All weekend long John and I have been reflecting on Friday’s Washington Post piece, ‘The Mormons Are Coming!’  John found it almost funny (he comments below); I found it both fascinating and revealing.  The reporter, Karl Vick, seems pretty clear-eyed about what is happening.  For example, Vick notes that Proposition 8 likely would not have passed in California without the support provided by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  He then matter-of-factly adds that some gay marriage advocates on the East Coast

are shouting that fact in the streets, calculating that on an issue that eventually comes down to comfort levels, more people harbor apprehensions about Mormons than about homosexuality. [Emphasis added.]

Well.  That makes the point pretty clearly, doesn’t it?   Playing on the electorate’s fears about a minority religious faith can help you win an election.  It sure worked for Mike Huckabee in Iowa, but no one came right out and said that the way Karl Vick did here.

In a way this is helpful because the tactic is now out of the shadows:

“The Mormons are coming! The Mormons are coming!” warned ads placed on newspaper Web sites in three Eastern states last month. The ad was rejected by sites in three other states, including Maine, where the Kennebec Journal informed Californians Against Hate that the copy “borders on insulting and denigrating a whole set of people based on their religion.”

That language “borders on insulting and denigrating a whole set of people based on their religion.”  You think?

Apply my favorite test for bigotry, which John and I have often used here:  Insert “Jew” or “Muslim,” “Catholic,” or “gay” in the above-quoted ad language and ask yourself if the advertisers could ever get away with such a tactic.

Nope, they couldn’t, could they?  Vick, to his credit, continues with a clear-eyed view of what is going on:

But the demographics tempt proponents of same-sex marriage: Mormons account for just 2 percent of the U.S. population, and they are scarce outside the West. Nearly eight in 10 Americans personally know or work with a gay person, according to a recent Newsweek survey. Only 48 percent, meanwhile, know a Mormon, according to a Pew Research Center poll.  [Emphasis added.]

So now that we know what’s really happening, we get to the real question:  Is that tactic legitimate?  One political expert quoted in the article doesn’t address that question, but focuses on the tactic’s effectiveness:

“Is it fruitful to use the Mormon bogey?” said Mark Silk, a professor of religion and public life at Trinity College in Connecticut. “My sense is that there aren’t great risks to it. Once a religious institution is going to inject itself into a public fight, which the LDS did in a straight-up way, then I think people are prepared to say, ‘Well, okay, you’re on that side and we’re against you.’”

In other words, once a church takes a position on a public issue, and urges its members to exercise their political rights as voters and citizens to support that position, using that church as a bogey man can be very effective.  No surprise there, and there’s nothing unlawful about such a tactic.

To me, however, the real questions are these: Should we as a society sit still for such behavior?  Isn’t the Kennebeck Journal’s position more consistent with what we’ve come to call “the American Way?”  And if we do not stand up against such bigoted political discourse, isn’t it a very short step to using any candidate’s religion against him or her?

And do we really want to go there as a nation and as a society?

Update by Lowell:

Our reader Carl H. has commented below, and we find his thoughts so useful that we are adding it to the post:

Mollie at GetReligion takes up Vick’s article–and the important issues–here, and considers the elephant in the room that only one side of the debate is willing to discuss:

I also find it fascinating that this entire story aims to support the notion that Americans will be less comfortable with Mormons than gays (if forced, somehow, to choose). We learn all sorts of things about the Mormon church in this story — much of it very fairly written. But we never explore whether it’s true that the more people know about gay activists, the more comfortable they’ll be with them.

Take, for instance, the woman who organized California’s “Meet in the Middle for Equality” march held Saturday in Fresno. Her name is Robin McGehee and she seems by all accounts to be a very nice and capable woman. Here’s an absolutely fawning profile of her in the San Francisco Chronicle from last fall. I sure hope it was written by her mother — it’s just that biased. Anyway, she is one of four partners in the raising of her children — two partnered women and two partnered men. I’m sure that what I’m about to write is considered shocking inside the Washington Post … but I bet quite a few people in America think that such a family arrangement is less than ideal. They might even feel more, dare I say, “comfortable” with the Mormon family next door (not that I, again, think this should matter regarding marriage policy). But we never really see any hard-hitting looks at why society considers families led by two parents of opposite sex to be best for children. It’s almost considered impolitic to discuss this reality.

