Article VI Blog

A Mormon-oriented website has named Mitt Romney Mormon of the Year.  I must admit that as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I have mixed emotions about this.  Bear with me while I explain, because I have both personal and philosophical questions.

The web site, Times and Seasons, notes that in 2008, “Romney concluded the most credible presidential campaign of any Mormon to date.”  Personally, I wish that we Mormons could be a little less self-conscious about the achievements of our members.

An analogy:  I think it was Vince Lombardi, the legendary football coach, who didn’t want his players celebrating in the end zone after scoring touchdowns.   “Act like you’ve been there before,” he is reported to have said.

I concede that regarding the presidency, we Mormons haven’t “been there,” but Lombardi’s advice still applies:  We should act like the people we are.  We are no longer a small, struggling, persecuted sect.  We are the fourth-largest religious denomination in the USA and our members are sprinkled throughout American society.

Too often, however, we act like a small, struggling, persecuted sect.

We shouldn’t.  We shouldn’t act surprised or bemused that one of our co-religionists actually became governor of Massachusetts (of all states) and was a leading contender for the Republican presidential nomination.  We have been there before, in the person of George Romney.

I also wonder how Mitt Romney feels about being named Mormon of the Year.  I have a hunch he would rather be seen as a national political leader who happens to be  a Mormon, instead of a Mormon who happens to be a national political leader.  But that’s just me.

Philosophically, I suppose identity politics are unavoidable, but I am hard-pressed to think of a president who won because he ran as a member of an identity group.  (President-elect Obama worked very hard not to run as an African-American candidate, and did not do so, in my opinion.)

In short, winners don’t think that way.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Electability | 5 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Bob Schieffer of CBS News, at this point renown only becasue he is old, looks at the political year that was and says:

Can you remember who won Iowa before I say it? Time’s up! Mitt Romney poured millions into Iowa, but Mike Huckabee won the Republican contest with just a smile and a shoeshine.

OK Bob, The Huckster had one other thing going for him besides “a smile and a shoeshine” – religious bias.  He played it deftly, he played it with plausible deniability, but play it he did.

What is most disappointing as this political year in review things continue to mount up is the absolute lack of investigation involved.   Schieffer goes on to make the point that even Huckabee has become a historical footnote.  But there is a real story in Iowa, a story that shows the nation has not entirely overcome the prejudices it thinks it has.

Too bad “journalists” are so swept up in the “we elected a black man” thing to notice.

Posted in News Media Bias, Religious Bigotry | 1 Comment » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

…which is the problem, frankly.

You have not heard from partner Lowell in a while because as a Utah alum, he has been busy in New Orleans.  CONGRATS TO THE UTES FOR AN UNDEFEATED SEASON!

Now back to business.  A reader wrote to Focus on the Family on the whole Beck issue we have been following, and forwarded their response to us.   Here are two key pull quotes from a lengthy response:

The first thing you need to understand is that, despite media reports to the contrary, we did *not* take this step in response to pressure from Underground Apologetics or any other self-appointed watchdog group. The choice was entirely our own, and it was made for solid theological and philosophical reasons (to be explained in what follows). For what it’s worth, we can tell you that we do not condone Underground Apologetics’ hostile and combative tone. What’s more, we can assert without reservation that we hadn’t even seen their press release — in fact, it hadn’t yet been generated — when we decided to remove our article from circulation.That said, it is vital to add that we consider Glenn Beck a good friend of our ministry. We have only feelings of deep appreciation for his valuable contributions to the cause of family values and conservative social principles. The same thing can be said with reference to our many supporters within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Time and time again staunch members of the LDS church have contacted us with warm expressions of their enthusiasm for our work, and on every occasion we have tried to make it clear that we welcome their friendship and appreciate their exemplary commitment to moral values. It is impossible to overestimate the value of such allies in the ongoing battle against secularism, “multiculturalism,” and amoral “political correctness.

