Mormons themselves think of Gordon Hinckley’s achievements as well as his personality when they reflect on his administration as President of the Church. He is renowned for building scores of temples all over the world, and Mormons appreciate the thought behind all that construction. Hinckley aimed to make everything that was available to Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City available to Church members in Tokyo and Rio de Janeiro. He expended a great deal of Church money to make a full Mormon life possible in every corner of the earth.

Continue »

I liked Mitt Romney’s "Faith in America" speech. He made very clear that he believes in religious liberty in many dimensions. First, of course, was his appeal for tolerance for his own Mormon faith, but also respect for the other religions in the country–Catholics, Evangelicals, Jews, Muslims. They will all find him to be a "friend and ally," he said. The one group he left out was the non-believers: Do they have a place at the table? That question should be addressed to him, and he should have an answer.

He also specified that religious liberty means freedom from the dictates of church authorities in politics. He will follow, he said emphatically, his own conscience, the welfare of the American people, and the Constitution in making decisions. This is the Kennedy doctrine of 1960, and Romney endorsed it fully. People continue to ask if a revelation to the head of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would be binding on him in the political realm. His answer was uncompromising: no. Wouldn’t this get him in trouble with his own church? The answer again is no. For over a century, the official church has explicitly stated that Latter-day Saint politicians are not bound by the church’s political stands.

Romney’s speech was a long appeal to the American people: Will you accept me as a Mormon? I am not going to leave my faith. I am not a believer of convenience. Will you include me, nonetheless, among those whom you will allow to participate fully in the American political process, including a run for the presidency? Do not the principles of liberty, the ones we are fighting for right now, require us to open the door to all faiths? Put that way, it will be hard for religious people to say no.

For political purposes, Eisenhower was right when he said you should have a religion and it doesn’t matter which one it is. For religious purposes, it matters a lot.

You should believe in a religion you think is true, even if that implies you think someone else’s religion is not true. A religion worth its salt will shape you up, and that requires that it have a little starch in it. What good is a religion that says it doesn’t matter what you believe or what you do?

The question is not true versus false but freedom versus coercion. The question for Benedict XVI is what are you going to do about it? I am sure he will have a perfectly respectable answer.