Indeed.   I have more thoughts about this, and an intriguing Gallup poll, at True North.

John comments:  OK, it is serious, but come on - “The Mormons are Coming”?  It conjures up some images of old, very funny movies.

I am reminded of July 2007 when we accused Jim Geraghty of being an “accomplice to bigotry” due to some argument  he leveled against Romney at the time.   Jim did not take it kindly.  What Jim engaged in then was what this piece does now - some cold political calculation, and we leveled our accusation because sometimes decency demands that some political realities be denounced. There is a point at which winning is not the only thing.

The American way is nothing if not fair.  That means that Lowell’s analysis is right.  If this stands, then any other religion will be the next thing that can be attacked.   But it won’t stop there, then we will attack on other things.  Identity politics are just wrong.

Way back in 2005 I was on a jury in a criminal case.  Jury deliberations came down to race.  It was ugly.  At the time I wrote:

High School Civics class, first day, first words:

Ours is a nation of laws not men.

Those words, that idea, that sentiment has made this nation great. It has, given time, undone the injustices that our society wrought early on.

There was a time, sadly, when the law did not apply equally to all people in our nation. It is our great national shame; fortunately, it is not true any more. More importantly; however, the solution to that former gross injustice lies not in changing what people group gets the benefits of that unequal application - it lies, rather, in assuring EQUAL application.

The pro same-sex marriage crowd feels justified  in their discriminatory rants because they feel discriminated against.  That is an arguable point, but discrimination begetting discrimination delegitimizes any argument they may have - at that point the discussion has shriveled to hatred, pure and simple.  (related reading - Victor Davis Hansen - today)

As proof consider yesterday’s heinous murder of late term abortion provider George Tiller.  This decidedly pro-life blog hereby denounces loudly and condemningly the murder of Tiller or any other abortion provider.  Despite how wrong I think the actions of such doctors are, it does not justify “returning the favor.”  In fact such is an imperative of the same source from which I have come to believe abortion is wrong.

But what I really do not understand in this situation is the press.  Why can they not see the discrimination and denounce it?  I am old enough (as the movie citation above proves) to remember the racial tensions of the late 1960’s and the press coverage of the same.  As I have said before, I have much family in Mississippi and I remember wincing while watching the news thinking that the things they were saying they were saying about my family.  And yet the press cannot seem to muster even one ounce of the outrage at this bigotry that they could raise at Mississippi in that time.  The coverage of the Tiller murder leads with how awful acts of murder and terrorism are against abortion clinics (and they are!) with denial of sympathy for the murder by the vast majority of the pro-life community coming only late in the story.  And yet the coverage of the issue of religious discrimination bears none of the same reporting style.  Why are we not informed of the level of hatred for religious people that runs through the gay community?  Agreed, it is not violence - yet - but with protests and demonstrations and civil disobedienced witnessed both ater the vote last fall and int he wake of last week’s court decision, one has to wonder about the potential.

But this is made all the worse because there really is no outrage involved in any direction - it’s just cold political manipulation.

Or was it?  The Canadian press seems to think religious people in general are just a little nuts. 

Bush, a born-again Christian since age 40, arrives for today’s paid speaking engagement at Metro Toronto Convention Centre with fellow former president Bill Clinton amid a series of stranger-than-fiction disclosures, one of which suggests that apocalyptic fervour may have held sway within the walls of his White House.

Read the rest of the story if you can stomach it, but let’s be serious here.   Could someone as fanatical as they describe Bush to be even survive the election process?  I don’t think so.  Which is part of what makes the idea of “The Mormons are coming” funny.  The Prop 8 campaign was highly skilled and learned political action.  Religious fanatics of the type they seem to invoke here simply could not be that well organized, too much rationality is involved in the execution.

