43 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
This was my thoughts upon reading the article earlier today… Let’s say this guy wasn’t running for president. Let’s say he’s the ex-stake president or ex-bishop in your ward. He’s genial, kind, very rich. And then he gets up and says the things that “they” claim he’s going to say. That he’s going to present this “inclusive”, “we’re just like you” version of Mormonism. What would your reaction be? I’d be ticked. Extremely ticked. My ancestors didn’t leave Kirtland and Nauvoo and cross the plains and suffer because they were “just like other Christians.” I had to deal with mild persecution growing up in the Midwest — nothing REMOTELY approximating that of my ancestors, but enough that life was uncomfortable at times. I was raised — and firmly believe — that you don’t abandon or minimize the Church while being successful, and that if you have to minimize your involvement in the Church, or if you have to “explain it away” to achieve some goal, then the goal wasn’t worth it. I fear that Romney is going to pass off his Mormonism as this non-threatening lifestyle and suck all the ‘weird’ out of it. I was raised on the ideal that we *were* weird. It was hard growing up, but I got over it. My career is such that my religion doesn’t come into play. But if for some reason, I would have to pick between my career and making a stand on my religion, I’d start looking for a new job. Why can’t Romney just man up and deal with it, even if he doesn’t win the presidency? The good he’d do as president can’t overcome the potential harm he’d do to the Church by minimizing what it is. He’s already tried to backtrack on a few doctrines. This is a disaster. —— Again, this was my first thought today. Who knows what I’ll feel about it tomorrow. Why couldn’t he just quote the Articles of Faith during the Bible question during the debate? Would it have been so frickin’ hard? My 10-year-old knows enough to say, if a friend asks her the Bible, that “We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly.” All he had to do was just answer it that way… |
if a friend asks her *about* the Bible |
It sure sucks that Romney 1) tried to become the Republican nominee when the Republican party has been hijacked by Christian fundamentalists and 2) tied his religion to his politics. Queuno, I like your thoughts. There are two references in the Bible to the people of God identified as “peculiar” In Deuteronomy 14, we read:
And then of course we have Peter’s great message in 1 Peter chapter 2:
We are indeed a peculiar people. By claiming we’re not, Mr. Romney is short-shrifting our historical challenges with the other Christians (something I’ve never understood, why we today shake the right hands of Christian fundamentalists who, with their left hands, stab us in the back, funding all the anti-Mormon crap out there), and muddying our Godly heritage. |
Queuno & Dan, Well said. I agree. It THE problem from the Mormons viewpoint. “We are indeed a peculiar people.” We are supposed to be different, headed for the celestial kingdom not just the terrestrial one where baptist/evangelicals are going -a kingdom where they will actually see and visit with Jesus. We are supposed to be a ‘restorationist’ Christian group uniquely different to the reformists and evangelical christians out there. Romney is treading a very fine line here trying to reach out to evangelicals in the GOP. Anyway, this Mormon talk coming up, isn’t it just another change of view, another flip/flop by Romney on an issue? Off course it is. |
Steve Benen writes:
|
Caca (4), |
What I’m hoping for (likely in vain) is that Romney will say there is a large amount of statements by past leaders of the Church that he doesn’t regard as having the weight of doctrine, and his personal faith is very simple, rooted in propositions that he can put to the test and verify their ability to help him draw nearer to God. |
I think you are all wrong on the issue, period. Like it or not, Romney is actually following the footsteps of the LDS Church. One that, frankly, many here at the blogernacle are trying to acheive just as strongly. One that I think SHOULD be followed, because by giving ground to the “we are weird” idea, we are doing more harm than you seem to understand. Anyone who has been paying attention to what people, evangelical or atheist, mean by “weird” is not what everyone here seems to mean. They don’t mean “different,” but rather “dangerous.” To give in to that is to make sure Mormons are put back into the position they were in the 19th Century. I doubt anyone here wants that. I don’t think that Romney should give the speach. Let him lose before he does that! If he gives in to the speach (whatever it ends up as) then amen to American freedom of religion and the Constitution. He has had some not great answers to questions about Mormonism. However, I have chalked that up to trying to soundbyte our doctrine and the horrible fact he has to answer for his beliefs in the first place. For those reasons I don’t care what he says about Mormonism, because it shouldn’t be an issue. By the way, I want him to win the Presidency because it would be good for what I like about the Republican Party. If New York’s mayor wins then social causes I fight for will be destroyed. If Huckster wins (thankfully that is hard to believe) then the party will have become religiously narrow. As for the others running, they are lackluster personalities that don’t impress and I don’t trust. |
