« Your Favorite Chronicle | Main | Christ Jesus Victor »
November 24, 2007
Prophet Sharing
Pop quiz: What was Lyndon Johnson's religious affiliation? Don't know? Don't care? Neither did the voters in 1964 (in 1960, it mattered that he was Protestant, generically, just to balance out the ticket with John F. Kennedy). So what changed? That's the question posed by Peggy Noonan in this morning's Wall Street Journal.
Noonan laments the heightened attention to candidate religion in the 2008 presidential election. Noting the lack of attention to George Romney's Mormonism in 1968, compared to his son's religion in 2008, Noonan writes:
No one cared, really, that Richard Nixon was a Quaker. They may have been confused by it, but they weren't upset. His vice president, Spiro Agnew, was not Greek Orthodox but Episcopalian. Nobody much noticed. Nelson Rockefeller of New York was not an Episcopalian but a Baptist. Do you know what Lyndon Johnson's religion was? He was a member of the Disciples of Christ, but in what appeared to be the same way he was a member of the American Legion: You're in politics, you join things. Hubert Humphrey was born Lutheran, attended Methodist churches and was rumored to be a Congregationalist. This didn't quite reach the level of mystery because nobody cared.
Noonan pleads with the American populace to get over the religion question, whether it is asking Gov. Romney whether he really believes the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri, or whether it is expecting Sen. Clinton to prove how her Methodist upbringing leads her to reform the managed care health system. She writes:
We should lighten up on demanding access to their hearts. It is impossible for us to know their hearts. It's barely possible to know your own. Faith is important, but it's also personal. When we force political figures to tell us their deepest thoughts on it, they'll be tempted to act, to pretend. Do politicians tend to give in to temptation? Most people do. Are politicians better than most people? Quick, a show of hands. I don't think so either.
Posted by Russell D. Moore at 03:00 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef00e54fa084e58834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Prophet Sharing :
Comments
I love Peggy, but I think she's wrong on this--and also a bit inconsistent. I can recall past columns where she has taken Pres. Bush to task for his overt religiousity. It seems that some religious opinions DO matter to her, after all.
Posted by: Richard | Nov 24, 2007 5:28:10 PM
No, I think she just wants religion out of the campaigns, regardless of whether its the voters or the candidates doing the bible-thumping.
Posted by: Seth R. | Nov 24, 2007 6:12:54 PM
I think a lot of the problem is that America's predominant religious identity is up for grabs. Times of uncertainty always tend to breed conflict, with an attendant hardening of the battle lines.
America used to be unquestionably Protestant in identity. You didn't used to have arguments over whether to have a Christmas tree in the library or not. Sure, we had a lot of Catholics, but it was still pretty-much a Protestant thing - from the guys on the street, to the halls of power and influence.
That's just not really true anymore. And now you see bastions of Protestant privilege scrambling to protect their cultural turf from the heathens at the gate.
That's why religion is currently such a big obnoxious deal in American discourse right now.
Posted by: Seth R. | Nov 24, 2007 6:19:33 PM
The fascination with Romney's Mormonism is puzzling to many of us in Mass. It never came up--except in passing reference--when he ran for governor in this most Catholic (in name only)) of states.
And the reason many of us here like him is that he always tried to place himself one-half step closer to traditional stances on social issues than did the liberal Democrats in this state. And in this fanatically bizarre liberal state that took courage.
Posted by: deacon john m. bresnahan | Nov 24, 2007 6:23:54 PM
Well, I don't really care where Romney thinks the Garden of Eden was located -- politically thinking, that is. I'm a follower of Jesus Christ, so I'm concerned for his soul but the President's heart is in the Lord's hands, regardless of his personal religious beliefs... My concern w/ Romney is that, when it comes to social aspects of domestic policy, he doesn't seem to be guided by his faith as much as I would prefer. Huckabee is, but then he adds in all sorts of mushy stuff that differs from my idea of wisdom. I'm still undecided but you can believe that it's not the religious affiliation he names but the policies by which he will govern my choice for the presidency.
