There’s no way around it. 
I finally took the time to watch the (now somewhat famous) video of Mitt Romney doing a talk radio interview in Iowa that turned confrontational. I had to be cajoled into it because Mitt Romney’s campaign is so over, his presumed lead in Iowa notwithstanding (anyone who spends 10 million dollars a month should be leading in more than a state or two. Reagan Dunn could be leading in Iowa if he spent that kind of money (and he probably will get around to it)).
Anyway, it is well worth watching if, like me, you happen to be interested in either religion or politics. I think you can watch it in a number of places online. Hot Air has it.
Some anti-Mitt friends said Romney came off as frustrated and angry. The pro-Mitt pragmatists, though, thought he made the host look like a fool. A lot of buzz has centered on Jan Mickelson’s heavy-handed attempt to prove that Mitt is a bad Mormon because he was a pro-abortion-choice politician. But who cares how the host came off? Mickelson is not running for anything. I watched to see if it tells us anything about Romney. 
It says a lot. But you have to shake the Romney pixie-dust off your eyelids to see it. As I’ve said before, Mitt Romney is the Republican Bill Clinton.
Mitt presented two defenses of the “Mormon Abortion” charges that, on close examination, are quite astounding:
First, that he wasn’t pro-abortion-choice. I’m not kidding. Romney said, although he pledged to be reliably pro-abortion-choice, during both his campaigns, losing to Kennedy for the Senate and winning the Massachusetts Governorship, that he governed, in violation of his pledge, as pro-life. (I’m not exactly sure, now that he’s campaigning as “reliably pro-life” how that should make us feel comfortable.)
But we’re just getting to the juicy part.
Mitt’s second argument was that it doesn’t matter if he WAS pro-abortion-choice because, politically, the Mormon Church IS pro-abortion-choice.
Yup. Mitt explained that although the church discourages its members from having abortions (and Mitt has never had one), there is no reason they can’t campaign and vote to make or keep abortion legal. And he was very clear on this. He illustrated the point by reference to the Church’s prohibition on alcohol. It is only a prohibition on its members; he pointed out, and shouldn’t be made civil law. Sort of like when the Bushes each became President: neither of them tried to force Americans to wear Skull and Bones T-shirts. That’s tolerance.
If that is true, the Mormon Church IS pro-choice. Because it is not your personal feelings about abortion or whether or not you would personally have an abortion or even if you would have one in church. (Once again, in all fairness, we must point out that Mitt has never had one and can, therefore, honestly claim to be personally pro-life just like Giuliani.)
The issue that determines if you are pro-life is your position on the legal right of human beings to be protected from murder. And that is a standard by which we can measure the Mormon, or any other Church.
If Mitt is correct, it would seem his Church has no interest in politics at all, no political positions at all, the behavior of those outside its walls being something outside its interests.
Now, let me say, I have no particular axe to grind with an organization that takes no political positions at all. I would not require all the members of a car pool, for instance, to agree with me politically before joining. Further, while I do not agree (obviously) with Jehovah’s Witnesses when they assert it is wrong to be involved in politics, I hold toward them no animosity. There is a certain internal logic to the Witnesses. I know they hold those views.
But the Romney vision of the Mormon position is hard to understand since many Mormons, like Romney and Harry Reid are politicians. Do they really think there is no morality with regard to Secular law? There is no right or wrong? No higher principles to restrain the darkest urges of the State?
We need some Mormons to step forward with some answers, here, folks. Is Mitt right?
Certainly Mormon politicians think there is morality with regard to secular law; and that there is right and wrong. But they also recognize that there are limits to how much moral law can reasonably be legislated., That is the difference between our pluralistic society and the Taliban–or other attempts to implement Sharia law. You’re just closer to Islamo fascism than are the Mormons because you insist your interpretation of the Bible should have the force of law. Pretty much everybody who gets control in a society will trample on the rights of those with whom the disagree. Mormonism as a Church is less likely to do so because it is less concerned with public behavior than it is personal behavior.
