scripture is the only inspired writing in the world? I believe the Lutheran Confessions were inspired by God.

  • fwsonnek

    DISCONNECT!

    mormons mean something entirely different than we do by inspired by God. the only revelation that matters NOW is what the current prophet says in the latest issue of the mormon churches magazine called the Ensign. And he is free to fully contradict any “inspired” writing that came before what he speaks today.

    we must be careful to not see them through Lutheran lenses in the wrong way.

  • fwsonnek

    DISCONNECT!

    mormons mean something entirely different than we do by inspired by God. the only revelation that matters NOW is what the current prophet says in the latest issue of the mormon churches magazine called the Ensign. And he is free to fully contradict any “inspired” writing that came before what he speaks today.

    we must be careful to not see them through Lutheran lenses in the wrong way.

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Erich (@5), so you believe something can be God-breathed (that is, “inspired”), and yet not infallible? Or are you merely saying that such political documents are true to the degree that they are true (which is accurate, if tautological)?

    Regardless, it’s rather difficult to make a case for the Declaration of Independence as being either inspired or completely true, given how it flies in the face of Romans 13. Compare “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established” with “When … it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume … the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them …” and “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

  • http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

    Erich (@5), so you believe something can be God-breathed (that is, “inspired”), and yet not infallible? Or are you merely saying that such political documents are true to the degree that they are true (which is accurate, if tautological)?

    Regardless, it’s rather difficult to make a case for the Declaration of Independence as being either inspired or completely true, given how it flies in the face of Romans 13. Compare “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established” with “When … it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume … the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them …” and “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

  • http://www.lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com/ Erich Heidenreich, DDS

    The Mormon belief in new revelation abrogating previous revelation does not negate the level of “inspiration” we’re talking about here with regard to the founding documents of the U.S. In fact, I would say that as Lutherans we’d have to concede the idea of abrogation in regard to these documents. They are not infallible, and future amendments made the Constitution better!

  • http://www.lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com/ Erich Heidenreich, DDS

    The Mormon belief in new revelation abrogating previous revelation does not negate the level of “inspiration” we’re talking about here with regard to the founding documents of the U.S. In fact, I would say that as Lutherans we’d have to concede the idea of abrogation in regard to these documents. They are not infallible, and future amendments made the Constitution better!

  • http://www.lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com/ Erich Heidenreich, DDS

    The word “inspired” does not mean “infallible” or “without error.” There are different levels of “inspiration,” and I certainly do not believe anything is on the same level of inspiration we mean when speaking of Scripture (plenary verbal inspiration).

    Yet there are things in the founding documents which are undeniably true. And since all truth is God’s, the writing of these truths is in a sense “inspired” – even if only by the law written on our hearts. But who wrote that? There are also aspects of these documents which I believe are in error with regard to the truth. They can be considered inspired only with respect to what they contain which is true.

    I do not share the belief of some that the U.S. was founded as a “Christian” nation, if by that they mean “Christian” in it’s full theological sense. However, if you take “Christianity” to mean what historians mean by it in an historical sense, the U.S. was, indeed, founded as a Christian nation. “Christianity” is stamped all over the founding of this nation. Take away the influence of Christianity in its founding, and this great nation of ours would be something completely different.

  • http://www.lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com/ Erich Heidenreich, DDS

    The word “inspired” does not mean “infallible” or “without error.” There are different levels of “inspiration,” and I certainly do not believe anything is on the same level of inspiration we mean when speaking of Scripture (plenary verbal inspiration).

    Yet there are things in the founding documents which are undeniably true. And since all truth is God’s, the writing of these truths is in a sense “inspired” – even if only by the law written on our hearts. But who wrote that? There are also aspects of these documents which I believe are in error with regard to the truth. They can be considered inspired only with respect to what they contain which is true.

    I do not share the belief of some that the U.S. was founded as a “Christian” nation, if by that they mean “Christian” in it’s full theological sense. However, if you take “Christianity” to mean what historians mean by it in an historical sense, the U.S. was, indeed, founded as a Christian nation. “Christianity” is stamped all over the founding of this nation. Take away the influence of Christianity in its founding, and this great nation of ours would be something completely different.

