Article VI Blog

Glenn Beck did a show the other day explaining Mormonism.

That was a helpful start, but more is needed.

Since Mr. Romney is being attacked by know-nothings like Richard Dawkins for his Mormon faith, this is a good time for my Mormon friends to explain and defend their distinctive doctrines. This is not the role for a candidate, but it should be job for his co-religionists and friends.

This is not because a President should have to do so, but because it is a good that can come from the bigoted bad. Education cannot harm us. Dawkins must be answered, but in a thoughtful way. He excludes Mormons from a free man’s consideration using a simple argument that will persuade a few.

Dawkins lives in a simple world where all religion is a hoax. His attacks on Joseph Smith’s revelation are no different than his attacks on the Christian apostles. The only thing that exists for Mr. Dawkins are those things he can dream of doing. He knows no power, diabolic or divine, apart from matter and energy. Mr. Dawkins claim is that anyone who “swallows” Mormonism is too irrational to be President.

Any other religious believer tempted to agree should remember Mr. Dawkins says the same of them. Of course, more than a few philosophers have found Dawkins’ idea that mind can be reduced to meat absurd. Intuitions of the absurdity of an opponent’s views are not hard to generate and untrustworthy!

I am not a Mormon, nor do I play one on television, but if I were called on to explain Mormonism and what makes it different I would begin with Joseph Smith, because to this outsider the claims of Mormonism begin with him. What are we to make of Joseph Smith?

For too long, Americans have accepted the ludicrous judgment of Mark Twain and others about Joseph Smith as a simple huckster or conman. He was a complex figure and at the very least a literary genius. No American has written (or at the very least translated) a work read by more people on the planet. Most Americans I know know nothing of his life or what they “know” is false or contentious.

If I understand LDS claims correctly, Joseph Smith is not viewed as “perfect.” He is not, after all, the Christ. He was (to paraphrase the description in my favorite biography of Joseph Smith) a rough stone. He died for his convictions, murdered by an American mob. That death, at least, should give pause to those who would merely shout down Mormonism.

This is a good moment for Mormons to encourage a more responsible dialogue about their faith. My own judgment about Joseph Smith will not be agree with my Mormon neighbor, but it also rejects Dawkins’ prejudices0. My culture taught me that Mormonism did not pass the bar of minimum rationality required from our leaders in a Republic. I examined Mormonism and its history and found a community intent on building schools, doing apologetics, and practicing republican forms of government successfully.

My conclusion:

Mormonism may be wrong, but one need not be irrational to hold it. LDS scholars defend their beliefs ably using thoughtful arguments.

As a result, being a Mormon should not disqualify a man or woman from consideration for the highest office in the land even if Mormon distinctive doctrines are wrong (even very wrong).

John Chimes In…

Sadly I must disagree, to an extent, with my co-blogger, and that is dangerous ground for he is both better educated and smarter than I am.  I certainly do not disagree that Mormons should be at the forefront of this campaign – wrote about that extensively on Saturday.  I certainly do not disagree that, “This is not the role for a candidate, but it should be job for his co-religionists and friends.”  I would remind my co-blogger that there are organizations out there devoted to that very effort.  Not to mention an entire institute at BYU.  Many are those devoted to the role JMR discusses and they have been at it since long before Mitt Romney thought about being president.

Where I disagree is this phrase, “…this is a good time for my Mormon friends to explain and defend their distinctive doctrines.”  JMR himself says, “Dawkins lives in a simple world where all religion is a hoax. His attacks on Joseph Smith’s revelation are no different than his attacks on the Christian apostles.” [empahsis added]  Dawkins arguments are against Mormonism because due to the presidential election, Mormonism is in the spotlight.  Dawkins does not seek to attack Mormonism any more than he does any other religion – what Dawkins seeks is first an audience and secondly to ridicule religion in all its guises.