Posted by: EMSoliDeoGloria | Nov 24, 2007 6:38:05 PM
"when it comes to social aspects of domestic policy, he doesn't seem to be guided by his faith as much as I would prefer."
A bit more specificity would be helpful. I think I know what you're referring to, but I'm not sure.
Posted by: Seth R. | Nov 24, 2007 8:03:36 PM
I just realized my comment at 6:19:33 PM makes it sound like the "hardening of the battle lines" is all the fault of Protestants. I don't think it is, just to clarify.
Posted by: Seth R. | Nov 24, 2007 11:50:46 PM
>>>I just realized my comment at 6:19:33 PM makes it sound like the "hardening of the battle lines" is all the fault of Protestants. I don't think it is, just to clarify.<<<
Romney's religious affiliation would not be an issue except for two things:
1. The LDS' past (and in Utah to a large extent continuing) interjection of the church leadership into the political process.
2. The continuing failure of the LDS to confront its past with openness and honesty, at times verging on true paranoia.
If these were resolved, no one would care what religion Romney professed. As it is, despite it's really slick propaganda campaign for general acceptance, Mormonism will remain problematic for a wide segment of the American population.
As for the people concerned about Giuliani's Catholicism, they are mainly Roman Catholics themselves, who would like to see the hierarchy impose stronger discipline upon errant public figures who are a visible symbol of the ability to ignore Church teachings with impunity. These Catholics, in return, are opposed by a majority of the American bishops, who enjoy the company of the rich and powerful more than they enjoy the oversight of Pope Benedict XVI.
Liberals, of course, just sit back and laugh, since they cynically play both sides of the street--on the one hand decrying the influence of religion in public life, while on the other trying to poach religious voters by donning the mantle of faith and occasionally resorting to God talk.
Unlike conservatives, liberals know the value of the wink-and-nudge. They're willing to do and say whatever they must to gain power (they just aren't very good at it, though), while conservatives too often let their principles get on the wrong side of their interests (which is when liberals win).
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 25, 2007 5:58:28 AM
I think #1 is more an afterthought to #2.
Honestly, the Mormon Church is probably one of the most politically non-involved Christian (yes, I know that term is disputed) denominations in the United States.
Salt Lake will occasionally issue calls to strike down a legalized gambling law, as they have in Utah and California, and elsewhere. Salt Lake also called for opposition to the ending of Prohibition, but that was a long time ago. There was opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment as well more recently, and an official call from Church Headquarters pretty-much sunk Reagan's MX Missile project. But you can hardly blame the Mormon leadership for not being thrilled about a nuclear bullseye being painted next to Temple Square.
Other than that, it's a very hands-off religious hierarchy. The Church didn't even endorse the gay marriage amendment last year. Senator Reid receives absolutely no pressure to vote one way or the other. Neither does Senator Hatch. If either were to vote in favor of partial birth abortion, for instance, neither would be subject to public reprimand by LDS authorities, nor Church discipline, either at Salt Lake or at their local leadership levels. Contrast that with a certain Catholic bishop threatening John Kerry with a denial of communion...
I don't think the LDS Church has ever endorsed a political candidate in my lifetime. I have attended Mormon Sunday services my entire life, and I have never heard a candidate endorsed at the pulpit. Nor are Church facilities allowed to be used for political campaigning, town meetings, or pamphlet distribution, or any other political purpose.
Contrast that with black Baptist churches in Harlem, or Chicago...
Heck, we even cut a deal with Chilean dictator Pinochet to allow Mormon missionaries to remain in the country. You could make the argument that the Mormon Church is non-political to a fault.
Now, the real problem is that Romney is so ambiguous about where he stands. And then you've got him kissing-up to the Religious Right, trying to claim he's "one of them."
I don't think the Religious Right really believes him, and I don't think I really believe him. I also don't think the act of "we Mormons are just like you" is going to fly. The faiths are obviously different in rather important ways. Neither are Mormons as hardline or unambiguous on key issues as conservative Evangelicals for instance.