  • Bror Erickson

    Erich,
    inspired can have very different meanins. We could take the Schliermachian approach that says the bible is inspired in the same way a beautiful peice of art is inspired.
    But when we talk about Scripture being inspired, we mean God himself wrote it, though outside the ten commandments he did so through men. To say something is inspired by God means that. I do not put the confessions of the Lutheran Church or any other human document on the same level as the Bible by saying they were inspired by God. I might say I had inspiration to write even this piece, but that would be inspired from my “spirit.” Which is a spirit of contentiousness most of the time. To put any other document at the same level as the Bible by saying it was inspired by God is either to bring a human fallible document to the same par as the Bible, and is blasphemous, or it is to lower your view of the Bible which is blasphemous.
    The Constitution of the united states is a great piece of work, but hardly Infallible, and hardly inspired by God. At least it is no more inspired by God than the constitution of the former Soviet Union, as we learn all goverments are from God. I never read the constitution of the former Soviet Union. My guess though I like our constitution better.
    So I will take issue with a statement like that.

  • Bror Erickson

    Erich,
    inspired can have very different meanins. We could take the Schliermachian approach that says the bible is inspired in the same way a beautiful peice of art is inspired.
    But when we talk about Scripture being inspired, we mean God himself wrote it, though outside the ten commandments he did so through men. To say something is inspired by God means that. I do not put the confessions of the Lutheran Church or any other human document on the same level as the Bible by saying they were inspired by God. I might say I had inspiration to write even this piece, but that would be inspired from my “spirit.” Which is a spirit of contentiousness most of the time. To put any other document at the same level as the Bible by saying it was inspired by God is either to bring a human fallible document to the same par as the Bible, and is blasphemous, or it is to lower your view of the Bible which is blasphemous.
    The Constitution of the united states is a great piece of work, but hardly Infallible, and hardly inspired by God. At least it is no more inspired by God than the constitution of the former Soviet Union, as we learn all goverments are from God. I never read the constitution of the former Soviet Union. My guess though I like our constitution better.
    So I will take issue with a statement like that.

  • http://www.lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com/ Erich Heidenreich, DDS

    I think you’ve misunderstood me, Pr. Erickson. We seem to be saying the same thing as far as I can tell. Try re-reading what I wrote.

  • http://www.lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com/ Erich Heidenreich, DDS

    I think you’ve misunderstood me, Pr. Erickson. We seem to be saying the same thing as far as I can tell. Try re-reading what I wrote.

  • Bror Erickson

    But Erich,
    We are not as far as I can tell.
    For as I may speak of something like the constitution as being inspired. I may not speak of it as being divinely inspired (that is inspired by God). That is to put it on the same level as the Bible. I will not do that. For I do believe as tODD points out to speak of something as divinely inspired and at the same time fallible is wrong. And I believe as much as I like the constitution, that it is fallible.
    If we are going to go about and talk about every constitution in the world as being divinely inspired because afterall God ordains governments, well then we have cheapened the term it means nothing. I don’t think God has given the United States anymore purpose or responsibility in this world then he has given anyother country or government.

  • Bror Erickson

    But Erich,
    We are not as far as I can tell.
    For as I may speak of something like the constitution as being inspired. I may not speak of it as being divinely inspired (that is inspired by God). That is to put it on the same level as the Bible. I will not do that. For I do believe as tODD points out to speak of something as divinely inspired and at the same time fallible is wrong. And I believe as much as I like the constitution, that it is fallible.
    If we are going to go about and talk about every constitution in the world as being divinely inspired because afterall God ordains governments, well then we have cheapened the term it means nothing. I don’t think God has given the United States anymore purpose or responsibility in this world then he has given anyother country or government.

  • Another Kerner

    Ah, the thorny Romans 13 discussion again……

    Government is ordained by God to be “God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practises evil”…….
    “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil……”,
    Government is ordained to administer just laws.

