A Few Reflections By a Mormon on a Mormon Candidate
NRO has now posted Kevin Williamson’s excellent cover story from its most recent issue of the magazine entitled “An American Gospel.” As an active, mainstream Mormon, I recommend it. While it doesn’t address all the potential issues that arise in people’s minds about my faith, I think it addresses most of those that are likely to be relevant to Americans who are deciding whether they can support a Mormon candidate for president. I think Mr. Williamson’s answer to that question is “yes.”
Let me add a few additional thoughts. First, the argument that Mitt Romney would be the pawn of mysterious Church leaders in Salt Lake City is laughable. A few facts are worth considering. The Church does not support candidates and has a strict policy that politics are banned from its meetings. In sixty years, I have never heard a sermon by a member or a church official in a church meeting that turned into a campaign speech (compare this to hyper-political sermons of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright). If you want a dose of politics served with your religion, the Mormon Church is the wrong one for you.
Church members are encouraged to take part in the political process, but are never directed to one candidate over another. The Church, on very rare occasions, involves itself in specific issues of a moral nature, the best example of which was its call for support of Proposition 8 in California. The Church has also taken public positions in the past on gambling and a few other issues. These forays into the political world are notable for their rarity.
One particular issue is also worth a few words. Mr. Williamson cites Tricia Erickson, in his words “a Mormon apostate and professional opponent of all things Latter-day Saintly.” Her fundamental argument is that Mitt’s Mormonism is a disqualifying factor for a presidential candidate (I think she advances the old "he'll be the pawn of sinister forces" argument).
Until I read the NR article, I had never heard of Tricia Erickson, and I suspect that the vast majority of my co-religionists have never heard of her either. Nonetheless, in my six decades, I have seen several professional Mormon apostates come and go (Ed Decker is cited in the article—suffice it to say that his work has been thoroughly debunked). Any religion with a set of strong defining doctrines has this kind of critic, including former Catholics and Jews. (Is there a more rabid hater of Israel than a Jewish anti-Zionist?).
I can attest that mainstream Mormons, the kind who spend their time raising their families, working, and finding solace and peace in the Church, pay little attention to the Tricia Ericksons of the world. We find their wild conspiracy theories laughable and at odds with our day-to-day experience in the Church. We find strength in the culture, the feeling of belonging, and in the theology. Tricia Erickson and her ilk are far from our thoughts.
But, since Romney is the likely candidate, you’re going to be hearing a lot more from the Lawrence O’Donnell’s of the world. All I can ask is that you compare the wildness of the allegations to your own real-world experience with Mormon friends, neighbors, and co-workers (while giving us the courtesy of recognizing that none of us is perfect). After all, one great truth taught by Christ is that “by their fruits ye shall know them.” I believe most American Mormons are more than happy to let themselves and their Church be judged by what we do and what we are: loyal Americans who care about their country and its future.
So, as you are confronted with a few loud former Mormons, just remember the definition of a fanatic: the person who will neither change the subject nor his mind.*
I would also suggest the words of two other men. The first is the late Elder Neal A. Maxwell, formerly a member of the Church’s Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and formerly an American fighting man on Okinawa. When Hugh Hewitt created his excellent PBS series Searching for God in America, it was Elder Maxwell that he interviewed (and whose interview is in the book that Hewitt wrote to accompany the series). I am one of many Mormons who continues to look to Elder Maxwell as a source of wisdom and sweetness of spirit. In 1996, he wrote these words about the “former Mormon” critics of the Church:
“They criticize the use of Church resources to which they no longer contribute. They condescendingly seek to counsel the Brethren whom they no longer sustain. Confrontive, except of themselves, of course, they leave the Church but cannot leave the Church alone . . . .” [Neal A. Maxwell, 1996]
Roger Scruton, the great English conservative and regular contributor to the American Spectator, made this observation in his memoir Gentle Regrets: “[S]acred things are intolerable to those who no longer believe in them.”
