Some Questions About Mitt Romney and Mormonism

Seems to me, before we can consider the political ramifications of the speech Mitt Romney intends to give, the political universe ought to grapple with a couple of fundamental questions.

(1) Generally, should the content of a candidates religious practice inform a voter's perception of a candidate?

(2) Are those who object to Mormonism on theological and doctrinal grounds religious bigots?

(3) Is a certain amount of "religious bigotry" necessary in a pluralistic democracy where people are encouraged to live according to their beliefs?

(4) Is there a difference between deciding not to vote for Mormon politicians and deciding not to rent a house to a Mormon family?

(5) Is Mormonism weird? Weirder that Christianity? Judaism? Atheism?

(6) Should candidates for office be forced to discuss and endorse the particular quirks of their faith?

(7) Is Mitt Romney proud of the tenets of his faith? Is he an orthodox Mormon? Are these questions appropriate?

(8) Is Mormonism objectively similar to widely accepted variants of evangelical Christian theology?

Ok, more than a couple.

Comments

(1) Generally, should the content of a candidates religious practice inform a voter's perception of a candidate? Absolutely, but only on the condition that there is a valid practice (not obscure theological quirk) that directly conflicts with the Presidents ability to govern or make policy. an extreme example is that I don't think an extreme pacifist that could not under any circumstance give an order that would lead to deaths.

(2) Are those who object to Mormonism on theological and doctrinal grounds religious bigots? Can they object to Mormonism? Absolutely. can they object to hiring someone (which is what an election essentially is) based on the excuse that it would somehow validate the religion they disagree with? NO, it should based on whether they are qualiifed for the job.

(3) Is a certain amount of "religious bigotry" necessary in a pluralistic democracy where people are encouraged to live according to their beliefs?
I believe that there is a misuse of the word bigotry. It is not bigotry to disagree with anyones religion. It is bigotry to spew untruths and hate speech in order to denigrate someone's religion. Reasonable intelligent discussions should be expected otherwise you could not come to a conclusion on whether or not the religious practices would impact the presidency. I know that the current situation with the uninformed detractors of mormonism constantly spouting off about things that are incorrect at best, does little to help other uniformed individuals make a correct decision.

(4) Is there a difference between deciding not to vote for Mormon politicians and deciding not to rent a house to a Mormon family? Yes, Mormons tend to have a lot of Kids so the carpets will undoubtedly be stained. I would trust a Mormon in the White House much more. But otherwise no, it is similar. I would argue that it is closer to a employment situation however. We are Hiring a president by consensus.

(5) Is Mormonism weird? Definitely. Weirder that Christianity? Absolutely not, just less publisized so it seems foriegn and strange. Judaism? I would say from my perspective about the same. Atheism? Yes. Atheists generally have a well rounded logical arguement for their beliefs that can be rationalized. I am not an Athiest and beleive in a Higher Power, but can easily understand and relate to those who don't as long as they arent on some sort of mission to eleiminate all religion (Mr. Hitchens comes to mind)

(6) Should candidates for office be forced to discuss and endorse the particular quirks of their faith? No, I generally believe that there is plenty of opportunity to analyze their fit for the position based on past experience. It is easy enough to base expectations on widely available records, rather than on whether they believe they saw a UFO , or whether Noah really did fit all those animals onto the ark, or whether Eve was really made form a rib.

(7) Is Mitt Romney proud of the tenets of his faith? Is he an orthodox Mormon? Are these questions appropriate? Whether he is Orthodox or not is irrelevant to me (besides I don't know what Orthodox Mormon would even mean?) However the level at which he practices his faith could be indicitive of his commitment and loyalty. In general I have greater admiration for those that strictly follow their faith, whether they be Muslim, Catholic, Evangelical, Jew, or Mormon.