From Dawkins perspective, even as JMR describes it, the discussion of  Mormon distinctives is an INTRAreligious discussion, it is not really part of the discussion between those of faith and those without it.  It is the discussion between those of faith and those without it that is paramount at this point.  If I am Mormon, or Evangelical, or Orthodox, I respond to Dawkins attacks on Joseph Smith with, “Why Richard, that is no different than your attacks on Peter and Paul.  You just don’t like people that believe in a supernatural and change the world based on that belief.  Let’s talk about that.”  Thus we draw the debate to where it really needs to be at this juncture.

JMR says it so well, “The only thing that exists for Mr. Dawkins are those things he can dream of doing. He knows no power, diabolic or divine, apart from matter and energy.”  That and that only is the essential debate of this time.  For if there is only matter and energy then government really is the ultimate authority and Obama is somewhat justified in being as I described him this morning, “a self-absorbed, egomaniacal, ingrate of a human being.”  But if there is in fact a supernatural, one that endows us with rights, the that is the ultimate authority, and the government exists to preserve the rights that are granted to us by that authority.  such is the fundamental question of America and it is the essential question on the table in this election cycle.  We cannot allow ourselves to be distracted from it.

Now is not the time for a Mormon or an Evangelical apologist – now is the time for a Mormon apologist and an Evangelical apologist and an Orthodox apologist and a Roman Catholic apologist to stand together and say to Richard Dawkins, “We will not take your detours into intrareligious argumentation.  We will stand together to protect the ideals under which the nation was founded.”

Posted in Prejudice | 19 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

So, on Saturday we looked at a report from “sources inside the Obama campaign” claiming that David Axelrod had OKed the “nuclear option,” that is to say playing the Mormon card.  As an initial reaction, I said:

Am I shocked or surprised by this?  Not really. The Obama campaign quiver is so empty that the rock-throwing was bound to commence.  I am, however, absolutely stunned that the internal campaign discipline is such that this word would leak out.

Regardless of that fact, and even the lack of plausible deniability this report creates for the Obama campaign, it does not mean they cannot be successful with it.  For one, the anonymous nature of the sourcing robs the report of complete reliability.  That coupled with the fact that all Axelrod is really only trying to suppress the already wary Evangelical vote means that he can play the card subtly and minimize the risk involved.  Because he is trying to convince people for whom Mormonism is already an issue, he does not really have to say “Mormonism” out loud – to make his point.

Case-in-point 1 – Stories from reliably left wing outlets (CNN) about Romney efforts to reach out to the evangelical community.  “Can he succeed?”  Paragraphs like this:

Polls show that although most evangelicals have come around to Romney, there’s a sizable chunk who have not. With those voters making up a huge part of the GOP base in swing states like Ohio, Iowa and Virginia, whether DeMoss’ gambit works could mean the difference between an Obama or a Romney White House.

Even stories that are not so blatant, but that do point out that there is an issue do not help too much.  Such stories serve to remind the few that are struggling that they are struggling.  Rather than allow them to come to peace with the outcome of the primaries, such reminders serve to reinforce a feeling of alienation from the Republican party that could keep them home come November.

Case-in-point 2 – Axelrod rapidly capitalized on that apparent sense of alienation on the Sunday shows:

Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod had a retort Sunday after a week of criticism from Republicans in Tampa — at least our party’s unified.

Or so he claimed in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”

“We don’t have the problems that the other party has. We’re not divided. We don’t have to worry about what people are saying on the side, or about their affection for the president. We don’t have those problems. We don’t have the reinvention convention,” he said. “We’re a unified party.”

Do you see what is going on there?  He is not talking to a general audience there, he is speaking specifically to those that feel a bit alienated from the party and reinforcing that feeling of alienation.    At no time does he say the word “Mormon,” but to those for whom Mormonism is an issue, he does say, “See you are not really a part of the Republican party.  Why would you want to go out and vote for this Romney character?  He is not ‘one of you.’”

