John Mark Reynolds has a piece up at the Washington Post On Faith blog about Mormonism and the challenges its practitioners face in the political arena. In the post, he notes that the LDS church upholds many virtues that are beneficial to the republic, while its "theological vices" are not threatening to the community. I don't take issue, really, with any of this. Certainly, it is true that the LDS church cherishes America and wishes it well. It is also true that the LDS church has nurtured a number of outstanding citizens. Tangentially (very tangentially), one of the best lines in the piece is where Reynolds notes that the media is highly aware of Glenn Beck's Mormon faith and amnesic with regard to Harry Reid's.
However, I think much of the concern with the public perception of the Mormon church is misplaced with regard to politics. Being Mormon is probably not as heavily disabling a factor as many think it is. I know many will point to Mitt Romney's run for president in 2008 as proof of anti-LDS bias, but too much may have been made of it. Mitt Romney had several pretty serious problems facing him in the presidential primary.
First, he ran for president as the one term governor of Massachusetts. It does not inspire confidence when a governor holds office for one term, declares victory, and abdicates for a presidential run. This is especially true when one suspects he would not have been able to win a second term. That, of course, is not Mitt Romney's fault. It is Massachusetts' fault, but it still reflects badly on him as a political champion.
Second, Romney conducted his campaigns for office (senator and governor, unsuccessful and successful) in Massachusetts and thus had to run away from the kind of conservative image that attracts voters in many other parts of the country. Opponents could point to archival evidence of Romney distancing himself from Reagan's legacy, for example, and making statements in sympathy with the pro-choice position.
Third, Romney's crowning achievement as governor of Massachusetts was presiding over a comprehensive health care reform effort which required individuals to purchase health insurance. Setting arguments about federalism and the appropriateness of states doing such a thing versus the federal government doing it aside, that kind of gubernatorial activity did not create the strongest foundation for a Romney primary run in '08.
All of this is to say that being a member of the LDS church was probably not Mitt Romney's biggest problem as a politician running in conservative primaries.
It was not his biggest problem, but it is a significant one. Arguably Mormons are no more Christians than are Jews and Muslims. (Separate book(s), prophets, and divergent interpretations of what they do have in common.) The differences between mainstream Christianity and the LDS dwarfs the differences between the local primitive Baptist Church and Rome. People are always uncomfortable when there is a clear disconnect between reality and claims. Personally, I am non-LDS, and Mitt would be my first choice if he would only stop defending Romneycare and admit that it was a colossal mistake.
Before 2008 I thought Romney’s professed religion would damage him among conservative christians as much as his squishiness on pro-life would among those of us for whom that is paramount. The latter perception made me dubious about him so I didn’t care about the former.
Then we got the “christian” Obama. Unless we get a credible pro-life challenger, my take is: Come back, Mitt, all is forgiven!
This was Romney’s biggest problem as a politician:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H8Nq7BglIg&feature=related
Who let the dogs out, indeed.
I backed Romney over Huckabee or McCain last election but as the lesser of three evils. His Mormonism I could get over but it still registers as a defect, not because I want my political leaders to believe as I do but because I know Mormonism trains its believers to dissemble about their faith for evangelistic purposes.
People whose religions have taught them to be deceptive are far more worrisome to me than those who come by lying as a vice, the way most politicians do.
The problem with Romney was that his political problems that Hunter notes, overlapped and supplemented his theological problems.
I’m a lifelong Mormon, and have been heavily involved in LDS apologetics. I’ve been around long enough to know that there are two types of people in the American conservative Christian camp on the Mormon issue.
1. The counter-cult types (like James White and such) who take a great, and largely negative, interest in Mormonism, and are quite vocal about it’s threats to the rest of Christianity. Level of civility (and sanity) will vary widely in this camp.
2. The rest of conservative Christian America who doesn’t spend a lot of time thinking about Mormons at all, and doesn’t really care.
#2 is by far the majority camp.
But here’s the problem, however reasonable or un-invested the rest of Christian America is about Mormonism, they allow the countercult spin machine to be the sole voice that interacts with Mormonism. They also allow these extremists (usually extreme radical 5 point Calvinists in my experience), to be the gatekeepers to all information about Mormonism. So even if the majority of American Christians aren’t thinking about Mormons, what little thinking they do about us is largely negative – filtered through a lens of extremism and Protestant zealotry.
This has a not exactly catastrophic, but nonetheless negative impact on general Protestant views of Mormons.
Now – how does the countercult spin paint Mormonism?
They’ll often acknowledge the positives that the article here mentions. But it’s more lip service – which they immediately attempt to marginalize. They make the argument, that “sure they’ve got great families and great smiles – but underneath all that is a sinister plot to brainwash you and make you lose Jesus!”
This is the image that the counter-cult machine in American Protestantism (we don’t have this problem as much with Catholics – though I wouldn’t remotely imply they are pro-Mormon) paints of Mormons – a bunch of smiling, dishonest, dangerous freaks who are just trying to lure you into a false sense of security before entrapping you.