Please don’t take this the wrong way. I make no claim that Mitt Romney’s candidacy is sacred. All I would ask is that you judge him, for good or ill, on his vision for America and the specific policies that he espouses.
*[Update: On further reading, I feel a need to clarify. There is a huge difference between a professional former Mormon like Tricia Erickson (whose raison d'etre is pouring scorn on their former religion) and people like Marco Rubio and family, who were once Mormons but for reasons of their own returned to the Catholic faith. The difference, of course, is obvious: people can convert from one religion to another without hating and speaking out against their former religion. If a person finds greater solace in another religion, so be it and I wish them Godspeed].
- Comment (38)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: A Few Reflections By a Mormon on a Mormon Candidate
Bill Waldron
Leporello
It's simply human nature to gravitate toward the candidate who is more personally similar to oneself.
All other things being relatively equal, probably correct. But religious denomination isn't necessarily the most important variable there. I mean, I'm a Catholic but wouldn't vote for a Kennedy or Pelosi on that basis. Ultimately we are all demographic groups of size one. · 28 minutes ago
Likewise, I wouldn't vote for Reid at the point of gun.
Dec '11
Re: A Few Reflections By a Mormon on a Mormon Candidate
Mitt's not just "a" Mormon.
No indeed.
He's the son of the chairman and president of American Motors (1954-1962), the popular 43rd governor of Michigan (1963-1969) and GOP primary candidate for the presidency, and a cabinet secretary (1969-1973). The accomplishments of his father were achieved in an historically "red" state and during an era in which there existed serious concern at the prospect of electing a Catholic president.
Fast forward to 2012... What's the fuss?
Edited on April 10, 2012 at 1:42amJan '12
Re: A Few Reflections By a Mormon on a Mormon Candidate
I'd rather that Romney, with respect both to his politics and to his passions, were more like Orson Scott Card, but the only relevant issue from now through November is that he is not Barak Hussein Obama.
Sep '11
Re: A Few Reflections By a Mormon on a Mormon Candidate
As a non-Mormon, if one wants an excellent general introduction to the LDS from an outside perspective, I would recommend Mormon America: The Power and the Promise by Richard and Joan Ostling. It is neither an apologia nor an anti-Mormon polemic; rather, it is a fair-minded, thorough look at Mormon history, organization, culture, theology and future.
As we are likely to get inundated with speculation & conjecture about Mormonism in the next 7 months, Mormon America would be a useful corrective to the usual ignorance of the mainstream media.
Jun '10
Re: A Few Reflections By a Mormon on a Mormon Candidate
Card is more than a novelist. He's also a very thoughtful man.
May '10
Re: A Few Reflections By a Mormon on a Mormon Candidate
TR, E, and Leporello, I certainly didn't/don't intend any offense, but TR's original post, and all three responses are a precise illustration of what I meant. TR's response: he's a typical Mormon. E: It's different because Obama was a Black man but Mitt's acted like a Mormon. Leporello: It's true but it's okay because everyone does it.
Well, maybe (no, probably) I'm an oddball because I don't care about identity politics, I care about ideas. I voted against Obama, not because I'm White and so was McCain. I voted against him because his ideas are screwy and wrong.
I just note that none of you responded: You should vote for Mitt because his economic point #37 will provide a vital pivot point for turning around our nation. (Do you even know what point #37 is? I don't. That's why I oppose Mitt at this stage. He is not a leader, he's a green-eye-shade manager.)
Mormons will vote for him because he's Mormon. I understand. But that is a lousy reason to elect a political leader. Give us good ones.
Feb '12
Re: A Few Reflections By a Mormon on a Mormon Candidate
Tom:
My statement was descriptive (of how some voters make their decisions), not prescriptive (of how they should make their decisions). Nor did I say "everyone" does it.
My point was simply this: you shouldn't be so terribly surprised that some Mormons support Romney primarily because he is one of them. My point was not that you shouldn't prefer ideas to identity. There I agree with you. But it's not news that something that has always happened in every election is happening again in this election. In 2000, evangelicals went for Bush. In 2012, Mormons are going for Romney.
