|
Contributing Author
I consider myself a secular humanist, on
my best days a religious humanist and occasionally, if the mood strikes
me, a deist. One can never be too safe: better to hedge. I’m one of
the many who treats religion as a cultural necessity. It pervades
every aspect of our history and culture, even for those of us on the
sidelines. We all ask the same questions, sometimes we even manage to
stumble across the same answers. The evolution of world religions is a
lesson in economy; as mankind gradually understood more and more of
our own cosmology we seemed to require fewer gods, until finally the
Hebrews decided upon just one. Revolutionary really, imagine one God
to explain both good and evil – it makes dualism sound rational.
Buddha went one step further and eliminated the necessity of a deity
all together, though you would never know by its practice. There’s a
beautiful simplicity in some ancient religions, and unsightly
complexity in a few modern ones. Sanctuary is wherever you find it.
Last Sunday, while in the Smithsonian’s
National Gallery of Art in Washington, I slipped unnoticed into a tour
group paused before a portrait of George Washington. The art historian
was giving a talk on 19th century American painters, how the artists
and patrons longed for their own style, one that was distinctively
“American.” No one wanted the classic religious paintings of the
Virgin Mary or the crucifixion, because we were of course a “Protestant
country.” An accurate observation given the historical context, but
I’m not sure how much we’ve out grown that mind-set.
The religious litmus test is a rite of
passage for all presidential candidates, but when the control factor
changes we find ourselves searching for a new indicator. It’s like
shopping: we see a new product from a brand we know and we just throw
it in the cart; it might be a little different, but mostly more of the
same – it’s a safe purchase. Politics is not analogous to grocery
shopping, though the average American knows far more about what’s on
sale at Wal-Mart this week than what transpired on this week’s debate.
Americans did, however, take an interest
in John F. Kennedy, the first candidate to truly change the religious
control factor from Protestant to Catholic. Few could deny that Kennedy
undertook the challenge with an elegance and efficacy absent in
today’s politics.
| |
I believe in an
America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no
Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how
to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom
to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds
or political preference--and where no man is denied public office
merely because his religion differs from the President who might
appoint him or the people who might elect him.
|
|
|
|
Kennedy uttered these words during his
now famous address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on
September 12, 1960. His moving speech is often credited with
allaying the concerns of many non-Catholics, though Kennedy’s charisma
and style probably had more to do with his presidential win than any
change of heart among Protestants; Catholics currently make up 24% of
the US Population, yet Kennedy was the first and last Catholic elected
in the past 43 administrations.
Religious Identity & Cultural Perception
Americans have easily accepted Methodist, Presbyterian,
Episcopalian, and Baptist presidential candidates - essentially any
Christian (non-Catholic) denomination. Catholic, Jewish, and Mormon
candidates still require a good deal more consideration. Hindus and
Buddhists may be far from the average American’s comfort zone, but they
would certainly fair better than a Muslim candidate. What about a
Scientologist, or Jehovah’s Witness, or dare we say an atheist?
Apparently religion does still matters.
As we move further from the American religious
center, our exposure, knowledge, and comfort level decreases. It’s
difficult to equate tolerance with respect: one means to accept, the other to hold in high esteem. It’s a seemingly minor distinction, but one with great implications.
Faith seems to be a theme of each
candidate’s campaign this election – it’s always a safe answer to a
tough question, even if the question isn’t about religion. You just
can’t go wrong by weaving faith into the story, though it’s more
lip-service to appease the religious right than any profound
theological testimony. Are they are true men of God in the campaign
this year? Alas even Mitt Romney, a devout Mormon and this year’s
reborn ultra-conservative, seems more apt to dodge a religious question
than seize the opportunity to appeal to his primary constituency.
Romney always seems uncomfortable when asked a religious question of
any substance, offering an auto-responsive: “I believe in exactly same
things as other Christians… next question.” I expect more conviction
from a Mormon bishop, but we still have plenty of time; the
presidential race is just beginning to heat up and the gloves are still
on, but not for long. This year the questions and the tactics will be
quite different as the stakes are higher – Mitt Romney’s switched the
religious control factor again; the problem is he’s the only one that
hasn’t noticed.