Personally, I think that the “orthodox,” inward-focussing Mormons who are hell-bent on being “weird” are Romney’s (and the church’s) biggest liability. If evangelicals see them as the measure of Mormonism, then their outrage at Romney’s ability to be mainstream will only help him. The main factors that contributed to the weirdness of Mormons in the 19th century were their practice of polygamy (rumored or admitted) and their willingness to brag about how God was turning everybody else’s land over to them to create a kingdom that would exclude non-Mormons (and other false prophecies). It didn’t help that they did all this in an environment where religious freedom as we know it simply did not exist. There’s just no basis for claiming that Mormonism is weird in our current culture. Moreover, if we Mormons are going to win converts and friends among non-Mormons, let’s try not to cast them in the same light as the tar-and-feathering, press-destroying mobs on the 19th century frontier. Whether you appreciate it from the inside or the outside, Mormonism is undeniably a great American religious tradition. But let’s be frank: Being a Mormon doesn’t make you special. And if it makes you weird, then that’s your problem and not mine (or Romney’s). |
The Steve Benen quote is spot on. The “JFK” speech might make a difference in the general election, but not in the Republican primary. To win that, he needs evangelical support, and there is nothing Mitt can say that will satisfy then. They are not worried about Salt Lake running the country through the oval office. They are worried about Mormonism being legitimized by the occupant of said office. He would have to renounce Mormonism altogether to over come that, and even then it would just be another flip-flop. Not to mention the fact waiting until the week after he falls behind Huckabee in the Iowa polls smacks of desperation. |
I don’t care one way or the other about being “wierd.” I just don’t care much for Christian fundamentalism, as it stands in the US today. The ongoing mainline Mormon quest to suck-up to right-wing fundies utterly disgusts me. On the same note, Romney bugs me. The guy is coming off as a shameless suck-up. I admire Giulliani far more than Romney at the moment (while at the same time being a lot more alarmed at some of Rudy’s policies than Romney’s). At least he had the courage to tell the right-wing religious dingbats what to do with themselves. |
I call Jesus my personal savior. The church’s 12 step program focuses rather exclusively on Jesus as our higher power (not to the exclusion of God, the Heavenly Father, however). I’ve had an aha moment and a paradigm shift just lately in regard to Jesus and His role in my life. But you’re right, it sounds tinny. And that’s wrong and it’s unfortunate because of course, that’s just what He is. Our Relief Society lesson was on missionary work (I’m sorry, I despise this subject when we all get urged to pick a family, etc.). The teacher handed out a synopsis of Brother Ballard’s conference talk which included the sentence “We believe the Bible to be the word of God.” http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-775-9,00.html I didn’t say anything, but apparently the church has decided to forgo the caveat that’s in the Articles of Faith. I’m not going to fault them (damn, why didn’t I say “us”?)for practicality and the obvious unspoken desire we all have for a Mormon president. It lacks clarity, however. Although we could say the same thing about the Book of Mormon (as far as it’s translated correctly). Dan E., Romney needs you. Bad. I guess we’ll all know when he gives the speech whether he’ll go down in flames. Wouldn’t it be funny if he were the first Republican candidate for president who lost in Utah? |
Being peculiar is not the same as being weird. I’m not weird, and neither are most who frequent this blog, or who go to church. We are most definitely peculiar, however. And that’s just that. We have the Book of Mormon, another Testament of Jesus Christ. No other Christian faith, outside of offshoots of our faith believe in it. We have the Priesthood of God. We have the Gift of the Spirit. We have divine revelation. We ARE peculiar in this world. |
queuno The use of the word “frickin’” used here seems like an attempt to be not so “weird” and strikes me as the pot calling the kettle black. |
DKL (9), I agree- I put very little confidence in Missouri Zion teachings; I personally think JS simply got caught up in the beauty of the landscape there and spoke what he personally desired to see take place. I recognize that this opinion of mine may be false doctrine, so I won’t teach it in any official setting, but I do apply the Larry King test to it (I think it originated at BCC), that if President Hinckley doesn’t feel comfortable teaching something on Larry King’s show, then I don’t need to accept it as doctrine. |
#8: Personally, I think it’s sad that the LDS church is trying so hard to divest itself of any doctrines, etc., that make it look “weird” to so-called “mainstream christians.” During my last few years as a member of the LDS church (though granted, I had a bishop with an overly-enthusiastic eccumenical streak), it seemed I heard less and less of anything that wouldn’t be said in every other church in town. It bothered me that the LDS church seemed to be downplaying the more unique teachings of Joseph Smith, that I felt were the real beauty and value of Mormonism. The only distinction I really heard much about was continual emphasis on priesthood authority, and the demand for obedience to those who hold office therein. After a while, the campaign to not appear “weird” can make it appear that the LDS church really doesn’t have anything different to offer people. |