This statement coming from Axelrod so soon after the report we looked at Saturday lends credence to that report.  When this campaign is over I think we will look back at this Fox News Sunday interview as the time the first card from the Mormon deck was laid on the table directly by the Obama campaign.

Case-in-point 3 – Overt mentions of race serve to ring the Mormon bell.  In endorsing same-sex marriage, Obama basically punted away the African-American religious vote.  But he cannot let Romney pick-up those votes.  There has been enough talk of the Mormon history with race, which is not that different than any other predominately white sect’s history, that I think most African Americans are going to be very wary of Mormonism.  And so, the mere mention of race in this election cycle is going to also saw on the Mormon string, and thus they hope to keep those votes on the sidelines.

There is one other factor that does not help here.  Romney’s nomination is a tremendous step forward for the Mormon community.  But I do think that the celebrations should wait until after the general election.  Far and away, the most repeated story of the weekend was along the lines of these example from the New York Times and Washington Post.  Says the NYT headline:

Mormon Says Romneys Are Leading Church Into Mainstream

One cannot deny the truth of that statement; however it also serves to illuminate the internal party divisions that the other side is trying to capitalize upon.  Back in the ’08 cycle, the most cited fear of Evangelicals was that a Romney nomination would make Mormonism a more viable alternative to traditional Christianity.  Of course it will and has, which to my mind simply means we Evangelicals have to get more competitive, but for those prone to sulk at home and lick their wounds, stories like this will serve to suppress their votes and Romney needs those votes.

This is subtle stuff right now, but i it lay the seeds of a very nasty campaign to follow.  It will be interesting to see the DNC this week.  I do not expect to hear the word “Mormon,” but I do expect to hear a bunch of nasty, personal criticism – What else they got?  Voters don’t like that much and if we are lucky they will overplay the hand enough that we can group the Mormon attacks in with the other personal nastiness.  Only time will tell on that.

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Political Strategy, Prejudice, Religion and Race, Religious Bigotry | 5 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Count me in the conservative minority unhappy with Mr. Eastwood’s performance at the GOP convention.

Why?

It is a further step in debasing our political discourse. Mr. Eastwood “cleverly” used, without saying, the “f-word” to describe our President. As a member of the loyal opposition I say: “God save the President of the United States” while preparing to vote against Mr. Obama. Mr. Eastwood appeared confused about many things in his ramble, but the man and the office was at least one.

The convention, for the most part, did a good job keeping personal attacks of the President out, but Mr. Eastwood’s bar rant was what will be recalled. We are a republic, and jabbing and mocking the head of the other party is our right, but rights bring responsibility.

And that brings me to the rumors that the President’s campaign is about to “play the Mormon card.” Some might justify it after Mr. Eastwood’s deploying the f-bomb, but this would be different and worse. First, Mr. Eastwood did not get Mr. Romney’s permission to tell the President to get off his yard. Second, attacking a man’s faith is much worse than swearing at him.

A man would die for his faith, while a gentleman will laugh off a crudity, as Mr. Obama did to Mr. Eastwood.

This campaign has already been marked on both sides by a public disdain for truth: both sides have flacks who appear not to care if an advert is true if it works. Both sides have become fond of “factoids” with clever manipulators eager to chuckle at their abuse of reality and how they can demagogue the American people.

I suppose it has been ever so. I don’t agree with it, but tolerate it as an ugly excess of democracy.

But there are excesses that a free man cannot tolerate and one of them is religious bigotry. When Jefferson was attacked for being the antichrist, it was a sign of a deep sickness. Jefferson was a bad man and an intolerable hypocrite, but attacks on his confused religious beliefs only made it harder for sane men to see the real issues.

Mr. Obama is still well-liked by most of us. Like Mr. Romney he has a commendable family life and is personally decent. If he plays the “Mormon card,” because he knows he is losing, then he will sully his place in history. Woodrow Wilson openly embraced bigotry, but surely Mr. Obama will not do the same in his desperation.

