Don’t Worry – We Have Not Forgotten The Whole Mormon Thing
The Mormon issue is quiet since the aftermath of South Carolina, limited largely to small, local outlets although we are seeing it in a few guises still in the primary.
One has to do with the no longer widely practiced Mormon ritual of baptism for the dead. On Wednesday we were warned at HuffPo that this might be an issue. Then on Friday we learned (Gawker – HT: Political Wire):
Gawker’s substantial Mormon readership has come through for us: Two readers have sent us confirmation that Edward Davies, Mitt Romney’s militantly atheist father-in-law, was indeed posthumously converted to Mormonism by his family, despite the fact that when he was alive he regarded all religions as “hogwash.”
Frankly, I am unsure of how many children Edward Davies had, but I know three of them – and I can promise you those three would have agreed to this ritual. Now I’m sorry – if the survivors agreed to it, where’s the beef? This entire story is just out there to feed suspicion of Mormons.
Addendum a few hours after publication – One of Edward Davies surviving children contacted me after reading this post today. “Mitt did NOT convert his father in-law. He had nothing to do with it. Dad’s information was prepared and submitted for temple ordinances by,” one of the surviving children. “We were all present in the Salt Lake Temple for these ordinances.” He then goes on to explain the distinction between conversion and the ordinances that Lowell describes below. The more we learn, the less there is to Gawker’s story. Back to the original post.
Second Addendum, the following day – There is one other area of the Gawker story that requires correction. Edward Davies, according to the representations of his children, was most assuredly not a “militant atheist.” They describe him as a “hopeful agnostic.” They acknowledge his problems with religious institutions, say that he firmly hoped for some sort of higher power. Back to the original post.
The second guise is Romney’s tithing practices. Consider this CSM headline:
Mitt Romney’s tithing: Do voters see it as very generous or very Mormon?
Mona Charen responds with “Romney Should Be Proud”:
Beyond that, Mr. Romney’s tax returns reveal the most generous charitable donor to run for president in recent history. The Romneys donated about 14 percent of their income to charity in 2010 and about 19 percent in 2011. The average donation for people at the Romneys’ level of income is 6 percent.
Would Romney’s money have done more good if he’d forked those extra millions to the IRS rather than to the Mormon Church and the other charities they selected? Well, that would certainly have provided a few more bucks for Solyndra and the urgently necessary high-speed rail from Fresno to Bakersfield. But, on balance, private charities are probably a better bet for improving the world.
I’ll take it a step further – tithing (donating 10%) is something in the Bible – not the Book of Mormon. All Christians should do so. Yet only 9% of Evangelicals bother. Romney’s charitable habits put Evangelicals to shame.
The final guise is discussing his ancestors in Mexico. Anybody that knows Mormon history knows that as the LDS church did away with the practice of polygamy, many Mormons that did not want to give it up, moved to Mexico. This story is just flat out a dog whistle.
Some wonder if Gingrich is behind some of this playing a passive-aggressive game. I don’t think so. Of course some of the usual suspects on the right just cannot help themselves, but I think Kyle-Anne Shiver at American Thinker has it exactly right:
If Mitt Romney manages to win the GOP nomination, then we need to hope he is far better-prepared to handle the liberals’ anti-Mormon slime machine than he was prepared to handle intra-party jabs at his Bain record, his tax returns, and his flip-flopping.
I would be quite dishonest if I said that I wasn’t worried about what the liberals and their lackeys in the press will do to defame the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in their win-at-any-cost zeal to re-elect Barack Obama. Mitt Romney’s religious faith is likely to be mocked, sensationalized, disparaged, and dragged through the media gutters. It could even be uglier than the fanning of racial tensions and demonization of the wealthy, also projects pushed by the Obama machine.
I think that at this all those guises are really the left trying to influence the outcome in Florida and beyond which we have seen them do in far more direct ways with union funded ad buys and other nonsense. Of course some, like the NYTimes, and its chief columnist from another planet, Maureen Dowd, just cannot resist hitting the issue directly.
It is truly amazing that we set ourselves up with these sorts of things for our opponents to use against us. You’d think we would be smarter.
Lowell adds . . .
Just a quick note on vicarious baptisms for the dead: Doing such work is central to the mission of the Church and we could write volumes about it here. There is no doubt that the practice will get a lot of attention in the coming months. Rather than provide apologetics about related LDS beliefs, I’ll limit myself to the most important aspect of the ritual: Central to our beliefs on the subject is the principle of choice. We do this work for our ancestors, who we believe are still alive in the spirit, awaiting the Resurrection; and we believe they have the right to choose whether or not to accept the ordinances (rituals) performed in their behalf. So to say anyone “converted” Ann Romney’s late father is grossly to misunderstand and mischaracterize what his Mormon descendants are doing for him. As they see it, they’re really just giving him the option to accept the gospel where he is now. Whether or not to convert is, and always has been, up to him.
Moral: It is always a bad idea to ridicule the religious beliefs of others, because there is an excellent chance you don’t understand what you are ridiculing. If Romney gets the nomination, I suspect we will have many opportunities to repeat this moral.
Posted in Candidate Qualifications, News Media Bias, Religious Bigotry | 13 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
stevenrushing on 28 Jan 2012 at 5:23 am #
Quick correction – Baptism for the dead is as widely practiced as it has ever been.
fitzwdarcey on 28 Jan 2012 at 6:49 am #
Since when was baptism for the dead a “no longer widely practiced Mormon ritual?” It occurs every day in temples.