(8) Is Mormonism objectively similar to widely accepted variants of evangelical Christian theology? Yes, If you were to Catergorize Mormons by their beliefs they would fall in line far closer to Evangelical Christianity than say Catholic, Muslim, or Jew. Yes Mormons have substantially different views in relation to the Trinity, various post-apostolic creeds and the nature of the life both prior to and after this life on Earth. The claims of Mormons not being Christian are misleading at best, disengenuous and insulting at worst. Mormons believe Christ is their Creator, Savior, Judge. Mormons do not believe Christ was just a Man, or merely a prophet.

Posted by Joel | December 5, 2007 4:18 PM

Marc, would you raise the same questions if a Muslim candidate is running??

Posted by Nathan | December 5, 2007 5:17 PM

As an agnostic, I don't really care about the content of Mitt's speech tomorrow.

I've been following Romney's campaign since day one and in almost every, if not every, interview he is asked about his faith. For me, he's answers are polite, intelligent and there is never a hint of proselytization. Even when the questions are more rude and than curious, he keeps his composure. It's exactly the disposition I want in a POTUS.

Mitt had to make this speech; the media would have it no other way. If he never made "the speech", this topic would go on infinity in the 24/7 news world. I'm so glad he is doing it now before he gets into the general election.

What he has now constructed for further questions is a milestone to refer pundits to. He'll now be able to continue on with his secular campaign....the one he has been trying to run all along.

Smart man.

Posted by sheryl | December 5, 2007 5:19 PM

Not a Romney fan, but he shouldn't have to apologize for his religion.

Posted by Exile on Ericsson St. | December 5, 2007 5:33 PM

Romney has stepped in it now.

JFK made such a speech, because he wanted everyone to know that his religion and his governance would be separate. JFK's speech was a shining illustration of a nation that separates church and state...for the benefit of the citizenry of the state, as well as for the religious who don't want their religion tampered with.

But it's different for religious fundamentalists, whom Romney claims to represent.

If he and their ilk think that religion must be mixed up with public life (and gov't policy), then how can he claim that his own religious beliefs are out of bounds? He can't - he's stuck.

Personally, I don't care if he's a wiccan, morman, baptist, whatever.

And to Nathan above ("what if it were a Muslim?"), I'd say it would be an issue it were a fundamentalist ---- those who believe that religious rules should influence government are running up against that Constitution thingie.

Posted by Sam Sinister | December 5, 2007 5:56 PM

(1) Anything voters want to consider is up to them.
(2) NO
(3) Necessary, no; reality, yes
(4) Yes
(5) Who knows. Culturally weirder yes, because Judaism and Christianity are old, established, infinitely historically influential in political and culture terms, familiar to most Americans..
(6) Forced, no; this is a calculated risk by the Romney campaign that could succeed or backfire
(7) Romney has failed to communicate this point, and that's why the questions remain. The questions are genuine and inevitable. Asking the questions is more appropriate than censoring yourself.
(8) Yes, but this is a relative question

Posted by Matt | December 5, 2007 6:07 PM

It's not that Mormonism is weird. It's that their DOCTRINE is categorically RACIST. Which Is why the huge proselytizing movement and its reception in Africa by LDS is rather bizarre.

Posted by Colin | December 5, 2007 6:15 PM

(1) Voters can choose whatever criteria they want. They can vote for Mitt b/c he looks the most like a plastic Ken doll.

(2), (3) and (4) There is a fundamental difference between disagreeing with Mormon doctrine or theology and being bigoted toward Mormons. We should tolerate those of different faiths, even if we don't agree with them. However, the Christian Right base of the GOP is among the least religiously tolerant groups in America.

(5) Watch the South Park episode. Mormonism is definitely "weird" by any standard you can possibly invent.

(6) Politicians who make a big deal about their faith should have to talk about it and state whether they agree or disagree about various tenets. Romney falls into this category (as does Huckabee, who should have to explain without resorting to dumb jokes about Jesus how a CHRISTIAN LEADER presides over the EXTREMELY ANTI-CHRISTIAN DEATH PENALTY).