DKL – I tend to agree with you. If people think you are weird then maybe you are just weird and it has nothing to do with your religion… |
The real test of Romney’s political independence would be if in the next month, he received a phone call from Gordon Hinckley, saying “Mitt, we’ve prayed about this, and the spirit tells us that your campaign would ultimately be bad for the church. We would like you to withdraw from the race.” Of course this would never really happen, but rather than stating that obvious fact, just entertain the thought for a moment. Would Romney promptly withdraw, citing “personal reasons,” or would he assert his individualism and push forward? |
Nick, God wouldn’t have to go through Pres Hinckley. He’s capable of telling Romney directly. |
Bookslinger, He’s also capable of telling the voters directly. ;) |
DKL, |
Nice diversion, Bookslinger. How about an answer to the question? :-) |
Nick, thanks to free agency, only Romney can answer that question. Furthermore, I think that your question is, itself, a diversion. Let’s pose a separate hypothetical. Let’s say we have someone who prominently represents the Anti-Defamation League, and who’d gained a significant amount of prominence due to her involvement with it. Suppose she ran for president, and the leaders of the Anti-Defamation League decided that it would ultimately be bad for the Anti-Defamation League if she ran and communicated this concern to her. What do you think that her reaction would be? Or, more importantly, who cares what her reaction would be? That said, the church has a strong interest in protecting its good name, and this interest (as perceived by the church), does not always align with the interests of its members. Mormons believe that we are punished for our own sins, accountable for our own salvation, and empowered with a fully-operational conscience. Consequently, they often do disagree with the church’s interpretation of its own interest. There’s nothing heretical about this, and the notion that there’s some kind of dilemma here is silly. |
Nick (16), I think it’s sad that the LDS church is trying so hard to divest itself of any doctrines, etc., that make it look “weird†to so-called “mainstream christians.†I think it’s reasonable to perceive it that way, but a lot of us think that if we teach things that cause others to stumble, we had better be very sure those teachings are doctrinal and not speculative. The “principal ancestors” phrase in the intro of the BoM is the most recent casualty of this important weeding process. |
You make an interesting point, Dan, and I respect the attitude you describe. Where do you draw the line, though, between “doctrinal” and “speculative?” It seems that lately, certain CES types have chosen to declare unpopular, but long-standing teachings of Mormonism as “speculation,” unless they can be unavoidably found in the Standard Works. Deseret Book released a cd about three years ago, called “What Da Vinci Didn’t Know,” containing a round table discussion between BYU religion instructors. They disputed, and even somewhat ridiculed, the idea that Jesus was married. They dismissed the statements on the subject by early prophets and apostles by saying one had to consider those statements as products of the time when they were given. They specifically pointed to the absence of a direct declaration in the scriptures, and one almost-tearfully testified that LDS should not believe such a thing because “our dearly beloved prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley” (his words) was not currently stating this doctrine in general conference addresses. Maybe Mormonism doesn’t absolutely require belief that Jesus was married (although an unmarried Jesus presents some logical problems in traditional Mormonism!), but these men were presenting the idea as not only speculative, but borderline heretical. |
[...] blogosphere is abuzz with the news that Romney has finally announced that he will be giving his long-awaited, much-anticipated [...] |
I wish I had a neat answer to that one, but I don’t. My personal rule is, if a teaching is not supported in a survey of Conference talks, Ensigns, or manuals dated through the past ten years, I put it in a category of items of lesser reliability. I think there is more burden on the individual in discerning doctrine than most LDS folk appreciate, and it’s not an enjoyable process- I always wonder if I’m overstepping and throwing babies out with the ocean of bathwater in the Journal of Discourses. |
queuno, you got quoted by the LA Times: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/12/mr-spch.html |
I didn’t know Queno was Ryan Bell. Ann Romney was interviewed on a news show last night, I think it might have been KSL, but I can’t recall. She said his speech is going to be about religious freedom. If that’s true, I say, “go, Mitt.” Because isn’t that the core of the issue? |
Congratulations, Queno! And congratulations Matt, for writing a post that got us noticed! Thanks for pointing that out, Peter LLC. annegb, he’s not actually sited by name, but he is quoted, and his quote is referred to as something “one commenter said on MormonMentality.org” |
anne,
I don’t think that’s the core of the issue. It is whether or not conservative Christians will accept a Mormon as president. He’s running as “one of them” when he is NOT “one of them” in their eyes. |
There’s an op ed in the New York Times today about Romney’s speech:
|
