Mormon in the House
May 6th, 2007 ~ Political circusHappened to check out Hugh Hewitt’s blog – which I usually like — and felt like he was shaking his finger in my face.
I was a guest on the Fox News Channel this afternoon. The subject was whether or not the new movie about the Mountain Meadows Massacre of 1857 would be a problem for Mitt Romney. Because I am a non-Mormon who has written a book about Romney and the specter of religious bigotry impacting the campaign, I expected to be asked whether or not the movie would hurt Romney. I gave the obvious response: Not unless we expect Urban VIII’s prosecution of Galileo or the execution of Servetus under Calvin’s authority to impact Rudy or McCain — a Catholic and a Presbyterian — respectively.
Um, dude. The former happened in the 1600’s, the latter happened in 1550’s. Both were more a matter of abuse of authority (albeit the grim authority of a more primitive time) than anything, and the respective churches have paid a heavy price for centuries. On the other hand, Brigham Young and others played a part in (and possibly ordered) the slaughter of 120-140 innocent men, women and children, and it happened relatively recently (Wikipedia link HERE). The Mormon church has subsequently done everything in its power to suppress the truth. I’m not saying the making of a movie should affect anyone’s vote, but is it that wrong to consider what it means for a person to belong to this particular sect? I hope not, because I don’t think I’d be able to lay it aside. But then maybe I’m one of the “religious bigots” that Hugh is talking about:
The host then brought up a video she had seen on YouTube that was anti-Mormon and Warren Jeffs’ polygamy, at which point I said, rather bluntly, that MSM has got to knock this off. There are a legion of rabid anti-Mormons out there, and if the MSM is going to use their stuff, they might as well use the racist stuff that will be thrown against Senator Obama. Bigoted extremists normally don’t get air time in America, and the fact that it is Romney’s religion rather than Obama’s race that is the target doesn’t change the equation for producers.
I can see his side of it, and I’m not certain of my position. Maybe I am being unreasonable — after all, voting for someone for president isn’t the same as electing him to the council of bishops. “President” is a secular title of authority. Since we have never had an Orthodox president, I can’t claim that the office has been held by those that share my creed.
But … they have all shared the Apostles’ Creed, even if they barely knew what that was. They have all been from churches that were built on the foundation of the Nicene Creed, even if those words were etched in stones that were nearly hidden from view behind revival tents and (more recently) amplifiers and drum sets.
I remember a friend some years ago who had met someone interesting on the internet and then found out she was Mormon. Since he knew I was a “church person” he asked me what I thought that would mean. I think I sort of floundered a bit, trying not to express my deep animosity toward an organization I believe has scant right to call itself a church and no right at all to call itself Christian. Since my friend isn’t very religious, he only listened with polite interest as I ranted quietly about the Mormons believing that Lucifer was the brother of Christ and that Jesus Christ isn’t fully God and fully man.
“But does all that matter?” he asked.
I was struck dumb by the question. But I figured the straightest answer was the honest one. “I think it does,” I said. “I think that a person’s theology makes a difference. It affects what they do every day.”
I still think that’s true, even for those who consider themselves atheists, but certainly for those who are members of a decidedly heterodox quasi-Christian sect. It’s what still has me thinking that if my choice is Mitt Romney or Hillary Clinton, I may do what I’ve never liked doing: not vote at all.
I’m still not sure I’m not being just churlish. As unreasonable as this sounds, I can’t vote for Mitt Romney because I would feel like I was voting for the Mormon church, and there’s just no way I’m going to do that. I may end up being called a lot more names by other conservatives in ‘08 if it comes to that, but I can’t help it. Just as I think Romney’s theology would make a difference in his decisions, mine certainly makes a difference in mine.
Contents available under a
May 7th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
While I can’t agree with much of what you wrote, I’d like to only comment on one tiny part of it. You wrote that “good Mormons get their own planets after they die.” I’ve been an active Mormon my whole life and I’ve been a Church leader and teacher for much of that time as well. I have never, ever heard taught that Mormons “get their own planets” and I wonder where you got that idea. It is such a pervasive comment on blogs that are critical of Mormonism and in ant-Mormon literature that I am really interested to know its source. Mormons have a canon that defines the parameters of their doctrine and this teaching doesn’t appear anywhere within the LDS canon of four books of scripture. Since I know for a fact that this tibit doesn’t appear in official LDS literature and that it isn’t taught in LDS doctrine classes, but it is ubiquitous in anti-Mormon literature, it leads me to believe that it is a distortion of what Momons actually believe. Do you know of any LDS source that would indicate otherwise?