Mormons oppose alcohol consumption, Sunday commerce and fornication but they aren’t going to legislate a return to prohibition or make the Super Bowl illegal.
I’ve tried to have thoughtful discussions with Evangelicals about their interpretation of abortion but it hasn’t been very successful. While most of them claim to subscribe to a sola scriptura position, they haven’t been able to demonstrate from the Bible that abortion is murder. Their argument ultimately boils down to an emotional appeal that disregards scripture. I personally oppose abortion as a terrible evil, but I don’t believe it constitutes murder and I haven’t seen any compelling Bible passages that indicate otherwise. At this point most people I have encountered just turn their brains off. I’d be interested to see if you handle it any differently.
“We need some Mormons to step forward with some answers, here, folks. Is Mitt right? ”
Yes, actually, he is right. Now that isn’t to say that if the LDS Church was to feel that abortion was something worthy of a legal fight they would skip it. Just look at how strong they have been in the fight against gay marriage. However, any person who takes a political position that is pro-gay (or pro-choice in this instance) will not be excommunicated. For instance, Harry Reid voted against the Amendment for Marriage between only a Man and Woman. The Church supported that amendment. He wasn’t however, excommunicated.
The reason is simple. The Church, regardless of theory or myth, believes in seperation of Church and State. Now, if Romney or Reid was to talk about how wrong the Church was to hold a particular postion they have (maybe going so far as to call the leaders immoral) then there is a possibility of excommunication. There is a difference between what happens because of theology and church government and what happens because of politics.
Why Does This Make Romney Look Good?
Update: Doug Parris at The Reagan Wing calls on Mormons to set the record straight: Is Mitt Romney correct? Is the Mormon Church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) politically pro-choice? The above video is being discussed on
Friuliveneto (at #1):
you ask several questions for which I find it hard to believe you have not yet encountered any answers, because they are easily obtainable. But I’ll be happy to provide those answers with a full treatment, except I’m on my way to an appointment and will have to get back later today.
But, perhaps in the meantime, since you decry those who “turn their brains off” you could tell me, exactly, how you came to this conclusion about me, personally:
“… you insist your interpretation of the Bible should have the force of law.”
I’d like, first, relevant scriptural passages I’ve quoted, the interpretations I offered and specific legislation to which I applied the interpretations, with your sources. Then, of course, I’d like to see your quotations of me asserting that that process applies to all of the Bible… also with sources.
Thanks, Doug
This is really starting to get old, The Mormon church is not
Pro-choice Maybe Romney is but we aren’t. Now as to
Romney’s claim that some of the church leaders are Pro
choice. I would like to know who he is talking about. If
he is refering to the leaders in Salt Lake City he is dead
wrong. What I think has happened is Mitt has back himself
into a corner on this issue and is trying to dig his way out.
He has failed miserably. Don’t bring this up again either
you believe what I have told you in past or you don’t.
If this continues we are going to have a serious problem.
Mitt Romney does not speak for the Mormon Church. Any
more than that embarrassment of senator harry reid.
I sincerely hope this puts this whole thing to rest.
Phil,
If you’ll notice, the title of this post says “according to Mitt Romney.” Obviously, you have a difference of opinion with your Mormon brother Mitt, as well as the first two commenters here. I know you’re not pro-choice, nor are any other Mormons I know personally.
I’m less concerned with what the LDS Church teaches (since I’m not a Mormon) than I am with what Mitt Romney would (or would not) do as a president. I’m also less concerned with how the talk show host looked. I think you’re right about him trying to “dig himself out”. I think these are the main points of this post and mine as well. Doug was looking for other Mormons to weigh in and set the record straight. Thanks for doing so.
“I would like to know who he is talking about. If
he is refering to the leaders in Salt Lake City he is dead
wrong.”
Although I sympathise with this, and wonder if he meant leadership of a more local stature, it is not completely known what personal opinions are for the leading authorities. Its is right now speculative. In fact, if you look at what the LDS Church has says about abortion, many hard-core anti-abortionists would say the LDS Church is de-fault pro-choice. That is because it holds exceptions in cases of rape, incest, etc. The personal beliefs (mine included) on the issue is a different story.
