Religious Leaders And Political Orders
As Lowell points out the first question we are tackling here comes from Hugh Hewitt and is
Would a Mormon be more or less inclined to take orders from his Church’s leader than a Catholic?
I’ve let Lowell have first shot at this since he is an LDS member and I agree with his primary point, there is a great deal which confronts a politician of person in office about which any church simply has no opinion. For most of what an elected official does, their religious affiliation is simply neutral.
There are a couple of additional points I would like to make. While neither Catholic or Mormon, I have looked into their teaching a bit and there is one extraordinary difference. Catholic doctrine holds that the Pope is the voice of God on earth; that God in fact choses to communicate to us through the Pope and the church. In strict Roman Catholicism, it is not simply a matter of following the dictates of the church, but of God Himself.
Mormonism grants that God can speak through any believer through the gift of prophecy. The best, most consistent prophets rise to the leadership levels in the church, but individuals can, and often do, receive a prophetic word of their own and act accordingly. In cases of extreme moral degeneracy, like modern day polygamists, the LDS Church will excommunicate such individual prophets, but on other less impactful matters, they just agree to disagree – as Lowell points out in the church’s stance on matters political.
So, as a matter of doctrine, Mormon belief leaves room for disagreement between church leadership and individual mambers, whereas, Roman Catholicism does not.
The second point I’d like to make is that with any religion, adherence to the teachings of the church varies from indiviual to individual. This was never more apparent than in the last presidential campagin when John Kerry’s catholicism was called into serious question because of his disagreement with church teaching on abortion and birth control.
The religious convictions of a political candidate and their affect on that candidates governance must be judged on an individual basis based not just on the teaching of the particular religion to which they adhere. The candidate’s life in business, politics, governance and personally, must all be considered and only then can a genuine judgement be made.
Lowell adds: Actually, the LDS Church and the Catholic Church are similar in that they both believe that their leader speaks for God. Instead of a Pope, we Mormons have a President of the Church, who currently is Gordon B. Hinckley. We consider President Hinckley a “prophet, seer, and revelator,” in just the same way Moses was a prophet. We also believe the President of the Church is an apostle and stands in the same relation to the Church that Peter, as the senior apostle, did in ancient times. (Another similarity to Catholics.) We do believe that individual members can receive revelation from God, but only regarding matters over which they have stewardship– such as their own lives or their families. Only the President of the Church receives revelation for the entire Church. The question of the extent to which he speaks for God is a nuanced one, and beyond the scope of this post. As I hope my post below makes clear, however, the leaders of the Mormon Church are very careful about giving guidance on political matters.
[tags]religion, politics, doctrine, dictates, Papal Authority, prophecy, obedience[/tags]
Posted in Doctrinal Obedience | 5 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Patrick on 04 May 2006 at 11:12 am #
Your statement regarding the authority of the Pope (“Catholic doctrine holds that the Pope is the voice of God on earth”) makes up for in simplicity what it lacks in accuracy. The Church teaching is NOT that the Pope is the “voice of God on earth.” The Catholic Church holds that the era of revelation closed when the last apostle died. The Church does teach that the Pope is infallible in teaching regarding faith and morals. (See this article http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp)
However, the Pope cannot give “orders” to any Catholic with regard to prudential decisions. So, the question is badly framed, Hugh. Nevertheless, if you are going to discuss Catholic teaching, at least correctly state what Church teaching is, or find someone (preferably a Catholic) to discuss it.
a4g on 04 May 2006 at 12:00 pm #
Lowell –
I read your description of the President of the Church and your comparison to Moses as indicating that he has an affirmative authority — which I understand to mean that his teachings are, in a way, directed by God. Is this a correct interpretation?
John –
Catholic theology emphasizes the negative action on the part of the Holy Spirit in infallibility and authority– i.e. not that the Pope is necessarily directed to teach what is right on subject A, B, or C; but rather prevented from teaching these in error. The development of theology, is a process of human inquiry and deepening understanding, inspired and guided away from error by the action of the Paraclete, not a loudspeaker from God. Perhaps a distinction without much of a difference, but one that Catholics have been obsessively contemplating for nearly 2000 years.
JohnS on 04 May 2006 at 12:29 pm #
Patrick, A4G:
Thank you for those clarifications on Roman Catholic doctrine. As I said, I don’t claim expertise, just a limited amount of knowledge.
Your clarifications are useful, but do not I think change the basic premise of my post which is that Mormons and Catholics have very different views of the authority of the church and the duties of its members. IN seminary terms, Cathlics grant leadership a “priestly” role, while Mormons grant them somethng akin to an “apostolic” role.
LowellB on 04 May 2006 at 2:56 pm #
Dear A4g:
Thanks for your comment. Without getting into a doctrinal discussion or debate per se (we are going to avoid those here), let me try to respond in the context of a theoretical Mitt Romney presidency.
The LDS Church believes in continuing revelation. Our Ninth Article of faith is: “We believe all that God has revealed, all that he does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God.” So yes, we consider the current president of our church, Gordon B. Hinckley, to be the authoritative equal of Moses, Isaiah, or Peter– not necessarily equal in stature or historical importance, but a divinely authorized prophet just the same.
This does not mean we consider President Hinckley any kind of mystic. He’s actually a very ordinary-seeming man. To get a flavor of his teaching, you can look here, at his most recent address to the entire LDS Church.
In the context of my post here, my personal view (which I think is widely shared) is that the prophet gives divinely inspired direction on spiritual and moral issues. I think he (and the Church leadership generally) take a”hands off” approach to politics.
I share this information not in order to convince anyone of Mormon beliefs, but to help readers understand the Romney religion issue in context. I hope it helps!
AST on 04 May 2006 at 7:48 pm #
The LDS church’s authorities include both Democrats and Republicans, although Utah is pretty much conservative and Republican. There’s been an ongoing dispute in the letters to the local papers about whether one can be a good Mormon and a Democrat. The church has made a point of denying that, and, indeed, a number of General Authorities are Democrats.
Harry Reid, the minority leader in the Senate is LDS. I haven’t perceived any influence by the church in his positions, but that’s my own prejudice.
As for Mitt Romney, I have to say that he is no more likely to go to the church for instruction than any other president ever has. The main thing to judge him by is his accomplishments and his statements.
As for the prophet being like Moses, I would only point out that the Israelites were a theocracy, a government by God through his prophet. Moses had both religious and political authority. President Hinckley has only religious authority, and claims no political authority. Non-LDS Utahns are always complaining about the church’s influence in politics, but if that were true, Utah wouldn’t have voted to repeal prohibition.
Joseph Smith Jr., the “founder” of the church, said when asked how he was able to govern his followers, “I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.” The church speaks out on moral issues, which sometimes become political issues, but it doesn’t endorse parties or candidates.