    And what to make of it, when the people in a government become evil and the government itself becomes unjust and an engine of evil used to persecute the citizens, as in the former Soviet Union?

    Are we not instructed in Scripture to “Resist evil” wherever it is found?

    First we must agree that the rights of man originate with God.
    A Government does not bestow rights on its citizens.
    The Bill of Rights, Ammendments 1-10, is a list of “thou shalt nots” to the government.

    If a governement forbids or impedes what God requires, then we are to resist and “obey God, not man”.

    Some years back (1978) Pastor Stephen Reynolds wrote:
    “Sometime Christians, by false interpretation of Romans 13, obey their religious leaders who tell them to be in subjection. This policy promises death and destruction for all freedom loving people.”

    To suggest that Stalin or Hitler are God’s ministers in the same way as Romans 13:4 asserts, may cause confusion.

    To the extent that Mitt, or any other candidate, vows to “protect and defend the constitution of the United States”, we are always hopeful that he (they) are truly committed to its’ precepts.

    Luther says we must do nothing to help the devil build his kingdom nor help in the destruction of Christ’s Word.

    See Luther’s “Warning to His Dear German People” (1531), The Christian in Society, Vol.4, Luther’s Works.

    Defensive, sometimes armed, action in protection of the Gospel, it seems, has the approval of Luther.

    It is never good to get the two kingdoms confused.

  • Another Kerner

    Ah, the thorny Romans 13 discussion again……

    Government is ordained by God to be “God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practises evil”…….
    “For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil……”,
    Government is ordained to administer just laws.

    And what to make of it, when the people in a government become evil and the government itself becomes unjust and an engine of evil used to persecute the citizens, as in the former Soviet Union?

    Are we not instructed in Scripture to “Resist evil” wherever it is found?

    First we must agree that the rights of man originate with God.
    A Government does not bestow rights on its citizens.
    The Bill of Rights, Ammendments 1-10, is a list of “thou shalt nots” to the government.

    If a governement forbids or impedes what God requires, then we are to resist and “obey God, not man”.

    Some years back (1978) Pastor Stephen Reynolds wrote:
    “Sometime Christians, by false interpretation of Romans 13, obey their religious leaders who tell them to be in subjection. This policy promises death and destruction for all freedom loving people.”

    To suggest that Stalin or Hitler are God’s ministers in the same way as Romans 13:4 asserts, may cause confusion.

    To the extent that Mitt, or any other candidate, vows to “protect and defend the constitution of the United States”, we are always hopeful that he (they) are truly committed to its’ precepts.

    Luther says we must do nothing to help the devil build his kingdom nor help in the destruction of Christ’s Word.

    See Luther’s “Warning to His Dear German People” (1531), The Christian in Society, Vol.4, Luther’s Works.

    Defensive, sometimes armed, action in protection of the Gospel, it seems, has the approval of Luther.

    It is never good to get the two kingdoms confused.

  • http://lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com Erich Heidenreich, DDS

    “…to speak of something as divinely inspired and at the same time fallible is wrong.” ~Pr. Erickson

    I think that’s the only place we disagree, Pr. Erickson. Otherwise we agree on the nature of the Constitution. There’s clearly a bit of equivocation going on here with regard to the word “inspired.”

    I agree that nothing but Scripture is infallible, and that only Scripture is inspired in a plenary, verbal sense. But I believe God has inspired more than Scripture. God inspires me to love my neighbor as myself, even though the love I show is imperfect.

    If “inspired” means only one thing with regard to God’s influence in things, then why do we need qualifiers such as “plenary” and “verbal?” I believe sermons are inspired by God, but I do not consider sermons to be infallible.

  • http://lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com Erich Heidenreich, DDS

    “…to speak of something as divinely inspired and at the same time fallible is wrong.” ~Pr. Erickson

    I think that’s the only place we disagree, Pr. Erickson. Otherwise we agree on the nature of the Constitution. There’s clearly a bit of equivocation going on here with regard to the word “inspired.”

    I agree that nothing but Scripture is infallible, and that only Scripture is inspired in a plenary, verbal sense. But I believe God has inspired more than Scripture. God inspires me to love my neighbor as myself, even though the love I show is imperfect.

