Let The Recriminations Begin
Most voters said that Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith didn’t matter to them. But did it prevent him from really connecting with voters?
CBN News spoke with Author Stephen Mansfield, who’s latest book is called The Mormonizing of America. He explains how Romney’s theology may have impacted his ability to appeal to voters.
“Mormonism stresses almost hyper-performance; almost being an over-achiever; almost being perfect,” Mansfield said. “Look at Mitt Romney. He’s straight from central casting. As far as we know, he’s never had a bad hair day. He’s got the perfect family. He’s got the degrees from the top schools.”
“He is a man almost without flaw. He is a man who what flaws he does have are an extension of his striving for perfection and striving for excellence,” he continued. “Americans like the story of redemption. They like the guy who’s flawed; who’s had the failures and has ascended again.”
WOW! There is a point there, but the problem is not Mormonism, it’s Evangelicalism. I got in a serious theological discussion with a friend a few weeks ago in which he contended that it was not the fact that God gave us a choice in the Garden of Eden that made us human (as opposed to the animals in the rest of creation who were without the capacity for such choice), but the fact that we made the wrong choice. In other words God did not create us perfect, He created us to fail and be redeemed. That notion pretty well turns the entire history of Christian thought on its head, for virtually all understandings of Christian theology are built on a base of our fall from our perfect created nature. And that’s enough theology for this blog.
Note how this view defines down what it means to be a Christian – either the theological one or the stance of the guy discussing Romney. Now the sincerity, depth, and in some sense “reality” of our faith is not defined by our good achievements, but by the depth of the depravity to which we sank to at some point. In other words, the drunken fornicator that manages to sober up and keep his zipper closed but is otherwise undistinguished is somehow a more “genuine” Christian individual than a person of achievement without so many obvious flaws. That’s not Christianity in any form, that’s just class warfare with a religious tint.
If this is the case, we should let abortion stay legal and hope those that have them see the errors of their ways. If this is the case, bring on the same sex marriages, then we can preach to the couples in hope of their redemption.
There was a failure of Romney to connect – to young, non-whites – that’s what the exit polls tell us. If that is because of his apparent “perfection,” then it is because those young non-whites hold the very cock-eyed view of “genuineness” that I just described. Which means that we have failed to form and teach them. Maybe it means we hold that cock-eyed view ourselves? If there are any recriminatory fingers to be pointed, I suggest we start by pointing at ourselves.
Posted in Candidate Qualifications | 9 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Bettybop49 on 09 Nov 2012 at 8:23 am #
We lost the best opportunity for America we could of had and i do blame it on the fact that blacks wanted to have a black president, despite the fact that there are no jobs, higher gas prices, debt rising that we cannot pay.Why we dance around this fact that the black population voted for a black president only because he is black i will never know. No i heard it was blamed on the Latino’s. Which surprised me because they love jobs. Why the media does not bring that up? We were not the ones being racist, blacks were.
mahonri on 09 Nov 2012 at 10:30 am #
As I have often checked in on your blog comments, there has been many times where I needed to bite my lip and not respond with a contrary view.
I realize this blog was put in place to get Romney elected POTUS. And, obviously, because of his Mormonism, you created this forum based on Article 6 of the Constitution to remind America’s electorate of that protection, as well as to persuade those who still harbor reservations that there is no need for concern.
However, I feel you have missed the boat on the concern that really should have been addressed all along – namely, the separation of church and state.
The overall problem, which began with the moral majority movement, has been the ever-increasing involvement of the evangelical pressure on the conservative right. From the perception of the electorate who are not so evangelical, it has turned into a fundamentalist movement that is much too out-of-touch with the diversity of America. And, when the GOP and religious right put their weight behind a candidate who proclaims himself a faithful adherent to a religion with dubious doctrines and practices, the connection of fundamentalist extremism to politics becomes even more pronounced.
When George W. Bush was elected, he was able to exploit his Christian values with compassionate conservatism. It was a message that not only resonated with most of the electorate, there was no threat to the principle of separation of church and state, as Bush’s church and beliefs were consistent with traditional biblical Christianity.
Unfortunately, Romney’s religion, unlike Bush’s, is non-traditional Christianity (not my words, the LDS). Romney’s religion is an institutional corporation. It is more exclusive in its teachings, doctrines and practices… so much so that they have a temple ritual that requires their faithful members to take a sacred oath of loyalty to their church.
As these types of religionists are beginning to make headway into the political power structure of our nation (the LDS make up less than 2% of the population, but have an inordinate amount of influence and power above that in Washington), the principle of separation of church and state becomes more of a factor… especially at the President or Supreme Court level.