May 7th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Alma,
Welcome to the blog.
A quick perusal of the internet turned up some references to this planet idea, including someone who interviewed Mormons and asked them if they believed this and got a unanimous yes answer. But since I don’t think you’d accept any of the sources, I edited the entry to remove that line. To be honest, it’s really the least of my objections, and if it turns out it’s not authentic, it won’t change things one way or the other.
May 7th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
“But … they have all shared the Apostles’ Creed, even if they barely knew what that was. They have all been from churches that were built on the foundation of the Nicene Creed …”
With the above quote in mind, would you consider voting for a Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist candidate for president?
My wife was raised Mormon, and I’ve done some readings in both pro- and anti-Mormon circles, so I think I am somewhat knowledgeable about their religion and some of the more common apologetics and criticisms regarding their faith. Personally, I don’t consider Mormons to be Christians, especially in light of the Christian creeds. In saying this, however, I don’t mean to denigrate either their religion or their personal piety: no more so than saying Jews or Muslims are not Christians should be construed as a slur against either of those religions.
If you were to consider them as a different religion, would you feel any more likely to vote for a Mormon candidate? And if not, would you agree that your position is that would never vote for any non-Christian presidential candidate?
May 7th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
That’s a really good question and I’ll give you the honest answer: I wouldn’t have as hard of a time voting for a Buddhist or Hindu and I probably wouldn’t even think twice about voting for a Jew.
Lest that sound too horribly credo-centric (if that’s a word), let me explain the double standard. It comes down to what I said above: I follow the theology — a person’s epistomology makes a difference. The beliefs of Jews I don’t consider to be antithetical to a strong, robust and active Christianity. The beliefs of Hindus and Buddhists I’m less certain of, but I’d be willing to consider voting for them. The Mormon epistomology I think stands squarely in the way of the Christian Church’s integrity and its calling to be of one faith universally and eternally.
That doesn’t mean I hold it against each Mormon that I meet — I would have to ostracize members of my family to do that — but it does mean I cannot in good conscience cast a vote for a Mormon for president.
And yes, to cover your last question, it would change things a lot for me if Mormons abandoned the claim to Christianity. In trying to stretch the definition of what it means to be Christian, they’ve sown seeds of confusion and delusion. If they would give that up, I wouldn’t feel the same way.
May 8th, 2007 at 11:36 am
I have to admit, I participate in a craft that has a large LDS population (scrapbooking) and have read many arguments about this new movie (which doesn’t seem to be “bashing” the church at all to me) and about LDS theology, and *I* have a very difficult time with the theology, the more I know the more difficulty I have, I have to admit.
May 8th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Well, I think an Orthodox Christian is always going to have a problem, or else a Mormon is, because no matter how much we may want to use nicer words and just get along, the fact is that if what the Orthodox Church says of Christ is true, then what the Mormon Church says of Him can’t be, and vice versa. If Mormons pick their words carefully, they can skirt the areas of non-orthodoxy, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
I’m rushing out the door right now, but I may try and research it better and blog a new post about it.
And of course, NONE of that means a personal vendetta ought to exist between me and any Mormons I know. But it’s important that Orthodox know what we believe. Our kids can certainly play together, but we’re not in eucharistic communion and there’s a good reason for that.
May 9th, 2007 at 10:18 pm
I wanted to respond a few days ago, but this is my first chance.
I agree with you in disagreeing with Mormon doctrine, but consider the voting records of our Orthodox politicians — Dukakis, Snow, Sarbannes, Voinivich. What about Catholics — ever so close to Orthodoxy in liturgy and doctrine — Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry, Dodd, etc.? In fact, on the life issues, religion is more of an anti-predictor than a predictor, and Romney squares off with his church’s pro-life views (though I disagree with him on embryonic stem cells).
I think the Mountain Meadows massacre is every bit as irrelevant as something that happened in the 16th century, because no one alive participated in either one. I have no reason to believe that the Mormon Church currently supports massacring pioneers as a means of furthering its ends (it’s been much too successful by means of good works and persuasion). I also have no reason to believe that Mitt Romney would support such means even if his church did.
If any church has no right to cast any stones, it’s ours. The Russian Orthodox Church took millions of dollars from starving Iraqis in the UNSCAM Oil for Food scandal. The Patriarchate of Jerusalem has a high-ranking official who has advocated that Christian youths participate in violent jihad against the Israelis. My own jurisdiction is in the midst of a financial scandal that involves our metropolitan and other high-ranking officials misappropriating money intended for charity. Does that mean you can’t trust me to make a deposit run for a nonprofit?
