Article VI Blog

In today’s Reading List post, John asks:

Increasingly, I am seeing the Romney near-campaign being used as a platform from which Mormon apologetics can be launched. I do think there is a problem if a religion seeks legitimacy from political involvement. Religious adherence may inform, even dictate a political stance on an issue, but the religion needs to garner its legitimacy and authority on its own. I’m wondering how widespread is the feeling among Mormons that a serious Romney run would grant them greater legitimacy in society at large? Is the CJCLDS doing anything to combat such a tendency, as it obviously is becoming a concern in Evangelical circles?

Advance apology: I’m going to go long on this one.

Short answers: I agree there is that tendency to defend Mormonism while defending Romney. I do not think it is widespread, or that Mormons believe Romney’s success in any way validates their church’s beliefs. As for the institutional Church, it is resolute and steadfast in maintaining political neutrality; the Church endorses no political candidate, explicitly or implicitly.

Longer answers:

1. I also have noticed with dismay that some Mormons seem to blur Romney’s candidacy with a perceived need to defend or explain Mormonism. Although I think that’s regrettable and wrong-headed, I also think it’s only natural, since it was not Mormons who raised Romney’s religion as an issue in the first place. Besides, Mormons have felt a little embattled throughout their history and we do tend to have a knee-jerk tendency to defend, defend, defend. (Many of us, including me, think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the “Church”) needs no defense, only clear and sensitive statements of its beliefs and doctrines. A subject for another time.)

That said, Mormon defensiveness should not be mistaken for a Mormon desire to prove its legitimacy through political successes. First, it would be grotesquely out of character for the Church to seek such legitimacy. As I noted in a post below, the Church has avoided official entanglement in national politics for over a century (and I’m not sure when the last time the church became so involved– it might have been in the 1840’s). Some Church leaders have been outspoken on political matters, but they were always acting as individuals. That’s too big a subject for this post. The Church is not going to say, “Look, Mitt Romney’s a devout Mormon and he got elected president of the United States. There must be something good about our religion!”

What the Church will say is this:

In this election year, we reaffirm the Church’s long-standing policy of political neutrality. The Church does not endorse any political party, political platform, or candidate. Church facilities, directories, and mailing lists are not to be used for political purposes.

Candidates for public office should not imply that their candidacy is endorsed by the Church or its leaders, and Church leaders and members should avoid statements or conduct that may be interpreted as Church endorsement of any political party or candidate. In addition, members who hold public office should not give the impression they represent the Church as they work for solutions to social problems.

The Church’s First Presidency has issued this same official statement every election year for as long as I can remember.

2. There have been Mormon celebrities for a long time: Billy Casper, Johnny Miller, The Osmonds, Steve Young and various other sports heroes, Stephen Covey, politicians, university presidents, cabinet secretaries, famous authors, and so forth. The Church’s attitude toward those people has been instructive.

The Church has not sought religious legitimacy from its celebrity members. It is fair to say, however, that to the extent the celebs have lived exemplary LDS lives, the Church has not shied away from holding them up as examples of what LDS culture can produce, and that those people succeeded in “the world” without compromising their LDS beliefs. Putting it somewhat bluntly, the message (whether official or not) has been, “We are not strange; we produce extraordinary people like the Marriotts and Steve Young, and they are as normal as the day is long.” (Now, before you say, “Aha! They’re trading on their celebrity members’ fame!” consider that most Jews are proud of the disproportionate number of Jewish Nobel laureates, and also of baseball players Hank Greenberg and Sandy Koufax; and many Catholics are proud of John F. Kennedy.)

I’ve always thought that one reason the Church is somewhat careful about getting too close to celebrity members is that people are unpredictable. Danny Ainge, formerly of the Boston Celtics and the Phoenix Suns, was a controversial figure, the player most opponents’ fans loved to hate. Even though Ainge is reportedly a committed LDS member, you may not see him doing many joint appearances with Mormon leaders. Similarly, by all accounts Harry Reid’s a devout Mormon, but he’s certainly controversial. (What politician is not?) Church leaders are not getting next to him. Nor are they cozying up to Orrin Hatch, who’s on the other side of the political spectrum.

