David Frum on “the speech”: Don’t do it, Mitt; Update: Sneak preview? Update: Mitt wants to speak at megachurch?
posted at 12:59 pm on December 3, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Romney faces a very different problem [than JFK] – and a very different set of questions. Nobody doubts that Mormons as a community and as individuals honor and respect the rules of the American constitutional system. But precisely because nobody does doubt it, Romney will get nowhere by explaining that Mormons do.
Romney rather faces much more purely religious questions – and any attempt to respond to it must draw him into a purely religious answer that will almost certainly do him more harm than good. Is Mormonism a Christian faith? Is it a plausible system of belief? What does it say about you that you accept as true something that most Americans regard as blatantly false?
These are the questions that lurk about the Romney candidacy. In my opinion, they are not appropriate questions to ask – and so they are not questions it is possible to answer. But if Romney does answer them, he is going to have to answer them all the way. Evasive tactics will buy him nothing. Yes, he can give a speech about how Mormons are good citizens. Or that stresses the commonalities between the Church of Latter Day Saints and the more established denominations. But those responses will not satisfy anybody for very long. He will have opened the door to the question: “Is it OK for somebody who believes what you believe to be president?” And he will not find that door so easy to shut.
That door’s already open, though. It sounds like Mitt’s planning the ode to religious pluralism that everyone expects: “The former governor does not plan to get into the nitty-gritty of LDS theology,” Politico quotes an aide as saying, but rather “to de-legitimize criticism and suspicion of his faith by stressing the broad themes of religious liberty, the grand tradition of religious tolerance, the role of faith in public life, and how his faith will inform his presidency.” Does he seriously believe voters who object to Mormonism are going to be swayed or feel “delegitimized” by a reminder that the Constitution forbids religious tests for office? At best he ends up reminding them of something they’ve already accounted for in their calculus on this issue, at worst he comes off hinting that they’re bigoted or un-American for holding his faith against him. Like Frum says, the question with JFK was essentially whether he’d take his marching orders from the Pope, an assurance easily given. In Mitt’s case, the question is how far outside the Biblical tradition can a candidate’s faith fall before it disqualifies him for office. Telling voters “you’re not supposed to look at it that way” is apt to be … unpersuasive.
That said, I’m glad he’s doing it. It shows some balls, and there are worse ways to use a national platform than to remind people that they have every right to vote their prejudices but they shouldn’t kid themselves that they’re following any constitutional value in doing so. I wonder, in fact, if this isn’t a sign of Mitt feeling a little desperate about his chances and deciding to go out with a bang. We’ll know in a month. Exit question: Assuming that he does stave off Huckabee and ends up in a showdown with Rudy, does this speech at least give some social cons who might have otherwise stayed home enough reason to come out and vote for him?
Update: NBC hears through the grapevine that Mitt will be recycling lines from his interview on Face the Nation in October. Follow the link for the transcript. The line about Harry Reid is cute but unconvincing and his deferrals of questions about LDS doctrine to church elders does seem evasive. It’s one thing to decline to answer a question on a subtle theological point, it’s another thing to duck when asked where you believe the Garden of Eden is. If you can’t or won’t answer a question that any Christian would and could answer about their own faith without needing a minister’s help, people are going to wonder why.
Update: An odd item, again from NBC. The pastor of the only megachurch in South Carolina says Mitt’s keen on coming there to speak — but the Romney campaign denies it. Brace yourself for this, though:
[Pastor Ron] Carpenter told me that he is still thinking and praying on allowing Romney to speak at Redemption World. Obama spoke there recently, and there was a huge backlash from white Christians and Republicans for letting that “Muslim” speak, although Obama is a Christian.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Do most Americans really believe Mormonism’s beliefs are “blatantly false?” I would say that of most evangelicals, perhaps, but I would wager when most people thing of Mormon faith, they think of sickly sweet television commercials and a choir singing the “Hallelujah chorus.”
Or maybe the Osmonds. I think Frum is overstating the case a bit.
Slublog on December 3, 2007 at 1:07 PM
*Sigh* That should be “most people think” of Mormon faith…
Slublog on December 3, 2007 at 1:07 PM
huh? Does he mean, “nor possible to answer for a presidential candidate”? Because, the questions seem as if they do have possible answers – even if inappropriate to ask of a presidential candidate.
I think it could swing either way. It probably depends on what exactly he says.
But, I agree with you, it does show some balls. I’m interested to see what he says. I honestly wish that it wasn’t “necessary.”
nailinmyeye on December 3, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Not really.
MB4 on December 3, 2007 at 1:10 PM
His liberal policies will keep social cons home, not his polytheistic faith.
Valiant on December 3, 2007 at 1:12 PM
I think it’s sad that we as a country are still bigoted enough that this is even a topic in the campaign. It should be a matter of course that a guy’s religion has nothing to do with his qualifications for being president. What’s next, Obama having to give a speech explaining that even though he is black he can be a good president?
factoid on December 3, 2007 at 1:14 PM
Well, first, I don’t think he’s going to get rid of Tax Hike Mike anytime soon. But, for argument’s sake, let’s say he does. I’m not sure the best way to win evangelicals over is to tell them that their concerns are illegitimate and “the Constitution forbids religious tests for office”.
amerpundit on December 3, 2007 at 1:14 PM
No. He is talking to the people that know about Mormonism and won’t vote for him because of it. Those people like all primary voters vorte for the candidate that reflects their values the most. Holyrollers aren’t voting for Mitt. More casual, laid back, less theological Christians that are concerned with policy will vote for him.