In fact, in 1992, draft-dodgers likely voted Clinton because he was their guy, and in 2004, French-speaking windsurfers probably went overwhelmingly for Kerry for the same reason.
Y'seewhatimean?
Feb '12
Re: A Few Reflections By a Mormon on a Mormon Candidate
Bill Waldron
Leporello
It's simply human nature to gravitate toward the candidate who is more personally similar to oneself.
All other things being relatively equal, probably correct. But religious denomination isn't necessarily the most important variable there. I mean, I'm a Catholic but wouldn't vote for a Kennedy or Pelosi on that basis. Ultimately we are all demographic groups of size one. · 3 hours ago
Oh of course. I don't myself vote on the basis of identity (or I would have voted Gore/Lieberman in 2000 because of the VP pick), nor do I think that a majority of voters make their decisions primarily on the basis of identity.
Oct '10
Re: A Few Reflections By a Mormon on a Mormon Candidate
Mitt Romney is a person I might have to vote for reluctantly. but Mormonism does not, even remotely, enter into the picture.
Matthew 18:13, "And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."
I am an Evangelical, Pentecostal Christian. I have many doctrinal differences with Mormonism. But Jesus tells me that I must come to Him like a little child. I cannot imagine a 5 year old child examining your theology to determine your worthiness as a disciple.
God will sort through the mess in His own way. Meanwhile, like any child, I accept you as an equal, and we can have a beer to work out our temporal differences and learn the truth from the Master Himself one day.
Apr '11
Re: A Few Reflections By a Mormon on a Mormon Candidate
Tom Lindholtz: Well, maybe (no, probably) I'm an oddball because I don't care about identity politics, I care about ideas. I voted against Obama, not because I'm White and so was McCain. I voted against him because his ideas are screwy and wrong.
I just note that none of you responded: You should vote for Mitt because his economic point #37 will provide a vital pivot point for turning around our nation. (Do you even know what point #37 is? I don't. That's why I oppose Mitt at this stage. He is not a leader, he's a green-eye-shade manager.)
If you care about ideas, rather than slogans, why do you dismiss Romney's platform as overly detailed? If you want to cut budgets, it turns out that a Reaganesque "grasp of the first principles" and great speeches are pretty worthless. The people who give those speeches grow government. People who actually cut government are treated with contempt (see, eg., the greatest cutter, Harding). Treating Reagan as a small government conservative is identity politics, too.
We were discussing his identity politics, and kept on topic. If you want a non-identity politics reason....
Apr '11
Re: A Few Reflections By a Mormon on a Mormon Candidate
Cutting spending is necessary. The CBO projects the government to shut down in 2027, sooner if there is an additional crisis of some kind. If this happens as a sudden bankruptcy, people will die and America will be harmed in an unprecedented and irreparable way.
Cutting spending is hard. Cutting foolishly, like inexpert tax hikes, can decrease the tax base by more than the gain; other forms of suboptimal cuts can produce unnecessary misery; cutting the fixed incomes of those unable to learn more, for instance, or exposing future crime victims to horror. There are a lot of details, and powerful interest groups to fight over all of them.
Cutting spending requires willpower: Reagan, Bush 43, Gingrich, and Obama all regularly promised to do so, but never delivered.
Romney has as much experience as anyone in the world at identifying cuts that would promote rather than destroy health, whether running businesses, the Olympics, or Massachusetts. He's successfully cut even when facing veto proof majorities against him. It is his passion, and his genius, and his time is now.
Amongst the most foolish of cuts, for instance, is defense. Romney, uniquely, would invest more, restoring America's naval domination.
Apr '11
Re: A Few Reflections By a Mormon on a Mormon Candidate
Leporello
Bill Waldron
Leporello
It's simply human nature to gravitate toward the candidate who is more personally similar to oneself.