Friuliveneto, (still at #1) to continue my response:
You say, “…Mormon politicians think there is morality with regard to secular law… But they also recognize that there are limits to how much can reasonably be legislated.”
I agree that there are things that might be morally wrong, but against which there should be no legislation; obsession with the pursuit of financial gain, for one example. Aparently, according to you, though, murder is one of them. That puts you on the wrong side of the Declaration of Independence and most political/moral thinkers of all time. It has, traditionally, been one of the primary functions of government, regardless of religion, region or era. Abortion is prohibited, for instance, in the Hyppocratic Oath (circa 600-400 BC). If you don’t have a basic right to life, other rights don’t make much difference, do they? Dead people don’t need free speech.
You say, “Pretty much everybody who gets control in a society will trample on the rights of those with whom the[y] disagree.”
How, exactly, do you define the term “rights?” The United States of America was unique in saying that “rights” were not a bequest of government but an obligation on government that was more important than government’s interests; that rights came from God. If you begin by denying that, which seems to be your point, then “rights” simply become whatever the government says they are; theoretically, in a democracy, whatever the majority says they are. By that definition, no government can “trample” on rights because the existing power defines what rights are. It is only those who believe in a morality superior to human government that actually believe in “rights,” in the American sense.
“… less concerned with public behavior than it is personal behavior.”
The acts of government officials are their personal behavior in public authority. The Judeo-Christian tradidtion is that those in authority bear a higher moral responsibility, not a lower one. Romney, it seems to me, is saying he has no moral obligations as a ruler because “morality” is of the church. Taken at face value, that puts him in the same class as Stalin and puts “churches” in a public policy ghetto. I don’t put him in the same class as Stalin because I don’t take him at face value. That is the first lesson one needs to learn about Romney. Ignore the pixie dust.
“I’ve tried to have thoughtful discussions with Evangelicals about their interpretation of abortion”
The interpretation of the word “abortion” is not very controversial. The only disagreement I’m aware of is that the Death faction doesn’t consider the killing of a fetus an “abortion” until after it has been implanted in the uterus and Pro-lifers consider “abortion” to mean any intentional killing of a person before birth. “Evangelicalism” has nothing to do with it.
“…they haven’t been able to demonstrate from the Bible that abortion is murder.”
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that unborn children are not, specifically, mentioned in Scripture. Even in that case your statement is absurd on its face. It’s like saying that you can’t prove that killing Mitt Romney is murder from the Bible because it doesn’t mention him by name. It does not need to specifically mention ANY individual or class or medical sub-grouping of people because they are, obviously, ALL included. You can’t kill innocent people. That’s murder.
Are blacks human? Then you can’t kidnap them for slavery. That’s men-stealing because they are men. Are Jews human? You can’t round them up and gas them (even though doing so is against some religions and a law against what a religion condemns might “mix religion and state”). Are unborn children human? You can’t kill them, either. It’s murder, not because they (or Mitt) is mentioned by name, but because they are human beings. Just who has turned off their brain, here?
But, of course, the Bible makes it clear in at least three places that the unborn person SPECIFICALLY is human and in one place specifically prescribes capital punishment for killing such: see Psalm 139:13-16; Luke 1:41-44; and, most clearly, Exodus 21:22-25.
“I personally oppose abortion as a terrible evil…”
What, pray tell, is wrong with it in your mind, Mr. Friuliveneto?
[...] Read more [...]
Mormons tend to be pro-life, largely because of the Church’s teachings about the importance of life and families.
The Mormon Church’s website addresses numerous topics. In its short statement on abortion (see: http://www.lds.org — click on Gospel Library, and then Gospel Topics, type in “abortion”) it states:
“In today’s society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. … Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline [meaning they can get excommunicated].
Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.
