Romney Article on WND by Disaffected “Mormon”

After respectfully letting WND Founder and CEO, Joseph Farah, know how I felt about a WND article posted on Thursdday, October 13, 2011 (or Friday, October 14), by a [Mormon] “Bishop’s daughter,” in which she made very disparaging remarks about the church (and the temple), and asked did we really want a Mormon as President, I submitted the following article for publication.  One of the Column Editors made a few minor changes, so what follows is what I submitted, and varies slightly from what was published.   (I believe it was slightly better before it was edited, but it remains mostly entact!)

Written and submitted on 14 October 2011.  Published 16 October.

Tom Ballantyne, an active member of the LDS Church, is the Author of two books on politics published in 2011:  Uncommon Sense…Apparently! “A Call To Arms,” (available on Amazon), and Oh Really, O’Reilly! “The Spin Starts Here…Apparently!” The final edited version of the latter will just released on Amazon tomorrow, Tuesday, October 18, 2011.  (An unedited version is still available in “Used,” although he highly recommends the now-edited version.)  Tom’s website/blog is: www.UncommonSenseNow.com

Being a regular reader of WND on-line, I was quite surprised that the Conservative site would give someone’s unsubstantiated (and somewhat unsavory) opinion about such a highly-respected institution as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Sure, the Church is much maligned by homosexual activists for its undeviating (interesting term in this context) stance on traditional marriage (as opposed to same-sex marriage), and was attacked by feminists for its opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment some years back, but the members of the Church are predominantly Conservative – and I’m being “conservative” when I say “predominantly.”  So, again, I was disappointed that WND would join the chorus of the disaffected in disparaging an Institution which strongly proclaims values shared by virtually all Conservatives, and the members of which are largely “right of center.”  (Some of us – many of us – are far “right of center”!)

Getting to the more salient point, however, I wish to address what I, and, I assume, most Americans today would consider, the narrow view that one shouldn’t vote for a particular candidate because he or she is “Mormon.”  Are we really having this conversation in the Twenty-First Century?  And what was it that Martin Luther King said about judging a man (or woman) “by the content of his character”?  Dr. King also truthfully observed that “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere!” – which is one of the reasons I chose to respond to at least some of the points or allegations made in the aforementioned WND article. 

I’ve said all that I will about the allegations, and I am not speaking for the Church officially.  (I have served as a counselor to three Bishops, and currently serve with my wife, Jan, in the Mesa Arizona Temple, so I am fully aware of what goes on inside of the Temples, and have been since age nineteen – some forty-two years ago.  Jan and I are the parents of eight children, twenty-five grand children, and we currently teach the three-year-old “Sunbeams” in our “ward” or congregation, so we are “ordinary” members of the Church.  I do not believe that anyone is “ordinary”…but that is a discussion for another day.  See The Secret of Life, published by the author in January of 2009.)

So, in this post-Glenn Beck (on Fox, at least) era, are there still Conservatives who question the loyalty of Latter-day Saints to Conservative values?  Apparently (and sadly), yes, there are!  I hasten to add, however, that it is both their right to do so, and their right to say so, as well as to publish their views – as am I (and others) who disagree with them.

To be brief, I will simply state for the record that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes (and this is part of our published doctrine) that the Constitution is “a heavenly banner” and “true” (Joseph Smith), and that God “raised up” the “wise men” who wrote it “unto that very purpose” (D & C 101:80).  And here is a definitive statement from the Lord himself on the subject:

“And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.  And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.  Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; and as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil” (D & C 98:4-7).

In the “religious” context, some will disavow the claim that this was a revelation from God. That is their privilege.  We believe otherwise.  That is our privilege.  Are we heretics because we believe that God still speaks to man?  Let each man (and woman) judge that for himself.  Those on the Left disparaged George Bush for praying about matters of state.  Are we on the Right so narrow in our views?  I pray that we are not!

Joseph Smith also said:  “I am the greatest advocate of the Constitution of the United States that there is on the earth.  In my feelings I am always ready to die for the protection of the weak and oppressed in their just rights” (History of the Church 6:56-57).  He, of course, subsequently did die, at the hands of an enraged mob, while in jail in Carthage, Illinois, under the “guaranteed protection of the governor of the state,” on June 27, 1844, because, among other things, he would not disavow that he had seen God…and yet he was a champion of the very Constitution that should have protected both him and his rights of conscience and belief….but I digress!

So now that the reader knows the official stance of the Church on the Constitution, I will enlighten him or her on my own views of several current, prominent Latter-day Saints.  The first two I single out because they were mentioned in the WND article to which I am responding, and, of course, because they are currently seeking the Republican nomination for President of the United States.  In a word, I wouldn’t dream of voting for or supporting either.  Obviously each has achieved a measure of success, and deserves whatever credit for which that may qualify him.