Finally, God help us all, they are talking Iowa ‘12 already.  Personally, I think Iowa is done as a political bellweather.  Pat Robertson and Mike Huckabee are not winners that prove much in the way of reliability.  Don’t be surprised to see the GOP, and perhaps the Dems make some moves towards either changing the rules in the early states (IA and NH) or moving towards a national primary day.  Iowa did more than cost Romney the nomination last time - it split the party.  We cannot afford that. 
Sphere: Related Content

8 Comments »

Mike Huckabee must hear footsteps.

The once-rotund, then-thin, and now-getting-chubby-again former governor and would-be Great Evangelical Hope presidential candidate seems to be lashing out like someone who’s really worried.

You ask, What does Huck have to be worried about?

Well, for one thing, about being marginalized as a guy who will never get near the Republican presidential nomination again.

Consider:  GOP Minority Whip Eric Cantor and a group of Republican leaders started a “listening tour” through The National Council for a New America, which Cantor describes as

a forward-looking, grassroots caucus intended to bring together Congressional leaders with a national panel of experts.

“The National Council for a New America will engage with and empower the American people to develop innovative solutions that meet the serious challenges confronting our country. It is the right time to begin a thoughtful conversation about the future of this country.”

Mike Huckabee was apparently not invited to join the group, at least not at the beginning.  He was - shall we say? - angry:

It’s hard to keep from laughing out loud when people living in the bubble of the Beltway suddenly wake up one day and think they ought to have a listening tour; even funnier when their first earful expedition takes them all the way to the suburbs of Washington, D.C.

“The bubble of the Beltway.”  Hard-hitting words from the silver-tongued Huck!

Actually Huck’s taking a ludicrous wild swing.  Apart from Cantor, the leading listening tour speakers include Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Govs. Bobby Jindal (R-La.), Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) and Haley Barbour (R-Miss.) and former Govs. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) and Jeb Bush (R-Fla.).  The only one in that group who lives and works in Washington, D.C. is John McCain, to whom the Huckster gave his slobbering support in last fall’s presidential race.  Golly, one might have thought that Huckabee hoped McCain would choose him as a running mate.

Could it be that Huckabee fell out of love with McCain when the Senator chose Sarah Palin?  Palin, after all, is now the darling of the fickle religious social conservative voter bloc that Huck thought he owned.

That’s got to sting.

John adds some thoughts

The Huckster’s loves are obvious - they begin with himself and end with…himself.

What is amazing to me is that presidential politics 2012 is actually taking some shape.  Fred Malek has declared Romney the frontrunner.  This is risky.  If Obama’s popularity holds by ‘12 any Republican candidate is going to be cannon fodder and if I am serious player, which Romney is, I’m not wasting a shot.  However, it does seem like Obama’s policies cannot help but bring him to ruin quickly- only time will tell.

But that said, Huck did have a bit of a point. (THAT hurt to write!)  Unquestionably, economic and security concerns are front and center right now and ought to be.  They are the lead issues.  Social conservative concerns are in a supporting role at the moment - actual conditions, not just politics, demand it.  But the party needs social conservatives.  It does not need the extremist religious-based identity politics of the last cycle, but it needs, desperately, the vast majority of religiously motivated social conservatives.

The GOP is losing ground amongst every demographic out there but regular churchgoers.  Like it or not, I think that defines “the base.”  The party needs to be visibly and actively in the fight on abortion, stem cells, same sex marriage and whatever else the left decides to throw at us.  This is a fine, fine needle to thread indeed.  Mitt Romney seems to be threading it well.

Ross Douthat, on the other hand, in his freshly minted columnist for the NYTimes role,  has written on the lastest anti-Catholic rant called “Angels & Demons.”

These are Dan Brown’s kind of readers. Piggybacking on the fascination with lost gospels and alternative Christianities, he serves up a Jesus who’s a thoroughly modern sort of messiah — sexy, worldly, and Goddess-worshiping, with a wife and kids, a house in the Galilean suburbs, and no delusions about his own divinity.