Let’s take them at their word here.  They continue:

”Why, then, have we come to regard our initial decision to feature this particular discussion with Glenn Beck on the _CitizenLink_ Web site as an unfortunate miscalculation? For the simple reason that Mr. Beck’s book _The Christmas Sweater_, which was the focal point of the interview, moves beyond the range of conservative social concerns and touches upon overtly theological themes. Herein lies the crux of our concern. Much as we respect and appreciate our friends in the LDS Church, it would be dishonest of us to conceal our firm conviction that at its heart, Mormon doctrine is incompatible with Christianity. While there are many forms of worship, modes of religious expression, and even a number of beliefs that Latter-day Saints hold in common with the various Christian denominations, the fact remains that the distinctions that make it unique are of an entirely different order from those that divide these other groups.

OK, just a few comments here.

• “incompatable with Christianity” is a bit strong.  They go on to lay out the differences in views of the Godhead between Mormons and tradtional Christianity – truthfully so.  Even so, there must be a better way to phrase it – “distinct from” or our favorite “heterodox” – but “incompatible” is picking a fight while saying you don’t want to start one.
• If Mr. Beck is indeed such a friend, it would be natural to want to promote his book out of friendship – so why not simply leave the piece up with a disclaimer?  Or even if it must be removed, then disclaim the removal, don’t simply take it down. This is particularly problematic for a “CitizenLink” web site run by a radio ministry.  Focus on the Family is not a church; James Dobson is not a pastor, he is a psychologist, and this particular website is devoted to politics from a religious viewpoint, not religion.
• If indeed the “tone” of the Underground Apologetics press release is objectionable then the disclaimer suggested in the above comment is all the more applicable, because the way this was done, echoes that tone, it does not contradict it.

I guess the bottom line is this – theological distinctions do not matter to the general public or in political matters.  They are for a particular time and place, and this is neither.  Even if you are unwilling to call Mormons “Christians,” you have to understand that if we ally with them politically the line between will get fuzzy.

Think of it this way- most people do not know that “Buda” and “Pest” in Hungary are two different cities connected by a bridge over a river – unless, of course, you have been there.  To most of the world there is only “Budapest.”  Those two cities have discovered advantages to that “mistaken” impression.  Tourists are drawn to that lovely city, only to arrive and find two cities – thus feeling like they got their money’s worth in the discovery.  To most of the world Mormons and traditional Christians are, simply, “religious.”  When it comes to public policy and politics, they do not, and in fact should not need to know any differently.

The problem is not the distinction, it is how we handle the distinction.  Friends do not treat people they way the Dobson organization treated Beck here.

In Other Reading…

This stuff is not directly applicable to this blog’s portfolio, but it is vaguely related and interesting reading.

• George Will onthe unintended consequences of court rulings.  (Think Prop 8 and all that went with it)
• Speaking of theology.
• This makes a lot of sense to me.
• Finally, I think this is old, but I just ran across it and it is worth re-reading.

Lowell’s late additions . . .

I think most, if not all, Mormons would not object to what Focus on the Family did to Glenn Beck if Focus would simply use an adjective like “orthodox.” For example:

Much as we respect and appreciate our friends in the LDS Church, it would be dishonest of us to conceal our firm conviction that at its heart, Mormon doctrine is incompatible with [orthodox] Christianity. 

That would not bother me one bit.  It has the added advantage of being true. As I have said many times on this blog, when orthodox (or creedal) Christians write that Mormons are not Christian, most readers interpret that to mean Mormons do not believe in Jesus Christ.  That’s simply not true.  (Yes, I know some very extreme Evangelicals claim that Mormons do not believe in the Jesus of the Bible, but there we are talking about fine points of doctrine.)  What we Mormons find slanderous and hurtful is the implication that we are more akin to something like Hinduism than Christianity.  Anyone who knows anything about us knows that is false.

Posted in Reading List | 5 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post