When a child is conceived out of wedlock, the best option is for the mother and father of the child to marry and work toward establishing an eternal family relationship. If a successful marriage is unlikely, they should place the child for adoption, preferably through LDS Family Services (see “Adoption”).”
The website links articles from church publications about abortion, etc. as well.
The Mormon Church generally bends over backwards to NOT get involved in any political issues or and never endorses candidates. The Church leadership does encourage Mormons to be involved in creating good government (voting, campaigning, etc.) to the point of telling Mormons it is a duty. As far as issue positions, I am only aware of the Church’s leadership having taken a position in support of anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments. As far as the Church’s position on legislation with respect to abortion, I am not aware of any such position, thus a Mormon could be pro choice (but not pro abortion) as long as that person does not personally get involved with abortions, but such a position is really hard to justify given the Church’s stand that we are not to commit murder or anything like it. Harry Reid, my former [Mormon Democrat] Senator, is pro life.
Although most Mormons are Republicans, there are many who are Democrats, most prominent in politics is Harry Reid and most prominent in Church leadership was the recently deceased James Faust, a member of the Church’s governing First Presidency (although I am not aware of him or any other of the Church’s leaders mentioning political affiliation other than Ezra Taft Benson, who was Ike’s Secretary of Agriculture while serving as a Church apostle).
If I understand you, correctly, TC (at 10), the Mormon Church teaches against abortion, but does not, specifically, beleive it to be murder. If it did, it would not have a provision (even a conditional one) to kill a child for no other reason than that his father is a rapist. If it believed abortion to be murder it could not countenance a leader in its hierarchy supporting and protecting its legality (being “pro-choice”) in the political realm.
The Mormon Church position (only as you claim it is, I do not profess knowledge that it is that way), it seems to me, is very much like the position so many liberal Republicans take. Wishing to please or appease pro-life voters, they assert themselves to be “personally” pro-life, but politically they are pro-abortion. I’ve had the opportunity to question many of them, personally, and they can never articulate a logical rationale for their theoretical “anti” position. Why are they “against” abortion only so long as they can do nothing “against” abortion? What do they find is wrong with it? They certainly can’t think it is killing a human being. If they thought it was killing a human being, the rest of their position on it would be identical to justifying Hitler’s gas chambers, “messy, yes, but that doesn’t mean we can intervene!”
I guess the the Church (according to you) must either belive that human life begins only at birth (but that the little pods should be retained for 9 months just in case) or that non-Mormons are such basket cases it is Okay to let them kill each other.
I guess your post didn’t clear that much up for me.
Look back to what Supreme Court Justices said about the Mormon Church as they created the right of abortion in Roe v. Wade
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/040315/15spotlight.htm
“I never thought that I would be standing against the combined might of the Roman Catholic Church and the Mormon church and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and other forces,”
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is both pro-choice and pro-life. It values free agency and freedom of religion, but is against abortion unless it is in the case of rape, incest, life of the mother, or a severe defect where the child will not life past birth. The Church considers such cases to be very personal decisions between the woman and her God. The Church has given no indication that an abortion decision should include the state.
Mike,
It has been my observation that the grassroots members of the Church think the Church is pro-life, not “both,” but that more “sophisticated” crafty types, like Romney, make claims of loopholes.
I, personally, think trying to claim both sides like saying “The Southern Baptist Convention is both pro-choice on slaveholding and anti-slavery”
For while it is possible to hold a “personal” religious discipline or vow, like, say, fasting every Saturday, and not expect others to participate in obedience to it, to be , in other words, a “personal” faster, it is not possible to believe that a prenatal child is an individual human life and ever condone killing it, whether because it is the “choice” of the murderer, or because it is the son or daughter of a rapist or incestuous relationship (and, presumably, therefore, worthless).
Religious practices may be arbitrary, like not eating meat on Friday or wearing special underwear, or crossing oneself at some particular time, and those practices may hold legitmate meaning, but none of that can compare to a moral principle as fundamental as NOT MURDERING PEOPLE.