But the success of this message — which also shows up in the work of Brown’s many thriller-writing imitators — can’t be separated from its dishonesty. The “secret” history of Christendom that unspools in “The Da Vinci Code” is false from start to finish. The lost gospels are real enough, but they neither confirm the portrait of Christ that Brown is peddling — they’re far, far weirder than that — nor provide a persuasive alternative to the New Testament account. The Jesus of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John — jealous, demanding, apocalyptic — may not be congenial to contemporary sensibilities, but he’s the only historically-plausible Jesus there is.

Hmmm…?  Would this include Mormonism?  If Douthat thinks it would, then he is missing the eye of the needle, and we simply cannot afford that right now.  Public action based on religious motive will involve a variety of theological backgrounds - many of which will view the other as “weird.”  So what?  It is the action that matters.  In a nation that relies on personal morality, but does not establish a religion, such must be the case.  Save the theology/philosophy/canon and other purely religious arguments for the religious battlefield - they are not for politics.

Failing to make that distinction is why Mike Huckabee, unlike Sarah Palin, finds himself on the outside looking in as the GOP tries to figure out its next moves.  One thing is for certain though.  Whatever those moves are, they better include a significant outreach to the religiously motivated social conservative.
Sphere: Related Content

1 Comment »

The Michael Steele story is now old news.  But little stories keep appearing.  The latest we have run across is from the Philadephia Bulletin.  This is a newspaper which claims to be “Philadelphia’s Family Newspaper.”  The story says NOTHING that has not been told a thousand times already.  We have ignored a dozen such stories here.  But the headline makes this one notable:

Romney Defends Mormon Faith As GOP Infighting Continues

And yet, none of the response from Romney nor any of his aides, including those reported in the story make any mention of Mormonism - only Steele said anything about it.

This is the first hint of anything remotely resembling the kind of stuff we saw during the primaries since the election.  I was hoping it was over.

Lowell adds:  Sigh.
Sphere: Related Content

6 Comments »

Our old friend Al Mohler is at it again.  This time he is discussing the recent papal visit to Jordan and comments the pope made regarding his respect for Islam.  What Mohler writes barely disguises the typical SBC antipathy towards Roman Catholicism, and when it comes to the pope’s comments the hair is split on a microscopic level.  It’s Mohler’s closing paragraphs where we see the real issues:

In this light, any belief system that pulls persons away from the Gospel of Christ, denies and subverts Christian truth, and blinds sinners from seeing Christ as the only hope of salvation is, by biblical definition, a way that leads to destruction.  Islam, like every other rival to the Christian gospel, takes persons captive and is devoid of genuine hope for salvation.

Thus, evangelical Christians may respect the sincerity with which Muslims hold their beliefs, but we cannot respect the beliefs themselves.  We can respect Muslim people for their contributions to human welfare, scholarship, and culture.  We can respect the brilliance of Muslim scholarship in the medieval era and the wonders of Islamic art and architecture.  But we cannot respect a belief system that denies the truth of the gospel, insists that Jesus was not God’s Son, and takes millions of souls captive.

This does not make for good diplomacy, but we are called to witness, not public relations.  We must aim to be gracious and winsome in our witness to Christ, but the bottom line is that the gospel will necessarily come into open conflict with its rivals.

The papal visit to Jordan points directly to the problem of the papacy itself and to the confusion of Roman Catholic theology on this very point.  To understand Islam is to know that we cannot identify Muslims as those who “along with us adore the one and merciful God.”  To deny the Trinity is to worship another God. 

Respect is a problematic category.  In the end, Christians must show respect for Muslims by sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the spirit of love and truth.  We are called to love and respect Muslims, not Islam.