John Schroeder on 28 Jan 2012 at 8:22 am #
OK, OK – I’m NOT an expert on Mormon practice, maybe I misunderstood something – I have put out a call to Lowell to correct me.
JLF9999 on 28 Jan 2012 at 9:52 am #
Proxy baptism for the dead by non-family members is not practiced as widely as it was. That part is correct. Occassionally some member goes a bit sideways and thinks they have special dispensation to make the call themsleves, but the Church is pretty definite. We are not supposed to submit names except for our departed relatives. The dead can decide for themselves whether they want to accept or reject. Mormons believe the soul is alive, functioning, aware of who they are and thier condition able to make choices including that they were in error when living on earth. I suggest the dead know more about what is on the other side than the living do.
Lowell Brown on 28 Jan 2012 at 9:52 am #
No worries, John. The LDS Cavalry has arrived and we have fixed this.
JLF9999 on 28 Jan 2012 at 10:15 am #
A couple of Mormon theological issues that often get in the way of good relations between Mormons and traditional Christians is the whole thing about Creeds. Creedal Christians take umbrage with Joseph Smith’s comment that God does not find their form of Christianity to be to in accordance with what Christ taught. Apparently they think this attacks their Christianity. It does not. Joseph talks to their creeds not their belief in Christ. It was the development of the various creeds which separated God’s people and that is what God rejects.
The second is that traditional Christians are not truly Christian according to LDS doctrine. Again, that is not correct. LDS doctrine suggests traditional Christianity is not complete and wandered off course by dropping exalting ordinances which are different from saving ordinances. Christ’s sacrifice made resurrection possible for everyone who has ever lived on earth. It is free and cannot be earned. Exaltation is different. The missing elements are the knowledge of what to do and the authority to do it. It is only through the exercise of proper authority can the next step be achieved.
coltakashi on 28 Jan 2012 at 12:15 pm #
For Christians, the fact is that the formal stance of most denominations is that there is no hope of salvation for people who were not Christians before they died. That means people who did not have chance to hear a Christian missionary because they lived before Christ did, or the missionaries hadn’t gotten around to their country yet, or their governments restrict freedom of teligion, are going to suffer in hell for eternity through no fault of their own. Many Christian pastors and theologians recognize the questions this raises about the justice of God, and they have variously advanced concepts they feel are compatible with Christian doctrine though not, so far as they know, officially adopted as such. Some argue that God may communicate with people at the point of death or afterward but before the Resurrection to do what the missionaries did not: teach them about Christ and give them the choice to ask for salvation. The latter concept has been called post-mortem evangelism by its advocates. Even though 1Corinthians 15:29 is precedent for the practice of performing vicarious baptisms for such people, only the Mormons perform it. Other Christians who believe in post-mortem evangelism figure it happens without any assistance on the part of the living.
The upshot of this is that the CJCLDS has been criticized by some Jews because some well-meaning Mormons, contrary to Church policy that bars vicarious baptism of people who died within the past century except by relatives of the deceased, took it on themselves to perform baptisms on behalf of some Holocaust victims, even as they recognize that it is the free choice of each individual named to accept or reject the offer of the ordinance. Furthermore, this against the backdrop of Mormon doctrine, which holds that all good people of every religion, Christian, Jew, Muslim or Buddhist, even without baptism, will NOT suffer in hell, but will be resurrected in a heaven where they can enjoy the presence of Jehovah, whom Mormons believe is Jesus Christ, the Son of God the Father. For Mormons, baptism is entrance into the higher blessings offered by God, including continuing our families into eternity.
On the other hand, other Christians will tell you that the same Holocaust victims are either being saved as Christians by Christ, or are already in hell suffering eternally because they were Jews. Among these denominations, why should Jews criticize Mormons in particular? They tolerate the views of other Christians, even though Mormon bJewish criticism seems to be based on ignorance that ascribes beliefs of other Christian denominations incorrectly to Mormons.
John Schroeder on 28 Jan 2012 at 1:42 pm #
JLF – it was the limitation concerning non-family members that I errantly recalled, now that you mention it. Thank you for that clarification
Proving Our Point… | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder on 28 Jan 2012 at 3:02 pm #
[...] CommentsJohn Schroeder on Don’t Worry – We Have Not Forgotten The Whole Mormon Thingcoltakashi on Don’t Worry – We Have Not Forgotten The Whole Mormon ThingJLF9999 on [...]
Is This Really Necessary? | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder on 29 Jan 2012 at 8:32 am #
[...] Romney Central on FLAT-OUT CHEATING!Proving Our Point… | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder on Don’t Worry – We Have Not Forgotten The Whole Mormon ThingJohn Schroeder on Don’t Worry – We Have Not Forgotten The Whole Mormon [...]
Gawker’s Lack of Decency | Article VI Blog | Lowell Brown on 30 Jan 2012 at 10:42 am #
[...] John writes in another post below, the Gawker author was simply wrong. Today, Gawker was forced to correct its story in response to [...]
Charles Blow – Twigot Extraordinaire | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder on 24 Feb 2012 at 5:38 pm #
[...] comments are “disturbed and indecent.” As was, though less pointedly so, the Gawker piece of about a month ago about the proxy baptism of Romney’s father-in-law. Which leads [...]
Charles Blow – Twigot Extraordinaire | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder on 24 Feb 2012 at 5:38 pm #
[...] comments are “disturbed and indecent.” As was, though less pointedly so, the Gawker piece of about a month ago about the proxy baptism of Romney’s father-in-law. Which leads [...]