But– although the institutional LDS Church may not attempt to seek legitimacy from Mormon celebrities’ fame, the general membership is another story. There are 12-13 million Mormons, and like all large groups, there are going to be oddballs. Some of the Mormon apologetics that John sees emanating from Mormon Romney supporters undoubtedly originate in the mindset of that group.

3. Here’s my own taxonomy of Mormon views on this subject of “Mitt As The Great Mormon Hope:”

Doubtless some Mormons will see a President Mitt Romney as evidence of the superiority of the LDS faith. That is plainly unwarranted and, to me, embarrassing. This is the same mindset that sees the successes of Mormon athletes as a manifestation of the Church’s legitimacy. It’s one thing to be proud of how an athlete represents his church, and quite another to start drawing larger conclusions from the athlete’s success. This view exists among a tiny group of people, I think, but it does exist. In my opinion, such provincial mindsets will be almost totally confined to certain pockets of the Intermountain West. (Not everyone there, mind you; but that’s where you’ll find the most poeple who are in this small category.)
Another group, which I personally find annoying, will consider Romney’s candidacy a referendum on Mormonism, and will consider anyone who opposes Romney (especially those who are concerned or worried about his faith) an enemy or truth and righteousness. Some of these folks posted comments on this blog in its early days, and they were one of the reasons we stopped taking comments. I firmly believe this is a tiny group, many of whom are oddballs. These are the people who will see Romney’s candidacy as not about politics, but about Mormonism. Instead of defending Romney, they’ll defend Mormonism. I personally hope that part of the campaign is drowned out by discussions about issues.
A very large group of Mormons who are already center-right Republicans (probably the largest single group within the American membership of the Church, demographically) will enthusiastically support him because he is one of “us,” both politically and religiously. They won’t support him simply because they think it will do the Church any good. As I’ve posted here, Mormons have historically not hesitated to vote for a “non-Mormon” instead of one of their own. If Romney succeeds, these folks will be thrilled; if he falters, they’ll be disappointed personally, but it won’t change anything for them either way. (If I come out for Romney, I will have a foot in this group.)
Yet another group of center-right Republicans will . . . believe it or not . . . vote for another GOP candidate. Romney just won’t be their cup of tea, er, Postum. The governor of Utah (a staunch Mormon) has already endorsed John McCain. For some, Romney’s too moderate; for others, he lacks experience; and so on. As I posted here, Mormons are like anyone else– they don’t vote for someone just because he/she is a member of their church.
At least as many Mormons, those who are pretty much apolitical centrists, will probably vote for Romney, then cross their fingers and hope that neither a Romney candidacy nor a Romney presidency will bring any further ridicule upon their cherished faith than Mormonism has already endured. They’ll be proud a Mormon became president, but they’ll be weary of deflecting hostile or disrespectful comments and questions about their sacred Mormon temple garments and all the other nonsense that is spread about them. (I will also have a foot in this group. In fact, there’s a lot of overlap among all of these groups. )
Other Mormons — a substantial minority– will be mortified that their faith is being represented by a conservative Republican. Mormons are not monolithically Republican or politically conservative. These are the Democrat Mormons who admire and support Harry Reid and what he stands for. They will not be happy about any Romney successes.

As always, the answer is mutlifaceted and none of the facets are black or white.

By the way, if there really are evangelicals who might not vote for Romney because they fear his electoral success might help legitimize Mormonism “in society at large,” I wonder if those people are the kind who would never vote for a Mormon anyway? I also wonder if that is not a very misguided approach to voting, which one might even call bigoted?
Anyway, the above is just one Mormon’s view, and views are one thing we Mormons have a lot of. I hope it’s helpful.
Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Electability, Political Strategy, Religious Bigotry, Understanding Religion | No Comments yet » | Print this post | Email This Post