Mormonism, Romney, and wanting it both ways: A few thoughts about being in the world but not of the world
This is not an easy post to write, because it is going to seem critical of my fellow Mormons (and myself). Nothing could be further from my intent. Instead, writing as a faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I want to describe a conflict with which most of us struggle, whether we realize it or not. Simply stated, it is that on the one hand, we proclaim our difference from “the world,” while at the same time hoping for the world’s acceptance. I think this is an entirely understandable problem, not one for which we should apologize at all. I do think we need to recognize and come to terms with it.
That conflict comes into stark relief in this Salt Lake Tribune story, just recently picked up by Real Clear Religion. Excerpt:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is respected for its Mormon Tabernacle Choir and pop singing groups, dancers, pro football players and competence in times of disaster.
And, yet, said Terryl Givens, professor of literature and religion at the University of Richmond in Virginia, “in return for qualified esteem, the public reserves the right not to take [it] seriously as a belief system.”
Terryl Givens is a serious Mormon thinker and writer. (I highly recommend his “By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion.“) In the BYU symposium referred to in the article, he calls this Mormon conflict “schizophrenia.”
Givens has a point. We Mormons tend to be very proud and happy, for example, when one of our own achieves great success: Steve Young in professional football, David Archuleta on American Idol, and yes, Mitt Romney in public service and government. At the same time, we celebrate our distinctiveness — both doctrinally and culturally. We believe our faith is restored Christianity and that all other faiths, while containing much truth and goodness, are fundamentally wrong and cannot fully save their adherents. We also adhere to personal standards of behavior (e.g., drinking, smoking, sexual relations only within marriage) that are quite different from what most “others” believe to be acceptable.
Perhaps the clearest example is the athletic programs at Brigham Young University: BYU fans and Church members are justifiably proud of the high personal standards maintained on that campus, and flatly reject the world’s criticism of those standards. And yet at the same time, most BYU sports fans seem to crave recognition and acclaim in that same world’s ranking and championship systems. Some become resentful when the Cougars don’t seem to get the respect they deserve, and especially when observers seem to hold BYU students to a higher standard of behavior than they expect of students at secular universities – even as Mormons justifiably express great pride in BYU’s own higher standards of behavior!
This tendency does have an impact on Mitt Romney’s presidential candidacy. Gov. Romney and pretty much all of his supporters want recognition for his beautiful family, long marriage to Ann, and his long upright life of success and service — all of which we attribute to his Mormon beliefs and background. He’s different, by golly! At the same time, we don’t want Romney to be treated as different.
This is not realistic, and we need to get better at being comfortable in our own skin. We want to be different. We are different. Our beliefs are unquestionably different – and they make us who we are. In this regard I don’t think Mormons and Evangelicals are all that different.
We Mormons need to get used to the idea that we will never have theological “respect” from most other faiths – and we shouldn’t expect it. After all, we reject their beliefs, don’t we?
Both Mormons and our theological and doctrinal competitors need to figure this out in the political arena. The schizophrenia is unhealthy. We need to celebrate the similar ideals and common ground — clean living, marital fidelity, strong families, service to mankind. But as we are doing that we also have to accept the existence of our theological distinctives as realities that will not — and should not — go away. After all, that’s what makes us who we are, whether Evangelical, Mormon, Catholic, or Jewish.
John Adds…
The new Gerson/Wehner book, “The City of Man” which I have just begun. begins itself by pointing out exactly this tension for Evangelicals – in fact Christians of all stripes. I have not gotten far enough to tell you their solution to the tension, but it is obvious that the tension is, as Lowell notes, shared by Evangelicals and Mormons – not to mention Catholics and mainlines.
There are two problems here really. Most creedal Christians do respect the character of Mormons – they just believe that character to be based on false premises. Some creedal Christians therefore think that character unreliable. That, frankly, is a problem inside Evangelicalism, and this post is not the place to unwind it, let alone propose solutions for it.
What is amazing is that most Evangelicals are under attack from the secular left for essentially the same thing, save that the secular left often just does not believe good character to be worth pursuing. The secular left looks at the great scandals of Evangelicalism, or even the lesser ones, and cries that religion is a “lie.”
