The more I read about, and think about, Romney and the way his has approached his religious views, the more it reinforces Romney’s biggest weakness: the assumption that he is not especially forthright about his views and that he seeks to shade (if not totally change) his views to make himself more palatable to votes (again, think his “conversions” on abortion and gay rights).
A reader writes in to Andrew Sullivan to note Romney’s disingenuousness in regards to his capability to comment on Mormon theology:
As a Mormon, I was put-off by Romney’s disingenuousness when he was asked on a TV interview to explain how Mormonism differs from other Christian denominations. Romney tried to give the impression that he was unqualified to speak for the LDS Church, referring poeple to the Church’s website.
When confronted with the fact that he has been an LDS Bishop, he tried to give the impression that, in a “lay church,” the calling of a Bishop isn’t important.
This is untrue.
Bishops interview, and must approve every person in their Ward boundaries (aka Parish) who wishes to convert to Mormonism and be baptized.
[...]
it is the Bishop’s job to instruct them in the theology before approving that person’s baptism.
Further:
Whenever a Mormon has a question or concern about any aspect of Mormon theology, they are instructed to ask their Bishop about it.
[...]
In short, one can not be a Bishop without understanding Mormon theology and how it differs from that of traditonal Christianity.
Beyond that:
Remember, besides being a Bishop, he served as a full-time Mormon missionary for two years.
[...]
The LDS Church brags that young men come back from two year missions who a deeper understanding of their religion than that enjoyed by believers of other faiths. Is Romney the lone exception to this?
Daniel Larson further (and correctly) observes:
This predicament really is a trap for Romney, as I and others have observed before: if he stresses what he has in common with Christian voters, he will be criticised for not being forthright and honest enough about his own religion, and if he acknowledges difference he is probably dooming himself to electoral oblivion by alienating Christian voters. Yet recent polling shows that he is damaged even more by his evasiveness and reluctance to speak on the matter, which fits into the narrative that he is inauthentic (some might even say fraudulent). Perhaps if Romney himself were not such an obviously protean, shape-shifting sort of candidate on his policy views, his unwillingness to speak about his religion would have appeared as wisdom and discretion, instead of coming across as yet another example of his inability to give a straight answer to a question.
Emphasis mine (and h/t: Sully for the quote).
Jim Henley also notes that Romney is hampered in dealing with this problem by a lack of genuineness.
Sphere: Related ContentThe views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Of course the real issue here is the absurd way in which politicians of both major parties wear their religion on their sleeve.
I guess we have Carter to thank for that. I would love to see a politician say, “listen, we live in a secular society. Let’s focus on actual problems of public policy rather than private matters.”
It is funny that people made parallels between Romney and Kennedy on this issue. Kennedy’s Houston speech basically asserted the secular nature of governance, while Romney appears to be bending over backwards to portray himself as in the same tent as the radical Christian elements of the Republican party.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Mitt Romney hit it out of the park. He was inspiring, unifying and eloquent. There is no doubt in my mind this man is ready to be president.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Chris,
You’re not a Romney supporter, now are you?
December 6th, 2007 at 11:52 am
[...] Other bloggers weigh in, courtesy (in part) of MemeOrandum: Shakesville; Democrat Taylor Marsh; Drudge Retort; PoliBlog™; The Daily Dish (Andrew Sullivan); The Mahablog; Captain’s Quarters (Right) [...]
December 6th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
I appreciate the fact that he is talking — and living — out his faith, even thought I dont’ necessarily agree with its tenents.
For an evangelical’s perspective, check out http://www.redletterbelievers.blogspot.com
December 6th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
http://www.ExposeRomney.com
Mitt Romney is fortunate that few non-Mormon Americans know anything about his religion and this speech did little to correct that.
Google “ExposeRomney” or “Eternal Progression” or “Brigham Young comments on blacks” or “The Mormon Wildcard” to find out what he’s hoping slips past you.
Most religions require faith and I’m not saying that Romney wouldn’t make a good manager, but he’s clearly been deceptive to the point that even the political pundits know he’s like about specifics.
