Informative Sociology
Reading some recent books, Jan Riess at Beliefnet comes across a very interesting statistic – Mormons are the third most disliked religious group in America. Relying on her sources, she cites three reasons – theological distrust from Evangelicals, ”uber-religious” fears from the secular, and cultural insularity. Again citing her sources, assimilation is argued as the answer to changing this trend – which she then argues is insufficient since Mormons have been on the path of assimilation for 60 years now and this statistic remains unchanged.
Then, in true liberal fashion, she argues for loosening of standards on things like marriage and homosexuality to overcome the “uber-religious” problem. She concludes by arguing for humility. No one can dispute that humility is something that should be sought by all people of faith, but I have not noted it as a particular problem among Mormons – rather I think she posits this argument for the same reasons it is sometimes put forward in Evangelical circles – to add another reason to the pile for why a church should loosen its standards. This is a mistaken idea of what humility means, but this is not the forum for getting into a deep theological discussion of that concept.
There are really two areas of discussion from this post that are fascinating. The first is the idea that a church, any church, should change its teachings or standards on the basis of sociological respect. No church exists to be popular – it exists to institutionalize and preserve that which it believes to be truth, and to spread that truth to all it can convince to listen. To change purely for the sake of popularity is to change the fundamental reason why the church exists. Again, this could rapidly become a deep philosophical discussion and this is not the venue for that.
The most interesting discussion to come from this has to do with the political consequences of this statistic for Mitt Romney or any other Mormon seeking high office. It’s a huge problem, but it is also a possible blessing. Fear of religiosity in general from a secular public is something that Evangelicals also experience. In many ways, Mormons are the tip of the spear on this issue – they take the largest force, but it is a force we all experience. Religious people general are still a a majority in this nation and if that shared experience can be capitalized upon, it can become an overwhelming political force.
The problem, of course is the theological distrust issue – that makes building the shared experience very difficult. That, obviously, means that any candidate has to emphasize again and again the shared aspects of the experience, while doing everything in his/her power to not get near the theological issues. I found Hugh Hewitt’s interview of George W. Bush last night very instructive. (Aside, in my opinion it is the best interview Hewitt, perhaps the best interviewer in radio, has ever done – it is worth the price of subscription just to listen to this one podcast.) Bush was clearly a man of deep and abiding faith – to my Protestant Evangelical ears he really did sound just like “one of us.” This was a very different tone than I heard from him during the campaigns or his time of service in office, when he was prone to pat statements saying little and deflecting the issue. Frankly, during his service I thought his admissions of faith more perfunctory than heart-felt, more intellectual than life-changing. That is precisely the kind of tone that a Mormon candidate must find, and it is hard because it seems disingenuous, but nothing could be further from the truth – it is service on the largest of scales. This is also more difficult for a Mormon because as the “tip of the spear” people do not tend to believe there are “casual” Mormons.
But this all brings one back to assimilation. It’s about shading and nuance, tipping the scales not overwhelmingly but just enough so people inclined in a direction will give Mormons the benefit of the doubt – that involves trust that can only be built in relationship. The Mormon candidate has to press more flesh and make more friends than an Evangelical. And Mormons that want to help him/her need to be out there pressing the flesh too – not relying on their missionaries, but the grown-ups with other grown-ups.
Hey! – it’s Christmas, time to go to a few parties.
Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
sewinglady on 14 Dec 2010 at 9:00 am #
Many interesting points. I guess that I shouldn’t be surprised that members of my Church are the third most disliked in America. That’s a sad day, indeed. In my perfect world, the media would stop portraying Mormons as polygamists, and other churches would allow us to teach our own doctrine rather than attempting to scare their adherents with ideas about our doctrine that are taken out of context or entirely incorrect. Unfortunately, this perfect world only exists in my dreams, and the realities are very different.
I just read Mitt’s op-ed about the President’s proposed tax deal. In there he mentions briefly that he served as a lay minister for 15 years in his church and saw firsthand the devastation that unemployment brings to people. This is a true and absolutely legitimate statement to make, but the reaction to it can get interesting. At least one person condemned him out of hand for “talking about his religion,” and said that they weren’t interested in listening to him when he brought up his religion. If this person thinks Mitt is “talking about religion,” he should sit down and listen to a couple of our missionaries go at it!
You are right, John, about religion being an extremely delicate matter. Mitt needs to help people understand that he really does know real people with real trials firsthand; that he doesn’t lack understanding and concern for how economic policies affect the average person. However, his own greatest experiences of this probably occurred while serving in the lay ministry of our Church, which will turn [some] people away from the very mention of such experiences. I know that although my husband and I have been both unemployed and underemployed, my own personal experiences were broadened greatly as I have served on the welfare committee for our ward (like a parish). The goal of the welfare committee is to help people to become independent of assistance from the Church, and also from the State, if possible. We tried to help people with employment, home, and money management skills. Definitely a worthy cause to be engaged in!
