Huckabee And The Mormon Question

Another week, another terrible Richard Cohen column about religion and politics:

What could be called "The Huckabee Moment" occurred Sunday morning when ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked the former Arkansas governor, suddenly and ominously the front-runner in Iowa's GOP contest, whether Mitt Romney is a Christian. Mike Huckabee knew precisely what was being asked of him, and he also knew, because he is a preacher, what the right -- not the clever, mind you -- answer should be. But Huckabee merely smiled that wonderful smile of his and punted. This, with apologies to George W. Bush, is the soft demagoguery of low expectations.

Wait ... so "because he is a preacher," Mike Huckabee knows that the "right answer" to the question is - what? That Mitt Romney is a Christian, in the sense that a former Baptist minister like Huckabee would define the word? Here's what Stephanopoulos asked him:

The President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary Al Moulder - and you're a Southern Baptist - has written that we have to clarify, he said that Mormonism is in no way consistent with orthodox Christianity. It borrows Christian themes and texts but its most basic beliefs directly contradict the central teachings of Christianity. Do you believe that the basic beliefs of Mormonism contradict the central teachings of Christianity?

Now, Huckabee ducked the question, saying that "I'm not going to get into that argument because my goal in life is not to evaluate what's wrong with your faith or somebody else's, but it's to be able to live mine," and yada yada yada. This wasn't enough for Cohen, who called the question an opportunity for "a ringing statement in support of religious tolerance." But just a few paragraphs later, he allows that, well, "Mormonism is a significant departure from conventional Christianity. The Book of Mormon, like the Bible itself, is scripture to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- downright heresy to some conservative Christians." Yet Huckabee, one of those conservative Christians himself, was supposed to go on national television and pretend that none of this is so, that Mormonism isn't a bordering-on-heresy departure from Christianity, because anything else would be "demagoguery"? Deflecting the question wasn't sufficient - he was supposed to tell what he would presumably consider an outright lie, in the name of Richard Cohen's ideal of tolerance?

More Cohen:

It is absurd that Romney feels compelled to deliver a speech defending his beliefs and that Huckabee does not have to explain how, in this day and age, he does not believe in evolution.

Um ... how many times has Huckabee been asked about evolution in this race? A few hundred times? Maybe more? (Often enough that he's begun bristling at the question, at the very least.) I don't mean this as a defense of his position by any means, and given the campaign he's running, it's completely legitimate for journalists to pester him about it. But they are pestering him: The notion that Huckabee's beliefs are getting a free pass in this race is just silly. And not just where evolution is concerned - you can watch none other than Bill O'Reilly grill him about whether he thinks non-Christians go to hell right here:

Richard Cohen wants to live in a world where these topics never get discussed. Fair enough. But asking candidates for public office to flat-out lie about their theological differences doesn't seem like a great way to get there.

Comments

What a load of crap. Huckabee is surfing the fundie wave by making his religion the absolute core of his Iowa campaign - I'd say that means the kid gloves are off. Let's hear someone ask him the same question about Catholicism next - I'll bet he won't have the stones to dodge that one.

If you're going to insist that religion is inseparable from the political process - and that's exactly what is happening in the GOP right now - you don't get to bitch and whine when people expect you to be honest and forthright about it. Cohen is being disingenuous here, but he's not really asking Huckabee to lie - he's just pointing out that Huckabee is counting on bigots to be on his side. That's true.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 5, 2007 12:50 PM

Huckabee's comment in the debate that "Jesus was too smart to get into politics" was a glib, silly dodge to the question he was being asked. But it actually is true, and it points to a much larger point that the Huckster didn't intend to make: Religion has no place in politics and government.

It's too bad that in this country, one political party and half of the other don't bother to honor the Constitution authors' clear intent that religion has no place in government. As John F. Kennedy said, "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute."

Posted by Woody Bombay | December 5, 2007 12:50 PM

Is the Unitary Executive Branch now so powerful that the new president will get to determine who goes to hell?

More important, am I entitled to a habeas review of President Huckabee's decision in my case?

Stupid questions almost always lead to stupid answers. The solution is to stop asking stupid questions.

Posted by keatssycamore | December 5, 2007 12:53 PM

Maybe Huckabee should have pulled a Chris Berman. "Why would I answer that question? That is such a stupid question. What are you, stupid? You must be stupid." That might get me to cross party lines and support him.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | December 5, 2007 1:18 PM

Huckabee is not a perfect man. Like all others, he has his faults. America knows and expects this.

In spite of his failings, Mike Huckabee appears to be a pretty nice guy with a gentle manner, and convictions that conservatives care about. He's becoming the conservative consensus candidate. HE'S 1ST IN THE NATION NOW (rasmussen).

"Give Hope Another Chance"
www.mike-huckabee.blogspot.com

Posted by John Morris | December 5, 2007 1:22 PM

Huckabee's problem is that he has made personal religion his issue by leveraging the Mormon Question for his own political gain.

