Article VI Blog

I’ve been reflecting on co-blogger Lowell’s conversation with John Podhoretz on the Hugh Hewitt show last week.  Podhoretz had previosuly contended that Romney was unelectable because of his faith, and was asked to explain.  Here is the heart of his response

…and it is my considered opinion that members of a minority…that this country is not ready to elect a member of a minority religion for president, that this is one of the defining characteristics that people look for in commonality in a president, is a kind of commonality of belief. And having a different prophetic system from conventional Christianity, that as people come to learn about…this will be an educated moment for people about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and that it will…they won’t reject it, but they…and they won’t even be alienated by it. They’ll just think that it’s a different faith from theirs, and they will not feel a commonality about it.

That sounds an awful lot like he is dancing around xenophobia to me.  Hewitt goes on to contend that once people come to undertsand that the different religions result in similar values it won’t be a problem – something I agree with whole-heartedly.

Just a couple of random thoughts

Are we really that uncomfortable with “the other”?  We live in a constant state of flux with “the other” – think men and women.  I think we are used to it, I’m not sure it’s that big a deal.  I only think it can rise to the level of a disqualifier if that sense of “the other” is colored by some sort of, even if mildly so, bigoted attitude.  I’m getting the impression that JPod was shooting from the hip here and may have stepped in it a little.

Secondly, while most people in the country identify themselves as “Christian,” most of those don’t have that deep an understanding of the theological implications of the label.  Pentecostal Christians have prophetic system closer to Mormons than a Presbyterian like myself.  JPod’s assertion here mandates a level of religious understanding that the average Christian does not have.

Romney’s problems are not in the middle, they are in the evangelicals, those committed and understanding Christians that are also politically active.  It’s a small group, but one with a lot of sway.

[tags]Hugh Hewitt, John Podhoretz, religion[/tags]

Posted in Religious Bigotry | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Reader Charlie Shipp passes on this interesting bit from a May 23 interview of William Bennett by National Review Online editor Kathryn Lopez, regarding Bennet’s new book, The Last Best Hope: 

Lopez: As secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan banned wine at diplomatic receptions. Would we ever stand for such a thing again? Should Mormon presidential hopeful Mitt Romney get out in the open early on that he wouldn’t do such a thing as president?

Bennett: I don’t think we ever would stand for such a thing again; and even in the White House we will never see again the days of “Lemonade Lucy Hayes,” wife of Rutherford. When she presided at White House social functions, it was said “The water flowed like champagne.”

As for Mitt, I assume since he has spent so much time in Boston, he probably thinks beer is the third tap on a sink. But seriously, he needs to simply say what he believes; he’s done pretty well so far.

The question is frankly silly.  Mitt’s not exactly a blank slate on this “issue,” having been the governor of a populous state for almost four years.  It should be pretty easy to determine whether he has been giving only ”dry” official functions.  Something tells me that if he had, we’d certainly know about that. 

Even so, Ms. Lopez ask a useful question because it reflects the understandable ignorance even well-educated and broadly experienced people have about Mormon faith and culture.  It’s also the kind of thing that becomes part of a whisper campaign during a Republican primary.  So here’s my answer: 

Faithful Mormons do not drink alcohol, tea or coffee, use tobaco, or abuse drugs.  But they do not impose those practices on others.  (Example:  When Prohibition was repealed, Utahns famously voted for repeal along with the rest of the country– even though the leadership of the LDS Church urged them to vote the other way.)

There are no prescribed practices in this area.  When this Mormon lawyer takes a client out to dinner, the client can order whatever he wants– even wine.  I simply drink water or a soft drink.  I’ve never experienced a moment of discomfort in that setting, although a restaurant dinner guest of mine once asked me if I minded his drinking in my presence.  (I smilingly told him no.)

Now, it’s different when we entertain in our home.  There, my family simply doesn’t serve alcohol, and we don’t allow smoking in our home.  When our children are married, alcohol won’t be served.  I believe almost all Mormons adopt the same practices.  (A Democrat Mormon congressman once told me he kept beer in his refrigerator for guests in his home, but I think that’s pretty rare.)

So– in light of the above, because the White House is the president’s home, would President Romney forbid its use in the presidential mansion?  I can’t imagine that.  Mitt’s been around the world too long, and is too warm a personality, to be so, well, Puritanical.  (I struggled for that metaphor and hope I have offended no one.)  After all, the White House is not the president’s private residence, it really belongs to the people.  Mitt won’t drink with his guests, but he won’t stop them from doing so.

Well, I’m glad we got that weighty question off the table!

Posted in Questions, Understanding Religion | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Candidates and PAC’s – good for keeping track, but they are missing a lot of potential candidates in the analysis.