To top it off, Mormons carry an undeniable stigma of being religious opportunists who will say anything to get their missionaries in your door. I'm not saying that stigma is fair or not. But it does exist. And Romney plays right into it by apparently trying to have it both ways. I think South Carolina voters, for example, would be a lot less suspicious of him if he'd quit trying to act like he's a fundamentalist Evangelical. He's really not, and I think people get that.
Posted by: Seth R. | Nov 25, 2007 7:13:26 AM
>>>Honestly, the Mormon Church is probably one of the most politically non-involved Christian (yes, I know that term is disputed) denominations in the United States.<<<
At the national level. Not in Utah, sorry. And what other religion had to swear it was not going to tell its adherents how to vote as a condition for a territory to be admitted to statehood? What other religion in the United States was involved in a de facto war with the United States government (and survived only because we got distracted by what we Virginians call "The Recent Unpleasantness"?
>>>Now, the real problem is that Romney is so ambiguous about where he stands. And then you've got him kissing-up to the Religious Right, trying to claim he's "one of them."<<<
So are all Mormons. Either they really don't know what Mormonism teaches, or they aren't telling. That's the thing about gnostic sects--the esoteric knowledge has to remain hidden, or it isn't esoteric. In this case, it has to remain hidden, or people would know precisely what Mormonism is, which would not be good for business.
>>.To top it off, Mormons carry an undeniable stigma of being religious opportunists who will say anything to get their missionaries in your door. <<<
I find icons and incense stop them cold.
>>>And Romney plays right into it by apparently trying to have it both ways. I think South Carolina voters, for example, would be a lot less suspicious of him if he'd quit trying to act like he's a fundamentalist Evangelical. He's really not, and I think people get that.<<<
But isn't pretending "We're just like you" at the heart of all LDS proselytizing ads? "We're for family values" is not what I would call "theologically rich" material. But. on the other hand, if the LDS ads did deal openly with LDS doctrine, how many converts would you get?
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 25, 2007 7:22:11 AM
"In this case, it has to remain hidden, or people would know precisely what Mormonism is, which would not be good for business."
And how "Christian" it really is. Mormonism is no more Christian than is Islam, they have the same origin. The only real difference is that Mormonism wants everyone to think it is a Christian sect and Islam take the opposite road.
I don't reallly care that Romney is Mormon. What bothers me more is his outight hypocrisy in painting himself as the "family values" candidate when he made money off the sale of pornography during his association with Marriott.
Kailla
Posted by: Kamilla | Nov 25, 2007 10:01:51 AM
"And what other religion had to swear it was not going to tell its adherents how to vote as a condition for a territory to be admitted to statehood? What other religion in the United States was involved in a de facto war with the United States government (and survived only because we got distracted by what we Virginians call "The Recent Unpleasantness"?"
I think you are underestimating the radical transformation that has occurred within Mormonism in the last 100 years. This really is a much different Church than the days of Brigham Young.
Take Prohibition for example. Prophet Heber J. Grant was vehemently opposed to its repeal and directly called on all Mormons to oppose it with him. They didn't respond and Utah was one of the votes passing the Amendment repealing the alcohol ban. President Grant also called on the population of Utah to oppose the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Again, no dice.
Things just aren't as oligarchic in Utah as you seem to think. The only reason it appears that Utah is under the sway of the Church Office Building, is because the hierarchy of the Church is currently aligning itself pretty evenly with popular opinion among Utah Mormons. If religion plays a role in Utah (and I think it does), it's at the grass roots level, and not from the top down as you have suggested.
"But isn't pretending "We're just like you" at the heart of all LDS proselytizing ads? "We're for family values" is not what I would call "theologically rich" material. But. on the other hand, if the LDS ads did deal openly with LDS doctrine, how many converts would you get?"
