The New York Times holds forth and gives Mitt Romney advice on religion and politics. Given their track record in both areas, Romney is best served finding a canary in need of cage lining.
Who wrote the editorial? They found a person writing a book on religion to pen it! After this editorial, religious folk in America hold their breath waiting to discover what they believe . . . since this piece indicates that the author knows more about religious beliefs than the people practicing them!
Is this editorial bigotry, soft-secularism confused about religions refusal to die, or is just ignorance?
The past track record of the Times makes it hard to decide.
My comments (as usual) in italics below.
—-
Op-Ed Contributor
The Presidency’s Mormon Moment
Article Tools Sponsored By
By KENNETH WOODWARD
Published: April 9, 2007
IN May, Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and 2008 Republican presidential hopeful, will give the commencement address at Pat Robertson’s Regent University. What better opportunity for Mr. Romney to discuss the issue of his Mormon faith before an audience of evangelicals?
Evidently Pat Robertson personally owns Regent. Are there any other faculty at this fully accredited school?
When John F. Kennedy spoke before Protestant clergymen in Houston in 1960, he sought to dispel the fear that as a Catholic president, he would be subject to direction from the pope. As a Mormon, Mr. Romney faces ignorance as well as fear of his church and its political influence. More Americans, polls show, are willing to accept a woman or an African-American as president than a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
It isn’t just evangelical Christians in the Republican base who find Mr. Romney’s religion a stumbling block. Among those who identify themselves as liberal, almost half say they would not support a Mormon for president. Although with 5.6 million adherents Mormonism is the nation’s fourth-largest denomination, 57 percent of respondents to a recent CBS poll said they know little or nothing about Mormon beliefs and practices. Mr. Romney needs to be their teacher, whether he likes that role or not.
Among the reasons Americans distrust the Mormon church is Mormon clannishness.
The use of the word “clan” for a conservative religious group is interesting.
It is also interesting that the editorial does not state that Mormons are perceived as “clannish.” It simply states they are clannish.
What does this mean? Do they marry each other? Bowl together? Eat the same Mormon food? Root for the same American Idol contestant?
Are small religious minorities often clannish?
Are Jews clannish? What is bad about being clannish? When Greek Orthodox only marry other Greek Orthodox are they clannish?
When was the last time you heard someone at work say, “By gad, I cannot vote for that man. He is so clannish.”
Should we we fear the evil clannish people in our midst?
Because every worthy Mormon male is expected to be a lay priest in voluntary service to the church, the demands on his time often leave little opportunity to cultivate close friendships with non-Mormon neighbors.
Is this true? Where is the study? My church makes high demands on my time, but I manage to have non-Christian, mentors and friends.
A good Mormon is a busy Mormon.
Those busy, busy Mormons. What are they doing? Perhaps, like some sort of community of human beavers, they are building dams.
Perhaps the Time can next write, “May Americans think Mormons built the Hoover damn.” They have as much evidence for this claim as all their other “many Americans” statements.
In today’s world, the statement a “good x is a busy x” is a truism, but I think in this article the force of the statement depends on the assumption that the average busy Times reader is secular and cannot imagine where he would find the time to do religious stuff.
Perhaps he could simply give up reading the Times on Sunday morning?
Those — like Mr. Romney — who serve as bishops (pastors of congregations) often find it difficult to schedule evenings at home with their own families.
I assume then Mormons have a higher divorce rate, more unhappiness in their marriages, and few children. Oh, wait. None of that is true. What does this have to do with anything?
To many Americans, Mormonism is a church with the soul of a corporation.
Ah, it is the “to many Americans” way of saying something bigoted without taking blame. I would love to see the survey that asked, “Do Mormon churches have the soul of a corporation?”
I know that in talking to Evangelicals and other people about the ideas in Mormonism I have never heard anyone say this.
Now sometimes one does have to report on the opinions of bigots, but normally the prejudice is attacked right away. Not here.
Successful Mormon males can expect to be called, at some time in their lives, to assume full-time duties in the church’s missions, in its vast administrative offices in Salt Lake City or in one of many church-owned businesses.