Wait are you talking about the general? If so, I think the protest vote would be rather small if Mitt is the nominee. He has the right values, and he admits he was wrong on abortion which is much better than Rudy’s “hey we disagree but we have a lot in common” approach.
Theworldisnotenough on December 3, 2007 at 1:15 PM
That’s Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Mr. Frum. That is the name of the church. While I agree with the sentiments expressed in the article, there’s no good reason for a person like David Frum to make such a mistake.
spiff on December 3, 2007 at 1:18 PM
Not alone there.
Spirit of 1776 on December 3, 2007 at 1:18 PM
Read the link.
Spirit of 1776 on December 3, 2007 at 1:19 PM
I hate to say it – but Mitt’s Mormonism sank him before the campaign ever began.
His best option was to ignore the issue utterly, other than to treat questions about his private religious views with the utter disdain they deserve. But if he opens this can of worms, the game is up.
The South Park episode with all the nitty gritty details of Mormonism is going to be very popular … and you can still see it for free, right?
http://i4m.com/think/southpark/
Their beliefs are just too strange.
And before you attack that comment, let me stipulate: an argument can be pretty easily made that they aren’t any stranger than the beliefs of any other religion. Objectively, Joseph Smith and his magical golden tablets (or whatever) aren’t any less plausible than burning bushes and arks and virgin births.
But nobody’s going to be objective.
Most people – and a vast majority of primary voters – already believe the basic traditional Christian tenets. So Mitt can’t exactly say: “My beliefs are no stranger than yours,” can he? Uh, no.
The first time a reporter asks “so … about Joseph Smith and these golden tablets nobody saw?” … or “so, uh, we’re all going to gods someday, is that right?” … well, it’s going to be all over.
Read for yourselves:
http://www.irr.org/mit/Is-Mormonism-Christian.html
It’s too bad, too. He’s arguably the best qualified candidate, with the most applicable executive experience. And I personally couldn’t care less what he believes … as long as he brings his skills to the office everyday. I suspect he’d have made a good president. I think he’s a good man.
But I know the reality. He never stood a chance.
Professor Blather on December 3, 2007 at 1:23 PM
This question is frequently posed by people who believe in the guy who was conceived by impregnating his own mother.
factoid on December 3, 2007 at 1:25 PM
Then ’splain why the Huckster is so on the rise.
MB4 on December 3, 2007 at 1:29 PM
At least 11 people saw and examined the gold plates and their witness testimony is included at the beginning of The Book of Mormon. See http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/contents
Anyone who believes they’ve obtained an informed, reasonable, or accurate opinion based upon anything they’ve seen on a cartoon such as South Park is rather foolish.
spiff on December 3, 2007 at 1:29 PM
“Exit question: Assuming that he does stave off Huckabee and ends up in a showdown with Rudy, does this speech at least give some social cons who might have otherwise stayed home enough reason to come out and vote for him?”
As one of those social cons (who is a public supporter of the dreaded Mike Huckabee), if it’s a showdown between Mitt and Rudy, I’ll support Mitt in a heartbeat and bring all my so-con friends along with me. If Mitt somehow wins the nomination, you can bet evangelical so-cons will support his campaign, both financially and in other ways.
Matthew Anderson on December 3, 2007 at 1:32 PM
Another pious populist, William Jennings Bryan, argued that William Howard Taft, his opponent in the 1908 presidential election, was unfit to be president because he was a Unitarian, a persuasion sometimes defined as the belief that there is at most one God. The electorate chose to run the risk of entrusting the presidency to someone skeptical about the doctrine of the Trinity.
If Huckabee succeeds in derailing Romney’s campaign by raising a religious test for presidential eligibility, that will be clarifying: In one particular, America was more enlightened a century ago.
- George Will
MB4 on December 3, 2007 at 1:33 PM
A debate about Romney’s Mormonism is beneficial if we also ask the question about a muslim. I strongly oppose electing as president a person who is a member of faith that seeks the destruction of our basic values.
The situation with Mormonism is a bit different, but we shouldn’t lose sight of Islam when discussing it.
thuja on December 3, 2007 at 1:34 PM
I already did and I am not amused.
MB4 on December 3, 2007 at 1:35 PM
I really doubt that it was a mistake.
MB4 on December 3, 2007 at 1:37 PM
MB4 on December 3, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Then if you are correct and they are the same then the speech will have the same effect. I think you are going to be disappointed.
Spirit of 1776 on December 3, 2007 at 1:39 PM
Here is the South Park episode in question.