You've actually hit a sore spot for me. I've never liked the trend of minimizing unique doctrine in favor of mushy "family values" stuff. But I'm not calling the shots (for which I am truly grateful).
On the other hand, the LDS Church has recently retired its venerable "Family - Isn't it About Time" advertising campaign in favor of a rather new approach. If you go to Mormon.org, you can check out some of the new ads. They seem a bit more theologically in-your-face than the previous ads (not that that would be hard to do).
This is a rapidly evolving religion. In the US, it has made a radical transformation from isolated anti-American enclave, to the epitome of mainstream Americana. To saddle it with the image of Brigham Young as dictator is to misunderstand it.
Posted by: Seth R. | Nov 25, 2007 11:14:57 AM
Perhaps of interest, two articles from today's Daily Telegraph:
A news report on former prime minister Tony Blair's explanation of why he didn't "do God" while he was prime minister, Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter' and
secular journalist John Humphreys' comments on Blair's statements, We prefer politicians without a hotline to God.
Posted by: David Mills | Nov 25, 2007 12:17:11 PM
>>>I think you are underestimating the radical transformation that has occurred within Mormonism in the last 100 years. This really is a much different Church than the days of Brigham Young.<<<
This is "Green Eggs and Ham" evangelization:
"You do not like it, so you say.
Try it, try it, and you man.
Try it and you may, I say".
Actually, we have no way of knowing how 'transformed" the LDS is, since its operations are not, have never been transparent. I suspect that what you call "transformation" is merely getting a bit more sophisticated in the means of population control. I'm also seriously concerned about the expediency of the Elders and the willingness of the rank and file to follow without a moment of introspection. From its beginning until the late 1970s, the LDS refused to admit blacks, refused in fact to recognize blacks as being capable of redemption at all. Then, suddenly, a new revelation, everyone falls into line, and missionaries go forth to recruit the once reviled blacks of America and Africa. And everybody just nods and says, "Yup, I guess the Elders know what's right". Gimme a break! Who could possibly belong to such a church?
>>> "Family - Isn't it About Time" advertising campaign in favor of a rather new approach. <<<
We're still getting those here in Northern Virginia, on both radio and television. Beamed right from the Emerald City on the Beltway, no doubt.
(For those not in the know, the Mormons built a humongus temple in Maryland right where the Beltway and I-270 merge. As you come around the corner going back towards Virginia, there it rises, unmistakable and unavoidable. There's a railway overpass just as you come out of that turn, on which someone wrote, years ago, the immortal words "Surrender Dorothy". The Authorities periodically paint them over, but just as regularly, some brazen wit puts it back.)
(There is another, perhaps apocryphal, that says the workmen on the project found the LDS authorities to be difficult bosses, so in revenge, when the huge statue of the Angel Gabriel blowing his trumpet was hoisted to the highest spire of the temple, one disgruntled construction worker rammed a beer bottle down the bell of the trumpet, where it remains to this day.)
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 25, 2007 12:35:36 PM
>>>A news report on former prime minister Tony Blair's explanation of why he didn't "do God" while he was prime minister, Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'<<<
I already mentioned my encounter with a very urbane, well-educated Brit who told me, with a straight face, that the reason Blair and Bush got on so famously was that "They're both fundamentalists, you know".
Actually, it was news to me, and I wondered just my companion would think if he knew anything at all about my own religious beliefs.
>>., We prefer politicians without a hotline to God.<<<
Or a spine, for that matter.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 25, 2007 12:41:31 PM
Stuart:
"...when the huge statue of the Angel Gabriel blowing his trumpet was hoisted to the highest spire of the temple..."
I don't think that angel's name is Gabriel.
I believe it is the angel Moroni :-)
Posted by: CV | Nov 25, 2007 3:26:10 PM
>>>I believe it is the angel Moroni :-)<<<
What's Moroni doing with Gabe's trumpet? I hope they use different mouthpieces.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 25, 2007 3:36:57 PM
Mormons understand Revelations 14:6 to be referring to the angel Moroni.