(7) Perfectly appropriate.

(8) Not remotely. Have you read anything about Mormonism? Ever?

Posted by bob | December 5, 2007 6:48 PM

It's not that Mormonism is weird. It's that their DOCTRINE is categorically RACIST. Which Is why the huge proselytizing movement and its reception in Africa by LDS is rather bizarre.

Colin, they dropped the racism.

Posted by Dilan Esper | December 5, 2007 7:55 PM

Colin, they dropped the racism.

Sort of.

Mormons believe their president -- the leader of the First Presidency -- is a ''living prophet'' who rules by direct divine revelation, so the black priesthood ban must be seen as God's will or else the divine prophets from the mid-19th century until 1978 were grievously mistaken.--Associated Press/June 6, 2003 By Debbie Hummel

Mitt was an adult at that time. He should tell us what his stand was then, and what it is now. Period. He will be President of all Americans, not just us White Folks.

Posted by Cinderella Ferret | December 5, 2007 9:21 PM

There were Blacks who held the priesthood in the early days of the Mormon Church. The *policy* of denying the priesthood to Blacks emerged gradually over time, for historical, cultural, and political reasons -- some of them having to do with self-preservation. (The early Mormons were abolitionists in Missouri -- ceasing to proselytize to Blacks gave the surrounding community one less reason to hate the Mormons.)

Later -- in the early to mid-20th c. -- some Church leaders developed theories, or theologically-based rationales, for why Blacks couldn't hold the priesthood. These teachings were put forward by some Church leaders, and were (unfortunately) widely accepted by Church members -- but they were never accepted or endorsed as official Church doctrine.

The point is, the racist policies and attitudes that emerged in and ran through Mormonism, until the late 1970s, were the result of Mormons falling prey to the general and widespread racism that pervaded almost all of American culture and history -- it was not an inherent, doctrinal part of Mormonism proper. The revelation in 1978 was an official overturning of past policy and practice, not a change in official theology or doctrine.

And it should be noted that Mormons -- with their abolitionist history, ties to progressivism through the first half of the 20th c., and embrace of racial integration in their congregations, etc. (even though Blacks couldn't hold the priesthood), were certainly much less racist than Evangelical Christianity and its ties to the South and the KKK.

Posted by Jason | December 5, 2007 11:20 PM

Two more cents:

1. Disagreeing with the "correctness" or "truthfulness" of a religion is not bigotry. Bigotry involves intolerance and prejudice. Think about it in political terms -- disagreeing with conservatism is not bigotry, but an intolerance for or prejudice against conservatives would be.

2. If anyone has questions about Mormonism, I consider myself fairly well informed and I'm willing to give you one Mormon's perspective.
http://onemormonsperspective.blogspot.com/

Posted by Jason | December 5, 2007 11:36 PM

1) yes
2) no
4) yes, one is inhospitable
8) No. The first commandment says
"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
As humans we use language to communicate, (as is proved by your ability to read and understand my sentences), the Lord God Almighty has chosen to communicate with us through language. In times past, he spoken by the prophets to the fathers, but in these last days has spoken to us by His Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus believed the prophets, and even read from the Prophet Isaiah, in Luke 4:17, saying "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor." This same prophet Isaiah said:

"You are my witnesses, saith the LORD,
and my servant whom I have chosen:
that ye may know and believe Me,
and understand that I am He:
before Me there was no God formed,
neither shall there be after Me.
I, even I, am the LORD;
and beside Me there is no saviour."
(Prophet Isaiah Chapter 43, verse 10-11.)

"Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel,
and his Redeemer the LORD of hosts;
I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God...
Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses.
Is there a God beside Me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."
(Prophet Isaiah 44:6, 8)

"I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else."
(Prophet Isaiah 45:5-6)

"Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else."
(Prophet Isaiah 45:22)

And finally, note
"Psalm 96:5: "For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens."
and the prophet Moses declared:

"Deuteronomy 4:35: "Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him.""