Romney and gaming. Hmmm.

Need to look into this more.

Lowell on being Republican and conservative, and governing.

Cynicism – much aimed at Romney.  You know, you gotta do what ya gotta do, get over it.

Of Mormons, Mexico and immigration.

If this can happen – certainly evangelicals can find a way to vote for a Mormon.

Posted in Reading List | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Romney goes to Iraq!  Boston Globe coverage here.  San Francisco TV here.

Newt?…Newt?  But then the source is Fraters Libertas.

This link is a little obscure – lots of theology – linked because if Jews and Catholics can find common cause, shouldn’t Mormons and evangelicals find something to get along about?

This bit of ’08 handicapping puts Romney in a much better position than most of the polls.  For the record, this blogger (John) is not prepared to endorse Romney, but I am ready to say NO to McCain.

A Mormon group blog talks about non-Mormon blogs discussing Romney.

Presidential candidates and flip-flops.

Presidential candidates and moderation.

Posted in Reading List | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

John's post just below actually raises three sub-topics. It's important that I get this reponse right — fair, honest, and accurate — and I must do so in limited space. Not an easy task! First, as John acknowledges, people are flawed , regardless of their religious faith. I run into Mormons now and then who have hateful or racist attitudes, and it's embarrassing. But I can confidently assure you all that racism is not institutional in my church; it is more a function of isolated individual backwardness. I think you run into that in any denomination, to some extent. Second, LDS Church history on race issues is problematic for many observers. Why? This official church statement explains:

Until 1978, black male members of the Church were not ordained to the lay priesthood. That position was changed by revelation on 8 June 1978, when Spencer W. Kimball, the 12th president of the Church, announced that the "long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood" (Official Declaration 2). The Church views all humankind as children of the same Heavenly Father, literally brothers and sisters. As stated by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in 1987: "We repudiate efforts to deny to any person his or her inalienable dignity and rights on the abhorrent and tragic theory of the superiority of one race or color over another."

Once the policy was changed in 1978, African-American (and African) membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (CJCLDS) practically exploded. (I discuss this further below under the third issue.) Incidentally, I as began preparing this post, I learned that in June 1995 the Southern Baptist Convention "voted . . . to adopt a resolution renouncing its racist roots and apologizing for its past defense of slavery." (I am not criticizing anyone or making sectarian comparisons, just noting with interest that Mormonism is not the only religion facing questions about racism in its past.) Third, the reality is that Mormon culture is simply not racist. In other words, that's just not the way Mormons live. You can ask just about any African-American member of the church if I am right about that. I've never seen cultural racism in the church, even during my youth in Salt Lake City, where spent my first 26 years. Growing up, I did see individual cases of racism, much of which was probably driven by ignorance– there are still comparatively few African-Americans in Utah. I had one black classmate in elementary school and two in high school. I was not surrounded by prejudice, just unfamiliarity and some ignorance. I've lived the second half of my life in Los Angeles. Here, in my own Mormon congregations, I am surrounded by black LDS members. It's just part of Mormon life here. Myths to the contrary notwithstanding, the Mormon church is simply not a lily-white institution; of our 14 million members worldwide, in fact, the biggest single ethnic group is Hispanic. Race is simply not an issue among our people; our lay leaders are often black. That reality is not limited to Los Angeles by any means. Here's a New York Times article about the mostly black LDS congregation (called a "ward") in Harlem. The church is growing rapidly in Africa. There's now a Mormon temple (a very significant building) in Nigeria. These are all developments we only dreamed of prior to 1978. There is a supportive black culture within the church. For example, here's the web site of the Genesis Group, an organization of African-American Mormons. A brief visit will give you a feel for the group's spiritual core. Those are interesting aspects of modern Mormon racial life, but what is most important is the current stance of the church and the behavior of its members. Here's what the President of the Church, Gordon B. Hinckley, stated just over a month ago in the General Conference meeting of the Church:

When a man grows old he develops a softer touch, a kindlier manner. [President Hinckley is 95 years old.] I have thought of this much of late. I have wondered why there is so much hatred in the world. . . . Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord. Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. . . . Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity. Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children. Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.