Mr. Obama almost surely will lose, just as Mr. McCain was almost sure to lose. Mr. McCain deserves history’s praise for avoiding the worst sorts of race baiting in his campaign. If lose you must, you can lose like a patriot: McCain did.

I can only hope Mr. Obama will do the same.

Posted in Prejudice | 2 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

It was a hard morning to be an Evangelical and read the Romney/religion/convention news. This week should be a week of celebration – we have a candidate of good character, smarter than most, a devout family man, and a greatly weakened opponent. The economy is going to get turned around and we are in good shape to definitively slow, if not stop, the general cultural slide that the nation is experiencing, and with a majority in Congress perhaps even begin to reverse the slide. And yet, when I read the news, Evangelicals, who should be leading this parade, are in point of fact (and pardon the “French” here) sucking hind tit.

They are talking about Mike Huckabee, who with his endorsement of Akin has rendered himself a non-player. Even with Huckabee saying the right things about Romney, who cares? More importantly the fact that it is necessary, at this juncture, for anybody to say anything of that sort is pathetic.

Which brings me to Ralph Reed. Reed is a good man, trying to say the right things, but he sure is not helped by a salacious headline from USNews:

Evangelical Leader Sees Romney as Latest Convert

Reed, of course, says nothing about Romney changing faith.  This is the headline writer playing on Romney’s change of heart on abortion – which Reed does discuss. And in so discussing, Reed’s messaging is all wrong – I mean really wrong:

Posted in Candidate Qualifications, Doctrinal Obedience, Political Strategy, Prejudice, Understanding Religion | 4 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

I’m lucky enough to be an alternate delegate to the Republican National Convention and will post from here in Tampa as often as I can.  To the right is a shot I took of Scott Romney casting Michigan’s votes for his brother Mitt, in a sweet and emotional moment.

Service and Sacrifice vs. Doctrinal Beliefs

Now back to some substance.  We’re not used to seeing balanced pieces in The New Republic, at least not on the religion issue, but in How Romney’s Mormon Problem Became His Greatest Asset, Nate Cohn makes a pretty good point. Now that Romney is past the primary, his life experiences in Mormonism can help his team present him to voters “in a relatable manner” — in other words, to make him likable, someone who the voters feel understands them, and not just the distant, very wealthy man that the Obama campaign desperately wants to define.

Referring to recent news media reports about Romney’s 13 consecutive years, between the ages of 34 and 47, as a Bishop and Stake President in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the “Church”), Cohn concludes:

[I]f the Romney campaign can execute this properly, Romney might have his first “good guy” moment, since a church leadership role probably involved helping ‘ordinary’ Americans overcome personal hardship. For instance, recent reports have noted that Romney helped the sick and poor. And it’s also important to remember that polls consistently find that most Americans want a president with strong religious beliefs, so Romney’s religious involvement is probably an asset independently from whether it makes him appear compassionate.

In his own awkward way Cohn makes a point we’ve made here before: although specific doctrinal beliefs aren’t relevant to a candidate’s fitness to serve, the way he has lived his life is.  As the Deseret News piece we linked to earlier lays out, serving as a bishop and stake president in the Church is a big deal.  Doing so requires considerable personal sacrifice and brings no monetary compensation.  Bishops get the calls at 2:00 a.m. when someone’s son has been arrested, or when someone’s loved one has died or suffered a terrible accident; they try to save troubled marriages, find work for the unemployed, and arrange food deliveries to the hungry in their congregations.  Stake presidents supervise the work of many bishops.

It is important and proper that people know that Romney did all those things for thirteen years.  It tells them something important about him as a candidate.  What he thinks about grace and works, on the other hand, does not.