Stuart, I'm really not interested in discussing whether Mormonism is more credible than Protestantism. Keep your eye on the ball sport.
Posted by: Seth R. | Nov 25, 2007 5:42:17 PM
>>Mormons built a humongus temple in Maryland right where the Beltway and I-270 merge.
Go ahead and mock them. But the building's a good sight prettier than most of the Catholic churches built in the last four or five decades.
Posted by: DGP | Nov 25, 2007 7:05:56 PM
>>>Mormons understand Revelations 14:6 to be referring to the angel Moroni.<<<
OK, is there anyone who still thinks the Greek Fathers were wrong to exclude the Apocalypse from the lectionary?
>>>Stuart, I'm really not interested in discussing whether Mormonism is more credible than Protestantism. Keep your eye on the ball sport.<<<
I'm hardly a Protestant, and I have my arguments with them, as well. But they are quite obviously Christian (well, most of them) who adhere to the fundamental beliefs of the Apostles and the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople. Mormonism cannot make the same claims, but instead has a lot more in common with the early gnostic sects than with catholic Christianity.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 25, 2007 7:09:34 PM
>>>Go ahead and mock them. But the building's a good sight prettier than most of the Catholic churches built in the last four or five decades.<<<
Well, that's damning with faint praise.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 25, 2007 7:10:46 PM
"but instead has a lot more in common with the early gnostic sects than with catholic Christianity."
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Posted by: Seth R. | Nov 25, 2007 7:14:23 PM
***>>>Mormons understand Revelations 14:6 to be referring to the angel Moroni.<<<
OK, is there anyone who still thinks the Greek Fathers were wrong to exclude the Apocalypse from the lectionary?***
Now, now, Stuart if we are going to throw out everything from the canon that's been perverted by one group or another, we'd have to throw the whole thing out. There is an argument for keeping it under lock and key and requiring a saliva test of the reader.
Posted by: Bobby Winters | Nov 25, 2007 7:40:17 PM
>>There is an argument for keeping it under lock and key and requiring a saliva test of the reader.
The Economist recently tackled religion in a series of lengthy articles.
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10015255
The authors consistently misunderstand religion, largely because they seem constitutionally unable to look at it sympathetically.
Among the many gross errors and blunt indistinctions, they express perplexity about why religion has become more extreme in the past century, despite the diminishment of religious authorities across the field, from the RCC to establishment Protestantism to the Bible itself. It never seems to occur to the authors that religion may grow more virulent not despite but *because* authorities have been diminished, that religious authorities -- besides serving as target practice for disgruntled atheists -- play an important regulatory role within their respective religions.
Posted by: DGP | Nov 25, 2007 7:56:16 PM
>>>You say that like it's a bad thing.<<<
Only an idiot would think otherwise. I include Elaine Pagels among the idiots, by the way.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 25, 2007 8:12:51 PM
Well, I guess that settles it. Masterfully reasoned Stuart.
Posted by: Seth R. | Nov 25, 2007 8:30:25 PM
>>>Well, I guess that settles it. Masterfully reasoned Stuart.<<<
Some positions are just so indefensible that they do not deserve a reasoned response. But if you need one, try Irenaeus' Contra Heresis, which sums up the arguments against the gnostics very well indeed. Since gnosticism is the very antithesis of reason, I am surprised that you would dare invoke reason in defense of your gnostic position.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 25, 2007 8:32:38 PM
This is a rapidly evolving religion.
I guess that's what would be called (in LDSese) an oxyMoroni?
"Religion", from dictionary.com:
L religion- (s. of religio) conscientiousness, piety, equiv. to relig(are) to tie, fasten (re- re- + ligare to bind, tie; cf. ligament) cf. rely]
What you're binding yourself to evolves rapidly...and this is a good thing???
Posted by: bonobo | Nov 25, 2007 9:10:44 PM
Yes Bonobo, I do think that God's Church ought to have the ability to rapidly evolve. I see it as a strength actually.