Do you honestly thing the Evangelicals would vote for him if they understood the Mormon concept of “Eternal Progression”?
Would people of color vote for him if they knew his religion associated dark skin with sin and punishment?
Would secularists vote for him if they knew a famous Mormon saying was “When the prophet speaks, the thinking [i.e. your thinking] is done.”
Before you say I’m bigoted, why don’t you look up what the Mormon religion says in its scriptures about other religions. We’ll I’ll give you a starting point. In the Mormon scriptures, which Mormons are taught to be the WORD OF GOD, it states, “All other religions are an abomination in God’s eyes.” Now how’s that for tolerance.
If you think his speech told you he’s an independent thinker, well think again.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
For the record, that’s not wholy accurate. Bishops do several interviews, and interview members’ 8-year-old children before they are baptized; but in general missionaries interview adults and older children wanting to convert. The bishop isn’t brought in to one of those interviews in most cases (however, the bishop is expected to introduce himself and have a friendly chat with the new member).
Again, not entirely accurate. You could say “if they knew that in the past, prominent church leaders associated …” but (1) it was never official doctrine (that is, blacks could not hold the priesthood at one time, but there was never an official reason given; instead several leaders offered their own opinion that dark skin was associated with sin and punishment, but that view was reputiated in 1978), and (2) that is not the current doctrine either.
I’m a Mormon, and I’m not planning on voting for Romney just because he’s a Mormon. That would be as small-minded as refusing to vote for him just because he’s Mormon.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Gov Romney did not say he “wasn’t capable of” explaining the LDS doctrine. He said it wasn’t his role to do so, nor should it be the role of anyone seeking public office to explain the doctrine of their faith.
To those who think he should have explained more of the “Mormon” question, the reason cited is that it would have helped the “evangelical” base understand him more, and that by not doing so, he is somehow being evasive. This is incorrect and disingenuous.
First there is nothing that Gov Romney could EVER say that would make certain intollerant evangelicals think the LDS faith is a not a cult. Nothing. It would only be used as ammunition to point out perceived inconsistencies with what other LDS spokespeople had said at other times.
Second, those people who genuinely want to learn what the LDS faith teaches can do so at http://mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/ or at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon. They don’t need a presidential candidate to explain it to them.
Third, one of the core assertions of Gov Romney’s address, as was President Kennedy’s, that there should be no test of specific doctrine or faith for those seeking public office, and to do so violates the constitution and the spirit of the founding of the nation. Those who refuse to understand this point do not understand the first amendment or Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.
I suspect some do understand this distinction, but want to play a game of “gotcha”. Other evangelicals actually DO want a spiritual test for their politicians, but this is at odds with the rest of the country who generally do want a leader of principle and Judeo-Christian values, but not a specific faith, and to satisfy their demands would make a candidate unpalatable to the rest of the country.
December 6th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Of course Mitt Romney won’t take orders from the Mormon church.
THAT’S ABSURD…
He’ll look in his special hat at his magic rocks and they’ll tell him exactly what to do!
.
http://www.ExposeRomney.com
December 6th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
We need a candidate that’s going to prevent Gays/Homosexuals from controlling out society. We need someone that will say no to that.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:34 am
I’m not currently planning to vote for Romney. However, as his current role is “Presidential candidate” and not “Mormon missionary,” I don’t see why he should be unwillingly moved from one to the other; regardless of the fact that he was a Mormon missionary once upon a time.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:56 am
It isn’t that he should be a Mormon missionary. It is, however, a fact that many people find his Mormonism to be a question, if not a problem, and his unwillingness to directly deal with it feeds, in my opinion, into the perception that he isn’t straight-forward.
It makes it look like he is hiding an important part of himself, which is not a healthy tactic for a presidential candidate.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:11 am
This is all SO much fun to watch. And read.
December 7th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Comment for Max Lybbert
Regarding blacks and the racist statements of past prophets. You said “(1) it was never official doctrine (that is, blacks could not hold the priesthood at one time, but there was never an official reason given; instead several leaders offered their own opinion that dark skin was associated with sin and punishment, but that view was reputiated in 1978), and (2) that is not the current doctrine either.”