In the Hebrew, the LORD is actually "YHWH" or as some say "Jehovah" so the text is saying that Jehovah is Elohim. We all agree that Jesus is God, that is Jehovah, so this verse proves the Trinity over against the polytheism of Mormonism.
Rememeber the ten commandments? The first is "thou shalt have no other gods before me."

The good news is that Jesus Christ was crucified and died for our sins and rose from the dead. repent and believe on the lord jesus christ and you will be saved. He is the only true Son of the Father, and He created all things.

Posted by achristian | December 6, 2007 2:37 AM

achristian,
Four things:
1. What if "God" is not a proper name (like "Jim" or "Sue") but is instead a title (like "President" or "Council")?

2. "Elohim" is a *plural* form of the Hebrew word. It is the proper translation in Genesis that says "Let *us* make man in *our* image." Just curious what you make of that.

3. None of what you say/quote actually "supports" the trinitarian view of God. The command to have "no other gods before me" does not support or necessitate viewing God as a three-in-one being. There are lots of other ways to see it.

4. Evangelicals have a fit over the Mormons' reliance on scriptures other than the bible for their understanding/interpretation of "truth." Evangelicals are adamant that the bible is all we need and all there is. Why, then, the acceptance of and reliance on the Nicene Creed? What's the difference between accepting the extra-biblical Nicene Creed as "God's truth" and accepting other extra-biblical writings/teachings as "God's truth"?

Posted by Jason | December 6, 2007 7:27 AM

Jason is whitewashing the Mormon approach to different races. Black skin is directly named as a "curse" in the Book of Mormon:

And [God] had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God; I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities." (2 Nephi 5:21, emphasis added)

There is also this, straight out of wikipedia:

After the death of Joseph Smith, Jr., Brigham Young taught that because blacks inherited the curse of Ham and the curse of Cain, they were ineligible to be ordained to the priesthood. They were also barred from participating in the Endowment or celestial marriage, or from entering the church's temples. Many of the references which resulted in this treatment of persons of African ancestry had their origins in the Book of Abraham. The theology and teachings contained in the Latter Day Saints Book of Abraham remain today as canonized Church Scripture, though most modern Mormons now interpret those teachings in non-racist ways.

You have to be suspicious of a religion that teaches that white skin is "delightful" and that black skin is "loathsome" and a "curse".

Posted by Hektor Bim | December 6, 2007 9:45 AM

I'm not whitewashing anything. Wikipedia is (surprise!) simply wrong. The teaching that is ascribed here to Brigham Young did not emerge until the 20th c as a rationale justifying racist policies. It was never adopted as official doctrine, though it was accepted by many Mormons.

And the BofM passage you refer to is not about Blacks (i.e., those of African descent); it is (at least purportedly) about ancient peoples in the Americas. The Church has no history of discriminating against Native Americans or Latinos; moreover, one could argue against a literalist interpretation of this passage -- chalk it up as a metaphor drawn from the sociocultural and historical context of the early 19th c. when the BofM was (at least purportedly) translated.

The religion does not "teach" that black skin is loathsome, just because there are passages to that effect to be found in scripture. There are passages in the bible saying all kinds of things that cannot be said to be what Christianity "teaches."

Quit trying to tell people what Mormons believe, as though you know better than actual Mormons.

Posted by Jason | December 6, 2007 10:37 AM

You are whitewashing it. All the other LDS sects were much more supportive of blacks - see the Community of Christ and the Strangeites.

That passage is extremely important because it provides a religious justification for believing people with darker skin to be cursed. No other Christian religion has anything remotely comparable in its holy scriptures. There was plenty of folk religion about the Curse of Ham in America in this period, but Mormonism is the only Christian religion (so far as I know) to codify it in its religious texts - the Book of Mormon and Abraham.