Who said I'm taking a gnostic position Stuart? I still haven't even conceded that Mormonism is a "gnostic heresy" in the first place. But from what precious little I've read of gnosticism, I fail to see why I should care.
Dang it. You're sucking me in again Stuart.
Posted by: Seth R. | Nov 25, 2007 9:18:59 PM
Yes Bonobo, I do think that God's Church ought to have the ability to rapidly evolve
I was talking about religion, which is a set of beliefs, not about a church. A church can indeed evolve rapidly: demographically, for example.
So again, what about religion? Should it evolve?
How about truth? Should that evolve rapidly?
And God too? Into multiple gods, say?
Posted by: bonobo | Nov 25, 2007 9:33:35 PM
Religion is a systematic engagement with objective truth. It is not synonymous with truth.
With that in mind, yes, I would expect it to evolve in some important ways, or quickly lose its relevance.
Posted by: Seth R. | Nov 25, 2007 9:53:14 PM
Religion is a systematic engagement with objective truth. It is not synonymous with truth.
If you don't really attach importance to religious beliefs, I suppose you could live with them being somehow "distinct" from the truth as far as you can perceive it.
Not everyone can buy that. From this and other discussions I've had online with adherents of Mormonism, it seems clear to me that it is inherently syncretistic and opportunistic.
If "losing relevance" is a bad thing, do you favor changing the religion to make it more relevant? That strategy has been tried elsewhere: is it an essential feature of Mormonism, in your opinion?
Posted by: bonobo | Nov 25, 2007 10:07:37 PM
"If "losing relevance" is a bad thing, do you favor changing the religion to make it more relevant?"
I do.
But keep in mind, I am also just as disgusted by the shallow attempts to make religion "hip" or "trendy" as many of you are. I don't see that as human-relevance, I see that as trivialization. I am just as opposed to those sort of movements as many of you seem to be.
But hold the phone.
Do we really want to make this a debate about Mormonism? I don't believe that was the original thrust of Russell's post.
Posted by: Seth R. | Nov 25, 2007 10:24:13 PM
Well, I've argued elsewhere that the apparent syncretistic charater of Mormonism is inimical to Romney's chances.
That it shares certain elements with Christianity but is not exclusive of notions that all mainstream versions of Christianity utterly reject gives rise to an extra element of doubt over the mutability of principles of a candidate who espouses it.
This doubt may be utterly unfounded, but if the average adherent can say "I do" to the proposition "do you favor changing the religion to make it more relevant?" what is one to think?
Posted by: bonobo | Nov 25, 2007 11:43:23 PM
>>>"If "losing relevance" is a bad thing, do you favor changing the religion to make it more relevant?"<<<
Leaving aside for the moment the fact that Christianity is not a religion, the fact is it does not change in its essentials nor does it become "irrelevant" (we had an entire thread on the futility of making the Church "relevant"). A religion constantly trimming its sails to the secular breeze may attract some followers in the short term, but ultimately fails to satisfy and thus, like all the transient things of the world, is doomed to pass away.
>>>Well, I've argued elsewhere that the apparent syncretistic charater of Mormonism is inimical to Romney's chances.<<<
Not merely the syncretistic character, but the very nature of Mormonism itself, it's lack of transparency and honesty, it's failure to confront its own history, all conspire against Romney in a way that Huckabee's Southern Baptist beliefs or Giuliani's failure to live up to Catholic doctrine do not. People realize they are voting for president, and not electing a bishop or nominating someone for sainthood. For the most part, they do not care about a candidate's religious beliefs (only Liberals were bent by Joe Lieberman's orthodox Judaism) except to the point where they believe it reflects their character or impinges on their ability to perform the duties of their office.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 26, 2007 5:49:38 AM
Bonobo, that's not a bad point. I think this kind of doubt about Romney based on stereotypes of Mormonism is very much in play here.
"This doubt may be utterly unfounded, but if the average adherent can say "I do" to the proposition "do you favor changing the religion to make it more relevant?" what is one to think?"