Now he wants to have it both ways and pretend as if Romney's religion is of no importance of him.

What bothers Mormons (myself included) so much is that we are denied the ability to define ourselves as Christians. Sure we have significant differences with "mainstream" Christianity and we don't hide them.

But it's unacceptable that Huckabee and his supporters can proudly proclaim Jesus for themselves and deny that to others.

Posted by David H. Sundwall | December 5, 2007 1:26 PM

Huckabee is openly seeking the endorsement of evangelical ministers, each of whom is an "expert" on the "cult" of Mormonism, and whose livelihood is threatened by thereby. (Latter-day Saint congregations are led by a "bishop" who doesn't seek the office, serves without pay, has no degree in "divinity," and serves only about five years. Romney was one.)

I'm sure that more than a few anti-Mormon sermons will preached from evangelical pulpits in Iowa during this Christmas season! Peace on earth, good will toward God's candidate!

With his fellow "doctors of divinity" doing the dirty work, Huckabee can pretend to be above the fray.

Richard Cohen is rightly concerned about how religious bigotry is rearing its ugly head in Iowa. Anyone with a sense of history can see that an anti-Mormon is an anti-Semite in training.

hthalljr'gmail'com

Posted by Tracy Hall Jr | December 5, 2007 1:27 PM

"Maybe Huckabee should have pulled a Chris Berman. 'Why would I answer that question? That is such a stupid question. What are you, stupid? You must be stupid.'"

Er-I think that's exactly what he's saying; he's just saying it like a candidate for president instead of like some guy commenting on a blog. His point is pretty easy to understand. First, you can't take religion out of politics unless you shut religious people out of politics; religion isn't just a hobby, it's a value system, and expecting people to run for office while declaring their values irrelevant to their qualifications is just risible. Secondly, though, he's saying that it's the values that are important in politics, not the doctrinal basis for them. Al Mohler [not "Moulder"] isn't a politician; he's a seminary president, and one specifically hired to be a doctrinal enforcer for the crowd currently running the SBC. But as anyone who grew up Southern Baptist knows, there is no theological authority in the SBC beyond scripture as understood by the individual believer; thus whatever Mohler pronounces isn't binding on Huckabee or any other SB. It ain't the Roman Catholic Church--however much some of the SBC leadership wishes it were. Huckabee's saying here that while his faith is important to him, he has no problems respecting people of other faiths as long as he sees no consequences to their values. Values are relevant to politics; doctrinal disputation is not. Cohen may not understand that distinction; you, Ross, seem not to as well. But I think that most ordinary American voters, including evangelicals, generally do. As Ed Kilgore has [I believe correctly] pointed out, most people don't give a fig about Mormon doctrine; they judge Mormons by their lives, and in the case of a Mormon candidate they'll decide accordingly. In the end, few conservatives will vote against Romney because he's a Mormon; scads of liberals will, though.

Posted by David | December 5, 2007 1:47 PM

keatssycamore writes: "Stupid questions almost always lead to stupid answers. The solution is to stop asking stupid questions. "

Huckabee can't expect to run commercials touting himself as a "CHRISTIAN LEADER" and not expect these questions to be asked. Stupid campaigns deserve to be asked stupid questions. I fully expect the answers to be stupid.

This is the current Republican quandary - a large segment of the party seems to think that getting the candidate who spends the most time sitting in Jesus's lap is important. When something so incredibly stupid is an issue with your voters, be prepared for an endless loop of bone-deep stupidity.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 5, 2007 1:49 PM

David claims: "In the end, few conservatives will vote against Romney because he's a Mormon; scads of liberals will, though."

Yet more self-serving crap from a conservative. Many Iowan Christian conservatives will be voting for Huckabee over Romney because of the Mormon issue. There has been endless discussion of this in the wingnut blogosphere, and they're not (for a change) making it up.

Meanwhile Romney won here in super-liberal Massachusetts. Let's see him move to Mississippi and run for governor there. Let me know how it works out with all of those oh-so-openminded conservatives.

Sheesh. And if Romney makes it to the general election, "liberals" won't vote against him because he's a Mormon. They'll vote against him because he's another warmongering idiot with no real principles, and we've had one of those for 7 years. No sale.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 5, 2007 1:57 PM

Wouldn't the most "ringing statement in support of religious tolerance" Huckabee could make in this situation be something to the effect of, "Al Mohler is private citizen and a respected theologian, and I certainly defend his right to make that statement. However, as a candidate for President, I don't think it's appropriate for me to publicly make theological pronouncements of that sort."

Tolerance doesn't mean blanket acceptance, it means, well, tolerance.

I think this answer works for the origins question as well, had he chosen to use it. Of course this answer would be stronger if he supported school choice, which is the best solution for the public policy angle of the evolution debate.