Valiant on December 3, 2007 at 1:42 PM
Are any of the other candidates on the record as saying it is OK or not OK for a Mormon to be prez? Do you think it is safest not to touch the issue if you are a competing candidate? Would it help to take the moral high ground and say “Leave Mitt’s religion alone. If you must vote against him, vote against him because of his numerous positions on abortion, his fiscal policy as a governor, his liberalism.”?
factoid on December 3, 2007 at 1:45 PM
The “can of worms” has already been opened up and not by him.
All religions have strange believes. Belief in a invisible massless soul is as strange as you can get.
I will be.
Then in a way, you may have just written the epitaph for the Republican party.
MB4 on December 3, 2007 at 1:45 PM
True, the Mormon episode of South Park will get a good bit of play…sadly people aren’t gonna follow the actual message of that episode. I don’t like Mitt, but I hate that his religion might be what ultimately sinks his campaign.
Bad Candy on December 3, 2007 at 1:46 PM
More times than not I am disappointed.
MB4 on December 3, 2007 at 1:52 PM
spiff on December 3, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Sigh.
And anyone who believes that millions of Americans won’t accept that cartoon’s version – or similar versions offered in the popular media – rather than embark on an in-depth theological exploration … is light-years away from political and objective reality.
Polls show as many as 38% of Americans subscribe to some version of Trutherism on 9/11. One glance at the Popular Mechanics de-bunking should fix that … or even one working brain cell. Yet it doesn’t. And you think the electorate will be debating the intricacies of Mormon mythology?
This was precisely my point. And exactly why Mitt shouldn’t even touch the topic. It is a no-win situation.
If he shows even a hint of the defensiveness you just did, he’ll truly be sunk.
It does Mitt no good to try to address the theological points. None. All it will do is raise questions like mine … and Mitt arguing “No, no … ELEVEN people saw the magic golden tablets” is not going to help.
But even if it could – it’s hard not to notice you skipped over the thornier parts. If questions about the following come up – and they will – how does Mitt spin it?:
Since you cherry-picked my post and only responded to the parts you wanted to take offense to (which I predicted), I’ll repeat: I couldn’t care less what he believes. And objectively, none of the above is any stranger than Protestantism or Catholicism.
But all of the above is a political loser. Guaranteed. And the very worst thing he can do is address it directly. If he’d just say “my faith is not your business,” he’d be far better off.
Of course, it could be worse. He could be an atheist.
Professor Blather on December 3, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Thought you would slip that past me, huh?
I didn’t say they were the same.
MB4 on December 3, 2007 at 1:55 PM
Yup, like Lincoln.
MB4 on December 3, 2007 at 1:59 PM
No, I never comment by sleight of hand. I genuinely interpreted your statement to say that you think the problems are not different. The natural antonym of different is same.
Frum’s point, as I read it, was the Catholic issue was one of authority, here the Mormon issue is one of doctrine. The “speech” will not have the same effect for that reason. Hence their problem is different, couched in whatever terms you like.
Spirit of 1776 on December 3, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Lol, how droll.
Spirit of 1776 on December 3, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Lincoln WAS an atheist. Then he converted.
Perhaps you can follow in his footsteps MB4, there’s plenty of room for you over here.
BKennedy on December 3, 2007 at 2:05 PM
I just gotta know- did ya’ll git brainwashed by the PC Police??
I don’t believe I’ve ever seen such namby-pamby hand-wringing over a political speech in my life. Jeez- Grow up will ya.
“Oh we’re so bigoted!” “How can this be happening???” “oh boo hoo they’re askin’ about religion- that’s sooooo unfair”
What’s the matter with you folks- ya sound like a bunch a liberals!
Ex-tex on December 3, 2007 at 2:07 PM
Which I stated above. Explicitly, if you were paying attention.
But when my strange beliefs are different than the strange beliefs of millions of voters, there will be inevitable problems. Such is life.
No you won’t. No one is. It’s an impossibility.
But even assuming you can be … you aren’t the millions of voters. You certainly aren’t typical of the mass of Republican primary voters.
It always fascinates me that people who should know better still fall for Pauline Kael syndrome. Politics is not personal. What you may believe is irrelevant. What is relevant is how the issues impact those primary voters.
And it is simple reality that those Mormon beliefs I quoted above, if they get airplay, are going to have an impact on traditional Republican voters.
If you doubt that, I can’t help you.
If instead you’re arguing that that impact is a shame … well, that one’s certainly debatable. Again, as I made clear in my first post, I think Mitt may be the best qualified candidate. I’d personally have no problem voting for him in the general.
But I recognize that I personally don’t get to make all the choices. The politics on this one are pretty clear, whatever I may think of it.
Nope. It has exactly nothing to do with the Republican Party.
It’s just human nature. It doesn’t change much.
If it makes you feel better, I don’t know if a Mormon could win the Democrat primary either. At least not without adopting some Maoist philosophies and wearing a Che t-shirt.
If anything, I’ve been kind of pleased with that aspect of this election: a Black, a woman, a Mormon, a Catholic, and a Silky Pony are all in the running. We’ve either achieved real diversity, or the prejudices are canceling each other out.