Mrs. Romney’s Speech

The full text and video of Ann’s speech is here. It was received by the overwhelming majority of viewers the same way Brit Hume did:

The speech alluded to, but did not specifically mention Gov. Romney’s service as a bishop and stake president. For people who know what it means to serve in those callings the speech surely meant a little more — it did for me.

Ross Douthat saw Ann’s speech a little differently, calling it “The Case for Noblesse Oblige:”

One useful way to think about Mormon culture is to envision an outpost of old-fashioned Yankees dropped down in the Mountain West. The early Mormons were Anglo-Saxon northeasterners who wended their way west, WASPs who dropped the Protestantism and added polygamy but otherwise kept many of the habits of their New York and New England forebears: A communitarian spirit and a flinty work ethic, and an attitude toward their own success that mixed self-effacement and noblesse oblige.

Useful? Really? When a candidate’s wife is trying to tell the nation about her husband’s heart, we have to go to condescending academic dissection of her perceived religious beliefs? Maybe Douthat missed this part of the speech:

I read somewhere that Mitt and I have a “storybook marriage.” Well, in the storybooks I read, there were never long, long, rainy winter afternoons in a house with five boys screaming at once. And those storybooks never seemed to have chapters called MS or breast cancer.

A storybook marriage? No, not at all. What Mitt Romney and I have is a real marriage.

Does that sound WASP-y to you? It doesn’t to me. It sounds like an experienced wife and mother — one who herself has served for years in her church, caring for other families — speaking from the heart.

In the end, it doesn’t matter what pundits like Ross Douthat — who is always quite fair to Mitt Romney on the religion issue — think. It matters what the voters think. And it seems to me that American women who are wondering “what makes Mitt tick” will care a lot more about what comes from Ann Romney’s heart than about what comes from political analysts’ minds.

Posted in News Media Bias, Prejudice, Understanding Religion | 4 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post

Shakespeare wrote (Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 1, 270-275):

Marcus Antonius:
And Caesar’s spirit, raging for revenge,
With Ate by his side come hot from hell,
Shall in these confines with a monarch’s voice
Cry “Havoc!” and let slip the dogs of war,
That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
With carrion men, groaning for burial.

OK – I am being a bit overly dramatic, but as I surveyed the political landscape over the weekend, that quote came to mind.  The conventions mark the informal beginning of the election campaign, and though the start of the convention has been postponed one day due to weather it seems clear the campaign has begun in earnest.  And with it, the Mormon card is on the table, though not fully in play – at least not by the campaigns, the surrogates are in full bloom.

Given the events of 2008, the primary campaign was charted territory, the factions were largely known and well defined.  The fight was tough, but a strategy was devised based on the experiences of 2008, effectively executed, and victory was inevitable if not easy.  But not so with the general election now upon us.  We are now fighting a battle in waters we have not been in before and we are fighting the worst of foes – a Chicago pol.

The uptick in Mormon talk has been enormous.  Some of it self-inflicted.  We opined on Friday that Romney was running a risk by claiming religious privacy for withholding more than the legal minimum of his tax returns.  The left is banging that drum hard. (e.g. New York Post, UPI and Current TV)  I pretty well covered this with my Friday analysis so I will let it go at that.

Some people act like it is a huge deal that Mormons will be praying and participating in the convention – as if this was putting Mormonism front-and-center.  Such claims came from Buzzfeed, WaPo and the SLTrib.  As I said last week, I don’t see it – this is faith stuff, civil religion stuff, not Mormonism.  Consider this interview he did.  Where’s the distinctly “Mormon”  in anything he said.  Any Christian of any sort in the same situation would give very similar answers.  Of course, the to-be-expected and necessary biographical stuff, like this from CNN has to mention his Mormon affiliations.  And such will naturally lead to checking in on the “Mormon community.“  Of course, when the left gets hold of it is when things start to really get out of hand.  I think most people, after the convention, will see this for what it is – the press trying to create something from more or less nothing.