Posted by Ross (a different Ross) | December 5, 2007 2:09 PM

The problem is that Romney serves as a bad test case for an empirical evaluation of the "Mormon problem" for Republican voters, because Romney's past positions, occasionally risible explanations for his convenient shifts, and "I am an android constructed to play the PRESIDENT IN A B MOVIE" problems are factors it is hard to control for, y'know?

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | December 5, 2007 2:21 PM

"Huckabee is not a perfect man. Like all others, he has his faults. America knows and expects this...In spite of his failings, Mike Huckabee appears to be a pretty nice guy with a gentle manner..."

Holy crap! Let's vote for the nice guy even though he's clueless on all the things a president is supposed to do?!?!?! AHHHHHH!!! Look, the Republican field includes an accomplished mayor, an economic genius, and a war hero, and we're vaulting this idiot to the front of the pack? He brings something extra to the presidency with his manner, I'll give you that, but he doesn't bring any of those things that are ESSENTIAL to the presidency. Sheesh

Posted by txindep | December 5, 2007 2:28 PM

Look, I don't like Richard Cohen in general or this column in particular. But Ross has completely mischaracterized what Cohen is saying: When Coehn he says that "because he is a preacher," Huckabee knows "what the right answer should be," he means the right and honest answer would be, "No, a Morman is *not* a Christian" -- in other words, Cohen means the opposite of what Ross has assumed in his post. But Cohen thinks Huckabee should also say, "No, a Morman is not a Christian, but in America that doesn't matter, and I don't want the votes of people who think it does matter." Obviously, Huckabee is not going to make that statement because he is explicitly running as a "Christian leader."

Posted by David | December 5, 2007 2:32 PM

TMoC writes: ""I am an android constructed to play the PRESIDENT IN A B MOVIE""

Yeah. Huckabee, unfortunately, is a one-trick pony running a faith-based candidacy. Romney is running a face-based one.

The GOP field makes the Seven Dwarfs look like the 1986 Celtics.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 5, 2007 2:40 PM

Ahhh....the eternal Mormon question. Many might not know it, but "the Mormon question" was once right up there with the slave question. Trinity-Christians don't like Mormons. Why? Here are some possible reasons:

(1)Mormons are now, and have ALWAYS been, self-sufficient. They don't depend on ecumenical organizations' handouts and they sure as heck don't depend upon the federal government. Their funding is not dependent upon the whims of Sunday worshippers and the collection plate. AND...they don't pay their local leaders!!!! Because of this financial strength, the Mormons even spanked the ACLU.

(2)Mormons have concrete-sounding, easily explained interpretations of Christian beliefs. For example, Mormons believe that Jesus really was praying to His Father, and not himself, i.e., the Godhead consists of three discrete beings. They also believe that Jesus has a tangible body, which makes sense when one remembers that he took the trouble to be resurrected in his original (though scarred), tangible body. All the BS about Mormons' beliefs being 'weird' is a smokescreen. Anyone who's conversed with lay Protestants and Catholics find that many, independently, believe that Jesus has a body and is physically separate from Jesus' Father. How freeing! And Mormons can enjoy the Bible without being tied down to a strict interpretation of passages no modern reader understands. (Why does Huckabee worship a book wherein men of God sleep with concubines [not even wives] to make children...children whom they later banish????)

(3)Mormons are smarter. Again, Mormons are smarter. Is it a coincidence that the ONLY candidate with perfect grades (and a double graduate degree) from an Ivy League school comes from a religious minority group (less than 2% of the population)? Oh, and the highest ranking Democrat too?!!! Mormons get an education. One study found that Mormons, when compared to people of all other faiths, maintain the highest percentage of believing academics of any religion. Another study found that the children of families with many children had lower educational attainments, unless they were Mormon!!!!!!!!!!!! Every graduate school in America, from Berkeley to Harvard, has faithful 30-something Mormons studying everything from Chemistry to English. Notice that Mitt has said, confidently, that he believes in God and evolution. He is DEVOUT. Yet he firmly believes that science and HIS religion should never be considered enemies. How refreshing!

(4)Mormons are winners. When Brigham Young led the greatest ethnic migration in the history of White America, he chose the inhospitable desert valleys of the Rocky Mountains. Ten years after the Mormons' first arrival, the U.S. army attempted an invasion. In the end, less than 200 Mormon rangers held off an army of 2,500 without any bloodshed. How? They burned their supply trains, destroyed all habitable buildings, drove off the cattle (used to feed the army), tricked the army into thinking they were a larger force through the use of night attacks, etc. In the end, the congress decided against attacking the Mormons. To quote Senator Sam Houston (of Texas fame):

"[the army] will find Salt Lake, if they ever reach it, a heap of ashes. They will find that they will have to fight against Russia and the Russians. Whoever goes there will meet the fate of Napoleon's army when he went to Moscow."