This is also important specifically for Romney because he was a missionary when the official position of the Mormon church was explicitly racist - that is, he put a lot of time and effort into converting people to an explicitly racist religion.

Posted by Hektor Bim | December 6, 2007 12:00 PM

Jason,

I don't care what Mormons "believe". I care what they do and for most of the history of the Mormon church they were explicitly racist and justified it through passages in their scriptures, which remain to this day. Of the branches of LDS, the Mormon church was probably the most virulently racist.

Posted by Hektor Bim | December 6, 2007 12:02 PM

1. You're flat wrong about other religions not having racist beliefs based in scripture. The belief that Cain's curse was dark skin, and that Blacks are the descendants of Cain, is not original to Mormonism. It existed in mainstream, historical Christianity. It is possible it even predates Christianity and has some root in Judaism. (Both the Jews and the Christians have long histories of racism toward Blacks.) The Mormon teaching about the curse of Ham was only tangentially related to dark skin -- the belief was that Ham's curse was denial of the priesthood; because Ham was married to Egyptus, a descendant of Cain (and thus dark skinned -- again, a belief not originating with Mormonism), the curse of not having the priesthood and the curse of dark skin were merged.

Again, though -- this teaching was never official church doctrine. It was a rationale cooked up by some leaders, and accepted widely by members, but never an official part of Mormonism.

2. True, the Mormon church gradually adopted a racist policy of denying the priesthood to Blacks. And later (20th c) there were scriptural and theological rationales offered by some to justify that practice. But it was never official *doctrine*.

3. Before they ever denied the priesthood to Blacks, the Mormons were active abolitionists; they preached to Blacks and welcomed them into congregations -- and church leaders taught racial equality, and that slavery was evil. Even after the practice of denying them the priesthood emerged (gradually, without any formal action or decree), they continued to welcome Blacks into congregations, and to preach to them, etc. (Be careful not to confuse the racist attitudes of individual Mormons with the positions and practices of Mormonism.)

4. I agree with you wholly that the dark skin passage in the BofM is troubling, even appalling. But if one sees Joseph Smith as an inspired "translator" of the BofM who is nevertheless a product of his sociocultural and historical context, it is not hard to forgive these traces of that sociocultural and historical context, and to reject a literal reading of that passage.

Christians do this sort of thing all the time when they find something outdated, or that they don't like in the bible. It is how religion evolves. At least Mormonism embraces the idea of "continuing revelation" and the evolution of beliefs and understanding. (We know better now than we knew then.) Contrast this with mainstream Christianity's insistence that it is unchanging and absolute -- despite the boatloads of evidence of radical change over the centuries.

Posted by Jason | December 6, 2007 12:52 PM

'(1) Generally, should the content of a candidates religious practice inform a voter's perception of a candidate?'

I say insomuch as they make it an issue. Someone asked upthread if we'd be having this same discussion if we were discussing a Muslim. I wonder if we'd be having this same discussion if we were discussing Harry Reid. He's every bit as "devout", from all accounts, as Mitt Romney. But how he addresses his religion publicly is far different from Romney's approach. Romney has set himself up for this; by going after the conservative Christian GOP base vote, by advocating for religion to play a part in public life, etc. The candidates generally make their own issues, so Romney wholly owns any of the flack or praise he gets for making his Mormonism an issue. He doesn't want the fact that he's Mormon to be at the focus of it, though. Rather, he's going after a fuzzily defined religious "center" that doesn't (in my view) really exist. He wants the question to be what sorts of deference to God does he think is appropriate? He mentioned a few things in his speech today, such as having Menorahs and nativity scenes in public spaces. But I don't think he can bring up religion generally without having to face issues about his personal beliefs. In theory, then, I'd say a candidate exposes his or herself to whatever they make into an issue. In practice, Romney shouldn't expect to be able to deflect questions about Mormonism if he's going to play the religion card.

Posted by Node of Evil | December 6, 2007 3:27 PM