The point I’m trying to make is this: if you want to get a Mormon elected to the highest office in the land, you need to convince – meaning, the candidate himself/herself – the electorate that they can be completely removed from any and all influence of their church while serving the public.
As for Romney, his 2007 religion speech did not adequately do that. Back then, most Americans were completely ignorant of the LDS’ teachings, doctrines and practices. Since then, as more and more information about them comes to light, this notion of separation of church and state plays a much bigger role than that of article 6.
The other turn off is the obvious disdain for Obama. There’s something about the disgust of Obama from the far right that is… well, un-Christian.
I remember when Clinton was president, the right hated the guy. When Bush was president, the left took revenge and completely despised and hated him too. Now, were back to tit for tat. The past four years have just been crazy with all this vitriol. I don’t know where this hatred comes from… but it sure doesn’t come from the Spirit of Christ.
As Christians, we shouldn’t put our trust in the Elephant or the Donkey… but in The Lamb and The Lion.
Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing a Mormon as President, but you’re going to have to do it by way of the principle of separation of church and state… because, the LDS haven’t yet convinced me, and many others like me, that they can be trusted with the constitutional levers of power in a diverse and global society such as ours.
GottaZoom on 09 Nov 2012 at 11:55 am #
“because, the LDS haven’t yet convinced me, and many others like me, that they can be trusted with the constitutional levers of power in a diverse and global society such as ours.”
Bingo! THE QUESTION answered, yet again.
Interesting self-justification, nevertheless.
mahonri on 09 Nov 2012 at 2:18 pm #
BTW, the answer to The Question is YES.
My point was in not focusing on the “What” (the Question) but on the natural concerns from the “How” and “Why” of the non-Mormon electorate.
Namely, Why they are concerned [non-traditional Christianity] and How you can alleviate the concern [no breech in the principle of separation of church and state].
Like the GOP, if you wish to think it is something else, that is your prerogative. Just trying to help broaden your approach on making the mission of your blog successful. As strange as it might sound, I’m actually sympathetic to your cause.
Retrocon on 09 Nov 2012 at 3:47 pm #
Official LDS Church statements declare the Church does NOT “attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader.”
Official LDS Church statements also affirm that elected officials, including those who are LDS, “make their own decisions… based on their own best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent.” — recognizing that these decisions “may not necessarily be in agreement… with a publicly stated Church position.”
The LDS Church has long affirmed political neutrality, which means not only party affiliation but party issue support or non-support as well, unless, as has always been stated, the issue intersects with the purview of religion and morality (something religion does comment on).
Although regular members of the LDS are encouraged to participate in civic responsibilities (which make include running for office or supporting those who do), the general Church officers are asked, as a matter of policy, NOT to participate in the support (financial or otherwise) of particular candidates or political parties. When regular members do participate, they are not to imply LDS Church endorsement in any way nor to target LDS membership through the Church’s membership rolls, etc.
As outlined in LDS scriptural canon (Doctrine and Covenants, Section 134) the LDS Church takes the position that:
* Governments are to concern themselves with the enactment and administration of laws that benefit society as a whole,
* Rebellion and sedition against the government are proscribed,
* All are bound to uphold the respective governments under which they reside,
* Civil laws and divine laws are separate (see verse 6), except as noted above, when issues directly affect the interests of the Church (in which case the issue may be addressed in a non-partisan way).
* It is not proper for the civil government to enact laws that favor or restrict any particular religious group, unless religious practice would infringe on the rights of others,
* In general, just laws should be enacted through lawful channels.
The LDS Church’s 12th Article of Faith (also canonized) states in part “We believe … in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” — meaning civic laws.
Mitt Romney has reiterated the separation of the office of President from ecclesiastical authority; the civil magistrate has his or her authority and responsibility separate from religious affiliations. Just as the LDS Church will not attempt to dictate to elected officials, Gov. Romney has flatly stated he would not accept such dictates anyway.
Also note, as Mahonri has, that there are many civic leaders throughout the political sphere from various political persuasions and viewpoints. The Church has exhibited no requirement for political conformity for these officials.
It should be very clear that in electing a Mormon PRESIDENT, whenever that may be, the “levers of power” will not be directed by the LDS Church nor its leaders.
[P.S. If Mormons do indeed have an "inordinate" amount of political influence, compared to our population, may I suggest a couple of possible reasons: 1) Members of the LDS Church generally take seriously the call to be civic minded and to help enact laws that preserve freedom, etc. 2) Mormons generally live in accordance with principles that reduce the chance of scandal (financial, sexual) that would be a detriment to running for office.]
mahonri on 09 Nov 2012 at 9:20 pm #
Retrocon provides some good answers. Too bad these weren’t articulated more by the candidate himself (or at least by his campaign team).