Professor Blather on December 3, 2007 at 2:09 PM
Huck’s on the rise, at Romney’s expense, because believing Christians love having a spokesman like him getting as much airtime as possible. He’s a champion, a “Christian leader,” who gives the lie to the ugly image of Christians propagated in the mainstream media. If and when he seemed on the verge of actually winning, reality might begin to set in, but his supporters might even settle for a politically flawed spokesperson who spreads the “good news” so ably.
Romney is constitutionally unable to fill these roles. He serves in a pinch as a promoter of family values at least as compared to Giuliani, but his flip-floppery accentuates his incapacities as messenger. In the meantime, the Speech is a defensive maneuver – an attempt to stop the bleeding, with the hope that, once the holidays are over, reality might rear its ugly head, or at least, to mix metaphors further, put up the needle’s eye he needs to crawl through in order win approval.
CK MacLeod on December 3, 2007 at 2:11 PM
Not much of one; he seems to have never met an abortion practice he wouldn’t support.
I’d be upset if my pastor allowed an abortion supporter to speak to the congregation. I’d also be upset if he allowed a Mormon to address us (unless it was to renounce his Mormonism). But I know my pastor would never do something so silly.
Frozen Tex on December 3, 2007 at 2:14 PM
So?
One more time.
MB4 on December 3, 2007 at 2:16 PM
You have to want to understand in order to understand. I cannot help you there.
Spirit of 1776 on December 3, 2007 at 2:18 PM
No one is as “flip-floppery” as Hucksterocchio.
No one.
MB4 on December 3, 2007 at 2:21 PM
From reading this blog, I certainly get the impression that an awful lot of people are convinced that there is a grand conspiracy afoot and that Mitt’s strings are pulled by the hierarchy of the Mormon Church – so in that sense I see a similarity.
I disagree with Frum that a speech is fraught with danger, and I also think think Mitt has no choice but to give a speech. It must include these themes, although it’s going to be difficult for Mitt to top these words:
That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe–a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.
AND
But let me stress again that these are my views–for contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters–and the church does not speak for me.
As for whether or not Mormonism is “strange”, is Mitt a “strange” man or is he perfectly normal? It should be readily apparent that neither his political ideas nor his personal behavior are in the least bit kooky, so no matter what particulars about his religion may seem “strange” they clearly have not affected how he leads his life or decides policy which should make his Mormonism moot – if only people could look at this with an open mind.
Buy Danish on December 3, 2007 at 2:22 PM
My lord!
MB4 on December 3, 2007 at 2:23 PM
Actually, that’s the exact opposite of Allahpundit’s point (and Frum’s point … and my point):
Professor Blather on December 3, 2007 at 2:29 PM
Frum is so anti Mitt he could be running this site.
Labamigo on December 3, 2007 at 2:29 PM
That was some of it, but I think that the main problem is more along the lines of what Freud called “The narcissism of small differences” or what CSDevine calls “Gibotry”.
MB4 on December 3, 2007 at 2:30 PM
For what it’s worth, in my rarely humble opinion once you set aside the rhetoric, this CK MacLeod post from above is almost exactly reflective of how many (most?) of the primary voters feel about Mitt.
Again, I’m not arguing the rights and wrongs of the beliefs. But I think this post sums up the real-world sentiment pretty well:
Professor Blather on December 3, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Exactly.
Professor Blather on December 3, 2007 at 2:33 PM
High-jack alert:
You think this site is anti-Mitt? Or just AP?
Out of curiosity, who do you think they’re supporting here? Is there a clear HotAir bias towards one candidate?
Professor Blather on December 3, 2007 at 2:34 PM
Only the Americans who know anything about them, the rest think polygamy, boys in white shirts and black ties, and of course the Mormon choir in that “strange temple” when they think Mormon.
bnelson44 on December 3, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Allahpundit likes to keep us all
on our toeswondering.MB4 on December 3, 2007 at 2:44 PM
The doctrinal differences between, say, Catholicism and Mormonism are monumental. Most Christians churches, in fact, would not consider LDS as a Christian church because the doctrines are so different. The only think I can find that is similar is not doctrinal but structural: both Catholicism and the LDS church are centrally run.
bnelson44 on December 3, 2007 at 2:44 PM
Heh. If Romney gets the nod, I would walk miles barefoot over broken glass uphill through the snow to vote for him, if the choices are him vs any one of the Democrats running. That said, I do find the Mormon Church a little odd.
I think this speech is a mistake, it can only open him up to specifics about the faith.
Defense Guy on December 3, 2007 at 2:45 PM
Ron Paul
bnelson44 on December 3, 2007 at 2:45 PM
People tend to vote for someone they identify with.
bnelson44 on December 3, 2007 at 2:49 PM
The doctrinal differences between, say, Sunni and Shiite are monumental.
I still think that Freud had it pretty well pegged.
Maybe CSDevin too.
MB4 on December 3, 2007 at 2:50 PM
God help us all.
(could not resist)
MB4 on December 3, 2007 at 2:51 PM
The major bias I have seen here is an anti-Huckabee bias, which is entirely appropriate as HotAir does take a firm stance on immigration politics. There was also a mild pro-Fred bias for a while, but it didn’t get out of hand. Perhaps avoiding even that in 2012 would be good, but still the overall concern always seems to be to make sure that the Republicans know who they are voting for.