Mormons (including me) consider President Hinckley a prophet of God, and that it is as important for us to heed his counsel as it was for the Israelites to listen to Moses, or for the early Christians to listen to the apostles Peter or Paul. So the statement above is deeply significant for all of us. Will this be an issue for Romney's campaign? I don't think so. For the reasons stated above, the charge that he is a member of a racist church will not stick. Nor will be be susceptible to a charge of personal racial bias. Romney's own father was able to distance himself from the policy, even in 1968, when he ran for president, and Romney's own life and persona are free from anything even hinting of racism. Coincidentally, I managed to call in to the Hugh Hewitt show today while Hugh was interviewing John Podhoretz. I asked Podhoretz about his recent statement that he did not think the country was ready for a Mormon president (or a Jewish one, for that matter).  Here's how Radio Blogger reports our exchange:

LB: Hugh, while I was on hold, I thought of another question other than the one I was going to ask. Have you guys talked about Mitt Romney yet? HH: No, but go ahead. LB: I know that John made a comment that he wasn't…he had no opposition to anybody on the basis of their religion, and even as a Jew himself, he didn't think a Mormon could be elected president. I wanted to get his comment on that. HH: That's right. Last time, and I forgot to ask you that. JP: That's right. HH: And you said…so please explain why. JP: Okay. My general view is that 74% of the country is identified as Christian in the traditional definition of the term Protestant or Catholic, 2% Jewish, 1 1/2% Mormon. and it is my considered opinion that members of a minority…that this country is not ready to elect a member of a minority religion for president, that this is one of the defining characteristics that people look for in commonality in a president, is a kind of commonality of belief. And having a different prophetic system from conventional Christianity, that as people come to learn about…this will be an educated moment for people about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and that it will…they won't reject it, but they…and they won't even be alienated by it. They'll just think that it's a different faith from theirs, and they will not feel a commonality about it.

Hugh asked for my response:

HH: Lowell, your response? Lowell's himself LDS. LB: I am, yeah. I guess I can understand exactly what John's saying. The only response I would have is that Romney is such a…as an individual, such a warm, motherhood, apple pie, Mr. America kind of person, that I do wonder if he couldn't overcome that, if he could get his persona out enough. But I'm not sure.

John's reply, in essence, was that so few Americans are Mormons (or Jews) that voters cannot get to the comfort level necessary to vote for Romney– or for a Jewish candidate:

JP: Well, I mean, no one is, and this'll be an interesting experiment. This is not, by the way, this is no analogy to, say, Kennedy in 1960, and the idea that he might have fealty to Rome, and not to America. This is really about what it is that people see in the people that they vote for. And I think they want to see some part of themselves in…

Both religions, John thinks, are just too different for too many voters. Hugh offered the contrasting view that if Romney can convince Christian voters he shares their values, he'll get past the religion issue:

HH: But what Matthew Dowd has argued is that if…not about Romney, but about generally, is that you must persuade voters that you value what they value. And there, he has the opportunity to cross that bridge, if he explains that while the Mormon faith is very different, and he has to explain that the Mormon faith is very different from what a Presbyterian believes or a Catholic, that nevertheless, I value what you value.

The J-Pod rejoinder:

JP: I just want to give you one quick thing. Joe Lieberman was a figure, worshipped in the Democratic Party in 2000, before he became a controversial figure as he is now in the Democratic Party. He declared his intention to run for candidacy as President. He was the second most famous politician in the Democratic Party. And he never got over 10% support in polls of Democratic primary voters. Why? Because he was a member of a minority religion.

I agree with Hugh; we'll be blogging more about that later. I hope this helps. Comment away on the forum!

Posted in Notables, Understanding Religion | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Within evangelical Christian circles, Mormonism is discussed a lot, and a lot of it is not pretty.  But then neither are a lot of evangelicals.  I tend to take the advice of Dennis Prager when he talks about judging a person and not a religion, since so many different kinds of people claim any given faith.  So, while I find Mormon theology far afield from my own, I have, in general, found Mormons to be good people.  But there is an exception.

I am the former vice president of my homeowners association.  A while back the association came into a huge pile of cash.  It was designated for improvements to the common areas.  A small group of Mormon contractors tried to take control of the association so they could route the money through themselves.  That’s not the bad part – that’s common, ordinary homeowner association politics.

Needless to say as a former officer of the association (and largely responsible for how we came into that pile of cash) I had some influence over matters, so this group appealed to me personally.  Now it gets ugly.

Our homeowners are a very ethnically diverse group.  This group of Mormons appealed to me as a “good white American.”  I was appalled.  I did a little research and it looks to me like racial discrimination was official CJCLDS policy unitl the late ’60′s or early ’70′s?  If my experience of being born and often visitng the deep south is any indicator, that change in policy is recent enough that racism could still be a significant sentiment within the CJCLDS.

So, the question to my co-blogger is straightforward.  How prevalent is racism, as an attitude, since obviously it is dead institutionally, in the CJCLDS?  Are there other sorts of prevalent discriminatory thought amongst mainstream Mormons?  Do you think this is an issue for the Romney campaign?

Our readers can chime in on the forum.

Posted in Understanding Religion | Comment on this post » |  Print this post |  Email This Post