As a citizen, and as a Latter-day Saint, I have but one standard (other than that of personal comportment and integrity) by which to judge the suitability of any elected official or candidate, and that is the same standard which we should all apply to every law or proposed piece of legislation:  Is it consistent with the principles countenanced by the Constitution of the United States, and its authors?

This is not complicated, my friends.  So, in the case of the two named candidates, I and everyone, I believe, should ask only:  Will they, individually, seek to restore the Constitution?  Yes, I ‘upped the ante’ by including the word “restore.”  Once again, this isn’t complicated.  In my as-always “humble” opinion, the Constitution has been ignored for the past one-hundred years, and shredded in our lifetimes, especially, of course, of late!  So if the Constitution or the Rule of Law mean anything, they must be restored!  We are well beyond merely tweaking minor infringements. 

Since Mitt Romney believes that the federal government should be in the business of providing personal retirement policies (aka Social Security), he clearly believes that “promot[ing] the general welfare” is an open-ended proposition.  Any who have read Madison or Jefferson (among others) know that it is not.

As for Jon Huntsman, anyone who believes that the federal government should be providing personal health-care or monitoring our “carbon footprint,” is no believer in the doctrine of enumerated powers.  All who read this blog (WND) should not require a further explanation of that.  (For those who do not, however, I refer them to the Tenth Amendment – the one in conjunction with the First, Second, Fifth, and Ninth, which I consider to be the most important.  We need them all, of course.)

I will dispense with my opinion giving by taking on the one-time unofficial leader of the 912, and even Tea Party (to a lesser degree) movements, Glenn Beck.  For those who wish a detailed (418 page) dissertation of the specific issues on which I and “Brother Beck” disagree, I refer them to the previously-referenced Oh Really, O’Reilly! in which I call to task the vast array of “Conservatives” who have acquiesced to supporting the usurpation of the presidency of the United States by not only defending this “Dog ate my homework” on a national and even international plain, but by disparaging (savaging, in the case of Mr. Beck) all those – such as Joseph Farah, Bob Unruh, Jerome Corsi, Michael Savage, and (at one time, at least) Lou Dobbs – who have had the courage, intellectual honesty, and integrity, to challenge this obvious charade.  (No greater cover-up ever existed!)

As noted, my one-time “friend” (he doesn’t know me yet) Glenn Beck, has not only been on board with the “birther bashers,” but has even lead the shrill chorus in the intensity of his attacks.  Sadly, for Brother Glenn, he has missed a simple point made by another notable Latter-day Saint, Stephen R. Covey (author of The Seven Habits…):  “When one picks up one end of the stick, he also picks up the other.” 

We can choose our actions, but we can’t choose whether or not we will receive the inevitable consequences that derive therefrom.  Glenn has chosen to pretend that the matter of Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution is ‘no big deal.’  Sorry, Glenn, but you can’t have it both ways.  You can’t harp on “standing for truth” all day long, and then decide that you will ‘sit this one out’…just to be considered (momentarily, at least) “cool” by those who daily disparage you.  You pick up one end of the stick (not telling the “whole truth”), and you pick up the other (your integrity has been compromised).

I will end by simply observing that I was at first surprised by the ferocity of Glenn’s attacks on what he obviously doesn’t comprehend to be 90-95% of his audience, who do care about this “distraction” (read embarrassment).  But then I realized why he was doing it.  It is the same reason for which teenage (and older) boys feel the need to fight when someone calls their “coolness” into question.  Would one do that if a younger sibling or child offered such a taunt?  Of course not.  He would simply laugh and ignore him.  It is the fear that one really might be inferior that causes him to respond.  (In psychological terms, anger is a “secondary” emotion.)

This isn’t precisely the same, but in parallel fashion, it is Glenn’s knowledge (or fear) that he has rationalized, and not “stood for truth,” that creates in him the need to lash out, and ridicule those who have not sold their souls over this issue.  As detailed in my book (O’Reilly), Glenn’s pal O’Reilly obviously agreed to “lead the charge” in dismissing this undeniable farce – that of presenting “digital images” of documents, while indefatigably fighting, all the way to yesterday, October 12, 2011, in Judge Rhonda Nishimura’s[1] Federal District Court in Honolulu, the release of the previously court-ordered (subpoenaed) vault copy.  So Glenn, in order to not jeopardize his relationship with O’Reilly (or Rupert Murdoch – see cover of O’Reilly), did what Sir Thomas Moore (A Man for All Seasons) refused to do. 

“When a man takes an oath [or proclaims truth as his highest standard], he’s holding his own self in his own hands like water, and if he opens his fingers then, he needn’t hope to find himself again.”

The bottom line on all of this, is that being a “Mormon” does not bind me to anyone, of any faith, with whom I disagree on principle; and my highest standard, in the realm of government, is the Constitution of the United States – all of it, Glenn, Mitt, and Jon – and the Rule of Law…and the very basis of the rule of law is that we cannot pick and choose which portions of the Supreme Law (the Constitution) we will or will not apply and obey…and no one is above the law!