I posted this as a comment to Kagro X's thread on Romney's speech. I'm posting it as a diary at the suggestion of one commenter. The gist of the matter is that Romney makes a couple of references to political views held by various actors in the Book of Mormon. However, those views don't directly translate to our modern political context. Full post below the fold.
There are several touchpoints to LDS beliefs in Romney's speech. I won't cover all of them here (the others I noticed weren't particularly significant), just those that I think illuminate Romney's thinking as a Mormon. I begin with one bit that's been getting a fair amount of attention:
Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
Consider this a corollary to the New Testament verse "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (paraphrasing). The Mormon twist on this comes from the Book of Mormon, in which various prophets are describing the religious life of the people who lived in the Americas. Those prophets linked the people's righteousness and their personal liberty. When the "Nephites" wandered off-course, they were taken captive by the "Lamanites" or evil influences in their society threatened their existence. That's somewhat of a simplification, but the Book of Mormon discusses this theme quite a bit. I disagree with Romney's interpretation because we don't live, nor should we live, in a theocracy as the Nephites did. The rules were different then and there's no direct correlation these days with "righetousness" and "freedom" except in a purely personal moral sense -- if you don't abuse drugs, you're free from their influence and so forth. Romney's extension of the concept to political freedom is where, I feel, some Mormons (including Romney) go wrong in interpreting the scriptures. You can't transplant the political lessons from a theological society into a modern political context, it just doesn't work, for both practical and moral reasons.
Romney's view on that subject is in direct conflict with this:
As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law
Because in this case he's not allowing the LDS church undue influence; he's allowing the undue influence of religion generally. Where Kennedy drew a bright line between the two, Romney is willing to comingle a cleverly-disguised admixture of religious belief with politics. It may not adhere to any single religious doctrine, but it is a doctrine in and of itself, and not the "political religion" espoused by Lincoln:
As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America's 'political religion' – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest.
which Romney would like to claim as his own.
Instead, he proposes this:
It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it's usually a sound rule to focus on the latter – on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.
This is another anachronistic political position that can be traced to the Book of Mormon. The prophet Mosiah, whose father was the lastking of the Nephites, established a new political order. Instead of "Kings", there would be "Judges" elected by the voice of the people who would establish laws, also according to the voice of the people. As one would expect, a society that's used to theocracy first elected judges who fit this criteria -- they were religious men who made laws in accordance with the religious convictions of the majority of the people. And that was fine as far as their society was concerned. However, we do not live in such a society and, therefore, it does not make sense to appoint "judges" whose views differ from the huge expanse of views held by the American people. It's as if Romney wants to find a lowest common denominator among the "religious" people and establish that as the moral base for his presidency.
That's all fine and good if everyone involved is from the same basic faith-tradition. But finding such a middle ground amongst the various religions in America would lead to a platform only a couple of sentences in length. In other words, there isn't much common ground out there for someone to build on if it's established on religion. Thus Romney is chasing an elusive and non-existent "center", one that may have existed at various times in the Book of Mormon but it doesn't exist today.