    If “inspired” means only one thing with regard to God’s influence in things, then why do we need qualifiers such as “plenary” and “verbal?” I believe sermons are inspired by God, but I do not consider sermons to be infallible.

  • Bror Erickson

    Erich,
    My issue here is with the qualifier “divinely” normally reserved for Scripture when speaking about inspiration.
    Again I will state, the Constitution is no more “Divinely” inspired, then the Constitution of the former U.S.S.R. not to condone the atrocity that was.

  • Bror Erickson

    Erich,
    My issue here is with the qualifier “divinely” normally reserved for Scripture when speaking about inspiration.
    Again I will state, the Constitution is no more “Divinely” inspired, then the Constitution of the former U.S.S.R. not to condone the atrocity that was.

  • http://lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com Erich Heidenreich, DDS

    The fact that something is “divinely” inspired does not mean that it is perfect or infallible. The love I have for my neighbor is “divinely” inspired, though it is most certainly imperfect.

    The “inspiration of Scripture” is a very specific type of divine inspiration, but it is not the only type. It is simply the only infallible type of inspiration. Natural law is divinely inspired, being written on our hearts by God Himself, but it is not infallible.

    Are you saying that the only thing “divinely inspired” (i.e. “inspired by God”) is Scripture? If so, I really think that we’re simply arguing over the usage of terms. We don’t seem to disagree on the substance of our discussion.

  • http://lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com Erich Heidenreich, DDS

    The fact that something is “divinely” inspired does not mean that it is perfect or infallible. The love I have for my neighbor is “divinely” inspired, though it is most certainly imperfect.

    The “inspiration of Scripture” is a very specific type of divine inspiration, but it is not the only type. It is simply the only infallible type of inspiration. Natural law is divinely inspired, being written on our hearts by God Himself, but it is not infallible.

    Are you saying that the only thing “divinely inspired” (i.e. “inspired by God”) is Scripture? If so, I really think that we’re simply arguing over the usage of terms. We don’t seem to disagree on the substance of our discussion.

  • Bror Erickson

    Erich,
    maybe so.
    however, natural law put into practice by fallible human beings is fallibel. What God wrote on man’s heart is a different matter.
    but if romeny menat no more than what we have reduced divine inspiration too here in this discussion, then it was a meaningless statement. I don’t think Romney meant by it what you mean by it. I think he meant to put it on par with the Bible, which is not hard to do in their theological system. So in the sense in which Romney was using the term, yes I think it only applies to the Bible.

  • Bror Erickson

    Erich,
    maybe so.
    however, natural law put into practice by fallible human beings is fallibel. What God wrote on man’s heart is a different matter.
    but if romeny menat no more than what we have reduced divine inspiration too here in this discussion, then it was a meaningless statement. I don’t think Romney meant by it what you mean by it. I think he meant to put it on par with the Bible, which is not hard to do in their theological system. So in the sense in which Romney was using the term, yes I think it only applies to the Bible.

  • http://lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com Erich Heidenreich, DDS

    I see what you mean about Romney’s Mormon perspective on this term “inspiration,” and I would agree that what he meant by it is likely the same think he’d mean if he said the Bible is inspired, since Mormons believe the Bible contains serious errors.

    In other words, I might agree with the Mormon perspective on the inspiration of the Constitution, but I would certainly disagree with him on the inspiration of the Bible. But we were talking about the former here, not the latter.

  • http://lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com Erich Heidenreich, DDS

    I see what you mean about Romney’s Mormon perspective on this term “inspiration,” and I would agree that what he meant by it is likely the same think he’d mean if he said the Bible is inspired, since Mormons believe the Bible contains serious errors.

    In other words, I might agree with the Mormon perspective on the inspiration of the Constitution, but I would certainly disagree with him on the inspiration of the Bible. But we were talking about the former here, not the latter.