Let me say good job, Bryan and AP, in covering this primary.
thuja on December 3, 2007 at 3:03 PM
No, the differences are sectarian. Sunni and Shiites believe in the same basic tenants, but differ in authority and exegesis. Mormonism is a completely different faith than Christianity, from the concept of the Godhead(s) through scripture, moral doctrine, church structure and liturgy.
bnelson44 on December 3, 2007 at 3:05 PM
That pretty well sums up what the founding fathers thought.
bnelson44 on December 3, 2007 at 3:06 PM
“Does Mitt believe in Santa”
That’s nice AP.
Free Constitution on December 3, 2007 at 3:07 PM
Yeah, I can honestly say I don’t know what the biases are here. And that’s a pretty good compliment.
I have some suspicions. I could probably tell you who AP and Bryan are *not* voting for. But I wouldn’t want to bet a lot of money that I could guess who they *are* supporting.
Except that they hate Christians. And Fred Thompson’s wife. At least I picked that much.
Professor Blather on December 3, 2007 at 3:08 PM
That last line was sarcasm.
If you didn’t already know that, please report to the nearest re-education camp. It’s at your local Wal-Mart.
Professor Blather on December 3, 2007 at 3:11 PM
I’m not sure I understand your point :-) I realize that what I said is not Allah’s point, or your point, or Frum’s point. It is my point, which is that there are a lot of people who think Mitt is controlled by the Mormon Church hierarchy.
I don’t think Mitt does have to answer questions about religious doctrine because, as JFK stated, those are “private” beliefs and he should be able to make a strong argument to those ends.
The people who are hard core social cons and the conspiracy theorists who won’t vote for Romney probably are not going to have their minds changed, but there are people who aren’t necessarily making decisions based on their own religion who just think Mormons are weird, and I think a speech could clear up some of those misconceptions.
On balance think that giving a speech is a better option than ignoring the problem and hoping it will go away. I also think it would help to remind people that his father was the Governor of Michigan, along with his own bio. Did Mormons take over or did the church exert influence over political decisions? Nope. Does Mitt hold ideas which are contrary to the principles of this Republic? Au contraire.
Buy Danish on December 3, 2007 at 3:30 PM
Oh yah, that the other are infidel dogs.
My observations, and Freud’s, and CSDevin’s pretty much, still stand.
In fact they are just being reinforced.
MB4 on December 3, 2007 at 3:34 PM
You’re welcome on not letting Fredmania get out of hand, CSDeven did a lot of work too, but my suspicion is he got canned after his remarks in the Jeri on Fox News thread.
Also seconding HA’s brilliant primary coverage.
BKennedy on December 3, 2007 at 3:36 PM
You could say that about the thoughts between Protestants and Catholics not so long ago (or Baptists and Calvinists). Still an objective observer would have seen them as both Christian sects.
bnelson44 on December 3, 2007 at 3:38 PM
I think that the Catholic Church pretty much regarded Martin Luther as a heretic.
MB4 on December 3, 2007 at 3:47 PM
What makes a christian a christian?
elBarto on December 3, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Is it the belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the saviour of mankind? That through his sacrifice we can be saved?
elBarto on December 3, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Yes, but a heretic is not an infidel.
Normally the definition of a Christian is that they believe that Jesus Christ is God and He came to earth to save you.
It is my understanding that the LDS believe Jesus Christ is a god (one of many), not the one God. They believe Jesus was the first of God the Father’s procreated spirit sons and as having attained the status of a God. In other words they don’t believe in the Trinity. They believe Jesus Christ is an example of what you can become (a god), and that humans are of the same species as God. Mormons believe in “a different God,” in Jesus as “one of (at least) several gods.” Mormons pray to God in Jesus’ name, not to Jesus. However they believe you go through Jesus go find redemption. It is a completely different concept as how Christians think of Jesus.
bnelson44 on December 3, 2007 at 4:07 PM
They believe Jesus is one of God’s procreated sons. They believe God had other sons.
bnelson44 on December 3, 2007 at 4:08 PM
Romney faces a very different problem [than JFK] – not really. Frum doesn’t realize how Catholics were hated by some Protestant groups (think Bob Jones). However, there were a lot more Catholics then than Mormons today.
It is also hard to defend some of the major flip flops on the issues, like polygamy or blacks.
I really don’t care whether Romney is a Mormon. I think, how will Romney’s belief in a made up after story about Christ coming to America change his actions as President? I believed in the Easter bunny as a kid. Did it ruin me? I believed the Republicans would be fiscially responsible if they had the House, Senate, and Presidency.
Honesty, I’d rather have a Mormon, than an atheist or agnostic posing as a Christian.
chris00nj on December 3, 2007 at 4:20 PM
From Goldberg at the corner (I think he hits the nail on the head here):
Follow the link for some examples. The discussions here seem to follow a similar frame of reference.
bnelson44 on December 3, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Romney’s Mormonism may or may not be viewed as “wierd” by the general non-Christian population, vis a vis Chrisitanity. But the real problem he has with Evangelicals, or will have as he draws more attention to it, is that in those (my) circles, Joseph Smith is a false prophet, not just a weirdo. Phrase the issue more like “Hey, I’m running for president, and I follow the antichrist” and you’ll be closer to the point.