# 29. annegb: Romney was on Greta’s ‘On the Record’ Foxnews last night. A Video’s available at http://www.foxnews.com/ontherecord/index.html He actually did very well in that rather extensive interview & looked more natural, less scripted. Hopefully he can continue this and become more like a Huckabee in the way he communicates -not policies. |
And just quickly on the illegals issue, Romney should make the IRS check up on everyone’s residency status as they (Tax department) does here and has done so for decades. The tax dep. finds irregularities and then they send the federal police and customs to check it out. Why the US can’t do the same is just baffling. |
Thanks, folks. If Romney’s speech is actually a surrender of sorts, it seems to me that it will be less about theology than the claims Mormons make *for* theology, if that makes sense. Thus, I’m skeptical of the Benan citation. I think JFK’s speech was different, but for reasons other than those he presents. |
Carlos, The IRS’s function is to collect revenue for the government. Period. It’s function is not to play errand boy for your latest political pet issue. That’s just more of this mixed-up multitasking Depart of Homeland Security nonsense that has left all branches of government essentially unable to do their jobs because they’re busy doing everyone else’s. Are you willing to pay more taxes so the IRS can have the staff to pretend to be the INS? |
Carlos, Where are you posting from? |
Who is Ryan Bell? Not me. (Which reminds me – annegb – I’ve been horribly remiss and haven’t posted an introduction as you requested. I’ll remediate ASAP.) |
If you’re interested you can watch the speech live tomorrow (Thursday) at MittRomney.com at 10:30 am eastern. I hope they’ve got their servers ready. |
(sarcasm) Although, it looks they pulled two quotes from the same post and made it look like two commenters. Now … I must confess. My use of “frickin’” was an edited form of the actual word I thought. Suffice it to say that using bad language occasionally is a bad vice of mine. Re “Weird” — Sorry, but there are aspects of Mormonism that are “weird” to society. And they will continue to be “weird”. If the alternative to “weirdness” is to become so watered-down so that’s palatable, I’d rather not. I’d rather not have investigators join the Church with a sense that over time, we’re going to become more mainstream. I have a tremendous love for family history and temple work. But it’s a doctrine that sounds all wrong when you hear Wolf Blitzer or Anderson Cooper or Hugh Hewitt describe it; it makes me cringe. When I hear Mormonism presented in the public sphere, there seems to be an attempt to “summarize it” more palatable. Summarization is bad, but not if you lose the essence of the answer (Romney’s Bible answer is an example of how I thought he lost the essence of the belief while giving his answer.) Proxy baptisms are “weird”. Garments are “weird”. The current accepted execution of the Word of Wisdom is not weird, but inconsistent and often hard to explain/justify after someone actually reads the relevant D&C section. Our past practice of polygamy is “weird” (although, it’s not as much of an issue anymore due to the historical nature). Pick a different word if you don’t like “weird”. Of course, I expect non-members to badly summarize my religion. I just don’t expect a former bishop and stake president to offer cringe-worthy redacted gospel nuggets. Again – my #1 was my first impression. I don’t advocate a scorched-earth, “Keep Austin Weird” flavor of member-missionary work where we must be exact and correct every misconception, no matter how minor. But neither do I favor a namby-pamby, “don’t offend anyone” approach to discussing doctrine. How is Romney doing in this? I still think he blew the Bible question. I’m still uneasy over the “Jesus is my personal savior” and wish he’d use more LDS-sounding rhetoric (“Christ is my savior and redeemer” was suggested by one of my LDS friends), but hey … that’s just me. My kid brother on his mission says that people are responding well to Romney’s approach. I still think he’s the Mormon John Kerry and doesn’t stand a chance, but we’ll see. Since I am not a registered republican voter, but live in a heavy GOP state, I really don’t have much say in the matter, either now or next November. My state’s votes are going to the Republican, pretty much no matter what. |
#37. a random John: Australia #36. Seth R “Are you willing to pay more taxes so the IRS can have the staff to pretend to be the INS?” Its about working smarter, not about wasting more money on more staff. Good IT does most of the work. -Romney’s speech will be on C-span as well, http://www.campaignnetwork.org/, where they do have room. |
I’m sure there will be a thread to deconstruct and Monday-morning quarterback THE SPEECH, but it’s interesting that at least the first impression of the media here in MA was somewhat stunned admiration. I heard various radio commentators say that it was a brillant, old-fashioned political speech and that he said all the right things. He didn’t say much about his Mormon beliefs (or about Mormon belief in particular) and I think that was exactly the right choice, although it won’t satisfy some in the Christian Right (but then, nothing would). I’m annoyed he should have to say anything at all about private religious belief, but things having gotten to the point where he did, I think his restraint was admirable. |
Sorry for posting this on the wrong thread, I should have put it on the live response one, since it was a reaction to the speech itself. |