  • Joe

    I think to understand Romans 13 you have to also remember that Jesus clearly taught us that their are some things that do not belong to the gov’t. (Matt. ch. 22 “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”). Thus, when the gov’t goes beyond the rightful function of a gov’t it is no longer to be respected and obeyed. This limitation is also found in the text of Romans 13 itself: “Give everyone what you owe him.” We are also told that if we do right the gov’t “will commend you.”

    So the question becomes if Christ has explained that civil gov’ts have a limited purpose and if we are told that a gov’t instituted by God will commend us when we do right doesn’t that mean that there are times when we should (and must) recognize a gov’t as evil and it? Or are we to blindly follow Satan just because he took over a civil gov’t?

    I am not sure that this justifies the American Revolution but I think it would certainly justify the Germans had they risen up against Hitler, the Italians against Mussolini, the Ukrainians against Stalin, the Chinese against Mao, etc.

    But the bigger question in my mind is what does this mean today when in our Republic we pick our leaders democratically. We are in many ways both the gov’t and the subjects.

  • Joe

    I think to understand Romans 13 you have to also remember that Jesus clearly taught us that their are some things that do not belong to the gov’t. (Matt. ch. 22 “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”). Thus, when the gov’t goes beyond the rightful function of a gov’t it is no longer to be respected and obeyed. This limitation is also found in the text of Romans 13 itself: “Give everyone what you owe him.” We are also told that if we do right the gov’t “will commend you.”

    So the question becomes if Christ has explained that civil gov’ts have a limited purpose and if we are told that a gov’t instituted by God will commend us when we do right doesn’t that mean that there are times when we should (and must) recognize a gov’t as evil and it? Or are we to blindly follow Satan just because he took over a civil gov’t?

    I am not sure that this justifies the American Revolution but I think it would certainly justify the Germans had they risen up against Hitler, the Italians against Mussolini, the Ukrainians against Stalin, the Chinese against Mao, etc.

    But the bigger question in my mind is what does this mean today when in our Republic we pick our leaders democratically. We are in many ways both the gov’t and the subjects.

  • Bror Erickson

    Erich,
    And my question is not what were we talking about but what was Romney talking about. Why is he intent on placing the constitution alongside the Bible? What would that mean for domestic and foreign politics? This brings us back to the original thought that of the civil religion, being religion.
    Was this just a slip of the tongue? and overzealous patriotic statement? Probably, but it probably reveals alot more about his convictions than he wants it too. Because even if he has a lower view of the Bible than we do, He can still, after stuttering and hesitating, say that he believes it to be the word of God. It is more significant to him than say a Tom Clancey novel.

  • Bror Erickson

    Erich,
    And my question is not what were we talking about but what was Romney talking about. Why is he intent on placing the constitution alongside the Bible? What would that mean for domestic and foreign politics? This brings us back to the original thought that of the civil religion, being religion.
    Was this just a slip of the tongue? and overzealous patriotic statement? Probably, but it probably reveals alot more about his convictions than he wants it too. Because even if he has a lower view of the Bible than we do, He can still, after stuttering and hesitating, say that he believes it to be the word of God. It is more significant to him than say a Tom Clancey novel.

  • http://www.lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com/ Erich Heidenreich, DDS

    I share those concerns, Pr. Erickson, which are encapsulated in my first comment on this topic, #1 above.

  • http://www.lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com/ Erich Heidenreich, DDS

    I share those concerns, Pr. Erickson, which are encapsulated in my first comment on this topic, #1 above.

  • Floyd Bass, SSP

    As a former Mormon, I can explain what Romney means when he says that the U.S. Constitution is inspired, but I will have to do so later tonight when I get home to a proper keyboard, not the one on my PDA.

  • Floyd Bass, SSP

    As a former Mormon, I can explain what Romney means when he says that the U.S. Constitution is inspired, but I will have to do so later tonight when I get home to a proper keyboard, not the one on my PDA.

  • Lutheran Legalist :)

    #22 Floyd Bass, SSP

    My post #6 I think is sufficient. It is not all that complicated.

    Mormons are pretty fuzzy when it comes to words.

    ” inspired, Jesus, savior”…. these are all waaaaay different in meaning and content than you could ever know in the wonderful and wacky world of mormonism….

