America’s Founders, Mormons, & Religious Secrets

Jonathan Rowe on Dec 15th 2007 02:02 pm |

Joel Belz talks about Mitt Romney’s Mormonism and notes the secrecy and beating around the bush that oft-accompanies Mormonism.

So it’s not bigotry for Americans to ask of Mormons they know: “Why so secretive? Why the necessity to hide so much?” One of the hallmarks of the historic Christian faith—as opposed to some of the cults it has spun off—is its eagerness to say: “Check us out! We may have embarrassing moments in our past, but we have no secrets.” We’re like Jesus saying to Thomas: “Feel the nail prints. Thrust your hand into my side!”

And that’s one reason why America’s first 4-6 Presidents, because they weren’t Christians, kept religious secrets. Here is Thomas Jefferson speaking of Washington’s:

Dr. Rush tells me that he had it from Asa Green that when the clergy addressed Genl. Washington on his departure from the govmt, it was observed in their consultation that he had never on any occasion said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Xn religion and they thot they should so pen their address as to force him at length to declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so. However he observed the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly except that, which he passed over without notice. Rush observes he never did say a word on the subject in any of his public papers except in his valedictory letter to the Governors of the states when he resigned his commission in the army, wherein he speaks of the benign influence of the Christian religion.

I know that Gouverneur Morris, who pretended to be in his secrets & believed himself to be so, has often told me that Genl. Washington believed no more of that system than he himself did.

As I’ve noted many time before, Jefferson, Franklin, and John Adams, without question, because they explicitly detailed such in their private letters, were not Christians but theological unitarians/theistic rationalists. The evidence also strongly points towards Washington, Madison, Wilson, G. Morris, and Hamilton (before his end of life “born again” experience, after his son was killed) being such. But there are gaps. When searching the record for “smoking gun” quotations, we see lots of evidence they believed in God, indeed an active personal God, but little if any that they were orthodox Trinitarian Christians. And this takes place during a time when orthodox Churches had much more social (and at the state level legal) power and expected public figures to be orthodox. Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams we know denied orthodox Christianity, only by examining their private writings. Like Washington, Madison, et al. publicly they spoke in generic philosophical terms about God and did not come out of the closet, so to speak, as rationalist unitarians. Even in the absence of smoking gun evidence that Washington, Madison, Hamilton et al. denied orthodox Christianity like Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams clearly did, their systematic refusal to specifically affirm orthodoxy Christianity strongly points in the direction of their theistic rationalism.

If you want to do an interesting experiment on Washington via search engines, go to this page which catalogues over 20,000 pages of his known public and private writings and speeches and search for “Jesus Christ.” You’ll find only one match in a speech to Delaware Indians that wasn’t even written in Washington’s hand, and point by point restated what they wanted (a pattern that Washington often used in his speeches and letters). The Indians wanted to study the religion of Jesus Christ and Washington states, “You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ.” Elsewhere when speaking to Indians who had no desire to convert Washington referred to God as “The Great Spirit,” exactly as the Indians did. Indeed he did so twice, one time crossing out the word “God” and writing in “The Great Spirit above.” On the other hand Washington uses the generic term “Providence” hundreds of times.

Filed in Uncategorized

4 Responses to “America’s Founders, Mormons, & Religious Secrets”

  1. mish says:

    Good job!

    One of the secrets Mitt Romney is keeping is his oath of allegiance to his church, which he swore in his Mormon temple ceremony. It’s known as the Law of Consecration, and Mormons are commanded in the ceremony to “never divulge” this oath. (Pre-1990, there was a bloody death penalty oath associated with disclosing the secrets.)

    This oath compels the good Mormon to use “everything” that the Lord has given him or will give him – which includes his Presidency of the United States – to establish a Mormon theocracy on earth and build up the Mormon church. Naturally, Salt Lake City will give the commands.

    While it is hopefully one of the “goals” of true Christians, working collectively as the body of Christ, using their different gifts as the Spirit parceled out, to save souls from hell, wining them over to Christ, that is NOT the same as building up an organization of man on this earth, with, say Gordon B. Hinckley representing God on earth.

    Jesus said, “In secret have I said nothing.” (John 18:20) Whereas Mitt Romney said, “In secret, I have sworn my life to the Mormon church.”

    It’s all documented at http://romneyforpresident.townhall.com/

    Like Mormonism, the blog isn’t what it seems.

    (Funny photos too!)

  2. Explicit Atheist says:

    I am convinced that Rommey more than likely recognizes religions are false, as do most, and probably all, of the Republicans and Democrats running for president, contrary to anything they publically say otherwise (yes, they are publically lying), so I don’t consider him or most of them as a threat to democracy because of their own personal religious beliefs. Instead, I consider Romney to be just one of the multiple candidates who must position themselves as representing a majority constituency to get elected and then, once elected, to run the country (which, of course, then becomes a bigger problem). Particularly for Republicans that means pandering to genuinely ideological Christians. Romney opted to do this, regrettably, by scapegoating unpopular secularists, but he isn’t alone among Republican candidates in doing that either.

  3. Matt says:

    OK, I’m confused, if this guy is just pretending to believe to pick up religious votes why pretend to believe a relatively unpopular minority faith rather than go with something closer to the majority of those voters?

  4. Explicit Atheist says:

    Some politicians do convert to more popular denominations to get elected like some politicans have switched political parties for similar reasons, but obviously they have family and other social ties to their particular denomination and concerns about not appearing to be too opportunistic or insincere.

    It wasn’t a problem for Romney getting elected in Massachusetts, he didn’t run Massachussets as a Church of LDS theocracy or even try to use government to promote or favor the Church of LDS anymore than Kennedy as president tried to use government on behalf of Catholicism and the Vatican. He, like some of the other Republicans, “converted” to a more explicit or evangelical expression of Christianity when they became Republican candidates for presidents. Similarly, some Democrats became more ostentatiously monotheistic during their campaigns, they say nothing about god when they work in Congress or the Governor’s house or wherever and then mention God multiple times a day on the campaign trail, its a reflection of their target audience as much as if not more than a reflection of the actual beliefs of the person running for office.