On Friday, when Lowell appeared on the Hugh Hewitt show, we quick linked to an article with a hint at some in-depth review.  The article was in Deseret News and concerned information the CJCLDS had released about lay leadership and how Romney fit into that picture.  As I read it with greater care it turns out I already analyzed in in depth – before it came out.  Last Monday I said:

The more I think about it, the more I think Romney SHOULD say something at the convention – not in a speech mind you – but at a press conference or in a press release saying, “All questions about Mormon belief and practice should be answered by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.  (Which he has been saying all along – this would just make it solid and definitive.)  The CJCLDS should put out a document along the line of “A Primer on LDS Belief and Practice for Journalists that are too lazy to call us or read our website.” OK, maybe all that stuff after the word “Practice” could be dropped, but you get the idea.

In all honesty, I think that is the picture that is emerging.  The convention will feature Romney talking about faith within the bounds of the commonly accepted American Civil Religion.  The press will try to turn that into a discussion of Mormonism, Romney will deflect such and the CJCLDS will gladly answer any specific inquiries.

But now it gets underhanded.  Last Friday Hugh Hewitt spent a great deal of time on Debbie Wasserman-Schultz just flat out lying to Anderson Cooper about Romney’s stance on abortion (subscription required).  Romney is on record as supporting the right to abortion in the case of incest and rape, and Wasserman-Schultz attempted to hang the Republican Party platform, which makes no such allowances, around Romney’s neck.  Her claim is essentially that Romney HAS to “own” the “extremism” of the party.  She really did not sound too bright in her less than effective defense of her blatant misrepresentation of Romney’s position.  You’d think Obama might try to back away from her a bit.

Nope, Obama doubled down on her claim in an AP interview on Saturday:

‘‘I can’t speak to Gov. Romney’s motivations,’’ Obama said. ‘‘What I can say is that he has signed up for positions, extreme positions, that are very consistent with positions that a number of House Republicans have taken. And whether he actually believes in those or not, I have no doubt that he would carry forward some of the things that he’s talked about.’’

There is a dog-whistle in there.  Consider that comma-surrounded, and therefore emphasized, phrase “extreme positions.”  We have contended here all along that Mormons were viewed by the left, who see religion almost purely in ethical terms, as sort of uber-Christians.  There is little doubt in my mind that with Wasserman-Schultz fighting this losing battle on abortion and Obama singing this “extreme” song that they are attempting to sound that very note.  The press is helping with all this “Mormonism front-and-center” nonsense.  They learned from 2008 as did Romney.  They learned that an overt play of the Mormon card would backfire.

There are also the imagined racial dog-whistles that stand behind every anti-Obama utterance ever made, at least in their minds. When you think every criticism is a dog-whistle, you are likely to criticize in precisely that manner.  The American public sees through the claims of racial dog-whistling pretty readily.  Once they see the convention, they will see through these very real dog-whistles as well.  But that does not mean they will be without effect.  As I said, this is uncharted territory.  Meanwhile, the Catholic drums are starting to beat as well.

The campaign is upon us.

Lowell adds . . .

I am in Tampa for the Republican National Convention (as a member of the delegation from the great State of California) and will be reporting now and then about my experiences. Three items for now:

We attended LDS church services in the California delegation’s hotel yesterday morning. They were sweet, substantive and very pleasant. Afterwards I realized that not one speaker — not even the invocation or benediction — mentioned Mitt Romney or any political subject at all. How Mormon!

I have been pinching myself regularly since arriving. Last night we attended the big welcome party at Tropicana Field. Thousands of people wearing Mitt Romney hats, buttons and t-shirts. I kept asking myself: Is this really happening?

Along those lines, Nancy French of Evangelicals for Mitt takes a walk down memory lane:  This week in Tampa: They said it couldn’t happen.

Posted in Political Strategy, Prejudice, Reading List, Religious Bigotry, Understanding Religion | 2 Comments » |  Print this post |  Email This Post