All I ask is that you base your vote on Romney’s ideas and plans. If he’s “too Mormon” for you — whatever that might mean — it will come out.
And if you’re comparing Hillary Clinton to Mitt Romney, remember that she’s a heck of a lot closer to the Branch Davidian massacre and the rape of Serbia than Romney is to Mountain Meadows (though I’m not familiar with his position on Kosovo).
May 10th, 2007 at 10:33 am
You know, you’re the first one that’s gotten past pro-Mormon, anti-Mormon and talked about whether to vote for Romney or not. And I’ll take some of the blame for that, but I think it’s also just the nature of anything touching on religion when people who care deeply about their religion get involved.
The bottom line is that I haven’t made up my mind yet, and I don’t know who else will be on the ticket. Nobody is saying that there’s no difference between Mitt and Hillary — that would just be a bizarre misstatement of the facts.
Massacre: absolutely. Well, no, wait — not totally absolutely. ;-) The part of it that is still in the present is what the LDS church does now. I didn’t even know this movie was coming out, but if the Mormon Church insists on adopting a martyr’s pose over it, they’ll have made a bad thing worse.
The event happened 150 years ago — the ham-fisted attempt to ignore it, cover it up, holler ‘persecution’ whenever anyone looked into it — THAT’s the recent history. (I remember reading an “American Heritage” article about it about five years ago that noted that the Mormon Church had forbidden any historic marker to be put up until recently, and when it did, it was one that — in the opinion of the writer — was disproportionately puny in light of the heinousness of the event. That may have changed since then, but if not, shame on them.)
These things are tricky — I’m not saying there’s any great value in admitting culpability for past events, issuing an official apology or whatnot. But to actively deny culpability, to require an apology from anyone reporting the facts .. that’s more than just a bad PR instinct, it gives evidence that this is an organization that just doesn’t get it about the whole accountability thing.
Russian Church scandals: ouch. I was aware of the brewing scandal in the OCA. I didn’t know about the other two. Well, I’ll cc them on the “not getting the whole accountability thing” then. Embezzlement and hate-filled invective in the historic Church may not be a massacre in the Old West by a pseudo-Christian sect, but they should hold themselves to a higher standard or else be prepared for others to hold them to it.
May 10th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
And I’ll grant you that the deny-deny-deny thing is more counterproductive than helpful — cc the Turks on the Armenians while you’re at it.
And the only thing about equating Hillary and Mitt is that if a voter stays home out of an unwillingness to vote for either, that’s what it comes down to.
I haven’t decided on a candidate either. But they all have to overcome my prejudices against some group they belong to — Fred Thompson is an actor; McCain is a senator; Giuliani is an Italian from New York; Hillary is a Methodist; Barack is a young senator. All they have to overcome those prejudices is their words and their record. And all I have when the time comes is a choice between or among whoever is on the ballot.
May 10th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Staying home is a vote for Hillary: ARRRGH!! Skewered! Dagnab. Good thing the election is still 18 months away. I may have to study up and see if I can’t become a meth addict or something by that time.
Actors, Methodists, New Yorkers: Ewww. And when you want to get past all that and figure out what the guy (or gal) stands for, you find out they’re all politicians, when you come right down to it. Which means that they’re spending the election season trying to look like they’re saying everything while really saying nothing.
May 14th, 2007 at 7:10 am
My apologies if this is not an in depth thing but my concerns are not coming from a knowledge base but come from something on television. The documentary on the Mormons on television not long ago along with a few comments from various souces brought in the authority of the Mormon Church (probably their Presiding Council) over the individuals which concerns me a lot more than a massacre over a century ago (well … the fact that that the massacre involves one of their ‘founding fathers’ types makes it more of a problem than something like that normally would).
Has anyone researched the Mormon Churches authority and control over individual members which seems to be quite extensive or at least that was the impression I got from the show. I think there was mention of keeping files on their members to monitor and control things and the show seemed to indicate the use of their version of excommunication as a control factor. Is there any reason to think that the ruling council in would exert a large amount of control over Romney in the position of President?
May 14th, 2007 at 9:06 am
No apologies needed — taking the clear-cut approach you’re taking is eliminating some of the unclearness that I seem to have generated.
The research I did for the next article took me to a site that you may want to check out — Utah Lighthouse Ministry (Link HERE). They have a lot of information not only about the beliefs, but about the practices. I admit a certain cowardice — I couldn’t stand to look too closely at just how abusive the Mormon church is. It would be maddening, and since Mormons still defend it in any case, it would be futile.