On a theoretical level, I cannot disagree with any of that, but let’s consider for a moment the practical applications of some of those statements.  This one is my favorite, “…we are called to witness, not public relations.  We must aim to be gracious and winsome in our witness to Christ, but the bottom line is that the gospel will necessarily come into open conflict with its rivals.“  “Gracious and winsome” is a little hard when you are declaring war.  Even [insert name of current “hottie” gracing the covers of the check-out gossip mags here] is going to look pretty ugly when pointing a gun at me.

This also ignores another rather important fact.  If our goal is to indeed “spread the gospel,” how can that be done with an “enemy?”  How do you speak to an enemy enough to convince them of your point of view?  In purely theological terms the essential question is, “How does the gospel destroy its rivals?” The answer (and we are going to get incredibly religious here) lies in the love and humility of Christ on cross, set in these New Testament times, in direct juxtaposition to Joshua conquering of the Holy Land.

The mindset that Mohler speaks from here is one of complete intolerance.  It leaves no room for disagreement.  One must conform or be subject to subjugation or destruction.  I believe with all my heart in the truth of my religion and faith.  I deeply resent the implications in Mohler’s comments that I am less than fully faithful to my God (and he will even admit I share faith with him - unlike Roman Catholics, Muslims, or Mormons) because I seek to find a way to live with those that believe differently.

You see, I would argue that I am the one of stronger faith.  I believe that if I engage with those that believe differently, my faith will prevail, and that if it does not, I have faith in God to deal with the situation.  Mohler would have the Christian either retreat into monasticism or come forth to holy war - I see little deep faith in that, ony a desparate clutching to speck of belief.

The bottom line is this - if you cannot live with someone you cannot convert them.   That is the beauty of America.  We have tried to create a place where we can live together to have the opportunity to convert the other.  What Mohler fails to understand with his gospel first, nations second approach is that if we take that away we are no better than the Islamic extremists that would see us dead.

I am tempted to get more deeply theological here, but I must resist - that is not the purpose of this blog.  Rather, I will say this.  I am sure Mohler would stop short of violence in his efforts not to offer “respect” to those that believe differently, but I think that may be the only place he will draw the line. If in this nation we marginalize all people that believe differently we are going to find ourselves very alone.  I think that is where Al Mohler and those that think like he does are headed.

It’s a crying shame.
Sphere: Related Content

3 Comments »

We have been discussing Newsweek’s “The End of Christian America” for a while now, and Dan Gilgoff is adding some new fuel to the discussion:

But all that may be misleading. A survey out this week from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life challenges the conventional portrait of America’s unchurched as a burgeoning society of proud secularists, atheists, and agnostics. Yes, the religiously unaffiliated are the fastest-growing religious group, the survey reports, accounting for nearly 1 in 6 Americans. But it turns out that the unaffiliated are much less antagonistic toward religion than previously thought.

The new Pew survey finds that most Americans who were raised in religiously unaffiliated homes now belong to one religious tradition or another. And only a distinct minority of those who’ve left organized religion say that modern science has disproved religion, as many atheists believe. “There’s this naive secularization theory that says when somebody becomes unaffiliated, they stay there because they’ve become adults and found that religion is silly,” says Stephen Prothero, a Boston University religion professor who analyzed the Pew survey. “But it turns out that you call them back the next year and they’ve joined a Lutheran church. They were just looking for the right fit.”

I think we can all agree that it is way too early to proclaim religion, and particularly the Christian religion, as a non-factor on the American political landscape.  Which only makes the challenge ahead for a GOP currently in the political wilderness that much harder.  As they seek to regain strength, they cannot simply set religion aside - they have to find a way to work with it.  That means facing facts.  Something which this liberal blog, quoting Michael Steele, guest-hosting for Bill Bennett, indicates may be happening.  There is a whole lot of context to this, but in a conversation with a caller, Steele says:

But remember, it was the base that rejected Mitt because of his switch on pro-life, from pro-choice to pro-life. It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism. It was the base that rejected Mitch, Mitt, because they thought he was back and forth and waffling on those very economic issues you’re talking about. [Emphasis added.]

This liberal blog, in reporting on Steele’s comments, is playing a bit of “gotcha.”   And in this case, I think they do have us.