When? Where? How did Romney manage a regular career? He was a stellar businessman and political figure. He was a good Dad. Perhaps, Mormons have mastered time control.
Are my Mormon friends all secretly at work in the Mormon Church? Wait! How did I get Mormon friends when they are all so clannish?
Is this a way of planting the bizarre idea that Romney might be called to work for the Mormon Church at any time? “Ladies and gentleman, I shall have to resign the Presidency to go work a mission in Togo. God bless you and good night.”
Mormons like to hire other Mormons, and those who lose their jobs can count on the church networks to find them openings elsewhere. Mr. Romney put those same networks to effective use in raising part of his $23 million in campaign contributions.
No evidence is given for the last claim, but let’s assume it is true. Most people like to see people like them running for President. Are Jewish persons more likely to give to Jewish candidates? Are Catholics more likely to give to Catholics? Is this noteworthy at all?
As for the rest of the claims, I just am finding it hard to be disturbed about a religious group that keeps its people off welfare by giving them jobs. Perhaps some of us are in churches that could learn from the Mormons, but apparently at the Times no good deed goes unpunished. Mormons helping their own is now part of their weird clannishness.
Why can’t they get welfare like good secular people?
Moreover, Mormons are perceived to be unusually secretive.
Who perceives this? Where is the study?
Temple ceremonies — even weddings — are closed to non-Mormons, and church members are told not to disclose what goes on inside them.
Yes. I really, really need to know what happens at those religious ceremonies as a non-member. Why? Because in over one hundred years of practice, no ex-Mormon has ever told us. Of course, we do know what happens in the ceremonies.
Bluntly, many persecuted religious groups (and Mormons had to flee early persecution) are hesitant to expose private, highly personal, faith practices to expected ridicule in a hostile majority culture.
I don’t like secrecy as a strategy, it doesn’t work for one thing (see all those ex-Mormons), but if someone wants to join a club or church with secret rites the are welcome to do so. If there is evidence that Mormons have “secret rites” that threaten republican forms of government nobody has told me about them. . . .including ex-Mormons very hostile to the LDS faith. Isn’t that the only question relevant to Mitt Romney running for president?
This attitude has fed anti-Mormon charges of secret and unholy rites.
By whom? Lunatics on the fringe? Must Mr. Romney expect the Times to give space, very valuable space, to people who make vague charges? Why bring this up?
Already in his campaign, Mr. Romney has had to defend his church against beliefs and practices it abandoned a century ago. That some voters still confuse the Latter-day Saints with fundamentalist Mormon sects that continue to practice polygamy and child marriage is another reason the candidate should take the time to set the record straight.
There is an informative editorial buried in this piece. The Times could have said, “Some people still think Mormons practice polygamy. They don’t.”
Instead, it is piece about how Romney should do the Times job, since the Times does not want to inform people of Mormon practice, but instead inform people that Romney must inform them.
What is a paper for?
Of course, if it were not an article about conservative religious people the Times would be attacking Mormons for rejecting polygamy … those intolerant bigots who reject other life styles!
But Mr. Romney must be sure to express himself in a way that will be properly understood. Any journalist who has covered the church knows that Mormons speak one way among themselves, another among outsiders. This is not duplicity but a consequence of the very different meanings Mormon doctrine attaches to words it shares with historic Christianity.
For example, Mormons speak of God, but they refer to a being who was once a man of “flesh and bone,” like us. They speak of salvation, but to them that means admittance to a “celestial kingdom” where a worthy couple can eventually become “gods” themselves. The Heavenly Father of whom they speak is married to a Heavenly Mother. And when they emphasize the importance of the family, they may be referring to their belief that marriage in a Mormon temple binds families together for all eternity.
Thus, when Mr. Romney told South Carolina Republicans a few months ago that Jesus was his “personal savior,” he used Southern Baptist language to affirm a relationship to Christ that is quite different in Mormon belief. (For Southern Baptists, “personal savior” implies a specific born-again experience that is not required or expected of Mormons.) This is not a winning strategy for Mr. Romney, whose handlers should be aware that Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals know Mormon doctrine better than most other Americans do — if only because they study Mormonism in order to rebut its claims.
