Romney Clinches, So We Talk About Mormonism?!
Becoming the nominee of one’s party for POTUS is an extraordinary accomplishment. It ranks among the biggest accomplishments any individual can do in America. The accomplishment is testament to a desire, effort and skill set to which few can lay claim. While it is true that any citizen may become president, few of us actually can – we lack the necessary capabilities. Yesterday in the Texas primary Mitt Romney officially achieved the Republican nomination. Oh, it has been a foregone conclusion for quite a while now, but yesterday the delegate count fell into line with the perceived realities and the convention parliamentarians can declare this a done deal.
So, does the press choose to acknowledge the extent of Romney;s accomplishment? Well, or course not! Why would they do that? They have to talk about Mormonism. It was offensive when Obama was nominated and everybody wanted to talk about his race – it was as if his blackness got nominated, not him. And now, from some corners of the journalism universe, you would think it was the Church of Jesus Christ Latter Day Saints that was nominated, not Mitt Romney.
Mitt Romney’s nomination marks milestone for Mormon faith
They even ran a graphic of the faith of prior presidents. I have met enough Mormons in my life to know that while they are proud that “one of their own” accomplished something of this magnitude, but the church itself seeks something in a different realm. The church, any church really, measures its accomplishments and milestones by a different metric. There was a rash of stories yesterday, led by the Boston Globe, on Mormon reaction to the Romney candidacy:
For Mormons, this is a potentially volatile moment. They are deeply proud that their faith’s most prominent adherent, Mitt Romney, is steps away from a presidential nomination and could push the faith further into the mainstream of American life. With these feelings, though, comes a nagging fear that their beliefs, often misunderstood, will again be subjected to scrutiny, even ridicule, on a national scale.
I’m sorry, and I do not intend to step on the shoes of any Mormons that might read that and thank, “Yeah, I get that.” But honestly, that’s just a cliche’ story line. “With Jim Crow abolished, blacks still fear to tread in the white man’s world.” How insulting is that? It still defines the person by their color or their faith instead of their totality as a human being and a citizen.
You see, these story lines are a sign that prejudice is very alive. Yesterday Instapundit turned me on to a post from the ivory towers of academia:
I’ve attended numerous scholarly conferences since that lunch where Mormonism has been discussed, and it is amazing to confront snide and disdainful comments and even overt prejudice from intellectually and sophisticated academics. And it seems perfectly acceptable to express this bias. Mormons are abnormal, outside the mainstream; everybody knows that. They don’t drink alcohol and coffee. Their women are suppressed. They don’t like the cross, and their most holy book seems made up. And there’s that multiple-wives thing. At one session involving a discussion of Utah’s history, several dismissive comments were spoken, rather blithely and without any sense of embarrassment. Belittling comments were made about Mormons’ abstemiousness, and there was a general negative undercurrent. The LDS Church was referred to as the Mormon Church, something many members object to. They don’t mind being called Mormons, but their church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or LDS Church. At least some of the professors who were making these remarks knew that.
Yes, Mormons do not embrace the cross as a symbol of Christianity, but it is because they consider it representing state-sanctioned execution and intense suffering. I regard it as a sacrifice on my behalf. Who’s right? Various Christian denominations think that during communion the wine and wafers actually are transformed into the body and blood of Christ – and over the centuries Christians have been derided as cannibals. I was raised to believe that the Eucharist represents the sacrifice of Jesus. Nothing more than different perspectives and beliefs.
[...]
When I first moved to Pocatello, I lived in a cul de sac and seven of my nine neighbors belonged to the LDS Church. Nobody tried to convert me. They invited me to church picnics – no pressure. My next-door neighbor spent nearly two hours one weekday morning (he was late to work) helping me restore my snow blower to life after five years in the humid South. Another helped flush and fix my sprinkler system. A third returned my dogs after they’d escaped. Several just showed up with family members to help me move in. A fourth one tossed me the keys to his Cadillac after the transmission in my Suburban disassembled on my driveway. “Bring it back when you don’t need it anymore,” he said.