I suspect the candidate didn’t want to for the simple reason it keeps coming back to his religion… and he just didn’t want to go there.
Yet, Retrocon has easily given some good, sound reasons – associated with the religion – that goes to the point I’m trying to make.
For the vast majority of the non-Mormon electorate, who are ignorant – and, thus, suspicious – of someone who has taken an oath of loyalty to his church, they need to know exactly what that means… and how making a covenant with God in his Holy House is NOT going to overide any temporal oath for civil office. [keep in mind, for many that doesn't sound convincing]
The point is this: the candidate needs to convince the voters. And, the candidate needs to answer the natural questions that arise from the concerns. And, until a candidate is willing to confront the issue, the suspicions will continue to thrive under the surface.
The A6 blog can help do more in this area. If you want to get a Mormon elected POTUS, you’ll need to put your efforts in that. Retrocon has articulated some good feedback… but like a broken record, you’ll need to keep repeating it.
In our very diverse electorate, the current question can be applied to any other candidate who is faithful to an unfamiliar minority religion – Islam, Buddhism, Jewish, Jehovah Witnesses (no, scratch that – they don’t run for civil office). I think you get the idea.
Perhaps the A6 Blog needs a new Question.
GottaZoom on 10 Nov 2012 at 11:38 am #
“WOW! There is a point there, but the problem is not Mormonism, it’s Evangelicalism. ”
John S.’s point is written from an Evangelical perspective. He is not LDS .
Doug King on 10 Nov 2012 at 3:41 pm #
I don’t think Mormonism or Evangelicalism’s attitude about it explains the 2012 debacle for the Republican party. I think we’ve been eclipsed by history. I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard people complain that GOP candidates sound like “old, white men.” In other words, it doesn’t matter what the candidates think or even do, what matters to most voters is age, race, and gender. And if the foregoing sounds extreme, I should mention that on election night multiple liberal talking heads on multiple network channels gleefully made this very point. Identity politics trumps rationality every time, it seems. Any Republican candidate today must overcome not only overcome a Democrat opponent but the entire MSM media.
Every time a journalist praises Obama as the post-racial candidate, it serves to remind the electorate that Obama turned the tables on the white establishment.
Demographically, the white “moral majority” has shrunk to numerical impotence and is now cannon fodder for identity politics. The Left was a bit frightened by Romney’s “Mormon Moment”, but they are breathing easier now. Look at how much mileage they get from blaming everything from a failed economy to the weather on President George Bush. Expect more of the same, but the blame will be extended to white Christians in general. Someday – perhaps after the white conservative movement is politically extinct – ethnic groups will be forced to find another scapegoat. Then they will turn their knives on each other.
This election marks the end of my association with the Republican Party. There’s no point supporting a movement that’s doomed to fail. Republicans can debate whether Romney’s Mormonism caused his defeat, just as dinosaurs can debate the advantages of growing another horn or thicker armor. Meanwhile, the mammals are eating the dinosaurs’ eggs. The entire conservative movement is doomed unless they find a hip way of relaying their message. Forget what is right or wrong; young people don’t care about that. Forget what makes sense; the majority of voters are not all that rational. Instead of good jobs, voters want bread and circuses. And resentment for the wrongs of white men in past generations gives them license – or so they think – to judge themselves by a more generous standard than what they demand of others.
The electorate has just validated Obama’s failed policies, so we can expect more the same. (Insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly while expecting different results.) Looking back, the campaign was never about the best way to steer government or the economy – it was about keeping power away from the “old, white men.” Sadly, this type of thinking signals the death of Martin Luther King’s dream, who dreamed about judging individuals on merit and character, not on superficial categories such as age, race, and gender. I blame the MSM as much as anyone.
God help our country. Oh wait–we’re too busy arguing about God to enlist His help.
coltakashi on 10 Nov 2012 at 7:11 pm #
John McCain endedup with a similar result to the one Romney had. McCain did not have the minority religion issue. The basic problem fr every Republucan presidential candidate is the growing part of the US population that has replaced God with the government. That includes secular Jews, and “nones” who reject affiliation with any objective religious organzation, and people who see the primary function of churches as social rather than religious. They want government to shield them from all the difficultes of life. And when government fails, they express theiur faith by doubling down on their bet and giving gvernmnent even more control over their lives. They have become the 35 year old son that still lvs in his parents basement.