Be careful here however. I seriously doubt I am representative of the "average adherent" of Mormonism. Nor have I ever pretended to be. I doubt many lay Mormons would agree that the religion has evolved much at all in any truly meaningful sense, since the days of Joseph Smith. Mormons who engage with interfaith dialogue, apologetics, or academic study of Mormonism tend to be outliers within Mormonism itself. For these outliers, Romney's candidacy has been rather troubling.
Josh Patashnik over at The New Republic ran an interesting article on this last week:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=03668296-424a-4878-bd95-209837a30815&p=1
The article discusses how Romney's softpedaling on unique Mormon ideas has actually irritated many Mormons. I'd count myself one of them.
However, the article, I think, overplays the importance of these disgruntled Mormons. Almost all of Patashnik's sources are from outliers within the religion, such as academics, bloggers, and Sunstone Magazine - which is commonly regarded by many Mormons as one step shy of outright apostasy. Most Mormons I know back home in Utah are pleased as can be with Romney, and his remarks ragging on polygamy, for instance, register not at all.
Personally, I think Romney's candidacy is a net benefit for Mormonism generally. But I do not think Romney as President would be a net benefit for the LDS Church. I think it would actually be a detriment for our proselyting efforts abroad. I personally got a few wisecracks about being some sort of "CIA operative" while I was a missionary in Japan, and I've heard of other missionaries in Europe and Latin America getting the same thing. The USA is not well-liked abroad right now and the last thing the LDS Church needs for its missionary work, is a constant reaffirmation of the idea that Mormonism = America. But that's just me.
Posted by: Seth R. | Nov 26, 2007 6:51:10 AM
>>>Be careful here however. I seriously doubt I am representative of the "average adherent" of Mormonism. Nor have I ever pretended to be. I doubt many lay Mormons would agree that the religion has evolved much at all in any truly meaningful sense, since the days of Joseph Smith. Mormons who engage with interfaith dialogue, apologetics, or academic study of Mormonism tend to be outliers within Mormonism itself. For these outliers, Romney's candidacy has been rather troubling.<<<
Mormonism has, however, been amazingly polymorphic since the days when Joe Smith tried to be all things to all people while at the same time ensuring his position atop the heap and getting precisely what he wanted from his followers.
>>>The article discusses how Romney's softpedaling on unique Mormon ideas has actually irritated many Mormons. I'd count myself one of them.<<<
If you are really serious about that, then you're basically suicidal. Americans are tolerant, but not THAT tolerant. There was a reason why the Mormons were hounded all the way to Utah.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 26, 2007 6:58:29 AM
Stuart, I couldn't care less whether Mormonism is "popular." I'm more concerned with it being right.
Romney's comment "I can't imagine anything worse than polygamy" was just plain dumb. I personally can imagine plenty of things that are worse. And the statement flies in the face of the fact that, while Mormons do not practice or support plural marriage, they also highly respect and honor their polygamous ancestors and would probably be offended by Romney's characterization of them.
Posted by: Seth R. | Nov 26, 2007 7:05:57 AM
>>>Stuart, I couldn't care less whether Mormonism is "popular." I'm more concerned with it being right.<<<
Me, too. Which is why I think you are hopelessly deluded. But, in the meanwhile, it would behoove you to look objectively at Mormon history to see just how frequently its early leaders changed tack in order to garner popularity. It's a skill the present elders haven't lost.
One really has to wonder about people who follow a religion that makes historically-based truth claims that are so easily disproven.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 26, 2007 10:55:51 AM
I have a problem with Romney because he doesn't honestly portray himself as a member of a neo-gnostic cult, a cult that historically has identified itself with political aspirations, but rather portrays himself as a member of a Christian denomination.