All other things being relatively equal, probably correct. But religious denomination isn't necessarily the most important variable there. I mean, I'm a Catholic but wouldn't vote for a Kennedy or Pelosi on that basis. Ultimately we are all demographic groups of size one. · 3 hours ago
Oh of course. I don't myself vote on the basis of identity (or I would have voted Gore/Lieberman in 2000 because of the VP pick), nor do I think that a majority of voters make their decisions primarily on the basis of identity. · 9 hours ago
It should be obvious that the 2% of Americans who are Mormon, most of whom are concentrated in states that haven't voted yet, do not constitute a majority, or even a plurality, of Mitt's support. Most, like me, view Mormonism as, at best, neutral. The exit polls are pretty clear on this.
Jun '10
Re: A Few Reflections By a Mormon on a Mormon Candidate
James Of England
It should be obvious that the 2% of Americans who are Mormon, most of whom are concentrated in states that haven't voted yet, do not constitute a majority, or even a plurality, of Mitt's support.
Totally agree. Utah, big surprise, is the only state where Mormons are a majority. Mitt would win in Utah for reasons totally unassociated with his religion: he saved the 2002 Olympics. And that is no overstatement. It was scandal-ridden and wildly over budget. Mitt came in, calmed folks down, put in real financial checks and competent people and the Games were a huge success, financially and otherwise.
An example: for a guy who lived in Utah to go to college four decades ago and two years in the early 2000s, he was far more popular than Huntsman, our Governor.
That said, Utah will vote Republican for president. We're right there with Oklahoma and Idaho as the most conservative states in America. Ron Paul would win big here against Obama.
Idaho is about 30 percent Mormon. Wyoming and Arizona are well under ten percent.
Mitt might win Utah and Idaho because he's Mormon, but nowhere else.
Apr '11
Re: A Few Reflections By a Mormon on a Mormon Candidate
tabula rasa
Mitt might win Utah and Idaho because he's Mormon, but nowhere else. · 5 hours ago
Samoa. He might have won there anyway (he won the evangelical and Catholic territories), but he might not have.
Feb '12
Re: A Few Reflections By a Mormon on a Mormon Candidate
James Of England
tabula rasa
Mitt might win Utah and Idaho because he's Mormon, but nowhere else. · 5 hours ago
Samoa. He might have won there anyway (he won the evangelical and Catholic territories), but he might not have. · 16 hours ago
What about Nevada and Arizona? Are the Mormon populations not significant there? Of course, I think Romney won by big enough margins in both states that the Mormon vote could not be said to have put him over the top.
Feb '12
Re: A Few Reflections By a Mormon on a Mormon Candidate
Me, too. Card is one Democrat I'd happily vote for. I'm LDS and I'm extremely--sorry, "severely"--apathetic to Mitt. I'm more inclined to write in former Comptroller General David Walker at this point--it will be a token gesture, as Romney will carry Utah overwhelmingly.
Feb '12
Re: A Few Reflections By a Mormon on a Mormon Candidate
I won't vote for him just because he's Mormon. If anything, I'm disinclined to support him because I can't see how a stake president could be so pro-choice back during his Massachusetts candidacy. IF I vote for him it will be out of reluctant acceptance of the inevitable and that Obama must be defeated. At this point, though, I don't see casting a vote for either of them.
Apr '11
Re: A Few Reflections By a Mormon on a Mormon Candidate
Your argument is pretty thin. You push your personal assumption that Mormons support Mitt primarily because he is Mormon as fact when no Mormon in this discussion has said this is their reason. You compound this mistaken observation by defending it with the second hand assumptions by these same commenters that perhaps some Mormons may be voting for Mitt for your assumed reason.
I know a fair number of liberal Mormons. They do exist and I can assure you that they won't be voting for Mitt Romney for any reason. The truth is that Mormons are likely to vote their existing political convictions in this election like most people. Who I worry about are those fickle conservative Christians who are too creeped out by Mormons to bother voting at all.