One thing should be clear to all, a revitalized GOP can have no tolerance for rejecting candidates on the basis of religious affiliation.  Set aside for a minute the constitutional and philosophical reasons for that and look at the purely, practically political.  The divisiveness created by such criteria in a primary will permanently keep the party out of power.  Here we see the chairman of the party admitting almost as much.

So, Michael Steele has presented himself with a challenge here.   If he is the guy that is going to rebuild this party, then he has to address this issue.  The “how” is the hard part.  We cannot just tell the discriminatory branch of the party to “go home” - that is cementing the division, not healing the rift.

So, what’s it gonna be, Mr. Steele?  You wanted the job, now you have it - and you have, as of last Thursday, named your greatest challenge.  I have a few suggestions for you, but I think you need to figure this one out for yourself, or you need to get out of the way in a big hurry.  So let’s go - we’re ready!

Lowell adds:

Please excuse me for being blunt:  Michael Steele’s comments on the Bennett show were idiotic.  So idiotic, in fact, that I really wonder about his ability to lead the GOP.

No, I am not saying so as a Romney partisan, which I am.  I do have problems with Steele’s analysis of why Mitt lost, but that’s a separate issue.  What astonishes and dismays me is that the chair of the Republican National Committee guest-hosts a national radio program and concedes that “the base” of his party is dominated by religious bigots.

But Steele’s analysis also shows a startling lack of sophistication.  Here’s Steele’s statement from the program transcript, in more detail:

STEELE: Yeah, but let me ask you. Ok, Jay, I’m there with you. But remember, it was the base that rejected Mitt because of his switch on pro-life, from pro-choice to pro-life. It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism. It was the base that rejected Mitch, Mitt, because they thought he was back and forth and waffling on those very economic issues you’re talking about. So, I mean, I hear what you’re saying, but before we even got to a primary vote, the base had made very clear they had issues with Mitt because if they didn’t, he would have defeated John McCain in those primaries in which he lost.

What?

Yes, Romney lost Iowa because Huckabee ran a religion-based campaign and got voters to the caucuses who had not voted before.  Remember, Romney got all his voters out in Iowa.  Without the Evangelical first-time voters who came out for Huck, Mitt would have won going away.  Does Steele really think those new Evangelical Iowa voters are “the base?”

In New Hampshire, McCain won with independents because that was open primary.  Everyone knows this, apparently, but Michael Steele, who thinks “the base” rejected Romney.  Well, OK, if you think Northeastern independents form the GOP base.  That’s, well, a novel view of the base.

In Florida, Governor Charlie Crist endorsed McCain at the last minute and that is generally thought to be the reason McCain won.  Can it be that Steele sees Florida’s conservative “base” rejecting Romney in favor of the more liberal candidate, McCain — because the voters were unhappy that Romney had become more conservative?

Hello?

Here’s hoping Steele gets a better grip on what is happening within the GOP.  If, as he suggests, “the base” of the party rejected Romney because of his Mormonism, then Steele has some work to do.  Strident, exclusionary voices within the party will be our downfall if they are allowed to rule, and the only people who will be happy about that are liberals and the mainstream news media, who love the anti-conservative narrative such voices give them.

Postscript:  EFM is writing on this very same topic - it’s worth the read.

Postscript 2:  Jim Geraghty comments.  So do Jay Cost, Phil Klein, and Rich Lowry.  The consensus:  Steele blew this one badly.

Postscript 3:  The MSM is eating this up.  CNN and the Romney-hating Boston Globe are now portraying this in civil war like terms.  The Romney camp HAD to respond and they offered about as tame a response as possible:

Romney’s camp responded today by noting that he won the Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll three years in a row. Romney also became one of McCain’s most loyal and vocal surrogates.

“Sometimes when you shoot from the hip, you miss the target,” Romney spokesman Eric Ferhnstrom told CNN. “This is one of those times.”

Steele is giving the MSM what they want and seemingly carving up the party in response.  Not good, not good at all.