And all of this misses the essential point – good character is difficult to come by – it is hard work to obtain, whether by the path of a Mormon or a creedal Christian or a secularist. What is under assault is not really what we believe, but the character that it produces. By assailing good character we coarsen public discourse and we loose sight of what really matters in governance. Thus we cannot convict terrorists in our public courts and we “feel-up” little old ladies in airports for fear of offending someone that might hurt us.
What we need to learn to stand for is character – we should be proud of our efforts to develop it. Our education system should work to develop it, for by achieving it do we “feel good about ourselves.” And that, in the end is the point.
Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Doctrinal Obedience, Electability, Understanding Religion | 9 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Tweets that mention Mormonism, Romney, and wanting it both ways: A few thoughts about being in the world but not of the world | Article VI Blog | Lowell Brown -- Topsy.com on 18 Nov 2010 at 8:07 am #
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mitt Romney in 2012!, Article VI Blog. Article VI Blog said: Mormonism, Romney, and wanting it both ways: A few thoughts about being in the world but not of the world: This … http://bit.ly/b39bju [...]
sewinglady on 18 Nov 2010 at 8:56 am #
I have only a moment to comment, but I would like to thank you, Lowell, and also John for this post. Both of you show a great deal of thought in your posts. I think John is right, character is hard-earned and should be admired no matter whether religious or secular. Too much of the world today is focused on fame and little or none on character and appropriate behavior.
I spend all of my time trying to help my children learn the things that they need to in order to develop lasting character. If they never become famous, I can live with that. Better that than being famous like some pop-stars I could name! Teaching my children character would be a little easier of a task if there was more reinforcement coming from the media and general societal expectations were higher–especially for teenagers. The idea coming from movies, music, and even books is that teenagers routinely indulge in behavior that either should never happen or not happen until they are adults. So sad. Still, I am trying to change the world one child at a time, and I suppose that’s something!
Thank you for all you do to help better the world one post at a time!
In The World, Not Of The World « Federal Way Conservative on 18 Nov 2010 at 1:52 pm #
[...] Article VI Blog has an interesting point. Members of the LDS church are proud to be recognized as different, and yet don’t like being recognized as different. [...]
coltakashi on 18 Nov 2010 at 2:32 pm #
Lowell is correct, that many Mormons want recognition and even admiration from their non-Mormon neighbors. But any mature person knows that what he deserves is not what he is going to always get, especially when getting it involves the decision of another person with divergent views. Among the injustices that people suffer in mortal life, it is one of the minor ones.
On the other hand, active disrespect of Mormons by their neighbors is often due to the particular neighbors’ assumption that their own worldview is so obviously supported by objective reality that anyone who does not admit to seeing the world they way they do is either lying or too intellectually deficient to perceive the truth. Some people who claim to be atheists think that their rejection of the groups of beliefs formally labelled “religions” has protected them against all subjective beliefs, even as they embrace artificial ideologies like communism or national socialism or militant environmentalism. Some people who are explicitly religious claim that their beliefs are based entirely on objective reality, including the assertion that every event recounted in the Bible has been affirmed by the secular studies of historians and archeologists, in some cases to the point of attacking people (including Mormons) who believe that one path to reliable knowledge is to ask God for spiritual communication and manifestations.
In the case of both assertive atheists and assertive Christians, we see people who believe that only the merest wisp of information about Mormon beliefs, from people who don’t believe in those beliefs and have no particular interest in depicting them accurately or in context, is sufficient to pass judgment on those beliefs. The minor effort of adopting an attitude of agnosticism (admitting their own ignorance) and non-judgment about the beliefs of other people, who know far better what they believe than you do, is just too hard an intellectual leap for such people, whose self-worth depends on their placing every person and every belief into an absolute “true” or false” category, with no mental storage for ideas that are “too little understood to be judged”.
For no discernible reason, the people who suffer from this disability to believe the sincerity and good faith of others, also insist on thinking in deductive terms–if Bob believes strange things he will believe strangely–rather than inductive ones–if Bob has acted consistently as a good person I can expect him to be good, regardless of his beliefs.