The god of the Mormons is not the God of the Bible. To the Mormons, Jesus is the firstborn son of an exalted “man” who became the god of this world. The man-god of Mormonism was made the god of this world because of his good works on another planet somewhere out in the universe. He “earned” godhood, and was thus appointed by a counsel of gods in the heavens to his high position as the god of planet Earth. The Mormon god of this world was a man, like all men, who became a god. This is what the celestial marriage and the temple vows are all about. LDS men, by doing their temple work, are striving for exaltation by which they, too, shall one day become gods. Their wives will be the mother goddesses of “their” world and with their husband will produce the population of their world. This is the Mormon doctrine of “eternal progression.”
Note the following quote from the Mormon Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, page 123, made by the LDS Apostle Orson Hyde:
“Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, a mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point were He is.”
Lorenzo Snow, late President of the Mormon church, made this statement in the second verse of his famous poem entitled, “Man’s Destiny”:
“As Abra’m, Isaac, Jacob, too, babes, then men–to gods they grew. As man now is, our God once was; As now God is, so man may be,– Which doth unfold man’s destiny. . .”
The Mormon church views Jesus and Satan as spirit brothers and sons of God. (Did you get that?: Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers) God put forth His plan of salvation for the world, and Satan proposed his own plan. Jesus accepted the Father’s plan and offered to implement it as the Savior. The Father chose Jesus, and the spirit of Jesus was given a body through the virgin Mary. He was crucified on a Roman cross, and rose from the dead three days later to establish His deity. The character and life of Jesus is attainable by anyone who performs at such a righteous level. The Christian church teaches that Jesus Christ has existed eternally as the Son of God, the second “person” of the Trinity. Jesus took on human flesh about 2000 years ago and was born into the world through the virgin Mary. He was crucified on a Roman cross for our sins, and rose from the dead three days later to establish His deity.
Posted by: Brian Schuettler | Nov 26, 2007 2:58:33 PM
Again, Brian, you say that like that's a bad thing.
Posted by: Seth R. | Nov 26, 2007 5:25:37 PM
"Only an idiot would think otherwise. I include Elaine Pagels among the idiots, by the way." S.K.
Posted by: Brian John Schuettler | Nov 26, 2007 5:31:57 PM
Come up with your own comedic material Brian.
Posted by: Seth R. | Nov 26, 2007 5:38:15 PM
Why don't you refute what I wrote?
Posted by: Brian John Schuettler | Nov 26, 2007 7:46:59 PM
Why would I want to refute it? I don't find any of it particularly troublesome and I actually believe a good chunk of it.
The idea that Mormons believe we're all on the path to godhood or that Jesus is our "elder brother" isn't exactly a big secret. It's in one of the first missionary discussions our missionaries are trained to give to new investigators.
It's not like most of us are particularly ashamed of any of this.
Posted by: Seth R. | Nov 26, 2007 7:55:30 PM
Seth R,
Thanks for treating my queries with more courtesy than they might deserve.
I have to say your outlook is rather alien to me. What Stuart says about defying reason I have to agree with when you write about us all being "on the path to godhood". Little 'g' isn't worth very much and the big 'G' is taken by any reasonable definition of Christianity, Judaism or Islam.
That leaves Mormonism out on a pretty far limb among the polytheisms...
Posted by: bonobo | Nov 26, 2007 9:31:11 PM
>>Little 'g' isn't worth very much and the big 'G' is taken by any reasonable definition of Christianity, Judaism or Islam.
Another reason for not becoming a Christian: There's no room at the top. :-)
Posted by: DGP | Nov 26, 2007 10:02:25 PM
Don't mention it Bonobo. Glad to be of service. And your comments, comparatively speaking, really weren't that offensive. I've had worse.
Posted by: Seth R. | Nov 26, 2007 10:43:38 PM
>>>>Another reason for not becoming a Christian: There's no room at the top. :-)<<<
But then, to paraphrase Napoleon, the trouble with being God is there is no possibility of advancement.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Nov 27, 2007 4:46:51 AM
Napoleon obviously wasn't a Mormon.
Posted by: Seth R. | Nov 27, 2007 6:31:45 AM