I think it’s hard to get an accurate picture of just how much control the leaders have. Believing Mormons would say that that’s because there’s nothing to see. I think it has something to do with how constantly and aggressively Mormons pursue former-Mormon whistleblowers or outsider-critics of any kind.
I think it also has to do with the sad propensity of people to hold on to a broken and abusive belief system rather than have none at all. But there I go, veering off into beliefs again.
Let me know what you find out.
May 14th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
It sounds to me that you have much amiss in your life, and have trouble looking for the good in things. Your writings wreak of it. I am a Mormon and the symbol of our faith is exemplified in the lives of the millions that are known as Latter-day Saints.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the best things to ever happen to me. It has given me direction, happiness, and an eternal perspective second to none. Please curb your fanning the flames of religious differences and focus more on the atonement of Jesus Christ and the significance it can play in our lives. It is only in and through Jesus Chirst that mankind can be saved, and that dear sister, is solid Mormon doctrine.
May 15th, 2007 at 12:24 am
Well, I’m sorry if you think my writings reek — it’s ‘reek,’ by the way, not ‘wreak’ — of something, but consider what just one paragraph says about you. I specifically said that this is not a personal attack on Mormons and yet you respond by attacking me personally. But then it’s patently obvious that it was just a bit of posturing meant to deflect the conversation, so let’s move on.
You have a church that means a lot to you — so do I. You feel grieved when it comes under attack — so do I. Yours has been around less than 200 years — the Orthodox Church can trace its lineage in unbroken apostolic succession for almost 2000 years. Your church has 24 million members — the Orthodox Church has 225 million faithful worldwide. Ours is the church of Saints Peter, Paul, Ignatius, Athanasius, Mary of Egypt, Seraphim of Sarov, John of Shanghai. If you can manage to drag your eyes off the two posts that have the word Mormon in them, you’ll see quotes, excerpts, sermons and readings on even this one little blog from Church fathers and luminaries from the 4th century, the 21st century and every one in between.
The biggest reason I don’t believe in Joseph Smith is because in his main supposition, I know him to be entirely wrong. The Church was not in apostasy after the death of the apostles. It was alive, and it still is! We celebrate that life with every worship service, and I feel it to the heart of my heart. I’m no more interested in Smith’s delusions than you would be in someone who arrived at the temple with a chicken that he claimed was a Mormon bishop.
As for the basic question of this post, which is whether or not I’m going to vote for Mitt Romney, you haven’t done your fellow Mormon any favors. If the man doesn’t have the guts to stand up to critics with a little more character than you’ve shown in attempting to bully someone questioning the entirely questionable Mormon theology, I doubt that he’s presidential material.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:00 pm
I would be interested in your comments regarding the scriptures below. I think they refer to an apostasy, a falling away. The church was not alive as you would like to believe.
AMOS 11 ¶ Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:
12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall arun to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.
ISAIAH 5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
MATTHEW 4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7 For anation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.
9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations cfor my name’s sake.
10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11 And many afalse prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
ACTS 28 ¶ Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall agrievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
2 TIMOTHY 1 This know also, that in the alast days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
Reformers also recognized this apostasy.
Starting in the 14th century with the Renaissance, people began to break free of old ways of thinking. Science, art, literature, and many other areas of learning began to prosper in Europe. The way opened for new ideas, exploration, and inventions.
All these new ideas and the increased availability of the Bible due to new printing techniques inspired many to evaluate what they knew and how they felt about religion. People such as John Wycliffe in England and John Calvin in Switzerland began to question the practices of the Christian church. They saw that the church in their time and the Church in New Testament times were not the same.
Martin Luther was another of these people, called reformers, who saw that some of the practices of the Christian church were incorrect. He was a religious and educated man, and he wanted to change the practices of the church that did not match the teachings of the Bible. In 1517, in an attempt to promote discussion on the practices of the church, Luther wrote a document, identified as his Ninety-five Theses, and nailed it to the door of a church in Wittenberg, Germany. This act marked the beginning of the Protestant Reformation.
Luther was excommunicated from the Catholic Church for his actions of protest, but he kept his desire to conform to the teachings of the Bible. He opened the way for other reformers through his years of work and his German translation of the Bible. Many followed Luther and others like him who fought to reform the Christian church or to establish new churches. These people were called Protestants.
What would you tell Luther and his followers, Calvin and his followers, Wesley etc.? Many saw this apostasy happening, and had the couareg to speak up. What think ye?
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Garry,
Because this comment thread is just getting too long, I’m going to post your comment as a blog post and we can add comments on to that.