    It is so wierd, that an explanation for this is about as useful as understanding why people actually believe that Elvis was abducted by aliens.

  • Lutheran Legalist :)

    #22 Floyd Bass, SSP

    My post #6 I think is sufficient. It is not all that complicated.

    Mormons are pretty fuzzy when it comes to words.

    ” inspired, Jesus, savior”…. these are all waaaaay different in meaning and content than you could ever know in the wonderful and wacky world of mormonism….

    It is so wierd, that an explanation for this is about as useful as understanding why people actually believe that Elvis was abducted by aliens.

  • Floyd Bass, SSP

    Frank,

    I would say that it is useful to know these things only insofar as they would dissuade primary and general election voters from actually voting for the man.

    I know that there is a significant portion of the Republican party that looks at Romney and says ‘Ok, Mormonism is weird, but at least he seems fairly conservative, so I guess I might be able to vote for him’.

    Being a Lutheran, I know that I’m supposed to say that I would rather be ruled by a good Turk than a bad Christian (or was that smart/dumb?), but I just don’t buy that in this case.

  • Floyd Bass, SSP

    Frank,

    I would say that it is useful to know these things only insofar as they would dissuade primary and general election voters from actually voting for the man.

    I know that there is a significant portion of the Republican party that looks at Romney and says ‘Ok, Mormonism is weird, but at least he seems fairly conservative, so I guess I might be able to vote for him’.

    Being a Lutheran, I know that I’m supposed to say that I would rather be ruled by a good Turk than a bad Christian (or was that smart/dumb?), but I just don’t buy that in this case.

  • http://lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com Erich Heidenreich, DDS

    Floyd,

    I’m definitely interested in hearing more of your opinion on this. Could you explain more?

    Thanks!

    Erich

    P.S. Didn’t you used to have a blog called “The Small Catechlysm” ??

  • http://lutheransandcontraception.blogspot.com Erich Heidenreich, DDS

    Floyd,

    I’m definitely interested in hearing more of your opinion on this. Could you explain more?

    Thanks!

    Erich

    P.S. Didn’t you used to have a blog called “The Small Catechlysm” ??

  • Bror Erickson

    Floyd,
    I was waiting for your post. Don’t let Lutheran Legalist :) run you off. Post your thought.
    In any case the whole thing about the turk, is he was supposed to be wise. Which I believe rules Romney out. But that is more personal opinion.

  • Bror Erickson

    Floyd,
    I was waiting for your post. Don’t let Lutheran Legalist :) run you off. Post your thought.
    In any case the whole thing about the turk, is he was supposed to be wise. Which I believe rules Romney out. But that is more personal opinion.

  • Floyd Bass, SSP

    The Mormons (especially the early ones) believe that the U.S. Constitution was inspired by their god for the main purpose of providing a country in which Mormonism could flourish.

    They also believe (somewhat unofficially, but Joe Smith or Brigham Young said it, which makes it almost inspired) that when the Constitution was ‘hanging by a thread’ (whatever that means) that a Mormon would assume some kind of high office in this country and rescue it. This event is a precursor to their Jesus’ return to establish a 1000-year earthly kingdom (I suppose he would become president? King of the U.S.?).
    Draw what conclusion you will from this.

    P.S. Dr. Heidenreich, yes I did have a blog called Small Catechlysm.

  • Floyd Bass, SSP

    The Mormons (especially the early ones) believe that the U.S. Constitution was inspired by their god for the main purpose of providing a country in which Mormonism could flourish.

    They also believe (somewhat unofficially, but Joe Smith or Brigham Young said it, which makes it almost inspired) that when the Constitution was ‘hanging by a thread’ (whatever that means) that a Mormon would assume some kind of high office in this country and rescue it. This event is a precursor to their Jesus’ return to establish a 1000-year earthly kingdom (I suppose he would become president? King of the U.S.?).
    Draw what conclusion you will from this.

    P.S. Dr. Heidenreich, yes I did have a blog called Small Catechlysm.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X