Tweets that mention Informative Sociology | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder -- Topsy.com on 15 Dec 2010 at 1:14 am #
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Mitt Romney in 2012!, Article VI Blog. Article VI Blog said: Informative Sociology: Reading some recent books, Jan Riess at Beliefnet comes across a very interesting statist… http://bit.ly/gFt1pV [...]
Poorly Played… | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder on 15 Dec 2010 at 7:21 am #
[...] Tweets that mention Informative Sociology | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder — Topsy.com on Informative Sociologysewinglady on Informative SociologyTweets that mention All-n-All A Dull Week | Article VI Blog | [...]
coltakashi on 15 Dec 2010 at 11:47 am #
John said: “This was a very different tone than I heard from [President Bush] during the campaigns or his time of service in office, when he was prone to pat statements saying little and deflecting the issue. Frankly, during his service I thought his admissions of faith more perfunctory than heart-felt, more intellectual than life-changing. That is precisely the kind of tone that a Mormon candidate must find, and it is hard because it seems disingenuous, but nothing could be further from the truth – it is service on the largest of scales. This is also more difficult for a Mormon because as the ‘tip of the spear’ people do not tend to believe there are ‘casual’ Mormons.
“But this all brings one back to assimilation. It’s about shading and nuance, tipping the scales not overwhelmingly but just enough so people inclined in a direction will give Mormons the benefit of the doubt – that involves trust that can only be built in relationship. The Mormon candidate has to press more flesh and make more friends than an Evangelical. And Mormons that want to help him/her need to be out there pressing the flesh too – not relying on their missionaries, but the grown-ups with other grown-ups.”
John, do I understand you correctly, that you think Mitt Romney needs to adopt the kind of “pat statements” and “perfunctory” professions of faith and “deflect the issue” the way that President Bush 43 did in office?
The problem I see with that approach is that, as you said, “it seems disingenuous”, and the main overt attack on Romney has always been the claim that he is not “authentic”, that his real thoughts and intents are not on display, and therefore he cannot be trusted. The fact is that Romney is so identified with his Mormon beliefs that any attempt to distance himself from the Church or those beliefs only serves to strengthen the caricature of him as not “authentic”. He simply cannot effectively distance his public image from his Mormon beliefs and behavior, without adding to his loss of general credibility.
While it might be nice to think of an ideal path forward to the presidency for a man who has such a religious prejudice handicap with many voters, I think it is simply not possible. There are lots of people on the Left and the Right who will remind voters about Romney the Mormon every chance they get.
Therefore, I think the optimal path for Romney is to transform what his enemies think is a liability into an asset. He needs to be fully authentic about being a Mormon, and use his Mormonism as a reason why he is a GOOD candidate for leadership of the nation. It may be a high risk path, but I think it is the ONLY path on which he has a shot to be widely accepted as genuine and real. The fact that Romney has finally come out and talked about his experience of serving as a Mormon unpaid leader is a sign that he and/or his campaign realizes this.
In the case of hs work as a bishop and stake president, he can use his Mormonism to show that he has personal knowledge of people who have been in need, and has been involved in personal efforts to help them financially. He doesn’t have to brag about it; he can make the point that millions of Americans of all faiths do the same kind of thing to help their neighbors. Indeed, by pointing to his Mormon version of a universal experience, he demonstrates both his authenticity as a person and his commonality with people of other beliefs.
I think he should use the same approach when it comes to his patriotism and belief in America and its values. He can say that, as a Mormon, he was taught by his Dad that America has been greatly blessed by God, and that the blessing has been a blessing to the world at large as America has helped defeat totalitarian regimes in Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union, in war and Cold War, to help bring freedom to nations on every continent, of every religious heritage. He can say that he was taught as a Mormon that every human being is a child of God, a person of infinite worth, and that government exists to protect the freedoms of citizens.
In all the areas where it matters in politics and society, Mormon values are pretty much what Americans consider their own values. Romney can make it clear that his Mormon beliefs are not some secret agenda hiding behind a facade, but that they are the deep springs of his motivation to give public service, from the time of his work as a volunteer missionary in France through his work as a governor and as head of the 2002 Olympics.
I think that should be a theme of his campaign: Romney’s Mormon values are American values. Freedom of thought and expression. Freedom of worship. Tolerance for all men and women, races and creeds. Voluntarily and freely working together for the benefit of all. Mormonism is a religion that was born and grew up in America, and is full of America’s optimism, diversity and compassion.