The U.S. granted all Mormons a pardon [for defending themselves against genocide]. How many other groups attack the U.S. army and humiliate it with impunity? Time and time again the culture at large has sought to belittle Mormons. To portray them as exotic, stupid, etc. And yet, time and time again those pesky Mormons keep excelling at EVERYTHING.

Huckabee is the dumbest candidate I've seen so far, ever. I'd vote for H. Clinton before I'd vote for someone with his glazed, beady eyes. If you think that a Mormon would not make a fantastic president, you should look at Mormon history and its ample examples of strong, intelligent, pragmatic leadership. If you think that Mormonism is a dangerous cult, you probably know nothing about the church that Jesus Christ set up in Palestine (not Rome and not speaking Latin). There is no such things as 'historic Christianity', there are only Orthodox churches (Coptic, Ethiopic, Syrian, Armenian, Roman, Greek, etc.), some of whom think the others are hell-bound, and their spin-offs (Anglican, Baptist, Quaker, Methodist, Seventh Day Adventist, Jehovah's Witness, etc.). Mormons are not derived from these groups. They have additional scriptures (The Ethopian Christians do too). They have a strong organization (the Roman Catholics do too). They believe in apostles, prophets, seventies, tithing, baptism for the dead, the separate persons of the Godhead, and the reality of the priesthood (the writers of the Bible did too).

This is why America hates Mormons. They don't go away. They refuse to have a negative opinion of themselves just because others want feel that way. Every other group in the country whines that they need to be treated better in the media to avoid self-loathing. Mormons just keep going to church, administering relief to the sick and afflicted, getting advanced degrees, and feeling great about themselves.

Posted by Deseretian | December 5, 2007 3:25 PM

Deseretian takes time away from baptizing dead war criminals and writes: "Mormons are smarter. Again, Mormons are smarter. Is it a coincidence that the ONLY candidate with perfect grades (and a double graduate degree) from an Ivy League school comes from a religious minority group (less than 2% of the population)? Oh, and the highest ranking Democrat too?!!! Mormons get an education. One study found that Mormons, when compared to people of all other faiths, maintain the highest percentage of believing academics of any religion. Another study found that the children of families with many children had lower educational attainments, unless they were Mormon!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Plus they use a lot of exclamation points. Don't forget that.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 5, 2007 3:37 PM

Iowa will go to Huckabee. Why ? The Republican party was used by the NeoCons to achieve their goals.The Republican Party then used Evangelical Christians to accomplish their goals. Evangelical Christians see Mormonism as a cult
http://www.invitation.to/dance/cults-mormon.htm
and they are searching for a candidate they can back. Huckabee is real, likeable, and seems very genuine. Mitt Romney is a very accomplished flip flop artist. Romney has spent millions of dollars in an attempt to buy the presidency. I hate to see all that money wasted.

Posted by eSPO | December 5, 2007 3:52 PM

Deseretian,

I wish you hadn't written that. All this talk about who "hates" who and why is exactly what Mitt has to fight against. If you think Mitt is going to win by saying "We 2% of Americans are just better than you and you're dumb for not seeing it," you're crazy. Oh, and I think you're wrong. The LDS church is a strong organization that teaches its people well, but there's no inherent in the LDS population that makes it smarter or better than anyone else. Romney is a genius, let's give him that; but don't obscure it with all this talk about his religion. You're not helping.

Posted by Mike | December 5, 2007 4:25 PM

The GOP field makes the Seven Dwarfs look like the 1986 Celtics.

Eh, not really. I don't like him much, but McCain's not a dwarf. He's not who I'd pick to be president of the country, given magical president-makin' powers, but he's no dwarf. I loathe Giuliani by and large, but he's not a dwarf.

On a completely different note, Ron Paul isn't a dwarf either.

I am less willing to categorically deny dwarfhood for the rest.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | December 5, 2007 4:36 PM

TMoC replies: "I don't like him much, but McCain's not a dwarf. He's not who I'd pick to be president of the country, given magical president-makin' powers, but he's no dwarf. I loathe Giuliani by and large, but he's not a dwarf.

On a completely different note, Ron Paul isn't a dwarf either."

Paul's an exception. It will be interesting to see how he does, but if the GOP primary voters go for someone who basically says that the entire Bush presidency has been excrement, it will be the most radical remaking of a political party at the grassroots level in American history.

McCain wasn't a dwarf for most of his life, but in the past few years he's sawn his own legs off ad flattened his head in an effort to, uh, be in a better position to, uh, service the SuperChristians. I don't think he can reverse the process.

Giuliani isn't just a dwarf - he's the single most repugnant politician in the country. Perhaps Michael Savage could top him if he gets in (as he's threatened). The "small man in search of a balcony" description of Giuliani is perfect.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 5, 2007 4:52 PM

I tend to agree with Mike about Deseretian, who seems to show an unseemly pride. I'm under the impression that this isn't common for LDS members.

Posted by Klug | December 5, 2007 5:15 PM

If Huckabee wants my vote, he's going to have to answer the question about whether or not he supports the Southern Baptist position that Mormonism is a cult. I also want to know what he's taught his congregation about Mormonism, given that the Southern Baptists openly admit to "teaching" about Mormonism to prevent their congregation from converting over.

I want to know whether or not Huckabee is a religious bigot.

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

I disagree on Giuliani -- I don't like a lot of his views, his basic nature, or nuthin' else. But he was a mayor of historical interest and importance in one of the most fascinating cities in world history. That's not dwarfism.

And McCain hasn't really changed his positions on much of anything -- he's said nicer things about people, which as political sellouts go is pretty small. Exactly what's changed about McCain, as far as his positions go? He's managed to be wrong (I think) about Iraq in the most principled way possible, which takes some work. I think he's utterly out to lunch on immigration, but I think he's no dwarf -- he believes his position.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | December 5, 2007 5:20 PM

Klug,

That's probably why our church presidents are constantly lecturing us on the subject of pride.

http://tinyurl.com/2jkuom

Posted by Jon | December 5, 2007 5:30 PM

I hope no one thinks I'm trying to represent the Mormon church. I'm not trying to help Mitt's candidacy either. Mormons are a talented, powerful group. They want good things for America and for their neighbors. The problem is, there are too many in the Media and government who happily dismiss them without taking the time to look at their potential. Pussy footing around the fact that the media portray Mormons as some obscure, poor, trailer-park-living bunch of blond sister-wives does not help Mitt's presidency either. Why can't he say, with pride, that his people worked their hands to the bone to build a civilization in the wilderness, without government subsidies? Perhaps he could tell them that his church has stored enough food to feed all its members and their immediate neighbors in case of a major disaster. No, he spends forever answering questions about the garden of Eden and Missouri. I wish he'd ask them where THEY think the Garden of Eden is? Iraq? Jamaica? Come on!!!!![Took another break from creepy pseudo-Mormon behavior to use the !!!!]

Posted by Deseretian | December 5, 2007 5:32 PM

Rudy was a mayor who cracked down on ferrets and collected criminal cronies. By calling him a dwarf I mean no disrespect to dwarfs, but there's no fairy tale about the "Seven Tapeworms."

As for McCain, in 2000 he said this:

"Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right."

In 2006, the year he gave a commencement speech at Liberty U, McCain said:

""I no longer consider Jerry Falwell an agent of intolerance.""

Falwell certainly hadn't changed in the interim - he famously said America deserved 9-11, for instance, because we weren't nasty enough to "the gays," among other things.

McCain changed. This is his last shot at the White House and he's willing to do a wingnut gangbang to get there. Falwell was just invited to be first in line.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 5, 2007 5:53 PM

ML&J, your language offends me.

Posted by Klug | December 5, 2007 6:41 PM

My point is that McCain never had any policy positions that were exactly designed to annoy Falwell to start with. He meant the original comment, but in a somewhat showboating way, I suspect -- sincere but bloviated to some extent. He didn't change any policies, though. If shifts in rhetoric from time to time make you a dwarf, who shall 'scape whipping, among the political class?

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | December 5, 2007 7:55 PM

Deseretian.. dude. Unseemly display.

You should know that my antipathy toward Mormonism as a belief system has absolutely nothing to do with the sterling personal qualities of Mormons, themselves. I've historically always liked Mormons, unerringly, without fail. Your cockiness might mark you as an unique exception, though. As for your community, it's very attractive. Probably the single most significant factor behind most of your conversions.

No. I dislike your church because I think what you believe is a ludicrous heresy, a complete & flagrantly fraudulent fabrication, and perhaps maybe even sinister & dangerous. It's as though the LDS church were a deliberate parody of the apostolic Church. With very odd Masonic trappings, too many parallels with Islam, and too clouded in mystery for my taste.

I mean, what exactly goes on at temple? Not to be nosy, and I understand it's sacred to you, but you have to understand why I'm curious. Why all the mystery would cause a bit of unease.

Ritual & theology do matter. I hear too many Mormons claim that this is merely a matter of packaging or advertising. That the differences are all superficial. Not so.

Faith- who or what a man worships, who he trusts and obeys, matters.

Who is Mitt Romney, what does he believe? What really is the LDS Church about? For me lack of knowledge, your weird aesthetics, the aforementioned unsettling similarities .. all make me very concerned. Why should I trust Mitt, when he believes something I consider almost insanely false? Demonstrably and unambiguously so? At least the parts I understand are obviously falsified. The part shrouded, obscure, is even more upsetting. What is all the secrecy about?

Posted by Charles | December 5, 2007 8:59 PM

Deseretian.. dude. Unseemly display.

You should know that my antipathy toward Mormonism as a belief system has absolutely nothing to do with the sterling personal qualities of Mormons, themselves. I've historically always liked Mormons, unerringly, without fail. Your cockiness might mark you as an unique exception, though. As for your community, it's very attractive. Probably the single most significant factor behind most of your conversions.

No. I dislike your church because I think what you believe is a ludicrous heresy, a complete & flagrant fabrication, Stepford sinister & spiritually deadly. We were warned about false prophets, remember. It's as though the LDS church were a deliberate parody of the apostolic Church. With very odd Masonic trappings, way too many parallels with Islam, and too obscured in mystery for my taste.

I mean, what exactly goes on at temple? Not to be nosy, and I understand it's sacred to you, but you have to understand why I'm curious. Why all the mystery would cause a bit of unease.

Ritual & theology do matter. I hear too many Mormons claim that this is merely a matter of packaging or advertising. That the differences are all superficial. Not so.

Faith- who or what a man worships, who he trusts and obeys, matters.

Who is Mitt Romney, what does he believe? What really is the LDS Church about? For me lack of knowledge, your weird aesthetics, the aforementioned unsettling similarities .. all make me very concerned. Why should I trust Mitt, when he believes something I consider almost insanely false? Demonstrably and unambiguously so? At least the parts I understand are obviously falsified. The part shrouded, obscure, is even more upsetting. What is all the secrecy about?

Posted by Charles | December 5, 2007 9:17 PM

TMoC replies: "My point is that McCain never had any policy positions that were exactly designed to annoy Falwell to start with. He meant the original comment, but in a somewhat showboating way, I suspect -- sincere but bloviated to some extent. He didn't change any policies, though. If shifts in rhetoric from time to time make you a dwarf, who shall 'scape whipping, among the political class?"

I see. You prefer leaders who don't even pretend to have any principles. This helps put the past 7 years in a clearer perspective.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 5, 2007 9:29 PM

Richard Cohen's columns aren't nearly as bad as you want them to be. Cohen writes as an unselfconscious secularist who simply can't believe that anyone with the slightest amount of intelligence could care about "theology." He is unsympathetic, but he asks questions that the religious right doesn't want to answer. If Mormonism is "heresy" to the Evangelicals, what about Judaism? They don't believe that Christ is the son of God. Doesn't that matter? What about Catholics? They believe that only the Church can get you into heaven. Doesn't that matter? The religious right wants to eat its cake and have it too--believe in "old-fashioned theology" without disagreeing with anyone.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | December 5, 2007 10:36 PM

For those who care about such details, the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is R. Albert Mohler Jr. (not Moulder).

Posted by Douglas LeBlanc | December 6, 2007 9:09 AM

Moe --

No, I just think McCain's a non-dwarf, despite his penchant for "speaking truth to power" when it suits him and shifting around a bit. McCain did the anti-Falwell bit sincerely, but in part with an eye to his media pals at the time. The substance of McCain hasn't shifted much. McCain has more principles than a good part of the Democratic presidential field of recent memory, given that a good number of them started their careers as moderate to strong opponents of abortion, and adopted their beliefs there (or at least their policies, since I suspect some still feel that abortion is wrong and should be outlawed in some cases) to the requirements of power-seeking.

Look, seriously, who's a major political figure now you don't consider a "dwarf"? Maybe I can gauge by that.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | December 6, 2007 11:48 AM

The people who say the Mormonism is part of Christainity are totally ignorant of the Christian faith.

No Christian body recognizes Mormonism as part of the Great Tradition. Not even Catholics!

You may find that Progessives include Mormons in the Christian fold. But, Noe-Orthodox don't even belive Christ raised from the dead. Or perhaps universalists. But other than that your SOL on your argument that Mormons are Chrsitian.

Your arguments are radical displays of your public and state educations.

Leave the finer points of Religion to the Theologians!!!

Posted by JasonV | December 6, 2007 2:43 PM

TMoC asks: "Look, seriously, who's a major political figure now you don't consider a "dwarf"? Maybe I can gauge by that."

Pay better attention. I had named Ron Paul as an exception up above.

I'd also name Bill Clinton - if he could run against Dumbya today - or anyone in the current Republican field - he'd win by 65%-35%. And Gore, who would win 55%-45% under the slogan "Erase The Mistake."

I haven't made my mind up about Obama or the current Edwards yet.

Chuck Hagel, Russ Feingold, Jim Webb.

And of course Larry Craig - he's no dwarf, he's a big man with a wide stance.

But as a two-time Bush voter you may well disagree with my perspective - after all, you supported the smallest man in America twice.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 6, 2007 2:54 PM

A day's reflection and my wife's pointed comments have convinced me that I went overboard with my post. I am, however, honestly frustrated. I know, I know, Mormons are nice, but...
I noticed that posters most bothered by my cocky attitude were other Mormons. On one hand, these Mormons were truly trying to follow scriptural and prophetic injunctions to avoid pride (as defined as enmity with God). On the other hand, in my opinion, they were merely facilitating the erroneous belief that Mormons can be tolerated only because they're 'nice' and otherwise incapable of defending their "ludicrous heresy" (the one which is "a complete & flagrant fabrication, Stepford sinister & spiritually deadly").
The point of my original, if prideful, post was simply this: Mormonism is an amazingly beautiful, consistent, intelligent choice as a religion. There are plenty of aspects of its past and present that leave outsiders with unsettled questions; however, in my experience, the vast majority of these so-called 'questions' hinge on one's cultural frame of reference. In other words, I have not yet found ANY reason to disbelieve the testimony of Joseph Smith. There is nothing creepy about the temple (it's Christ-centered worship clothed in Mason-like ritual, ritual which solely exists as a didactic tool). It's different, that's all. The early apostles attended the Jewish temple daily AFTER Christ's death and resurrection. I, personally, don't believe that their practices therein were the same as Mormon temple worship, but I also don't believe that their purpose was drastically different.
There is nothing sinister about the organization of the Mormon church. We're independent. No one forces, guilt-trips, or otherwise extracts the tithes and offerings. Believe me, I've both paid and not paid tithing. No one says anything to me either way.
There is no fair, honest, justifiable reason for folks who choose not to accept Joseph Smith's testimony of the Saviour as true to extend their dislike for Mormonism as a vehicle of salvation to individual Mormons who otherwise want the same vibrant economy and safe neighborhoods as the rest of the nation.
I wish Mormons would stand up for themselves, and not in a "I'll quote you New Testament scripture defending baptism for the dead" way. Maybe I am too cocky, but I think that everyone should stick with what he/she believes. For me, that's Mormonism. I think it's a true message. I think it's an amazingly practical life-way. I think that it's supposedly extravagant doctrinal claims hold up to much greater scrutiny than those of its detractors. I also think that Mormons are fools if they think they'll be treated by Protestants in a different way than the early Protestants were treated by Rome. And.....I wish Mitt Romney could be judged solely on the basis of his abilities.

Posted by Deseretian | December 6, 2007 3:46 PM

Moe,

Ah, but I'm a Bush voter (did I ever say two-time?) who agrees Bush is a dwarf.

Yeah, ok, got you on Paul -- I assume you like Paul understanding that your positions are pretty anathema to him, and he's pretty seriously socially conservative, albeit in a way constrained by his version of semi-libertarianism?

Hagel? Eh, I'm with Larison. Hagel's not really anti-war, he just wants media credit for it.

It's weird that McCain is a dwarf now for dropping some rhetoric -- hasn't Clinton had shifts at least as large?

I'll agree, anyone who says Webb is a dwarf is asking to get his clock cleaned, and good.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | December 6, 2007 4:40 PM

Jason V,

The "Great Tradition" is a fiction created by Protestants and Catholics who were hoping for an American political alliance.

Protestants and Roman Catholics are no more similar to each other than Mormons are to either one.

Posted by Seth R. | December 6, 2007 4:42 PM

Protestants and Roman Catholics are no more similar to each other than Mormons are to either one.

Sociologically, that might be true, or ethnically, or something. Theologically, it's utter nonsense, only possibly spoken by someone who doesn't know a damn thing about any of the religions in question.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | December 6, 2007 5:05 PM

At least if you confine "Protestants" to the Nicene-conformant Protestants.

Posted by The Marquis of Carabas | December 6, 2007 5:06 PM

Statistics say 95% of the media readers are common sense readers. Those who go on web pages and attack canidates have an motive behind what they are doing.

Those of you who are taking cheap shots and cutting someone down, no matter who they are, are running on ice and going no where. No one wants to listen to your negativism. It's time you grow up and act civilized.

Mike Huckabee continues to only talk in positive terms. He's honest, humble and trustworthy. He's energetic and has huge amounts of charisma and determination.

Mike is skyrocketing in the polls because 95% of population sees how honest and trustworthy he is. They listen and watch him in the debates and on TV, they sense how down to earth and willing he is to bring people up, not just hard right or hard left.

Mike Huckabee's goals for the American people is:

1. Eliminate the income tax.
a. You get 100% of your paycheck from work.
b. No more of the hassles filing taxes.
c. Sales tax only on newly purchased items.
d. No more working 2 jobs to put food on table.

2. Eliminate our need for foreign oil.
a. Develop alternative fuels in 10 years.
b. Will drive down gas prices like a rock.
c. No more paying $3 to $5 per gallon at pump.

But these great things can't happen unless you go vote for Mike Huckabee. If you don't mind paying the Government more and throwing money out the window then I can see why you could vote for somebody else. But if you are one that wants to enjoy these benefits, you had better vote for Mike Huckabee and go spread the news about him to all your friends and family.

Not too many times will you see a canidate come through giving Americans these options. If you lose this opportunity, it will be a big loss. All the other canidates are just saying pretty much the same things, except for Mike.

Go visit Mike at http://www.MikeHuckabee.com

Watch out American here comes the HUCKABOOM!!! force!

GO MIKE GO!!!!!

Posted by Tony | December 6, 2007 8:13 PM

Tony, when you wake up tomorrow, will you roll over and ask Mike Huckabee who he thinks will win the Super Bowl?

Thanks in advance.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 6, 2007 9:44 PM

Take a GOOD look at Huckabee and the FairTax - why is the FairTax studies only evaluate incomes up to $200,000? Because the effective tax rate for billionaires under the FairTax is less than 1%. You can buy things of great value all day long without ever buying a new one. Think mansions, land, yachts, valuable coins, stamps, bullion, stocks and bonds - all of which increase his wealth and none of which is taxed. The things that are NEW that the super rich require will be provided them as perquisites by the businesses they control. Think company car, company house, company jet - all of which use our infrastructure and none of which is paid for by the entity using them. Why should Walmart pay for roads and bridges when they can get you to pay for free?
This is another attempt by the liberal media to help hand the nomination to ANYONE but Dr. Ron Paul. Much as we'd like politics to be positive, it is in fact ruled almost entirely by negatives. For instance, what's the biggest negative the Republican Party is facing in 2008? Iraq - a staggering 70% of people favor IMMEDIATE withdrawl from Iraq. Who is the only candidate that doesn't have that negative? Dr. Paul, who advocates using those trillions of dollars to secure our border (perhaps against Saudis who were 20 of the 24 terrorists in 9/11) and rebuild our crumbling infrastructure which is far more worrying than the loss of Social Security. Hm, full employment, withdrawl from Iraq and a huge boost to our economy from rebuilding our infrastructure - what Democrat wants to run against that. Hence the behavior of known liberal biased network CNN, who wants us to nominate either Guiliani or Romney - both of whose negatives are so high the copy practically writes itself!

Posted by Louis Nardozi | December 6, 2007 11:04 PM

Would Romney be America's most handsome president?

Posted by Kilter | December 7, 2007 9:05 AM

Re: For example, Mormons believe that Jesus really was praying to His Father, and not himself, i.e., the Godhead consists of three discrete beings.

A lot of very turgid water has been spilled over that dam. The Trinity does consist of three separate persons per orthodox Christian teaching. But they are of one essence. That sounds confusing in English (and didn't work too well in Latin or most other ancient languages either) but the metaphysical terminology of Greek (informed by Platonism) can handle it. That may be one of the problems with Mormon theology: it's formulated in English which lacks the vocabulary that ancient Christian used to define its terms.

Posted by JonF | December 8, 2007 11:17 AM

Hi JonF,

I think that the most important thing to note is that the ancient Christians = Christ and his apostles (in my understanding) and not later Greek and Latin speaking evangelizers.

The greatest strength of Mormonism, whether you believe it or not, is that its doctrines were formulated in English by a prophet who believed that God spoke to him, in English.

Also, Mormons believe that the Godhead are one in purpose (in the same way that Jesus prayed to His Father that his disciples might be one); however, they are discrete beings. In the case of Jesus and his Father, tangible beings with glorified bodies.

To Mormons, this fits well with the New Testament account of Jesus' resurrection from the dead. If you recall, his resurrection involved his actual body (one that can eat and be touched).

The most beautiful part of this simple doctrine, to me, is the emphasis it puts on our bodies here on earth. Other faiths treat them as prisons, hellish fleshy boxes that trap our true, amorphous, selves. Mormons say: "God has a body. Jesus has a body. I have a body. My body is sacred. It is part of His plan for me. Someday, after the resurrection, I'll have my body again, just like my Father in Heaven and His Son, Jesus Christ."

It's also interesting to note that the ancient languages can be heavily manipulated. Hebrew, for example, has the word 'elohim, which is translated as 'God' when it refers to the God of Israel, but as 'gods' when referring to non-Israelite gods. What is interesting is that there is NO reason to give 'elohim this interpretation outside of the Jewish tradition that does so. All arguments in favor of this reading are circular.

In other words, there are no strict morphological or syntactic criteria that would lead to an interpretation of 'elohim as being singular (the -im suffix is the regular masculine plural marker). It is, in fact, quite plausible that the use of 'elohim really meant 'Gods' and, after the Babylonian exile, was reinterpreted by Jews who had encountered Zoroastrianism.

None of the above rant about 'elohim is necessarily Mormon doctrine. I just think that we should be careful when we base our faith in philological arguments.

Thanks for your civil comment.

Posted by Deseretian | December 11, 2007 3:46 PM