I say this since so many are quibbling over degrees of “weirdness.” It’s not that at all. Christians are already down with the supernatural, so we’re not sitting back scoffing at the details of Smith’s account. I, personally, suspect he really did have the experiences he says he did. I just don’t think he was talking to God.
This is the nature of the issue when Christians consider voting for Romney. It’s not just little theological quibbles.
TexasDan on December 3, 2007 at 5:15 PM
That is the point Goldberg’s correspondents made. Many Christians don’t want LDS to have free advertising and are afraid a Mormon president would provide that.
I don’t think Mitt can stop that frame of thought with a speech.
bnelson44 on December 3, 2007 at 5:25 PM
Quite. I don’t see how it can be anything but gas on the fire.
TexasDan on December 3, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Exactly.
This is the reality.
And my point in this thread is that Mitt supporters better figure out how to deal with that reality. They seem to want to argue theology … or label people as “bigots” because their religious beliefs may be diametrically opposed to Romney’s.
Which, if you think about it, is pretty hypocritical. What Romney believes is, in fact, actually anathema to evangelical Christianity. That’s just reality.
Seems to me they have four choices: 1) Get the topic off religion and keep it off, or 2) find a way to convince the evangelicals that their understanding of Mormonism isn’t correct, 3) convince people that his beliefs aren’t related to how he’ll run the presidency, or 4) somehow get the message across that his Mormonism ain’t really all that devout (wink, wink).
Of course, they all have problems.
Option one might have been possible in 1960. With the talking heads and the blogosphere, I don’t know if you can pull it off these days. I would love to see him tell people to mind their business in regards to religion. I wish everybody would. I don’t care if he believes in Lord Xenu, as long as he could do a good job.
Which leads to option three. Convince me his beliefs won’t matter. But that’s tough, too. For believers, its central to their lives. See, for example, Huckabee’s comments (troubling, to me) about Jesus being his only constituent.
How do you convince me that your religious faith is a virtue … but it doesn’t matter enough to impact your presidency? I guess the answer is – show me that it won’t be a NEGATIVE impact. Teach me something about Mormonism that will make you a good President.
Option four is a loser. In theory, I like it. I know plenty of people who go to church every Sunday, who call themselves Catholics or Presbyterians … but it doesn’t seem that externally important to them. They don’t bring it up every five words (see, again, Huckabee). But the problem with this option is you can alienate everybody. It’s sort of fence-sitting. Are you religious or not? Pick one, and take the lumps.
But option two is the worst. Argue the theology.
And that’s what some Mitt’s-mutts are doing here, and I sure hope it isn’t what he’s planning in his speech.
I like the guy. He’s got great hair. Always a plus.
But if he doesn’t figure out which option to choose to either get religion out of the picture or at least make it a net neutral – he is done.
As long as we keep yakking about Mormonism, he’s losing. Guaranteed.
When more people know about his Olympic work, for example, than his religion – he might have a shot.
Professor Blather on December 3, 2007 at 5:33 PM
There is one other option, Prof., which is for Mitt to speak as one believer to fellow believers, all of them equally anathematized by, arguably under attack from, secular society. It’s akin to Rudy’s strategy of deflecting concerns about his supposed liberalism by attacking Hillary. Mormonism may seem weird to Christians, but “being down with the supernatural” as TexasDan put it above is already a non-starter with atheists and many other secularists.
The Hugh Hewitt strategy has always been to warn evangelicals and other religious people that if you say nothing when Mormons get disqualified, you better be prepared to shut up when “they” come after anyone whose beliefs can be painted at outside the mainstream: Eventually, as in much of Europe today, that could mean anyone who actually believes in the doctrines of his or her church, not just its mystical notions and symbols, but also and especially its social teachings.
There are down sides to this approach, too, but it fits well within the American tradition. I personally don’t know anyone who wants to start a religious civil war. Even the most aggressive atheists I know are content with a bit of ridicule and self-superiority.
CK MacLeod on December 3, 2007 at 6:07 PM
Professor Blather: Your 4 options are right. The point is, I don’t want to argue point 2; but there’s several thousand professional anti-mormons who insist on bringing it up. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but it’s not the LDS people here who bring up doctrine–most of the doctrinal points are brought up by people out to attack it. Just in this thread I’ve noticed another example of the “Here’s what The LDS church believes; which I got from my friendly anti-mormon site.” I’d love nothing more than to not have to defend my faith. But the truth is there’s people here out to define us as something we are not.
It’s funny, really. I think it’s clear the LDS church prepares it’s members for leadership more than just about any other religion. We are also the only faith with recent practical experience running a government, albeit in the 1800’s. I think option 3 therefore is possible. Note, too, that no one can explain how LDS teachings would be bad for the country. Romney’s not going to go for option 4.
The truth is simple: Evangelical preachers have been teaching that Mormons are satanic for so long that that is what is driving this opposition.
I do not worship fables or cunningly devised plots. Yes, our faith is different than what most people are used to, but “by their fruits ye shall know them.” Can anyone identify a bad fruit from LDS teachings? I cannot force people to believe I’m not worshipping Satan or those doctrines, yet I testify that I am not. I can’t do much more than that. If you have questions, I can but try to answer them.
Everything we teach focuses on the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. It may not be what people are used to hearing (and the professional anti-mormons try to fling mud), yet we preach repentance, faith on the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, baptism by immersion, and enduring to the end as a disciple of Christ. People acknowledge that Mormons are universally regarded as good people. How, then, could we be bad?
We have extraordinary claims, yes. Yet the church grows and thrives (which I think is the root fear of the Evangelicals–they fear that the LDS church will continue to grow). Why does the church grow? We don’t convert people by the sword. It’s because people are finding what they think is the truth, and getting a witness from the Lord.
We don’t attack Christianity. We say, “take what is good and right and true and come add to it.” There is nothing to fear from the LDS church. There really isn’t. And it would be a shame to have this religious fear on the part of Evangelicals elect Hillary.
Vanceone on December 3, 2007 at 6:21 PM
I’m embarassed to be registered as a Republican if we are going to engange in theological litmus tests.
Resolute on December 3, 2007 at 6:26 PM
If the issue with Mitt centers upon the LDS being competition for Christianity and taking adherents from Christianity, and I think it is, then Mitt is sunk as far as a lot of devout Christians are concerned. Those who are not Christian or not that devout probably see it as a non-issue.
bnelson44 on December 3, 2007 at 6:31 PM
To answer Allah’s question, “What good will it do?” Well according to the Bible the Christian God is a jealous God and doesn’t want any false gods around and wouldn’t want any free advertising to a faith that promoted false gods.
bnelson44 on December 3, 2007 at 6:33 PM
Lincoln’s first inaugural address:
We’re speaking of the Presidency on this thread. At no moment of his presidency (cf. “first inaugural address”) was Lincoln an atheist. (I don’t know that he ever was, but guess I have to take your word–nevertheless, he was a believer by the time he took office.)
inviolet on December 3, 2007 at 6:48 PM
I think the devout would have less of an issue with an atheist. At least he isn’t competition.
bnelson44 on December 3, 2007 at 6:50 PM
I could make a sign reading “The Church of Jesus Christ of Mid-day Nappers” and slap it up on a barn by the interstate, but that doesn’t make it a Christian church with verifiable historic roots that go back through geography and time to the biblical middle east.
silverfox on December 3, 2007 at 6:51 PM
That’s not the issue. The issue is that you are seen as competition to Christianity (and in a way you are) and the devout don’t want to provide free publicity to the competition. It is really that simple. If you didn’t have such a long history and were not presently out in force evangelizing Christians it wouldn’t be such a big deal.
bnelson44 on December 3, 2007 at 7:32 PM
Only if you enjoy spiked koolaide.
Amerindians are Jewish. check
People live on the sun. check
People who dress like Quakers live on the moon. check
The Christian religion is an abomination to God. check
Jesus is Satan’s brother. check
Jesus had three wives. check
Now what’s not plausible about that? Nothing to see here people, move along.
Mojave Mark on December 3, 2007 at 7:51 PM
Are you trying to get me in trouble by “forcing” me do do more quoting again?
The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession.
- Abraham Lincoln
Mr. Lincoln was entirely deficient in what the phrenologists call reverence. I was once in Mr. Lincoln’s company when a sectarian controversy arose. He himself looked very grave, and made no observation until all the others had finished what they had to say. Then with a twinkle of the eye he remarked that he preferred the Episcopalians to every other sect, because they are equally indifferent to a man’s religion and his politics.”
- Maunsell B Field
In religion, Mr. Lincoln was about of the same opinion as Bob Ingersoll, and there is no account of his ever having changed. He went to church a few times with his family while he was President, but so far as I have been able to find out, he remained an unbeliever. Mr. Lincoln in his younger days wrote a book, in which he endeavored to prove the fallacy of the plan of salvation and the divinity of Christ.
- James M Nelson
While it may be fairly said that Mr. Lincoln entertained many Christian sentiments, it cannot be said that he was himself a Christian in faith or practice. He was no disciple of Jesus of Nazareth. He did not believe in his divinity and was not a member of his Church.
“He was at first a writing Infidel of the school of Paine and Volney, and afterwards a talking Infidel of the school of Parker and Channing.
“If the Churches had grown cold — if the Christians had taken a stand aloof — that instant the Union would have perished. Mr. Lincoln regulated his religious manifestations accordingly. He declared frequently that he would do anything to save the Union, and among the many things he
did was the partial concealment of his individual religious opinions. Is this a blot upon his fame? Or shall we all agree that it was a conscientious and patriotic sacrifice?”
- The New York World (1875)
MB4 on December 3, 2007 at 7:53 PM
All due respect, but I regret to point out that you’re apparently so eager to make some point that you didn’t hear what I said. Didn’t say Lincoln was a Christian (nor did I say he wasn’t–I don’t know either way–and ’scuse me if your quotes above aren’t that convincing when I put them next to what I’ve seen of Lincoln’s own words.
I said he was not an atheist while President. You’re arguing above that all his references to a personal divine being {One Who takes interest in human affairs, BTW) were simply lies to achieve another end. Why would he do that in situations where the references would be superfluous politically (as in the quote above–he’d WON) or not strictly “necessary” to his point?
Honest Abe, a teller of many lies, and superfluous ones at that? Will surely apologize if I’m wrong but it seems quiiittte the stretch to me.
Anyone else have input on this disagreement?
And to get to the root question: what was the point of your bringing Lincoln up again in this thread, in the first place? To claim that “we had an atheist President,” or something else? Just curious.
inviolet on December 3, 2007 at 8:23 PM
I’m pretty sure Lincoln was a Theist, he seems to have believed in a personal God. But didn’t belong to a church.
What does this have to do with the thread?
bnelson44 on December 3, 2007 at 8:25 PM
Yeah, I was wondering why MB4 brought it up too.
See
This isn’t the first thread on which that claim has been made by MB4 and I was wondering why he keeps bringing it up.
inviolet on December 3, 2007 at 8:32 PM
If you want to know what Lincoln believed, just read some of his own words. Lincoln was not an atheist. He did, however, struggle his whole life with the question of whether an afterlife existed (and thus the idea of salvation). Secondary sources can be spun to create a multitude of realities to fit the author’s whim.
If you are not particularly familar with Lincoln, I would merely note that the presence of death was often and early in his life so he spent much time pondering the condition of human existence and to understand man and his meaning he enjoyed most the Bible and Shakespeare – MacBeth most of all. I would also point out that he had a tremendous and very cutting sense of humor, so many of his comments are in that vein, as is clearly seen when read in context.
I don’t mean to get into either atheism or a history lesson here, but revisionism bugs me – just like the relatively recent assertions that Lincoln was homosexual. I prefer the facts to stand.
Spirit of 1776 on December 3, 2007 at 8:45 PM
Tactical error in Mitt’s march to the WH? Governor of liberal MA. True experience. But he has to run from it in more cases than he can point to it.
Where are the people of MA to stand up and support their former governor? Mitt’s disavowed them?
Where is the Morman church to support it’s son? Has to be silent.
There’s nobody but Mitt to sing Mitt’s song.
JiangxiDad on December 3, 2007 at 8:52 PM
It is quite clear that there is a minute grouping of you all that are more interested in slandering this man’s beliefs and reputation than you are in following/participating in the debate and discourse that will allow us to select out next Commander-in-Chief.
Your cheesy cheap shots reflect more poorly on you than they have any impact at swaying this audience.
paulsur on December 3, 2007 at 8:52 PM
Thanks for the thoughtful post. Have read many of his speeches and some letters but I need to read more I’m sure. And I will. Lincoln’s a very interesting (and great) president. Google certainly testifies though that there’s lots of controversy re: these and other issues surrounding Lincoln.
Agree about his sense of humor BTW, wicked (in the good sense). Don’t know much about his spiritual ponderings but look forward to learning. Thanks.
Me too.
inviolet on December 3, 2007 at 8:54 PM
I’m glad to be of service. I think revisionism is from from thesis work. Everyone has to come up with a ‘new’ point of view, so it’s soil constantly turned over and new ideas added by necessity for ’scholarship’. If I needed to, I could sit down right now and write an essay “proving” Jefferson was an atheist and then turn around an write another “proving” he was not. Ah well.
Spirit of 1776 on December 3, 2007 at 9:02 PM
Mitt chose MA and not SC for his run at Governor for a reason.
JiangxiDad on December 3, 2007 at 9:06 PM
I think B HUSSEIN Obama is a Muslim. I think he’s hiding it until/if he’s elected to higher office just like “Keith Ellison” did. Flame me and call me stupid if you want, it’s just something I honestly believe. Just like I knew W would win ‘00 and ‘04. I just knew…
Romney is the most “presidential”. Too bad about the Mormon thing. It very well may keep him out of the White House.
PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on December 3, 2007 at 9:26 PM
Romney Takes the NPR Religious Test
If this is what Mitt does on Thursday, IMHO, he’s sunk.
bnelson44 on December 3, 2007 at 10:32 PM
Would a beliver ever sound like an atheist?
I really doubt it.
Would an atheist ever sound like a believer?
Of course.
Oh, that [his Thanksgiving Message] is some of Seward’s nonsense, and it pleases the fools.
- Abraham Lincoln, to Judge James M Nelson, in response to a question from Nelson: “I once asked him about his fervent Thanksgiving Message and twitted him with being an unbeliever in what was published.” Quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, p. 138
MB4 on December 3, 2007 at 11:03 PM
Anyone who’d vote for a big-state guy like Huckabee over a center-right guy like Romney just because the big-state guy goes to the same kind of church…is not a conservative.
My order of preference?
Thompson
Romney
McCain
Giuliani
Biden
Clinton
Kucinich (for fun)
Obama
Huckabee
Edwards
The Huckster beats the Pony, but that’s not sayin’ much.
Tzetzes on December 3, 2007 at 11:25 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »