Article VI Blog

In my efforts to educate myself for this blog, I am reading a book called A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation: How Wide The Divide by Craig Bloomberg (Evangelical New Testament scholar) and Stephen Robinson (CJCLDS New Testament scholar).

It is not our job at this blog to raise objections to the possible civil election of a Mormon, but a paragraph in Robinson’s portion of the Introduction to the book, put quite well the one place where if I had to rasie an objection to such an election, I would make it.

Another frustration Evangelicals often experience in dealing with Latter-day Saints is the fact that we have no professional clergy, no creeds or catechisms, and no theologians in the strict sense. Pure LDS orthodoxy can be a moving target, depending on which Mormon one talks to. Indeed, my part of this book represents only the views of one Latter-day Saint, though I hope a credible one. I do not speak in this volume for the LDS Church, only for myself, but I think I qualify as the world’s authority on what I believe, and I consider myself a reasonably devout and well-informed Latter-day Saint. [Emphasis added.]

This quotation raises two actual objections that might be of concern. The first concerns the fact that LDS orthodoxy has proven to indeed be a moving target historically. The objection would be - what about the future? Suppose during the term of an LDS president, the church returned to its polygamous beginnings? But we have raised that issue on this blog before, so I don’t think we should dwell on it here.

The other objection is, in my opinion, stronger anyway. That has to do with the fact that this quotation implies a certain relativism to LDS doctrine - that it varies from individual to individual. How can there be “truth” in such a religious scheme? More importantly for this blog is how that relativism would affect governance. Relativism as a philosphy virtually defines the political left and has lead to the moral and social chaos that so many of us on the right object to. If a Latter-day Saint finds orthodoxy to be relative, how can he/she be expected to uphold certain moral realities, such as President Bush’s recent very brave stand on embryonic stem-cells?

Now, given the various sects ands cults that have broken of from the CJCLDS, clearly there are limits to this relativism, but what are they? - How are they determined? - How would they affect a Mormon president.

Lowell?

Lowell responds: What a great question. Several thoughts come to mind immediately:

I think Mr. Robinson overstates the issue somewhat, whether intentionally or not. (Also, in the absence of an example, it’s hard to respond to his point. Exactly what tehology is Robinson talking about? Obviously, I haven’t read his book yet!) I am not sure what he means by saying theology in our church “can be a moving target,” but many Mormons (including me) would find the notion almost laughable. (I wonder if Robinson regrets using those words?) Many people, in fact, find Mormonism anything but relativistic, and cannot abide Mormonism’s theological strictness. That why they either don’t join the church, or leave it after having joined. See, for example, the Church’s Articles of Faith. They look pretty specific to me. Also, the commandment to abstain from alcohol, tea, coffee, tobacco, and other harmful substances is just too much for many people to accept.Â More important, one fundamental belief of our church is that fundamental beleifs do not change!Â (Those would be beliefs such as those set forth in the Article of Faith.)
Stephen Robinson himself notes that he is not a spokesman for the LDS Church.Â Just something to keep in mind!
Opinions vary on some issues in every religion. Some Orthodox Jews observe the strict kosher dietary laws; some other Orthodox Jews observe the even stricter glatt kosher interpretation. Some Christians insist on baptism by immersion and some don’t. Some Mormons consume cola drinks, and other don’t. And, all religions have their mysteries, to which no one really knows the answers.
Still, I can see one area in which Robinson’s point may ring true for some people: Like virtually all other Christian churches, Mormons believe in revealed religion– the difference is, we believe it is still being revealed, through continuing revelation. So Mormons believe God continues to guide our living prophet, and although big changes in theological direction are very rare, they do occur. Polygamy is the most famous example.
After all is said and done, I don’t think this matters for Romney or any other politician who belongs to an established denomination. Theoretically, a liberal pope could be elected who changes Roman Catholic doctrine on end-of-life issues. Would that mean that a devout Catholic president would then change his position on the next Terry Schiavo case? It all goes back to the question of whether a president’s religious beliefs control his official actions. As I noted here, and as this article observes, here’s Romney’s challenge:

“He’s got to say his faith will have an impact, but his denominational beliefs will not. If he can do that, he can win over evangelicals because they would have a person of faith in the White House who would not be following what they would see as the whims of the Mormon church.”

It’s interesting how we keep finding ourself back on this point, isn’t it?