—————————————–
Ok, your opinion, but your prophet disagrees, read on…
Brigham Young said he never given any counsel that was wrong.
“I am here to answer. I shall be on hand to answer when I am called upon, for all the counsel and for all the instruction that I have given to this people. If there is an Elder here, or any member of this Church, called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who can bring up the first idea, the first sentence that I have delivered to the people as counsel that is wrong, I really wish they would do it; but they cannot do it, for the simple reason that I have never given counsel that is wrong; this is the reason.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 16, page 161.)
That’s in one of your LDS books. So what did he say and counsel about blacks:
Brigham Young comments about blacks
“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind….Cain slew his brother. Can might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, page 290).
“In our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the children of Ham were to be the “servant of servants,” and no power under heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter under the curse and those were known to be our religious views concerning them.” (Journal of Discourses, Volume 2, page 172.)
“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” (Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.)
So are you going to try and tell me again that it was doctrine. Or can we reject the statements about blacks, despite Brigham Young saying he never erred when giving counsel. And the LDS church considered those statements to be doctrine - they put them in the sacntioned LDS books. If Brigham Young said I think something that was completely non-religious… then I wouldn’t hold him to it as Mormon doctrine. Unfortunately, the LDS church has some explaining to do, because according the Brigham Young, God is one hell of a racist.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
I’m not going to hijack this thread. However, the “not doctrine” issue exists today in the practice of disciplining church members over abortion. The church will excommunicate members who submit to, pay for, counsel, or perform abortions. However, there is no doctrine saying we are “pro life.” Many members make that assumption, but if one day science shows that a fetus is not really alive, we will still oppose abortion. I have heard two possible reasons that have nothing to do with the pro life argument.
As for blacks and the priesthood: in your extensive research, have you ever run across Elijah Abel ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah_Abel )? He received the priesthood under Joseph Smith (before church practice prohibited that) and served as a General Authority under Brigham Young (after the change in practice). Yes, it was church practice; no it was not official doctrine. Brigham Young’s statements, Bruce R. McConkie’s statements, or any other statements anybody has shown me are clearly personal opinions worked into talks. The statements you quoted above are mainly from Journal of Discourses — a book of talks given at all sorts of times. They aren’t a fountain of doctrine.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Response to Max Lybbert
Yes I have heard of Elijah Abel. You are correct he was given the priesthood before the church outlawed it. I have the definetive book on the subject of blacks in the LDS church right in front of me. It’s called Mormonism and the Negro and was written to clarify the church’s position by John Stewart and William E. Berret (VP of BYU and worked for the Unified School System of the LDS church). It’s authoritative and very clear.
Let me quote from this LDS book (starts on page 9 of Part II). Notes from a meeting between John Taylor, Brigham Young, Zebedee Coltrin, and L. John Nutyall in Provo City, Ut - May 31st. 1879, 5pm)
President Taylor first asks someone named Brother Coltrin about a meeting with Joseph Smith.
.
Brother Coltrin: “Brother Joseph kind of dropped his head and rested it on his hand for a minute, and then said, ‘Brother Zebedee is right, for the spirit of the Lord saith the Negro has no right nor cannot hold the Priesthood.’ He made no reference to scripture at all, but such was his decision. I don’t recollect ever having any conversation with him afterwards on this subject. But I have heard him say in public that no person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold Priesthood.”
So this is a witness to Joseph Smith’s position and JS evidently believed it along with Brigham Young. I know witnesses can be unreliable, but if we take that position we have to throw out the supposed witnesses to the Book of Mormon. So according to this the prophet chosen by God, they all believed blacks could not hold the priesthood, which to the non-Mormon lay person is the most important part of the gospel; it is held by all faithful and worthy men (except black men sadly until 1978).
I know my facts pretty well, but if you ever correct me I will admit it and make a re-statement. And as you know and both of us probably agree, it is not easy to pin down Mormon doctrine, but I use the methods recommended by the LDS church (they have a official statement as you know).