These are not the faces of intolerance and prejudice.
No. Those faces are in the academic mirror.
I was raised as a member of the United Church of Christ – the same denomination as President Obama and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright – and my sister is an ordained minister in the denomination. I am now Episcopalian. An uncle and aunt and several of my first cousins are Mormons; the first was converted while stationed with the Marine Corps in Hawaii.
Just why is it socially acceptable to denigrate and trivialize and insult a class of people as a class of people? They had a name for that sort of behavior and system in the South a few decades back. You may remember it. It was called Jim Crow.
In commenting on this piece, Peter Lawler concluded:
I’m no Mormon, and I couldn’t make it for long in Provo. But maybe sophisticated Americans need some fact-based lessons in Mormon acceptance. Professors, in many ways, hate genuine diversity even more than most folks.
I find myself forced to reflect on one of the reasons I chose a science as my field of academic work. It was clear when I was in school that many fields had simply lost their moorings. Devoid of the simple decency and standards that a common religious base gave to all, they were fields in which “consensus” trumped data, if there was any, and somehow ugly had become beautiful. Fashion ruled where once standards had. In science I would, at least then, still be judged on my work not which professor I agreed with – the data lead to the conclusion instead of my conclusion going out and seeking data. Yes, there would be those that thought me a jerk, but in the face of data they would have to agree with me. In other fields, the label was enough to grant the argument meaningless.
Yet, is it surprising that academia goes this way? I mean when Andrew Sullivan is considered a “legitimate” source of commentary? Sullivan is to be dismissed becasue his body of work indicates an unwillingness to ever consider contra opinion or fact. You see the problem with dismissiveness is that if there are those not worth discussing matters with, then they can return the favor.
And finally some silliness. God save of from public officials.
It is made by Ogden’s Own Distillery in Utah, where the Mormon church is based. Its label carries the name and an image of five women, an apparent reference to polygamy, a practice abandoned by the church more than a century ago.
Idaho State Liquor Division administrator Jeff Anderson said the brand is offensive to Mormons who make up over a quarter of Idaho’s population.
Regulators in Idaho notified Elite Spirits Distributor that the brand’s concept is “offensive to a prominent segment of our population and will not be carried,” according to a letter sent on Thursday.
If any Mormon is truly offended by this, may I suggest you seek help.
Posted in News Media Bias, Reading List | 4 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
lstokes on 30 May 2012 at 2:59 pm #
One of the most amusing things I think I’ve seen is on the outskirts of Salt Lake City’s downtown about two blocks down and a half mile east of the Salt Lake Tabernacle. What is it: an eatery/bar called the Tavernacle. But some of my co-religonists are no doubt offended by such light-mindedness. When asked how many people worked in the Church Office Building, an LDS General Church leader was reported to have answered: “about half.”
Rockgod28 on 30 May 2012 at 10:25 pm #
I could care less about an alcoholic beverage label or the name of a bar. I’m not going to view beverages of alcohol for a label check. For those LDS who are what are you doing on the alcohol isle or in a liqour store? (Time for a PPI or a talk with the Bishop?)
The same with caring about the name of a bar or tavern. I’m not going in and there are far more offensive labels and names that can be used to insult Mormons. I think the Tavernacle is funny and clever.
LDS members have dealt with bigotry and community involvement for a long time.
Instead of lamenting and being offended by withdrawing into isolation we organize our own events, picnics, soft ball games and other community activies which we invite those who rejected us. In other words those bullies who take their ball or our ball telling us to go home we just get another ball so we can continue to play.
There is no need to get upset and demand (sue) our way into being liked or accepted. It does contribute to the negative image since it a sign of strength that we don’t need to beg to be included with the dominate group or community.
The LDS community will continue to grow without pressure or demand conversion. We give everyone the choice or opprotunity to learn about us. Many do not, some just want information and a few want to hear about our spiritual beliefs from missionaries. There has never been more ways to learn about the LDS faith.
As to the cross, while it is true that the cross is a symbol of Christ’s execution, that is not reason for rejecting the cruifix as our symbol.