Mitt Romney, the former governor of
Massachusetts and a leader in the Mormon Church, presents a new
challenge to the media and to voters. The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints (LDS) is one of the most misunderstood churches in
America. From a public relations’ standpoint, the LDS Church has the
most to gain—and the most to lose—from this election. It’s an
opportunity for millions of Americans to learn about Mormon history,
doctrine, and practices; this is precisely what worries the LDS Church
the most.
The LDS Church and Mormon culture is a
closed society in many aspects. Mormons balk at this claim, but try
walking into your local LDS temple for a visit; you’ll make it as far
as the lobby or visitor center. Paradoxically, Mormons are among the
most well-informed members of any denomination with respect to their
own doctrines, beliefs, and “revised” history, yet on average they are
extremely uninformed or misinformed regarding other sects. This
explains Mitt Romney’s frustration with the media’s torrent of
questions regarding his Mormon faith; after all did Kennedy not address
the issue of religion back in the 1960s? Romney fails to see that
Americans make a distinction - no matter how seriously we maintain a
separation of church and state, religion still matters. The next
vital realization is that all religions are not equal, at least not in
the eyes of the American voters. No matter what the LDS Church
claims, even with “Jesus Christ” in their name, they simply fail the
Christian litmus test [ View Church Statements].
The other factor is that although Mormons are respected, the religion
is not. The controversies surrounding the LDS Church go far beyond
the usual matters of faith. Catholics and Protestants may debate the
veneration of Mary or the transubstantiation of the Eucharist, but few
question the veracity and moral character of their founder or the
authenticity of their scriptures. Academics and laymen alike view
Mormonism as a modern-day hoax, more akin to the Church of
Scientology than any Christian denomination. The evidence
surrounding the issue is substantial: The Book of Mormon is replete with
errors and plagiarized text [ LINK],
while Book of Abraham (another “translated” Mormon text) was exposed
as a verifiable fraud, being nothing more than common Egyptian funerary
documents
[ LINK]
; Numerous unfulfilled Mormon prophecies that never came to pass have been “revised” [ LINK];
Not to mention Joseph Smith was popularly known as the local “juggler”
or con man with the court records in his home state of New York to
prove it [ INFO].
Before Smith became the Mormon Prophet, he honed his
skills as a money-digger, using a “peep stone” to magically seek out
and locate buried treasure for a fee. Smith used this same technique
to translate the Book of Mormon from “reformed Egyptian”; he would
place his favorite “peep stone” in the bottom of his hat, pull the hat
close to his face and the translation would appear. The LDS Church
prefers not to popularize this and the other more fanciful aspects of
their early church history, not to mention the fact that “reformed
Egyptian” is a fictional language. Thus Mormon doctrine reflects the
eccentric nature of its founder; not only is it irreverent to
traditional Christianity, but modern science has refuted some of its
most basic tenets [ VIDEO].
These facts are disputed or ignored by the LDS Church, but this is the
same church that insists “not all that is true is useful.” The real
question is should any of this matter to the American voters?
To understand Mitt Romney and other high
profile Mormons, you must recognize they are part of culture that
teaches a sense of entitlement. After all, Mitt Romney was born into a
wealthy and respected Mormon family, and this means something in the
LDS Church; it’s proof that even in the pre-existence [POP UP], Romney
sided with and fought valiantly under Jesus in the war against His
brother Lucifer. Odd as it may sound, this is Mormon doctrine. The
rest of us, the “gentiles,” or non-Mormons didn’t fight hard enough for
Jesus, which explains our lowly position in life with respect to the
church. The LDS church uses the analogy that it is as if we all have a
veil pulled over our eyes and cannot see the truth, whereas the
Mormons have a better vantage point because they have chosen to follow
the prophet. The reason some of us reject the message is that we just
aren’t ready to accept it or we have our minds clouded by secular
views. Thankfully, Mormon missionaries are there to teach us the truth
so we can break free of our unfulfilling and misguided lives and be
baptized into the one true church – the LDS Church. And if we don’t get
baptized while we are alive, temples are dotting the globe so that we
can receive the ordinances necessary for salvation after we die.
Mormons are so obsessed with genealogy, not just their own family’s
genealogy, but yours as well. You may not have realized this, but
there is a good chance that your deceased religious relatives, though
they may have been a devout Methodist, Jew or Moslem in life, have now
been re-baptized Mormon thanks to the common LDS practice of baptisms
for the dead [ LINK]. You really don’t have a choice, but no need to worry: the Prophet does the thinking for you.
Romney’s advisers are no doubt aware of
some of the unpopular positions and controversies that plague his
religion, but then again, no religion is without controversies. The
LDS Church is in a precarious position – on one hand it’s received
positive media coverage in recent years thanks to the 2002 Salt Lake
City Olympics and numerous “softball” interviews with Larry King [ INFO].
On the other hand people are becoming increasingly aware
that the “one true church of Christ” might rest on a foundation of lies
and deception. Even faithful Mormons concede if the Book of Mormon is
a hoax, the whole Mormon religion is the greatest fraud ever.
The key difference between Mitt Romney’s
2008 presidential campaign and that of his father George Romney’s in
1967 is the speed and exchange of information. You’re reading this
article, you may learn something, and with a few more taps of the
keyboard you can verify this as fact or fiction. Previous elections
were limited to sound-bites and whatever the media decided to report;
today a political career can hinge on a rogue email or an investigative
blog. The American public is fickle; it takes very little to change
the tide of public opinion. Five years ago, America was still in the
midst of a love affair with Tom Cruise, and Scientology was just
another movement – no one really understood it, but it wasn’t
universally ridiculed. Fast forward and Scientology is a recognized
cult with absurd beliefs and fanatical members; more importantly it’s
fair game in the media. Some wonder if the LDS Church is edging
dangerously close to this precipice.
There is no simple answer to why
Americans respect and trust one religion over another, but at its
foundation is the correlation between type and degree.
The type of religion, its doctrines, and practices are important, but
often the decisive factor in our reasoning has more to do with degree
of obedience or devotion. To clarify, obedience to God is a virtue in
America; this is not to be confused with blind obedience to man, no
matter how spiritual or ordained. Americans prefer the word of God to
come directly from God, whether they hear it through the bible, prayer
or some other spiritual experience. We are notoriously suspect of
zealots and intermediaries, whether it is the leadership of a church, a
movement, or even a self-proclaimed prophet.
Christianity – A Known Commodity
Biblical revelation, the process in which God
made himself and his will known, effectively ended for mainstream
Christianity with the death of the apostles, give or take a few years.
We cannot overlook this as a stabilizing factor, no doubt by design –
God or man’s, no one really knows. Christians all see the bible as
God’s word, whether it be divinely influenced or literal. Catholics
tend to see the bible as the former with the early church fathers and
bishops as translators, compilers and editors. Most Protestants are
affronted by this, but one thing is certain: when St. John ended the
bible with the Book of Revelations, he gave us a very unambiguous
message:
| |
22:18
I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this
book, if any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the
plagues which are written in this book: 22:19
and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out
of the holy city, which are written in this book. 22:20 He who testifieth these things saith, Yea: I come quickly. Amen: come, Lord Jesus . 22:21The grace of the Lord Jesus be with the saints. Amen.
|
|
|
|
Even the Pope and the Catholic body of
bishops function more to interpret existing scripture and doctrine as
opposed to creating or receiving new revelation. When is the last time
you heard the Holy See or any mainstream Christian denomination
announce a new revelation?
Prophecy and revelation may abound in our
society, but these remain strictly the domain of television evangelists
and doomsday cults. One wonders if the mainstream religions have
concluded it’s better to simply play it safe - say less and be correct
more often.
The consequence of closing revelation
is that it effectively fixed our moral compass and defined what it
means to be Christian. We have the bible, the basic tenets, and
although Christians disagree on the details, we more or less know what
to do. We know what God expects from us and we feel we know God or at
least our concept of God. An equal part of this covenant is
recognizing what is clearly not from God. This is one of the reasons
Americans trust mainstream Christian candidates – they’re a known
commodity. They may not always exercise sound judgment in either
personal or political matters, but we the electorate have done our best
to minimize the unknown. Now we arrive at the heart of the Mormon
dilemma.
The Mormon Wildcard
In February 2007, the New York Times printed an
article mentioning that Mitt Romney had closely studied John F.
Kennedy’s famous Houston speech, the one that pledged if elected
President he would not look to Rome (the Pope) for guidance on how to
govern [New York Times].
When controversial questions arise regarding Romney’s religion, he
simply equates his intentions with those of Kennedy. It’s difficult not
to insert the hackneyed, yet still devastatingly effective “Mitt
Romney, you’re no Jack Kennedy” cliché. Though the more relevant
comparison is Mormonism is simply not congruous to Catholicism -
Mormons really do look to Salt Lake City for direction from God,
specifically to one man: their living Prophet. Unlike most other
religions, Mormons have a living prophet; they always have, starting
with Joseph Smith, then Brigham Young, all the way to the current
Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints (LDS) is the largest Mormon sect with a living Prophet, but there
are others like the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day
Saints (FLDS) [NPR Article]. You may recall their Prophet, Warren Jeffs, was on the FBI’s 10 Most-Wanted List
until his arrest in August 2006 on first-degree felony charges of
accomplice rape (arranging extralegal or polygamous marriages with
girls under the age of consent). The LDS and the FLDS Church both
claim to be the true church of Christ, but as LDS members plainly
state, just because you put Saint in the name, it doesn’t necessarily
make you a true Latter-day Saint. Maybe we should take note of this
logic as it may be applicable elsewhere. Local politics in Utah
aside, one thing is certain: the office of the Prophet wields power and
influence over the lives and actions of Mormons. The Prophet’s word is
God’s word and vice versa, at least when he is speaking as such.
Obedience is required of all Mormons in good standing; you cannot over
emphasize this degree of loyalty. When the Prophet speaks, the
thinking is done – an unfortunate, but actual quote taken from an LDS
publication.
| |
When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done.
When they propose a plan--it is God's plan. When they point the way,
there is no other which is safe. When they give direction, it should
mark the end of controversy. God works in no other way. To think
otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his faith, may
destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger to the kingdom of
God.
|
|
|
|
President Boyd K. Packer tried to clarify
this statement at a conference in April, 1983, stating that their
unquestioning obedience to the Lord’s commandments (via the Prophet) is
not blind obedience because they are not compelled to be obedient;
they are obedient because they know certain spiritual truths and have
decided, as an expression of their own individual agency, to obey the
commandments of God. I’m not certain if this statement allays the
concerns that a Mormon in Whitehouse would not remain an independent
thinker and free from the influence of the LDS Prophet. If anything,
it confirms the only real option for members – obedience. This line of
indoctrination begins at a young age as evident by this Prophets of God Sunday School Lesson quoted directly from LDS.org.
The LDS Church understands that outside the Church, these statements
might be misconstrued. As it is vital that Mormon candidates have the
support and respect of the general public, the LDS Church re-stated
unequivocally that it does not dictate rules to its members; Gordon B.
Hinckley maintained that it’s really more of a “persuasive urging.”
| |
"No, I reply, the Church will not dictate to any
man how he should think or what he should do. The Church will point
out the way and invite every member to live the gospel and enjoy the
blessings that come of such living. The Church will not dictate
to any man, but it will counsel, it will persuade, it will urge, and
it will expect loyalty from those who profess membership therein."
|
|
|
|
The concern that a Mormon President might
be influenced directly by the Prophet is not without precedence.
Although the Prophet primarily makes general statements regarding the
faith and guidelines, there are numerous prophecies and proclamations
in the Doctrine & Covenants (D&C) whereby the Prophet singled
out individual Mormons to act in accordance with God’s revealed
instructions
[ INFO].
In recent years, LDS officials have repeatedly instructed Mormons to
regard their vote as an act of obedience to leadership, rather than an
act of individual conscience. This type of mobilization dates from
the LDS church's 1975-82 campaign against ratification of the proposed
Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Although Mormons encountered religious
persecution throughout their history, they fail to recognize that often
problems stemmed from blind obedience to their Prophet, especially
when it was in direct conflict to the laws of the land. Mormons
maintain and foster a martyr-complex second to none; engage in a debate
and it will quickly center on the years of persecution suffered by the
Saints. Often ignored by Mormons are the 50+ years of overt polygamy,
not to mention the continuation of the practice long after the LDS
Church claimed it had ceased [ VIDEO - Interview with Prophet].
Even today, the Utah State Government declared it would not pursue and
prosecute polygamists because it did not possess sufficient
resources. Polygamy is obviously the most famous transgression, but
there are others that placed the Mormons squarely in the sites of both
federal and state governments. Joseph Smith’s claim that the
government of the United States was irredeemably corrupt and that it
would be destroyed; under those circumstances, the raising of local
Mormon militias proved particularly alarming. Smith created his own
bank and printed his own money.
When newspapers printed stories critical of Joseph Smith, he had their
printing presses destroyed, thereby violating the printer’s 1st
Amendment rights and leading to his arrest and imprisonment. Also
fundamental to the anti-Mormon sentiment of the time were the attempted
assassination of Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs and the doctrines of Brigham Young that led to the murder of an entire wagon train of settlers [ Mountain Meadows Massacre - PBS].
Actions such as these never seem to go unnoticed by the government.
Most Mormons will scoff at these claims, many of which are in their own
books; more sensible Mormons will highlight the fact that these were
all in the distant past and an accurate view of Mormonism requires more
than familiarity with obscure historical details. The problem is not
so much that these events occurred; this is troubling in itself, but it
would be entirely missing the larger issue. Individuals and elected
officials violate laws everyday; the problem is that early Mormons
routinely obstructed justice and perjured themselves, as well as other
illegal activities, all at the direction of the prophet.
It’s difficult, if not impossible
to intelligently discuss the controversial aspects of Mormon history
and doctrine with current LDS members. Mormons imagine a different
history for themselves, one in which Joseph Smith was a virtuous farm
boy chosen by God to restore Christ’s church, and anything to the
contrary is obviously fabricated to malign Smith and the one true
church – In fact Mormons are taught that the very nature and intensity
of the attacks on their faith proves that the LDS Church is true.
A Mormon in the Whitehouse
Mormons have made great strides combating their early
anti-government and overtly racist doctrines, even going so far as to
alter or correct the language in their scriptures, despite the original
text being the supposed word of God. In recent decades, the LDS
Church has focused on instilling a sense of charity, civil duty, and
patriotism absent from the Church in the early days of Joseph Smith and
Brigham Young. Today Mormons within the LDS Church are proud and
loyal Americans, despite a rocky start with the federal government a
century earlier. There’s even a messianic theme to their brand of
patriotism; the LDS Church teaches that someday they will be called
upon by God to save the United States, and they should be prepared to
meet the challenge. This is astounding as most of us had no idea that
God was so intimately involved in US politics.
In truth, the Mormon religion is unique
in that it is a distinctly American innovation; this is far deeper than
its inception in upstate New York and subsequent migration west. One
cannot ignore the fact that the United States has particular religious
significance to Mormons; America is literally the focal point of their
religion starting from the dawn of mankind. To begin, Mormons teach
the Garden of Eden was located in what is now Jackson County, Missouri;
the Book of Mormon is a historical account of a two Semitic tribes,
the Nephites and Lamanites, who journeyed by boat from the Holy Land to
the Americas where they created an entire civilization (the remnants
of which Mormon’s believe were the chief descendents of the American
Indians); Jesus too came to the New World immediately following his
resurrection and appeared to the Nephites; and finally that Jesus will
return to both Jerusalem and Independence, Missouri (which Mormon’s
consider Zion). These are still the official teachings of the LDS
Church, despite there being definitive proof to the contrary.
Biological DNA proves Native Americans are of Asian decent, not
Semitic, with no pre-Columbian Semitic DNA [USA Today], language traits, or culture [ VIDEO].
Nor is there any archeological evidence of this massive civilization –
no evidence of wars, settlements, steel (yes steel), swords, coins,
chariots, and horses all artfully described in the Book of Mormon. As
LDS Church leaders have said, sometimes the truth isn’t always useful.
The Mormon culture is full of faith
promoting stories that have little regard for historical accuracy.
Missionaries are famous for returning from their overseas mission with a
miraculous story that proves beyond doubt the legitimacy of LDS
Church. These ‘Mormon legends’ are accepted as true, despite
strikingly similar stories that occurred at another location, to
different missionaries, years apart. At times it can be difficult to
discern Mormon doctrine from anecdotes; the Mormon canon contains
numerous books some historical, biographical and prophetic. There’s
also the LDS literature published by the Prophets, General Authorities
and Conferences, all of which contribute to a patchwork of doctrines,
some official, some fictitious and some in between. The current
Prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley is famous for denying a specific doctrine is
taught or was ever taught [ TIME Interview],
despite it being in the official canon and reinforced countless times
by LDS leadership at Conferences, BYU addresses, and approved
publications. Thus a genuine prophecy, claim, or adage can often be
traced back to an official LDS literature and leadership, though in
media interviews, most high-profile Mormons dismiss these as hearsay.
The most damaging and indeed embarrassing statements regarding the LDS
Church and Mormon beliefs were uttered not by detractors, but by their
own Prophets and General Authorities [ LINK].
Mormons refer to an 1843 prediction by
Joseph Smith that in the latter days the U.S. Constitution will hang by
a thread and a Mormon will ride in on a metaphorical white horse to
save it. The LDS Church says it does not accept the legend - commonly
referred to as the "White Horse Prophecy" - as doctrine, yet it still
seems to be taught in Primary. The Mormon culture is full of faith
promoting stories that have little regard for historical accuracy. It
is true that Joseph Smith did declare himself a presidential candidate
in 1844, though he found it difficult to campaign following his
assassination. I’m not quite sure how the “Prophet” didn’t see that
one coming.
Mitt Romney assigns no credence to the
White Horse Prophecy and its historical basis in Mormon culture. It
is safe to say that Mormons will support Romney enmasse as good rank and
file members; he has that voting block locked down, prophecy or not.
Few politicians opt for only one term in office, but the way Mitt
Romney acted after four years you would think he single handedly saved
the Commonwealth. When Romney’s term ended on January 3, 2007, he
left his corner office in the Statehouse and strolled modestly down a
red carpet, greeting well-wishers along a 25-minute “lone-walk” that
ended with a 19-gun salute. The front page of the next day’s Boston
Herald proclaimed, “WASN’T I GREAT!” using a photo of Romney waving to
the cameras with his wife in tow. The Governorship was a mere stepping
stone for Romney; the endgame has always been the presidency. Romney
wants desperately to win the Whitehouse, but no one wants him to be
president more than the LDS Church. To Mormons, this succession is just
one more example of divine providence.
Other than prestige and possible
assimilation into mainstream Christianity, there is another reason a
Mormon in the Whitehouse is so important to the LDS Church. Remember,
all Mormons in good standing are expected to obey the Prophet and
unless Mitt Romney decides to apostatize, we should expect no less from
him than total obedience. Although Romney insists he will think and
act independently, we only need to look to his father’s cousin Marion
G. Romney, a prominent LDS leader and former President of the Quorum of
the Twelve Apostles (1985-88) who reaffirmed the importance of obeying
the Prophet:
| |
“I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had
President Heber J. Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him
home … Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: ‘My
boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he
ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord
will bless you for it.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, ‘But
you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead
the people astray.’ ”
|
|
Marion G. Romney (Conference Report, October 1960, p. 78.)
|
What can we expect from Mitt Romney?
This is no simple answer to this question, political
analysts have enough trouble predicting the behavior of known
candidates with established records, let alone someone as complex as
Mitt Romney. We can safely make some assumptions that it will be a
move to the right, but considering Romney’s record as governor, his
recent change of heart on the issues and the implications of a Mormon
defining policy, the only thing we know for certain is that there are
far too many unknowns to envision how this may affect the nation and
individual rights. Some might say this is true of any President, and
there is truth in this, but the other candidates are not following a
95-year old alleged prophet supposedly in commune with God. If the
Bible taught us one thing it’s that with prophetic statements, you only
have to be wrong once to be branded a false prophet, and the LDS Church
has give us more than their fair share of blunders [LINK].
Characteristically un-Mormon, Romney’s
policies in Massachusetts were generally moderate, often leaning more
to the left than the right. If you look at his 2003-07 term as
governor, he favored abortion rights, supported RU486 (the abortion
bill), gay rights, and stem cell research, limited gun access and
raised taxes. While campaigning for governor he even changed his
position on gays in the military, supporting the "Don't ask, don't
tell" policy, though he openly opposing it during the 90's [ Washington Post].
Sounds more like a Democrat. Not surprisingly, he more often than not
raised the ire of conservative Republicans. Granted, most politicians
in Massachusetts know riding the Religious Right ticket is not the
quickest way to office. New England is Kennedy territory, the bastion
of liberal ideology, and the home of America’s top Ivy League
universities; it’s generally not a haven for evangelicals or Mormons for
that matter. Romney’s progressive stance on the issues during his
term in Massachusetts was one of political necessity.
Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post
described an interview with Romney back in 2005 while he was still
governor of Massachusetts, but already eyeing a 2008 presidential bid:
“Listening to Romney that day was like watching a chameleon in the
fleeting moment that its color changes to suit its environment” [ Washington Post].
Romney’s an intelligent and shrewd politician; he understood the
voting block needed to win Massachusetts and he crafted a persona to
meet the challenge. He’s doing this once again, but on a national
scale leading many political pundits to comment about his sudden
rebirth the new advocate of the religious right. It’s not a re-birth,
just an uncovering.
If Romney’s recent debate appearances are
any indication, we can expect a continuation of the policies of George
W. Bush, at least with respect to domestic policies, international
relations, Iraq, and the war on terror. I’m not sure we need more of
the same. No one will argue we have to combat terrorism and radical
Islam when and where appropriate, but Bush’s policies have exacerbated
the situation. Romney has something else in common with Bush; they’re
both self-professed men of “faith.” How odd that the men of faith are
the ones with the least compassion and respect for people, nations,
and cultures. They must follow a different Jesus, and in the case of a
Mormon candidate, there’s a ring of truth to this.
The Religious Right and other
conservatives will no doubt rejoice that a candidate on the Republican
ticket reflects their beliefs and political objectives; Rudy Giuliani
may be a Republican and the front-runner, but he’s no friend of the
Evangelicals. As previously stated, we can assume Romney makes to
steer the country further to the right and undoubtedly usher in
programs focused on family values while blurring the lines of
separation of church and state. Barak Obama, Hilary Clinton, and Rudy
Giuliani may not espouse your same ideals; they might even protect the
rights and privileges of groups that don’t meet your approval, but at
least they respect all people, faiths, and creeds. Recall that Mormons
believe the one true church of Christ on earth is the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints; all other churches are an abomination in
God’s eyes. This is not hyperbole, nor am I putting words in their
mouths; those are the words that God supposedly told the Prophet Joseph
Smith. In speeches and writings, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young
specifically called out Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, and
Catholics as corrupt and baseless. The Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt felt
previous statements were too restrictive and described all Catholics,
Greek Orthodox, and Protestants as the biblical “whore(s) of Babylon”
(Orson Pratt, The Seer, p.255). Mormons are hardly characterized as being respectful of other faiths, especially Christian faiths [Examples].
The LDS Church has one of the largest missionary programs in the world
with only one goal: to proselytize and convert the “gentiles” to their
one true Church of Christ. They take it one step further by even
baptizing the dead into to the Mormon religion; it’s truly doubtful the
deceased have made a conscious decision to join their church, but they
don’t let that stop them from giving you their ordinances.
This is not the first time Mormons have
been forced to respond this barrage of allegations; they even publish
literature on how to properly respond to questions with LDS Church
approved answers. Those of us with Mormon friends and family might
feel some of these claims and attitudes are uncharacteristic of the LDS
members we encounter. Mitt Romney is in the public eye all the time,
yet he never spouts such rhetoric. Even when asked a direct question
regarding a controversial religious topic, Romney is always quick to
respond with a statement assuaging any concerns. It’s not uncommon to
for Romney to indirectly answer the question by simply stating his
beliefs are in line with those of the other Christian traditions. When
asked about the more disreputable aspects of LDS history and
practices, often he downplays their significance or denies them as
being doctrine or officially taught. These are all typical Mormon
answers; they’re used to dealing with difficult questions, and they’re
instructed how to respond, but honesty is not at the forefront.
Mitt Romney and other Mormons do not
believe you deserve the truth; instead they supplant it with what they
feel you “should know.” Romney’s answers to questions are consistent
with how Mormons are instructed to respond to questions of character and
faith. In the words of LDS Bishop Robert Millet while instructing
new Mormon missionaries, “Don’t answer the question they asked, answer
the question they should have asked” [VIDEO - LDS Bishop sanctions deception].
Romney always responds with what’s referred to in the LDS Church as
“milk, before meat”. When questioned about “controversial” doctrine,
beliefs, and practices, Mormons are instructed to “never provide meat,
when milk will do”, i.e. respond with an answer that others will
accept, even though it might not be true, or might not even be germane
to the question. Why? According to Millet, Mormons “already know more
about God and Christ and the plan of salvation than anyone.” We, the
gentile masses, must therefore be addressed like children because we
don’t have the intellect or spirit within us to understand the true
teachings of the LDS Church. We already have ample evidence of this;
Mitt Romney just mistakenly assumed the media would not research his
answers. When George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney if Muslims would
have an issue with Mormon belief that Jesus would return to the United
States and reign personally here for a 1,000 years, Mitt Romney
replied:
| |
... That doesn't happen to be a doctrine of my
church. Our belief is just as it says in the Bible, that the messiah
will come to Jerusalem, stand on the Mount of Olives and that the
Mount of Olives will be the place for the great gathering and so
forth. It's the same as the other Christian tradition.
|
|
|
|
Either Romney fundamentally misunderstood
the intent of question or is ignorant of his own church’s doctrine; the
later of which is not uncommon in America, but we expect more from a
former LDS Bishop. More likely, however, is that Romney is following the
common Mormon practice of not telling the whole truth. Unconvinced of
Romney’s response, Stephanopoulos rephrases the question, but to no
avail. Romney and other Mormons know most Americans have some general
knowledge of Mormonism, but they assume detractors will be unfamiliar
with official LDS scripture and statements and will be unable to
support their arguments with hard facts. The following day, parts of
this interview were re-aired on ABC’s Good Morning America after
Stephanopoulos checked the veracity of Romney’s answer.
| |
“Actually we checked in with a Mormon spokesman
who said that’s not exactly true. They believe that the new Jerusalem
is here in the United States, in Missouri and that’s where Jesus is
going to come”
|
|
|
|
Conclusion
This a major dilemma for voters – Mitt Romney started out
conservative, switched to moderate for a term, and it now making a
hard swing to right. This has all the makings of an exciting
administration, but not a particularly stable or predictable one. The
new Mitt Romney is clearly at odds with traditional democrats, woman’s
rights, liberals, gays/lesbians, and the intellectuals of society, but
after exposing the extraordinary claims of the Mormon religion, it’s
difficult for traditional conservatives and the Religious Right to
relate to him either.
We can only hope that Mitt Romney truly
heeds the words of John F. Kennedy and not just rephrasing them because
he thinks that’s the “milk’ that Americans need to hear. We expect
Mitt Romney to make his “You’re electing a president, not a religion”
speech any day now. We know a great deal of thought is going into
this; a good speech can propel Romney to be the top runner of the GOP.
In many ways he’s the perfect candidate for the Republicans; he’s
well-funded, polished and every bit the politician. On face value he
seems ideal, but as we’ve discovered, it is impossible to separate Mitt
Romney the presidential candidate form the LDS Church. As a former
LDS missionary, a graduate of BYU, bishop, and stake president, we can
assume Romney believes the Mormon doctrines and carries out the will of
the Prophet. Why wouldn’t Romney preserve separation of church and
state as he did in Massachusetts? Well, we already know he’s had a
“change of heart” as he swings to the right, but I caution the
Evangelicals not to rejoice but to remember the church he serves is not
yours.
Americans have become complacent; we’re so used to living in a
country where our rights are protected that we take it for granted.
Most Americans just want to keep living the way we always have. It's not
that we don’t want change, provided the change is one that's at the
benefit of our own group, even though it's often at the detriment of
another’s. The trick is always making sure you’re in the right group
at the right time, and I’m not sure Mitt Romney will be good for anyone
outside the LDS Church if we continue in the current direction. The
First Amendment should be enough assurance that we’re electing a
president, not a religion. Mitt Romney, like all politicians, claims
his faith is entirely a personal matter, though a trip through the
byways of Utah suggests it mysteriously translates into legislation.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment