Yesterday, at the end of Mitt Romney’s speech, he told a story from the early days of the First Continental Congress, whose members were meeting in Philadelphia in 1774: “With Boston occupied by British troops . . . and fears of an impending war . . . someone suggested they pray.” But because of the variety of religious denominations represented, there were objections. “Then Sam Adams rose and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.”
Were Adams alive today, he most certainly would hear a prayer from a Mormon. It is hard to imagine a group more patriotic than the modern Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But there is reason to believe that voters in Iowa and elsewhere will not accept Mr. Romney’s invitation–put forward implicitly in his remarks yesterday at the George Bush Library–to ignore religious differences and embrace him simply as a man of character who loves his country.
A recent Pew poll shows that only 53% of Americans have a favorable opinion of Mormons. That’s roughly the same percentage who feel that way toward Muslims. By contrast, more than three-quarters of Americans have a favorable opinion of Jews and Catholics. Whatever the validity of such judgments, one has to wonder: Why does a faith professed by the 9/11 hijackers rank alongside that of a peaceful, productive, highly educated religious group founded within our own borders?
It’s certainly hard to argue with the clean-cut, hardworking, pleasant imagery, and the author of the above piece seems to be arguing that it would be just fine for us to elect a practicing Mormon…if fact she seems to imply, that we might be downright intolerant and even unpatriotic if we wouldn’t. Mormons seem to major in the clean, hardworking image. I have wondered if they are deliberately behaving in the way Paul seemd to urge the early churches. That is, give no offense; Be winsome; Be so attractive that people are drawn. Just a thought. I have to admit also that Romney’s speech left me wondering if there is anything in Mormon theology, as distinguished from credal Christianity, which would color how he would do business as President.
[blockquote]Why does a faith professed by the 9/11 hijackers rank alongside that of a peaceful, productive, highly educated religious group founded within our own borders?[/blockquote]
That’s an easy one: Because the media can’t, or won’t, shut up about so-called “questions” about Mormonism. Mind you, they never come out and say what those questions are, or how a Mormon might respond differently to them. The bony finger of accusation is in the constant raising of the question…after all, if everything were copacetic, no one would be questioning Romney’s Mormonism, right?
Jeffersonian, I disagree. We have every right to question the candidacy of a man who is from a long line of cultists. And that’s what it is — a cult which has its own dogmas, and restricts its adherents’ close social connections to other members. For an active Mormon to leave the LDS is very, very difficult because one suddenly has lost one’s main social connections. For a life-long Mormon to leave his/her practicing LDS family (say, to become a Christian) is terrible, because one will be shunned by one’s relatives. I’ve seen it happen more than once, and so have many who read this blog. It’s a weird cult, period.
Of course, I cheerfully question Mr. Romney’s candidacy on other lines, e.g., continuous flip-flops, plus his business career. The man was one of those investment firm types who bought companies, scooped up any capital in the firm, and fired the employees. He made millions this way. I think he is the very epitome of a successful Mormon: he was born wealthy, has worked hard, and followed the strange ‘ordinances’. I’m sure he is looking forward to someday being a god in his own little world. That is the reward promised to male Mormons who follow the rules of the church.
I would rather have someone with a less insular outlook as President. My worry about Mr. Romney is not only his stand on important issues (which he has conveniently changed when it suited him), but also that he is basically someone who is so convinced he is correct that he will not give other viewpoints proper credit (especially if the church headquarters in Salt Lake are involved).
Also, the Mormon Church’s tentacles in the business, media, and energy worlds are already very deep. Often, they are held under other names, so that it takes a lot of digging to uncover what’s really going on and who is really profiting. Their books are anything but open! Check out TIME magazine’s cover article of a few years back, if you haven’t read it already.
Despite yesterday’s speech, many Americans remain deeply concerned with Mr. Romney’s candidacy for the most powerful office on the face of the earth.
I’ll admit to knowing very little of Mormonism, but outwardly they appear to be solid, sober and faithful souls. They certainly have a rock-solid work, family and community ethic. If there are odd-ball practices, they certainly do not work to the detriment of society.
Like you, my doubts about Romney have to do with his rather fluid stance on important policy positions.
Well,
We’ve had at least two Quaker* presidents, one of whom resigned in his second term rather than put the nation through an impeachment process,
at least one Unitarian
a number of diests, one of whom, Thomas Jefferson, had strong leanings towards the Unitarians,
I have no love for Mormon doctrine, but he wouldn’t be the first non-Christian president, now, would he?
*Many Quakers do consider themselves Christians, others do not, rather they follow the teachings of Jesus but not Jesus Himself, according to the internet.
While wishing to offer no specific opinion about the suitability of Mr. Romney as president, I would have thought that the answer to the question:
[blockquote] Why does a faith professed by the 9/11 hijackers rank alongside that of a peaceful, productive, highly educated religious group founded within our own borders?
[/blockquote]
would be pretty obvious to anyone who is familiar with the stories surrounding the creation of these religions and the content of their holy books. As part of an exercise to understand these issues more, I have recently been reading the Quran (in translation), and it’s hard NOT to see the parallels.
Yes, I see the parallels too. I don’t, personally, see much difference between Joseph Smith and Muhammad, except that the latter was a successful warlord, while Smith was surprised to be dying in jail as the result of mob action. The difference is the Mormon doctrine about continuing revelation. Things that are not acceptable to the American mainstream — plural marriage, racial discrimination — get changed by revelation. So in that sense, despite the weird theology and soteriology, the LDS has compromised towards American standards, rather than the other way around. Islam, on the other hand, is an unchangeable system, encompassing religious practice, social standards, and civil law, which is not allowed to deviate from its medieval origins.
As I said in another blog: There is no requirement in the Constitution of the US that demands a candidate be a bonafide Christiab. However there is one statement that keeps the National Government from establishment of a National church. Nuff said!!