Mormonism And Its Enemies (III)

Nate Oman responds to my comments on his earlier post:

I would be the last to deny that there are real and important theological differences between Mormonism and Protestantism or Catholicism. However, it is not simply these theological differences that account for the strange political salience of Mormonism as an issue for some non-trivial segment of the Republican base. Rather, I think that the fact that the details of Mormon theology matter so intensely as a political issue for some voters comes from their need to assert -- if only to themselves -- their theological integrity in the face of political compromises. It is not Mormon theology but the strange series of historical accidents that pushed conservative evangelical protestants and conservative catholics into alliance that is causing most of Romney's "Mormon problem," a development that Mormonism had very little to do with. Furthermore, the fact that this same non-trivial chunk of the Republican base believes that the theological marker for ecumenism is also a valid reason in principle for rejecting a Mormon candidate is simply a graphic illustration of the problems of conflating ecumenism and political coalition building. It also illustrates that at least for some, Mormonism's status as a religious outsider is sufficient reason to relegate Mormons to the status of outsiders within the political community as well. Supporter of a basically liberal political order (and member of the Mormon tribe) that I am, I find that a bit disquieting.

Point taken. I've spent a perhaps-inordinate amount of time defending the idea that it's reasonable to vote against a candidate because of his religious beliefs, and with that in mind I think it’s perfectly understandable that evangelical Christians would feel more comfortable voting for Huckabee than for Romney because they share a theological bedrock with the one and not the other. (In this vein, I like Matt's comments about how he wouldn't vote for a Jew for Jesus if there were other candidates on offer.) But these sort of choices, however understandable on an individual level, are problematic when they start defining a political coalition: The more religious conservatives appear to be treating theological issues, rather than the political issues they inform, as crucial election-season litmus tests, the more they’ll shrink their tent (there are a lot more Mormons than Jews for Jesus in the United States), alienate potential friends, and provide ammunition to the theocracy-shouters. If social conservatism is going to matter in American politics over the long run, then evangelicals would probably do well not to disqualify a Mormon from high office in advance, even if they choose not to vote for him when other alternatives are available. I’m not brave enough to venture into amateur speechwriting, but in an ideal world this is a point that Mitt Romney would strive – subtly, subtly – to get across on Thursday night.

Comments

MittRomney.com says its streaming the speech tomorrow morning at 10:30 am Eastern. Not evening.

Posted by David H. Sundwall | December 5, 2007 8:21 PM

Has anyone considered that the real reason the Protestant (and some of the Catholic) Right is so negative toward Mormons has nothing to do with theology? Most Americans are theologcally illiterate after all. My guess is it has to do with the fact that Mormons actively proselytize among other Christians. Most Christian churches do not do this, accepting converts from other denominations when they show up at the door, but not twisting arms either. They spare those efforts for the secular and the unchurched. Mormons, like the Jehovah Witnesses (but on a much larger scale) break this tacit bargain against fishing in other churches' ponds.

Posted by JonF | December 5, 2007 8:51 PM

So Ross continues to insist that it's okay for voters to have a religious litmus test for candidates, with the caveat that they should only act on it if doing so doesn't damage the more sacred cause of "social conservatism."

Stunning. Now bigots have to make sure they lay the groundwork for future generations of bigots.

Why do I get the feeling that the Culture War is going to get much uglier?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 5, 2007 9:15 PM

JonF writes: "My guess is it has to do with the fact that Mormons actively proselytize among other Christians. Most Christian churches do not do this, accepting converts from other denominations when they show up at the door, but not twisting arms either."

I'm not familiar with any "armtwisting" being done by Mormon "recruiters," but I have heard terrible stories about them cleaning out garages for old folks and so on. The horror!

Meanwhile I'm familiar with the very aggressive efforts of the Campus Crusade for Christ, a wingnut group that targets young kids who are often away from home for the first time. They damn well do seek converts from other xian sects.

JonF is simply wrong. And since this is the second time I've corrected him on this point, I wonder if he's also being dishonest.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 5, 2007 9:21 PM

"Theocracy-shouters" - good one. Meanwhile, Huckabee wants Intelligent Design taught in schools and GWBush is still pushing his failed "abstinence only" sex ed programs.

Posted by tgb1000 | December 5, 2007 11:02 PM

I see a "meme" beginning to spread here: that evangelical Protestants are those most negatively disposed towards Mormonism.

This is not true. Jonah Goldberg has repeatedly been posting Pew poll data showing secular liberals have a much more negative view of Mormonism than evangelicals.

Maybe somebody can scrounge up that date. It would seem relevant.

Posted by Brian | December 6, 2007 7:48 AM

Romney? Subtle? Ha. This is the guy who said we should "double Guantanamo".

Posted by right | December 6, 2007 10:33 AM

Brian writes: "Jonah Goldberg has repeatedly been posting Pew poll data showing secular liberals have a much more negative view of Mormonism than evangelicals."

Again, Mitt Romney was elected governor of Massachusetts, and quite easily, too. Let's see that happen in a fundie redaunt like Mississippi or Oklahoma.

Jonah Goldberg, of course, is a pissant. Dig up this Pew Poll data yourself if you think it's so important - dropping Lucianne Jr's name does nothing.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 6, 2007 11:07 AM

A fair speech by Romney. As a Catholic, I was captured by his use of the words "Creator," "Almighty" and the word "God." Does this mean a Mormon could assent to the following generic Christian profession of faith:

I believe that the one God, the father of the Lord Jesus Christ, is the Creator of heaven and earth.

In other words, do Mormons believe that God, the same God that become incarnate, is the creator of all things?

Could a Mormon agree to this? Genuine question, though probably not one with any direct political relevance.

Posted by Brian | December 6, 2007 11:33 AM

If social conservatism is going to matter in American politics over the long run, then evangelicals would probably do well not to disqualify a Mormon from high office in advance, even if they choose not to vote for him when other alternatives are available.

It seems to me, however, that social conservatism is running aground on its own internal contradictions. You're trying to be both doctrinal and ecumenical. How, exactly, does that work? It ends up playing out like that scene in Blazing Saddles where the townspeople decide to accept the blacks and the Chinese ...but no Irish!

There's nothing inherently wrong with ecumenicism, but it requires compromise and moderation. It's entirely possible for social conservatives to emphasize specific shared political issues (gays, abortion) while de-emphasizing the area where they disagree-- "faith." Yet, without "faith" there seems to be little rationale for social conservative politics. Conservatives just can't stop talking about faith, and therefore the theological squabbles keep bubbling up from below the surface.

This leads to the increasingly common gambit that Romney is using, which attempts to unite social conservatives of all faiths together against secularism. Heresy good. Heathenism bad. But apart from alienating a substantial number of moderate and conservative voters, where does this get you? Romney's "symphony of faiths" is a nonsensical cacophony, and he shouldn't be surprised if the majority tunes it out.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | December 6, 2007 12:02 PM

Brian,

I'm a Mormon. And I don't agree with that. So there you are, I guess.

Posted by Seth R. | December 6, 2007 12:26 PM

Seth,

Thanks for your response.

So why does he say "Creator" and "Almighty God" when he knows (apparently) that most Americans will understand its Judeo-Christian meaning in a way completely different than Mormons?

Posted by Brian | December 6, 2007 12:41 PM

David Frum comments:

orry to dissent from my colleagues on the Corner, but once the murmurs over the oratory subside, people are going to realize: that speech did not work. Here's why:

"There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance."

To be blunt, Romney is saying:

It is legitimate to ask a candidate, "Is Jesus the son of God?"

But it is illegitimate to ask a candidate, "Is Jesus the brother of Lucifer?"

It is hard for me to see a principled difference between these two questions, and I think on reflection that the audiences to whom Romney is trying to appeal will also fail to see them.

Once he answered any questions about the content of his religious faith, he opened the door to every question about the content of his religious faith. This speech for all its eloquence will not stanch the flow of such questions.

Bad move - and one with very unfair results to a candidate who all must acknowledge is a man who has proven that his mind actually operates in a highly empirical, data-driven, and uncredulous way.

Posted by Brian | December 6, 2007 1:18 PM

Brian asks: "So why does he say "Creator" and "Almighty God" when he knows (apparently) that most Americans will understand its Judeo-Christian meaning in a way completely different than Mormons?"

Because he's trying to win the nomination of a party which is utterly dominated by dingbats these days, and he's telling them what they apparently demand to hear.

He's put far too much effort and money into Iowa to let it get away, and he's desperate. As a former Mormon bishop (correct me if I'm wrong and that's a lifetime title like Eagle Scout) he certainly knows his own theology better than that, but the GOP base would freak out and grab their pitchforks if he were honest with them.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 6, 2007 2:08 PM

I think the speech was a failure. May win him some points on the national front, but I think he failure to address WHY people are afraid of Mormons means it will be a failure with voters.

Also look at how much money Romney is getting from Mormon sources. A significant chunk of his take.

Posted by charlie | December 6, 2007 3:54 PM

charlie writes: "I think the speech was a failure. May win him some points on the national front, but I think he failure to address WHY people are afraid of Mormons means it will be a failure with voters."

It's because they're shape-changers and they have claws, right?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 6, 2007 4:33 PM

Re: JonF is simply wrong. And since this is the second time I've corrected him on this point, I wonder if he's also being dishonest.

No, you are incorrect. The LDS does not accept the validity of other Christian churches, regarding them as apostate. As such they regard members of other churches as "fair game" for evangelism. When my step-sister coverted to the LDS, Mormon missionaries went door to door in our neighborhood, much as the JWs do. They were not put off by people saying "I already have a church". Some years later this was repeated when a Mormon couple moved in next door to us (the couple themselves were wonderful people who became good family friends by the way). Again, missionaries worked the neighborhood.
And in any event, even if I am wrong about the LDS, my point still stands: other churches see them in this light and that may well be the root of the antipathy toward the LDS, that they reject (or are believed to reject) the tacit bargain which has held in Christendom since around the late 18th century, that churches do not actively poach each other's members.
By the way, I do not recall us ever having this conversation sdo I think you are confusing me with someone else.

Posted by JonF | December 6, 2007 10:04 PM

JonF, the point I'm saying you're wrong on is your claim that other xian sects don't actively recruit from other xian groups. That's simply untrue, and I think I was quite clear about why I think so.

That some other groups don't go door to door strikes me as supremely irrelevant since they use other methods.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 6, 2007 10:57 PM

Re: JonF, the point I'm saying you're wrong on is your claim that other xian sects don't actively recruit from other xian groups.

There are no doubt some fringe sects on the fundamentalist wing that have the attitude of "We alone are Christians" and also actively recruit from other churches. I won't argue that. But the large mainstream churches (Catholic, Episcopalian, Methodist, Lutheran, etc. etc) do not do this. Of course they accept converts, but you won't find them standing outside other churches on Sunday morning handing out their pamphlets. Recall that the Baptists kicked up a huge controversy a few years back when they bruited around a plan to evangelize Jews. A large church which sponsored a "mission to save the Catholics" or "misson to save the Presbyterians" drive would be regarded as the proverbial skunk at the garden party and denounced.

Posted by JonF | December 7, 2007 6:36 AM

Jon, it's no longer accurate to refer to the fundies as "fringe sects." They're far too numerous and influential for that designation, and they're the ones driving the Repiglican party bus these days. They're also the ones behind the Campus Crusade, which has a national presence and has for decades.

By the way, EVERY Christian denomination considers itself "the true Church." They may not all explicitly say "we alone are Christians," but Catholics, Mormons, and the fundie sects do believe they have a monopoly on salvation's path.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 7, 2007 11:31 AM

Brian,

Here's some clarity on what a Mormon means by "Creator" and "God."

We do not believe in the Trinity as defined in the Nicean Creed of the 4th century. We believe that the original New Testament church was corrupted by that time, and required a "Restoration" to the original truths taught during the original church. This includes the core belief that God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are separate beings.

We do believe that Jesus is Lord, in that he is perfect, has all power, is without sin, and is the Savior of the world and through him the Atonement and Resurrection were made possible. But we believe he is the Son of God, separate from the Father.

By Creator, we believe God the Father is the Creator of our spirits, and thus we are children of God.

One caveat: You will see a opponents of the LDS church talking about other "shocking" things we supposedly believe in. Most of it is untrue and not taught as doctrine in our church. Usually, they're referenced from unofficial speculation or suspect sources during the very early days of the church, and are not taught. The LDS church is very open about its official doctrine, which is standardized and posted on www.lds.org and www.mormon.org. I'd recommend going directly to those sources if you have questions.

Posted by Shawn | December 9, 2007 1:42 AM

Shawn has stated some standard Mormon claims which are true so far as they go.

What he does not explain is that Mormons also believe the gods are glorified human beings; ie, that the gods were once human and that Mormons too will someday become gods ruling over their own universes. There are, as a result, an untold number of anthropomorphic deities, all presumably ruling over their own worlds they have procreated into existence--with their wives ruling at their side.

So things are a little more colorful than Shawn explains. Why Mormons constantly underplay the central and defining dogmas of their faith is perplexing.

I found this sermon by Joseph Smith to be very helpful in thinking about matters:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/King_Follett_Discourse

I also understand that some Mormons are now actively working to "marginalize" (is that the term?) some of these doctrines in order to move Mormonism closer to Christianity. Maybe a Mormon could explain that to us?

Posted by Brian G. | December 9, 2007 5:08 PM