And it is because we understand other religious groups that Evangelicals will be able to understand we are not electing the head of the Southern Baptist Convention, but a president.
I am not a Mormon. I don’t like Mormon doctrine. Assuming this article gets contemporary Mormon belief right, which is dubious, I don’t agree with it.
So what? I don’t expect Romney to explain why he is a Mormon any more that I expected Jimmy Carter to explain why he was a liberal Southern Baptist.
Especially at Regent University, Mr. Romney should avoid using language that blurs fundamental differences among religious traditions. Rather, he should acknowledge those differences and insist that no candidate for public office should have to apologize for his or her religious faith.
The first bit of good advice in the article . . . which carefully contains every offensive theological idea to traditional Christians held by Mormons (assuming again that the article gets Mormon doctrine right) . . . and then tells Romney not to talk about it. Why all the detail about Mormon differences and no detail about similarities (like culture of life issues)?
Finally, there is the question of authority in the Church of Latter-day Saints, and of what obligations an office holder like Mr. Romney must discharge. Like the Catholic Church, the Mormon Church has a hierarchical structure in which ultimate authority is vested in one man. But unlike the pope, the church’s president is also regarded as God’s own “prophet” and “revelator.” Every sitting prophet is free to proclaim new revelations as God sees fit to send them — a form of divine direction that Mormon missionaries play as a trump card against competing faiths.
One does not have to know much about intelligent Mormonism to see this paragraph as a parody of Mormon beliefs. Again, I am no Mormon, but religious people should remember that their own views could also be parodied with this “nearly right” but warped-just-enough-to-sound-silly writing style.
At Regent University, Mr. Romney will address an audience of conservative Christians who regard the Bible alone as the ultimate authority on faith and morals. Some, like Mr. Robertson, will also be Pentecostals who claim to receive private revelations themselves from time to time. But these revelations are strictly personal, the fruit of a wildly unpredictable Holy Spirit, and their recipients have no power to demand acceptance, much less obedience, from others.
Did you think I was exaggerating the way this article parodies Mormonism? Pentecostals and charismatics should read this paragraph slowly. Does it sound like your belief system? Do you think of the Holy Spirit this way? The writer has a tin ear to the millions of thoughtful Pentecostals and charismatics in the USA. He doesn’t get you . .. and he doesn’t get Mormonism any better.
Don’t trust the Times on religion.
Is the writer suggesting slyly that the Mormon prophet could demand obedience of President Romney? If so, then is Romney mind-controlled in some way not open to other religious groups?
How, then, might Mr. Romney defend himself against the charge that, as president, he would be vulnerable to direction from the prophet of his church?
He should invite critics to review the church’s record. The former Massachusetts governor is neither the first nor even the most prominent Mormon office holder. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah come immediately to mind — not to mention Mr. Romney’s father, George, a moderate governor of Michigan who ran for the Republican nomination for president in 1968.
Good points made well.
There is no evidence that church authorities have tried to influence any of these public servants. On the contrary, the church leadership is undoubtedly astute enough to realize — as Catholic bishops did with President Kennedy — that any pressure on a Romney White House would only harm the church itself. “My church doesn’t dictate to me or anyone what political policies we should pursue,” Mr. Romney declared in New Hampshire in February. Voters should accept that declaration unless there is evidence to prove otherwise.
Finally, we get to some actual information.
The issues above are real to many people, and Mr. Romney should take the opportunity to address them at Regent University. But none of these popular reservations about the Mormon Church are reasons to vote for or against Mitt Romney. History was bound to have its Mormon moment in presidential politics, just as it had its Catholic moment when Kennedy ran. Now that the moment has arrived, much depends on Mr. Romney.
I agree with the conclusion, but it comes after coyly raising stereotypes and creating some new ones (those busy Mormons). I would love to discuss this article on Hewitt with the author . . . as well as his views on religion in America since 1950.
Kenneth Woodward, a contributing editor at Newsweek, is writing a book about American religion since 1950.
We wait for this with anticipation.