If we can believe Genesis, it is the first law God established for fallen man when there was only ONE law: “And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”
To say we believe that it is wrong to kill people, but Okay to choose to kill people is as much as to say we don’t really believe it’s wrong to kill people.
Doug,
You are intelligent and articulate. This much is clear. But surely you realize that it’s a non-starter to have any meaningful discussion about abortion rights (pro or con) when one party (you, in this case) believes that to terminate a pregnancy at any time for any reason is MURDER (your caps)…end of story. Given that this is your stance, anybody trying to gain a deeper understanding of this very difficult issue — weighing biology, faith, scripture, the role of the government, the role of the church, the matter of free agency, etc. — sounds like an equivocator or worse, a boob. And indeed, you are calling most everyone engaged in this thread one or both of these things, in your own way. I would suggest that since regarding abortion as MURDER is a complete non-starter for an intelligent discussion between opposing viewpoints on this matter, those who hold this viewpoint should withdraw from the debate between those who are truly trying to have an intelligent discussion regarding this enormously difficult issue. For, indeed, it would appear for you and those of your ilk, this really is not a matter open for discussion or debate at all. Meaningful dialog can only occur when there is at least some degree of open-mindedness between all parties. Your belief that all abortion is murder makes all other discussion irrelevant. And as this discussion thread shows, it only offers you a forum to disparage all viewpoints different from your own. Your responses to those who are engaging in a provocative and very difficult discussion suggests that you have not a scintilla of uncertainty on the matter, nor do you have a willingness to accept that you may not know God’s precise will with complete and utter certainty on this matter. If the matter were as clear-cut and profoundly KNOWABLE as you suggest, it would hardly be the divisive issue it is (even among otherwise brilliant and noble people, of which you may be one, for all I know). Why not simply say, “Abortion is murder. Any other point of view is wrong. That is my position,” and call it a day? That would allow those who are struggling to come to an intellectual and moral understanding of the issue between themselves and their God and their government knowing that you have ONLY THIS to add to the discussion. Because that’s all you DO bring to this dialog.
I am a Mormon trying to understand God’s will, but I would never suggest that I KNOW God’s will with complete certainty. Rather, through prayer and discussion with all people who are also trying to gain the best understanding they can on the subject, I am trying to come to my own point of view. An unwillingness to see ANY gray area on this matter — or an inability to even see HOW there could be a gray matter for others — suggests such a degree of arrogance that you may, indeed, be causing people like myself to regard you as a fringe kook.
Respectfully (truly),
Joe
Joe,
That’s one of the very well written comments I have see in this or any other blog.
My stand is pro-life but I have to admit – You have politely and in very articulate manner showed some flaws in my own discussion of the issue with some of my pro-choice friends.
[...] the field… whatever that field might be called. A commenter named Joe, a self-described Mormon, commenting on the article about Romney’s claim that their church is pro-choice, explains why I (and all those like me) must [...]
I just today realized that, although I responded to “Joe,” above, as a front-page article, here, on theReaganWing, and even linked to that response immediately above this post, unless you clicked on that link, above, you might think I had not responded and that “Joe” had actually made some good points.
To the contrary.
So, I’m going to post the text from that article, here, as a direct reply that is easier to find:
****************************
Occasionally we get a comment on the Reagan Wing.com that is classic. It is so good (in its own special sense) that it is as if our whole web presence were some kind of complex trolling lure to catch statements of supreme irony. It happens when a leftist unleashes a torrent of HATRED for us preceded by his claimed motivation: that conservatives are intolerant. But although that particular self-contradiction has a certain, perverse deliciousness to it, it happens often enough that the novelty wears off.
But today [this was originally posted 9/28/'08] we got a post, directed squarely at me, that deserves some kind of award in the field… whatever that field might be called. A commenter named Joe, a self-described Mormon, commenting on the article about Romney’s claim that their church is pro-choice, explains why I (and all those like me) must be somehow eliminated from all discussion of Abortion.