Now what does that have to do with Romney politically?
Well, let’s see…
Great smile? Check.
Nice family? Check.
Family values? Check.
Wants to be your friend? Check.
Hidden reality behind the smile?
Not someone you can trust?
Lying to you?
Using his image to lure you in?
You can answer the last ones yourself. But Romney’s campaign played right into the popular counter-cult stereotype of Mormons in spades. Consciously, or subconsciously – enough Republican primary voters (who tend to be a bit more hardcore Protestant – and more likely to have absorbed some of the counter-cult take on Mormons) kept the stereotype in mind for it to matter.
All Huckabee had to do was remind everyone to go into counter-cult mode. Which is exactly what his “don’t they believe Jesus and Satan are brothers?” remark was designed to do.
(I’m not sure if I posted my comment correctly. So if it double-posts, my apologies)
Dang Chris.
I didn’t see your comment before posting my own, but…
Way to prove my point!
Seth, any religion that contains as much secrecy as Mormonism does is bound to be suspect among others and create the suspicion that honesty is not as much a cardinal virtue as it is in other religions. The Muslim doctrine of taqiyya comes to mind.
There will be multiple issues with Romney’s mormonism.
(1) Despite the fact that he is not a hard-line conservative, and that he believes in keeping his religion separate from his politics, in less religious states, many people will assume that he wants to impose his beliefs. If Romney is the Republican nominee, I could this cause him to lose votes in key midwestern states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
(2) Despite an increased acceptance of the LDS church over the last 50 years, many evangelicals still view Mormonism as a cult. Many evangelical Protestants may decide not to vote for Obama or Romney, and instead stay home, or vote for a third party. This could prevent Romney from winning key southern states like Virginia, North Carolina, or Florida.
(3) Romney and his family are closely associated with the long history of the LDS church. He graduated from BYU, his ancestors were polygamists, and he served as a Mormon missionary. He will be portrayed by the media as a hardcore Mormon. If he is nominated, I can already see the ugly questions arising about polygamy.
As I read all these earnest stories about whether the great American electorate will vote for someone from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I find myself asking this question:
Just what is the big deal about Mitt Romney’s Mormonism?
The implication is that the LDS is some sort of weird sect filled with wackos. They’re not like us – they don’t go to Starbucks, they have those funny white churches, they’re just a bit too friendly!
Seems like one of their kind can’t be trusted to lead the free world, unlike, say, someone from a mainstream Christian denomination, a Jew (remember Joe Lieberman?) or one of the cuddlier Islamic folks (hey, they believe in only one god, just like us!).
Whatever happened to good old tolerance? After all, we’re very good at that when it comes to considering some of the, er, quirks among the so-called established religions and denominations.
Think the Mormons are strange? Consider these:
1: One of the basic beliefs of Mormonism is that founder Joseph Smith stumbled upon some gold tablets in an upstate New York field, which he, um, copied before they somewhat conveniently disappeared. Kinda wacky? Probably just about as madcap as a couple or three of the core claims made for Jesus Christ: that his mother was a virgin, he walked on water and that he woke up from the dead before heading out of his tomb.
2: Another odd thing about Mormons is that they used to permit polygamy. And some, in a splinter group, still do. The veiled message: If Mitt’s in the White House it’ll be time to lock up your daughters! But would we be asking the same questions, especially among the politically correct, if a Muslim were running for president? After all, Islamic rules allow up to four wives. Is Islam a cult? Try taking that to Mecca (or to the PC crowd). And, talking of strange marital traditions, how ‘bout them unmarried Catholic priests who can’t seem to keep their hands off the choirboys? Hardly an advertisement for the benefits on non-marriage.
3: And then there’s the fact that Mormons wear some kind of funny underwear and don’t drink alcohol or coffee. They must be crazy! A cult! Meanwhile, no one bats an eyelid over those little beanies, those white scarf things and that kosher-food thing favored by a whole bunch of Jews.
All to say, of course, that one religion (and the various departments thereof) is just about as good as another. Which is to say a form of magic that should have disappeared along with cavemen (or at least when Darwin published his book).
Of course, the fuss that would arise if a self-declared atheist somehow made a legitimate run for the presidency would make the rumblings about Romney seem like a whisper.
“how ‘bout them unmarried Catholic priests who can’t seem to keep their hands off the choirboys? Hardly an advertisement for the benefits of non-marriage.”
More like a bad advertisement for homosexuality, when one looks at the facts.
“All to say, of course, that one religion (and the various departments thereof) is just about as good as another”
This statement betrays a nearly Dawkinsesque level of ignorance.
“the fuss that would arise if a self-declared atheist somehow made a legitimate run for the presidency would make the rumblings about Romney seem like a whisper.”
Very true. But thankfully, as it’s not likely to happen any time soon we’ll be spared that particular brouhaha.