Latter Day Saints remember Jesus Christ every Sunday during sacrament. We accept the cross and remember he was lifted up to draw all men to him.
If that is true why isn’t it our symbol? We also remember that he was resurrected and has ascended to heaven. Lifted up higher than the cross to the right hand of his Father. To go to his father and our father. To his God and our God.
A past President of the Church Gordon B. Hinkley said the members of the Church are the symbols of the LDS faith. If there is any symbol besides the members of the Church then it is the unofficial, but recognized logo of the Angel Moroni.
It is about the Bridegroom and the angel flying in the midst of heaven. (10 vigins and Revelations 8).
Still that is a very unofficial symbol. The membership is the real official symbol since all LDS take upon themselves the name of Christ at baptism which means each person of the Church is a representative of Jesus Christ. No pressure.
As a member we point to his cruifixtion as a sacrifice for all of us, however that is only a small part of what he has done for us.
Most people wonder how does an event 2000 years ago help me today? You are right John, it is character development. We apply the teachings of Jesus Christ in our lives. As we do so he will change us into a new person as we grow closer to him by obedience to the commandments of God.
We are tested in our faith. If someone wrongs us like stealing from us will we forgive or seek retrobution? If someone hurts us will we seek revenge or justice? If we are in a position to judge will we be harsh or be merciful?
Will we apply the teachings of the Master? (Luke 6:27-37).
We would all be better served not worrying about trivial things like advertising labels or clever signs. We can focus on data and information then apply the wisdom provided by the scriptures (and prayer) to better follow our faith to improve our character.
GottaZoom on 30 May 2012 at 11:06 pm #
“You see the problem with dismissiveness is that if there are those not worth discussing matters with, then they can return the favor. . . . . If any Mormon is truly offended by this, may I suggest you seek help.”
These two positions simply don’t compute. Kinda reminds me of an attitude in the quoted “higher” education portion of the blog. While I expect that isn’t what was intended, it had that result for me.
Having descended from non-members who’ve worked generations in the other ‘spirits’ or alcohol industry (including Ogden and other places with LDS influence), I have some authority in stating the label doesn’t accidentally or innocently feature the negative stereotype. It was designed to appeal to some buyers, at the expense NOT of the seller but of a chosen target.
Such enmity goes back even before the prohibition era when one of my relatives sent another a postcard mocking religions, community leaders, and institutions identified as barriers to the sale of alcohol. Today’s example is just another “favor” someone felt moved to “return”.
I’m personally not moved to that level, but have no problem in listening to and examining concerns. We can easily see why the seller didn’t make it 7 virgins vodka with a picture of Muhammad in today’s environment (the postcard indeed skewered the Islamic leader as being a hypocrite and barrier to their sale of alcohol). I don’t live in that community but even from a thousand plus miles away I can see why some people want old, negative stereotypes to be restricted where the law provides and respect fails. Should the law provide? Hard to find out if you dismiss the question before listening.
It’s quite obvious that the enmity isn’t going away whatever is decided. I find it deplorable to see some capitalize on it because they count on their target’s reaction to be restrained. But worse is the suggestion that civil acts not falling in line with that expectation indicate a mental defect.
coltakashi on 31 May 2012 at 12:39 am #
The reason the news media are able to depict Romney as “distant” is that they simply refuse to carry most stories about Romney’s personal relationships with other people unless they can insert more speculation about his unusual religion. His hard won triumph and vindication, after defeat in 2008, and after the loss of South Carolina, which claimed that it had voted for every prevailing candidate in the last several decades. In light of how reluctant the news media were to call Romney the “inevitable nominee” he deserves to see a story about his hard won victories, pulling victory out of defeat. After all the stories about the refusal of conservative Evangelicals to vote for him, his conquest of that segment of voters is a remarkable turn around story in itself. Newspapers ridiculed him for being unable to “seal the deal” and get above 25% in primary elections. If they had any sense of fair play they would admit they were wrong and Romney was right.