Postscript 4:  Dan Gilgoff has been distinguishing himself lately with some good insight into religiously motivated political movers.  But this Tuesday morning, he seems to be showing his ignorance.

…then Steele’s gaffe contained a fair bit of truth.

But “truth” isn’t the issue “gaffe” is.  Steele’s job is to unite the party, not give voice to its divisions.  Besides, as Lowell’s initial comments pointed out there were far more factors at play than just the religion issue.  Oh and one other place Gilgoff shame’s himself:

Romney was defeated last year by Mike Huckabee, who rode the GOP’s evangelical base—which Romney so assiduously courted—to victory in Iowa and in a slew of Southern states that Romney needed to challenge McCain from the right.

That sentence is rather grammatically spun.   Huckbee did, in fact win some primaries, but he did not defeat Romney in the primary season, despite Huckabee’s claims to coming in “second.”  Delegate counts do not lie - Romney was second in delegate count, even though he left the race weeks ahead of Huckabee.  That sentence, organized as it is, makes it look like Huckabee just flat out beat Romney.

But then, Gilgoff doesn’t have to be politically astute; however, Michael Steele sure needs to be.
Sphere: Related Content

4 Comments »

Last night, I was doing my usual Wednesday night thing, which is lead a small church group for young adults, mostly immediately post undergraduate graduation.  We were joined by our resident seminary student, home for the summer from the academic wars.  For some reason, he was full of “what Mormons believe.”  I do not need to recount it, I am sure the audience of this blog knows the litany all too well.

What was amazing about the encounter was his unwillingness to separate what some Mormons believe versus what the CJCLDS represents as church doctrine, even when I pointed out to him that those not blessed with a seminary education like himself (and me which gave me a bit of an advantage here) in our own tradition could not adequately describe our own doctrines.  Also, for whatever reason, the label “different” was inadequate, it had to be “weird.”  This was truly amazing since the seminary he attends is so liberal that much work to debunk the divinity of Christ comes from its faculty!  He seemed unable to grasp the deep weirdness of some of what we believe, which is where the Jesus debunkers come from.

I could not get the boy to slow down, and I could not get him to understand that while different, even “wrong,” Mormons were not bad, or evil, or . . . .

And then this morning, I ran into this bit of typically “mean substituting for funny” from the Wonkette (discussing the reported posthumous baptism of Barack Obama’s mother by some Mormons, even including an official declaration of CJCLDS policy on the matter):

Hmm, “serious matter,” doesn’t really get to the heart of it here, the question is, why do you people — YOU PEOPLE — create situations where a few nuts can officially baptize famous peoples’ dead mothers into the Mormon faith? Not that this has many “practical effects,” except to creep Barack Obama out to the point of vomiting.

I realize, to whatever extent I can, the controversial nature of baptism for the dead in Mormonism, but for better or worse, these people were trying to offer a blessing!   It was a well intended action, even if theologically wrong from a non-Mormon perspective.  If I believe Mormonism to be a false religion, how can anything they do harm me?  (OK, the Catholic understanding of baptism does give them legitimate grounds to be offended by this particular practice, because they believe baptism is the actual gateway to heaven and a false baptism can send you in the wrong direction, and I have no idea the religious affiliation of the Wonkette, but . . . .)

But my point is this - there are so many places we disagree - but we do not need to take offense at them, nor do we need to describe the other as “strange” or “weird” or “evil.”

I have just about had it with this mindset.  Argument cannot overcome such bias, for it is of a type that will refuse to listen to reason.  So how is it combated?  May I suggest that Mormons need to get a little more combatively defensive?  I know you all view yourselves in a suffering servant role, and that is great, but let’s face it, Christ was crucified for genuine charges - he really did claim to be God, which is blasphemy, unless, of course, as in His case, you really are.  You see what I am saying?   If you all want to be maligned for my sake, that’s your business, but I think you should insist that it be for something real, not trumped up, and not merely the attachment of a label.