I first encountered the attitude at the root of “Joe’s” comment in 1984 and I was thoroughly nonplussed by it at the time, partially because I was talking to someone who I wanted to continue a discussion with.
She asserted, in no uncertain terms, that it was not possible to be certain of anything. “Absolute Knowledge” of anything was impossible AND she knew this ABSOLUTELY. Further, she insisted that I MUST AGREE with this assumption and that rule must be imposed on the discussion or she would refuse to continue to discuss anything with me.[!] Now be advised that I had made no similar demand. Just as in the Romney discussion thread with Joe, I did not demand that everyone accept my assertions as true before continuing the discussion. I did not even demand that anyone agree that a conclusion was possible, though that was my opinion then and now. She (and Joe), however, demand that their assumptions be accepted by everyone at the table or they will simply get up and leave! (Or ask me to leave.)
And the assumption that they want us to accept (without discussion) is utter baloney.
C.S. Lewis dealt with it in, I think, Mere Christianity. He said, “it is a proof that there are no proofs” and called it “nonsense.” If, in fact, it is not possible to absolutely know anything, one of the things it is not possible to know is that it is not possible to know anything. So the best one could do, in that circumstance, would be to admit that he or she actually doesn’t know anything. And the next thing one must, obviously, do is admit that it is possible that someone else actually does (know something).
But what you see at work in Joe’s mindset is an unreasonable philosophical termite that is at work undermining all of Western Culture.
They teach it, now, in the public schools, in open violation of the First Amendment. They inculcate it in our children’s minds by conditioning. It is an unbending, insistent, constantly repeated dogma. It is equated with wisdom and intelligence. It is the religious belief that there is no such thing as true knowledge. It is the faith that nothing can be absolutely known. And the reason it is crucial to the advancement of Liberalism and One World Government is that it makes it possible for someone to carry two contradictory ideas in his mind at the same time and treat both as if they were true. It is at the root of what Marxists call the “dialectic” process.
It was my mere introduction of logic into the “Romney/abortion” discussion thread that prompted “Joe’s diatribe” because I pointed out a logical contradiction in a commenter’s assertions. I made no claim to “absolute knowledge.” Read the thread!
I became convinced, during the primary Presidential race, that Mitt Romney was not a highly-skilled liar, like Bill Clinton, as I had originally thought. The reason he can tell one group something and their opponents the exact opposite is because he has the astounding ability to hold both beliefs simultaneously and be sincere. It is because he no longer believes in truth at all in the traditional sense. He shares that in common with Washington State’s own [former State GOP Chair] Chris Vance and [former King County GOP Chair] Michael Young, to name two marvelously sincere-seeming prevaricators.
I’m sure Mitt Romney would not be at all irritated by the suggestion that someone “knows” something. But Joe is, by contrast, very irritated. It’s all just “words” to Mitt. Vance and I could bat them back and forth for hours, me pointing out how Chris was contradicting a previous statement and Chris assuring me that even “experts” can’t agree on the meaning of the Constitution or the Bible.
But the suggestion that there might be knowable philosophical truth still bothers “Joe.” It bothers him so much he wants me out of the discussion for even mentioning the possibility. You know he can’t really mean it when he says any “certainty” of opinion disqualifies me from rational discussion. Do you suppose if he were really looking for the truth about a medical problem he would eliminate any doctor who claimed to know what was wrong? Does he search for an auto mechanic until he finds one who can’t make up his mind on a diagnosis?
Joe is experiencing “cognitive dissonance.” He still, in his heart of hearts, knows that it may be possible to know the Truth. But he also knows it is incompatible with some of his philosophical assumptions and there is an uncomfortable conflict in his own mind because he still has a conscience. I exacerbate that discomfort simply by suggesting that there IS such a thing as truth; that it is possible to consider life’s issues and problems and come up with the right or wrong answer.
He’s been told the opposite. Over and over again. “There are no wrong answers.” He’s been conditioned to believe that all he has to do is come up with some position with which he’s comfortable, as if life were a huge couch and he, its potato.