Today’s Reading List – October 2, 2006 | Article VI Blog

Special Notice: Our latest Article 6 Blog Interview is up today. It's with Mitch Davis, the leader of RunMittRun.org, a new 527 organization. Read the interview here.

Joe Carter aptly sums up my opinion about some of the things I have to deal with when working on this blog.

There is more than one Mormon possibility in '08, although this one is pretty slim.

Time to bang on Mohler again. He is right about how to have fruitful dialogue in this post, but I don't really like his implications – he seems to imply that the deeply orthodox of different faith can't really have a good relationship and be friends. That's just small-minded. Makes me want to invite Lowell over for lemonade and Jello. (That's a bit of a Mormon joke for the uninformed.)

Lowell: Hey! As a product of the Jello Belt, I resemble that remark!

Speaking of Mohler, the other participant in that well discussed radio show, Russell Moore, blogs on it. I think he hits just the right tone and has just the right concerns – political ones and ones about Evangelicalism. The political ones are old hat at this point. Excerpts:

On the one hand, I do not think personal regeneration is a necessary prerequisite to serve as President of the United States. Romans 13 responsibilities are given to those powers that wield the sword with justice. The Scriptures make clear that the church in this epoch does not rule the world (1 Cor 4;8; 6:1-2; Rev 2:26-27).

[...]

My fear though is not with Romney or with the LDS, but with American evangelicals. We tend to want a candidate we can identify as a "good Christian." Whether he is or not, we make him so in popular myth. My denomination's publishing house published Jimmy Carter's 1976 campaign biography, Why Not the Best? There are books in Christian bookstores throughout the nation celebrating the faith of Ronald Reagan, though a track record such as his on church attendance and astrological dabblings would be cause for church discipline in a healthy congregation. We have Internet urban legends about President Bush leading a young man to pray to receive Christ in a receiving line. I fear, if Romney is the conservative alternative, to John McCain and Hillary Clinton, we might do the same thing, baptizing Mormonism as just another expression of Christianity. It is not.

I am comfortable with the distinction between creedal and non-creedal Christianity, but many are not - this is a legitimate theological discussion, but, as I think Moore points out, not a political one. One can hope a Romney campaign gets theologians together to dialogue on that question, but the campaign cannot and should not settle it. Unfortunately, as the callers to the program illustrated all too clearly, many cannot make that distinction.

Lowell: John and I came up with the "creedal/non-creedal" distinction for purposes of accuracy on this blog. Here's why: I, as a Mormon, feel a need to correct the false impression that may be created when our critics say we are not Christians. To many, if not most, that means we do not believe in Christ as our personal Savior and Redeemer, and that of all mankind. That claim is simply and inarguably false, and downright shocking to faithful Mormons. To the extent that false statement is made with intent to mislead, it is despicable. Mormons who understand their faith's fundamental precepts have no problem with being separate and apart, theologically and doctrinally, from all other faiths. That's who we are. But we don't want our core beliefs to be misrepresented. Some critics of our church don't buy the creedal/non-creedal distinction, and refuse to accept Mormons as Christians in any sense. I personally think that conclusion is small-minded at best, and that the reasoning process required to reach it is very close to sophistry. But I digress; John is right: That's not a political discussion, and it does not belong in political campaigns.

Presidential politics are too hot for this early, and they should not take away from the '06 cycle. But this is an amazing sign of McCain's anxiety and intemperance.

It'll be interesting to see how Romney handles this. Pretty well, it looks like to me. At this point, the question is, does this have enough traction to be a major campaign issue, and would it help Romney with Evangelicals if he made it so?

The view from the UK. Romney sure has done well these last vew months.

A view from southern Utah that is, I think, a bit naive.

Though most Americans consider themselves Christian, few concern themselves with the intricacies of Christian theology. The vast majority could not accurately describe any difference between their personal Christian theology and the theology of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

That fact is most true, but it is also one that makes such people open to misguided manipulation and prejudice.

Now this raises and interesting constitutional question for me – what constitutes "religious expression." A court rules a fundy Mormon can teach polygamy, yet it remains illegal to practice it. Why are words allowable "expression," but practice is not? Sounds like a job for the lawyer on this team.

Lowell: It all goes back to Reynolds v. United States, the 1878 U.S. Supreme Court decision that effectively was the nail in the coffin of Mormon polygamy in the 19th centry. The Court's reasoning was relatively complex, but it held, in essence, that "the true spirit of the First Amendment was that Congress could not legislate against opinion but could legislate against action."

The U.S. Supreme Court has always struggled with the First Amendment's provisions on freedom of religion. One must admit that there is at least room for argument that there is tension between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Congress is not only restrained from making a law "respecting an establishment of religion," but also "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I think I know what those clauses mean, but there is ambiguity. In Reynolds, the Court held that Congress could interfere with "free exercise" to the extent the government's interference affected only action and served the greater good. (If you think about it, that kind of reasoning could get the Court onto a slippery slope. Which "actions" are suitable for Congressional regulation? It's impossible to say, but I guess the standard is like the one for hard-core pornography, suggested by Justice Potter Stewart: "I know it when I see it.")

Reynolds cleared the way for the enforcement of the federal anti-bigamy laws and for the destruction of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, if the Church had insisted on practicing polygamy. In 1890 Wilford Woddruff, then President of the Church, issued what has become known as "The Manifesto," the Official Declaration ending plural marriage.

[tags]Joe Carter, Romney, Mormon, Evangelical, Al Mohler, Russell Moore, creedal Christian, non-creedal Christian, religion, Reynolds v. United States, polygamy, Free Exercise Clause, Constitution,Jello, Jello Belt [/tags]