Politico interviews Romney.  Romney hits this one out of the park:

Q. How is your church so successful in getting its young people to follow its teachings?

 

A. “I’m probably going to have to suggest that you turn to the Church. I’m not enough of an expert.”

Reporters seem to keep trying to sneak up on The Question because they know it is illegitimate, but that did not stop these reporters from trying again:

Q. At the grand opening of your headquarters in Iowa, on a teleconference call you had question from a lady about polygamy. Why do you think that in this day and age, the year 2007, some key tenets of your faith are still so misunderstood?

 

A. “Well, I think most people have other things to do in their lives besides keeping up to date with Mormon doctrines.”

 

Q. But, Governor, polygamy is more than just a doctrinal issue.

 

A. “Yes, of course. But you have TV shows that continue to play off the old history, and people don’t spend a lot of time looking at the disclaimer that says this is not the practice of the Mormon church today. They just sort of watch it and don’t pay a lot of attention to it. My expectation is that as this campaign goes on, there’ll be a little more attention to recognize that some of the old misconceptions are exactly that.”

Romney is right to blame media; here's a prime example.

Plural marriage is illegal in both states, although an estimated 30,000 people continue its practice across the West. Polygamy is a remnant from the early teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose members settled the region and believed the practice brought exaltation in heaven. The church abandoned polygamy in 1890 as a condition of statehood.

You know there are a lot of non-Mormon polygamists in the world!  The communities to which they refer are not Mormon "remnants," but apostates. (Lowell, am I using the best terminology here?  That's what we would call it.)  But what I am sure of is history.  The CJCLDS abandoned the practice of "plural marriage" because their prophet received a word.  (Again Lowell, is that the right vocabulary?)  That fact did pave the way for statehood, but there was no quid pro quo.  The way this sentence is constructed makes it sound has if the church was insincere in its change.

Lowell:  You're very close.  Yes, anyone who once was a Mormon who now practices polygamy is an apostate.  Most, if not all, of the members of the current group of polygamous sects were never members of the Church.  Some have no relationship at all– historical or otherwise– to the Church.  None of them - none - could ever be called "remnants."  As for the rationale for the end of polygamy, the president of the Church in 1890, Wilford Woodruff, received a revelation ending polygamy.  He laid out the reasons in a document that came to be known as the Manifesto, which has been very public since 1890.  I won't speak for President Woodruff; you can read the Manifesto, and further commentary by President Woodruff, here.  The historical record reflects no "deal" over polygamy, but I think it's generally accepted that Utah would never have obtained statehood while polygamy continued.  The question was, once the Supreme Court held that the government could constitutionally outlaw polygamy, would the practice end because the government destroyed the Church, or because the Church gave it up voluntarily?  The Church chose the latter approach.

The Fox reporters could have read that same information, but I guess that's our point.

By the way, asking a political candidate why the doctrines of his church are misunderstood, as Politico did, has to be one of the dumbest journalistic questions I have seen in a long time.

Hugh Hewitt and Dean Barnett joined in with our outrage at the abysmal Garry South piece.  Quote Hugh:

The deep-seated and open religious bigotry on the left no longer surprises me and shouldn't startle anyone who has watched the left's effort to drive faith from the public square over the past two decades.

I know I have read so much of this stuff now that it actually takes effort for me to notice how bad it really is - it just sorts of slides through my eyeballs under "more of same."  It is sad when the nation becomes numbed by stuff like this.  It innoculates the issue for a Romney, but it is sad we lose the outrage at such bigotry.

John Mark Reynolds chimes in on South as well!  He actually manages to refute South's "logic."  Only a philospher like John Mark would have the patience to bother!

Lowell notes:  I almost feel pity for Mr. South as Professor Reynolds deftly demolishes South's (long) hit piece in only a few paragraphs.  That's not surprising, since Prof. Reynolds actually engages in some real thinking, and South simply wants to stir up conflict.  Everyone should read what the good professor has posted. 

Speaking of cheap shots at Mormons:  What is most notable about this predictably liberal anti-religious op-ed is that it is just that - anti-religious.  It is aimed sharply at the LDS, but substitute Bob Jones University or Oral Roberts University for Brigham Young University, then substitute the Southern Baptist Convention or the Assemblies of God for the CJCLDS and you'll read a piece that you have read dozens of times before.  There is an important lesson in that.

Sphere: Related Content

Posted in Reading List | 2 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Recently:

• Stuff That Has Been Hanging Around
• Wrong-Headed Blogging
• Some Things Are A Little Hard To Swallow…
• Will Rudeness and Misunderstanding Rule Tonight?
• The Shoe Is On The Other Foot Now
• Things Get Complicated, And Yet . . .
• An Example of Inter-Religious Cooperation
• 2008: The Year of the “Biographical Candidate” and Religious Attacks
• Exploring the Line
• So Much for “Adieu”