In America, I don’t think the people who have this kind of “I know everything I will ever need to know about reality” attitude are in the majority, but there are enough of them to create a significant part of any community who are intolerant of others and make it harder for the rest of us who are willing to treat each other with respect.
There are of course some Mormons in this unfortunate category as well, especially those who have never struggled through the decision to have faith in unseen things based on incomplete evidence. One virtue of Mormon missionary service is that it forces most people who experience it (except for a few of the perpetually oblivious) to decide what they really believe, and why.
And because so many Mormons are converts from other beliefs, they have reasons to have a better appreciation for what people in other faith traditions believe, and the sincerity of those who still do.
In any case, we all need to be alert for the essential intellectual failure that lies at the bottom of the religious intolerance expressed by so many.
Doug King on 21 Nov 2010 at 10:55 pm #
John, you said something very interesting: “Most creedal Christians do respect the character of Mormons – they just believe that character to be based on false premises. Some creedal Christians therefore think that character unreliable.”
As a strong proponent of the First Amendment, I would never restrict the right of anyone to say Mormons are not Christians. But I would hope people think carefully about what they say. I grant a theological argument can be made that those who do not wholly subscribe to the Nicene Creed are not Creedal Christians by definition. I don’t have a problem with that argument as long as it’s made in the context of theology.
But criticizing my theology is one thing. Disparaging my religion is another. When people say my religion is unchristian, they are branding my character, my way of life and my deepest spiritual yearnings. They are saying I do not love the Savior, or feel His love, or do not strive to follow His example and practice the virtues He demonstrated and taught.
It’s one thing to say I am confused about this or that doctrine. It’s another thing to imply I am evil or untrustworthy. Similarly, it’s one thing to say my political ideas are wrong. It’s another to accuse me of hating America. When people say Mormons are not Christians in a non-theological context, I get the feeling they mean I hate Jesus and everything He stands for. That’s wrong.
Many of my friends and some of my family members disagree with me on matters of theology and politics. But we still appreciate each other. We still value each others’ experience and judgment and contributions to life and the community.
John Schroeder on 22 Nov 2010 at 7:26 am #
Doug: All I am doing is recounting the “Mormons lie” mem that we have decried here many, many times – just breaking it down.
Doug King on 22 Nov 2010 at 12:12 pm #
John, I appreciate that you have been consistently respectful. I was only trying to help other readers understand how some Mormons feel.
sewinglady on 25 Nov 2010 at 8:51 am #
Doug, I appreciate your point. To say that many Mormons have good character, but this character is subject to change at any time because “their religion is false,” is basically a bigoted position. If atheists and agnostics can consistently good character, why should mine be untrustworthy because of my religion? Disagreements about theology exist, but they should remain in the area of disagreements. They should not be allowed to create the “bogeyman” atmosphere that many people have created about the CJCLDS. Our theology is different. Period. We are still people with weakness and sin just like everyone else.
In reflecting on this idea, I have seen quite a number of people who are reacting in this exact way in their comments about Mitt Romney. He has good character, but maybe it will change. I appreciated a comment by a known Huckabee supporter on a recent post about Romney. The post alleged that something was wrong because a woman running for office in MA had been working for Romney’s PAC and had said if elected she would no longer work for the PAC. An implication was made that something was shady about her working for the PAC. As far as anyone could tell, what she was doing was entirely legal, and wasn’t necessarily even shady. This Huckabee supporter, fortunately, saw through this meaningless post. He said that if there ever were a scandal attached to Romney, he would be very surprised if it involved money or sex. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I agree. One could argue all day about Romney’s virtues and/or vices, but he has appeared to have good character with regards to money and women. Why not accept this as a truth and give him the benefit of the doubt?
JLF9999 on 20 Dec 2010 at 4:17 pm #
I came across this post late, today being Dec 20. But to anyone just tuning in to this blog who is also LDS but uninformed about John, let me add that for the two years I have been reading and commenting here, John has always been seriously concerned with accuracy and how portrays Mormons and LDS theology. In fact he has rightfully called me on my ill conceived notions of Evangelicalism which has caused me to re-think much of what I say here and elsewhere. No one I know or read has any more credibility than John. He has set the highest standard on the net.