Brother Romney, Do You Sustain...

Yesterday I made reference to Mitt Romney, the Republican governor of Massachusetts. There are a fair number of Rebs in the country who regard him as a serious candidate for president in 2008. He has announced his intention not to run for reelection as governor, which many regard as tantamount to an announcement that he will make a run at the White House. While he’s generally regarded as a fairly staunch conservative, positions such as the one he appears to be taking on health care and insurance reform, not to mention his role as the highly successful leader of the Salt Lake City Olympic Committee, could make him appealing to a broad band of voters.

Governor Romney brings an interesting challenge with him – he’s an active Mormon. Recall the sometimes heated debate (i.e., it generated heat, not light) when John Kennedy, a Catholic, ran for president in 1960. The issue then, which seems a little silly now, was whether a Catholic would be controlled or overly influenced by the papacy in his decision-making process. While it seems very unlikely that we would return to that particular debate with any other Catholic candidate for president, John Kerry, another Catholic, faced a denominational-based debate about his position on abortion. If Mitt Romney becomes a serious candidate for the oval throne room we may see the debate return to the 1960 issue – would a Mormon candidate be controlled or unduly influenced by the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? It’s not a silly question.

I’ve known a lot of fully active Catholics who openly disagree with the sitting Pope or past papal positions without much hesitation. On the other hand, I’ve known almost no fully active Latter-day Saints who would disagree, openly or otherwise, with the Mormon Prophet, First Presidency, or Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. In Catholicism, one may disagree strongly with church leadership and still be allowed to participate in the various sacraments and rituals of the church, with the support of abortion being or becoming a possible exception. In Mormonism, however, to voice public disagreement with the President of the Church, who is regarded as a “Prophet, Seer and Revelator,” makes a Latter-day Saint “unworthy” to participate in the sacraments and rituals of the church.

Active Mormons are interviewed extensively by two levels of priesthood leadership every year in order for the leadership to assess their “personal worthiness” to hold a “temple recommend”, a documented validation that is required in order to enter any Mormon Temple and participate in the “ordinances” conducted there. The first of 14 questions asked is, “Do you believe in God, the Eternal Father, in his Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost; and do you have a firm testimony of the restored gospel?” The reference to “restored gospel” is meant to assess their testimony regarding the Prophet Joseph Smith and his historical account of the “true gospel” and the “one and only true and living church” of Jesus Christ being restored to the earth through the personal appearance and direction of the Father and the Son. The next two interview questions could become political fodder in a presidential campaign:

“Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator; and do you recognize him as the only person on the earth authorized to exercise all priesthood keys [of authority]? Do you sustain the other General Authorities [i.e., the First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, several Quorums of the Seventy, and Presiding Bishopric) and the local authorities (a member’s bishop, bishopric, stake presidency, and high council) of the Church?”

“Sustaining” is a term of art in the Mormon Church. With respect to the General Authorities, AKA “the Brethren”, it means following them and their counsel and direction for the church and its membership, pure and simple. If a member hopes to be “found worthy”, to go into a Temple, to be called to serve in positions of leadership, then exceptions are not permitted. As a latter-day apostle of Jesus Christ declared, “When the Brethren have spoken, the thinking is done.” With regard to the local level of church authorities, there is much more latitude. Disagreement is frequent, but kept within certain respectful limits.

Mitt Romney almost certainly holds a temple recommend and would be expected to “sustain the Brethren” at all times while serving as president. The Brethren have taken positions on political matters, such as officially opposing the Equal Rights Amendment, and have spoken about many issues without taking an official position. What would a Mormon president do in office if the man he regards a the only living prophet of God, or the Quorum he regards as the literal reestablishment of the 12 apostles of Jesus Christ, were to speak out or take a position on a matter of national policy or international politics?

It’s not a silly question. Mormons are not Catholics. The Mormon Prophet isn’t the Pope. The Quorum of the Twelve isn’t the College of Cardinals. Mitt Romney may be from Massachusetts, but he isn’t John Kennedy.