Lowell adds:

Well, this is a much-debated subject.  People ask us, “Where’s the Mormon Anti-Defamation League?”  A few thoughts, which are entirely my own opinion:

First, I am sure this will seem odd to you, John, but in my experience the institutional Church of jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the “Church”) does not make a big deal out of persecution.  Growing up in Salt Lake City as a life-long member, I never heard about Haun’s Mill, for example.  I was aware there was an Extermination Order, but to know the details I had to study about it on my own.  (I moved away from Utah in 1982, so maybe the mentality there has changed. A lot has happened in the meantime.)

In my Los Angeles LDS congregation now, I don’t hear about persecution as a modern-day reality.  We talk to the youth a lot about opposition (and they need to hear about that), and in adult Sunday School and other classes we talk about that as well.  But I don’t hear the word “persecution,” except in a historical context.  It just seems to me that it is not something we dwell on.  That is not to say we should not do something more than we are doing; I’m just describing the culture.

By way of contrast, I have many Jewish friends and read a lot of work by Jewish thinkers and authors.  For good reason, Jews, it seems to me, are much more preoccupied with the wrongs they have endured in the past than Mormons are.  We can’t hold a candle to them on that front, and I think I would feel the same way if I were Jewish.

This discussion reminds me of the 1980s, when a movie called “The God Makers” came out.  It was a malicious smear of the Church.  That degree and type of attack on our faith was then new to most members of the Church.  I remember teaching a lesson on the subject in church, and reading from a letter the Church’s First Presidency had issued, which urged members to “pray for the enemies of the Church,” not to retaliate, not to get too wrapped up in any fights, to remember that our work is divine and will go forward, and just to keep living our religion, especially the first two great commandments.

I do think that the modern Church’s attitude has been more of “turning the other cheek.”  The Church’s Public Communications department does issue corrections and denials, but there seems to be a conscious effort to avoid acting like victims.  As has been quite obvious recently, in the ugly aftermath of Prop 8 there were many who wanted the Church to hit back, to come out swinging, but that did not happen.  (The Church did get relatively feisty about the news media confusing the FLDS polygamist group with modern mainstream Mormonism, as we noted here.)

I have an ancestor who was burned out of his house — which he had built himself - in Far West, Missouri, during what has come to be called the “Mormon War” there.  I had to learn about my ancestor’s troubles in a Church history book, in a footnote.  It was never part of our family lore.  But the larger point is this:  For most of us, the occasional social disapproval we have to put up with is nothing compared to being burned out of one’s house, or getting tarred and feathered.  Our general sense is that we ought to just buck up, avoid whining, and keep moving, and hope that if we ever are persecuted like the early Mormons were (or like early Christians were) we can bear it as well as they did.

A final thought:  Hugh Hewitt interviewed Lawrence O’Donnell, a “McLaughlin Group” commentator (I call those people “guest shouters”) who had gone off on a rant about Mormonism in the context of Mitt Romney’s candidacy.  Here’s the exchange:

HH: Would you say the same things about Mohammed as you just said about Joseph Smith?

LO’D: Oh, well, I’m afraid of what the…that’s where I’m really afraid. I would like to criticize Islam much more than I do publicly, but I’m afraid for my life if I do. 

HH: Well, that’s candid. 

LO’D: Mormons are the nicest people in the world. They’re not going to ever…

HH: So you can be bigoted towards Mormons, because they’ll just send you a strudel.

LO’D:  They’ll never take a shot at me. Those other people, I’m not going to say a word about them.

HH: They’ll send you a strudel. The Mormons will bake you a cake and be nice to you.

LO’D: I agree.

HH: Lawrence O’Donnell, I appreciate your candor.

I think that is fascinating.  frankly, I hope it reflects an understanding among at least some people that that’s the way Mormons are.  And I really hope that is the way we are — or at least try to be.

So John and I see this differently.  The approach the Church has taken so far does not make great political sense.  But maybe that’s the beauty of it. 
Sphere: Related Content

16 Comments »