Latter-day Saints in the public square
You are currently browsing the monthly archive for January 2005.
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Especially if you came from Mormon Archipelago as it only includes my major article posts.
Thanks for visiting!
http://byunews.byu.edu/release.aspx?story=archive05/Jan/nelson
Read the rest of this entry »
http://mikeandkeli.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_mikeandkeli_archive.html#110714850414874610
A headline that perhaps would only excite a politics geek. However, it is another sign that Mormons are making progress as a serious political entity. And while I doubt this is another sign that Democrats may be able to win over the LDS voting bloc, it’s a good move for the Democrats.
Senator Reid from Nevada met with Representatives Matheson (Utah) and Udall (New Mexico) last week to discuss how to dispel notions that a Mormon Democrat is not an oxymoron. The fourth member of the caucus, Rep. Eni Faleomavaega, (a nonvoting Representative from American Samoa) couldn’t make it.
As Democracy for Utah notes, the talking points from Reid and Matheson themes to appeal to LDS voters: families, community, caring for the less fortunate, and fiscal responsibility.
I imagine the Church is happy with this news as it repeatedly insists on its political neutrality each election year and President Hinckley himself has said it’s fine to be a Democrat and Mormon.
Faleomavaega, who campaigns for re-election partly in Utah because of the large number of American Samoan expatriates living there, is thrilled that a member of the LDS Church is leading Senate Democrats and that maybe he can change the perception that church members are inherently thought of as Republicans.
“Like Senator Reid, I believe the LDS Church needs representation in both the Democratic and Republican parties,” he said. “For too long there has been a misconception that LDS Democrats and Republicans do not share the same values. But this is not true. Our values are the same, but our political philosophies are different.”
Members of the caucus said political differences should not fall along religious lines. Democrats, they said, support working people and have a difference of opinion from Republicans on health care, education, environment, taxes and international relations.
“However, at the end of the day, whether Democrat or Republican, our LDS values remain the same and this is why the LDS Church, as a matter of official policy, does not support one political party over the other,” Faleomavaega said.
(Rather than just trying to convince voters that the party already shares LDS values, I would suggest that more fundamental changes are necessary to at least publicly consider religious and conservative moral issues more seriously. Obviously, many will rightly suggest that these values are not the only considerations. But as Senator Clinton is shrewdly tacking right on faith-based initiatives and abortion, she seems to be the only high-profile Democrat who understands how to appeal to conservatives (or at least wants to)).
Whether the caucus can convince LDS voters that the party as whole can represent their values is another thing. I’m very skeptical but it will be fun to watch which direction the Democratic party takes over the next few years.
See:
Deseret Morning News: Mormon Democrats link up in Congress: Caucus aims to show that LDS, Demos a good mix
The Salt Lake Tribune: Mormon Democrats caucus in Congress, reassert values: A minority of four: “Democrats have many of the same issues at heart as do members of the [LDS] church,” declares Reid
Times and Seasons had a note that there is a Christian Blogger convention, GodBlogCon coming up in Arizona.
Apparently, there was some confusion as to whether Mormons were invited. Fortunately for the concerned, the convention was updated to clarify that the convention is “strictly Christian” (scroll down to #15 “INVITED GUESTS”) and hence, Mormons are not invited.
First, I find it troubling that we Mormons are so threatening to other Christians who blog. An innocent remark that some Mormon bloggers might attend obviously made some people very uncomfortable.
Second, can anyone explain why Mormons are excluded on the basis of some (understandable) theological differences while Protestants of all stripes are welcome as well as Catholics? I’m way out of my league in this area but why do Evangelicals have more in common with the recent Episcopal church, than Mormons? I don’t mean to invite a theological debate but I am curious why it is easier to overlook some jarring differences within the multitude of Protestant churches when at least politically and culturally they share much in common with Mormon bloggers like myself. Perhaps more.
Third, what can LDS bloggers do to bridge the divide? I think I may visit more of these sites just to get their perspective and make a comment or two to share mine. Hopefully we can come to a better mutual understanding.
I realize they are perfectly within their rights to invite and welcome whomever they please. I applaud their efforts to organize and host the conference. But it continues to rankle me that, as with last year’s National Day of Prayer, “mainstream” Christians go out of their way to alienate an easy ally.
More in an attempt to actually wrest some Microsoft-style power away from that other blog than use it themselves, By Common Consent has recruited Kris Wright of Feminist Mormon Housewives.
In other bloggernacle news, and perhaps an even more ominous challenge to that all-seeing blog is the Mormon Archipelago, a new collaboration between Splendid Sun and United Brethren*. And they are issuing a call for other small blogs to join.
I am not one who watches a lot of game shows nor reality shows (really!). But I find it striking that Mormons are not only contestants on some big time shows, but they are winning big time.
By Common Consent let us know about Ryan, who won The Biggest Loser a week or two ago and we all know about that guy on Jeopardy. Sure, there were those two Mormon sisters on The Amazing Race who didn’t get too far (I just hear about his stuff, I don’t actually watch it, really!).
But it didn’t occur to me until yesterday when I came across Paul’s post about Shawn D. Nelson’s winning The Rebel Billionaire reality show that Mormons are doing pretty darn well when it comes to winning money on TV.
What is it? Has Philo T. Farnsworth’s ghost returned to bless his people? Or just that internet hype makes it easier to follow the smallest details of anyone who enters the public sphere?
I don’t have much to add to this interesting article but just to note an up and coming LDS politician, Honolulu mayor, Mufi Hannemann
Stepping up to the podium, Mufi Hannemann, the first Pacific Islander to take the city’s helm in decades and the city’s first Mormon mayor, beamed with pride and broke into song. . .
Hannemann also said that faith plays a significant part in his life and work. He quoted a hymn from his Mormon childhood during his inaugural speech, and several days before held an interdenominational “inaugural prayer service” at a historic Honolulu church.“I made it a point that prayer is very important in how I will govern,” Hannemann said.
Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints make up about 5 percent of Oahu’s population _ Hannemann won by less than half a percent _ and run one of Hawaii’s major tourist attractions, the Polynesian Cultural Center.
While the church did not openly back his campaign, Hannemann made members aware of his religious affiliation by attending services in more than one Mormon chapel during the race.
Although a Democrat elected in a nonpartisan race, Hannemann said he’s taking a well-known Republican as the model for his administrative style _ former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
http://headlife.blogspot.com/unitedbrethren/2005/01/are-mormons-ready-for-mormon-president.html
Read the rest of this entry »
Governor Huntsman will be giving today’s State of the State address from the Fillmore Territorial Statehouse since the Utah State Capitol is undergoing renovations. I thought this article on the history of Fillmore as Utah’s first capitol was very interesting:
[Gov. Huntsman's address] is believed to be the first such speech given at the statehouse since territorial Gov. Brigham Young delivered a speech to the territorial Legislature in 1855, the only full year a Legislature met at the statehouse.
Originally, the building was supposed to be Utah’s Capitol, designed as a Roman cross with a Moorish dome in the middle.
But the federal funding that came from Mormon-friendly President Millard Fillmore dried up after Fillmore was defeated in the early 1850s, and only the southern wing of the structure was ever built.
While Brigham Young had picked the site for the Capitol because it was centrally located in the Pauvan Valley near Chalk Creek, legislators wanted to have meetings in Salt Lake City. By 1858 a new, non-Mormon governor, Albert Cummings, was appointed by President James Buchanan and the official state Capitol moved to Salt Lake City.
http://mormoninquiry.typepad.com/mormon_inquiry/2005/01/lecturing_the_b.html
Read the rest of this entry »
Amy Sullivan takes a look for the The New Republic to see if Senator Reid’s recent ascension can win over more Mormon votes for Democrats(silly, free registration required).
My response is an emphatic (and hopeful) “No!” But that doesn’t mean a whole lot so I guess I’ll have to explain a little more.
First, as a political and religious conservative who happens to be Mormon, I have been flattered by the attention the Church and its members are getting because of Senator Reid’s new position. As Sullivan mentions, some of my fellow religious conservatives don’t take too kindly to Mormons, which I believe is a huge mistake. And I am sure the Church as an institution enjoys the Senator’s new prominence as a confirmation after many years of insisting that that no, all Mormons aren’t Republican. However, it’s wishful thinking to suggest that Democrats could win over a sizable bloc of the Mormon vote anytime soon.
Yes, Utah has been historically Democratic until fairly recently (1970’s as I understand it). However, my take is that unlike some who claim that the Church and its members are becoming more conservative, the Democratic party and its leaders have been drifting more and more leftward especially on cultural issues (which yes, includes but is not limited to abortion). And many feel (myself included) that the party has become increasingly insensitive to moral issues and hostile towards organized religion.
Looking at some of the article’s points:
An Evangelical/Mormon split that threatens political division is recurrent wishful thinking that is nothing new and no reason to make a difference anytime soon.
Who remembers the great “fissure” between Presidents Bush and Hinckley over faith-based initiatives? Me neither. True, I believe the Church is wise to avoid government entanglement as much as possible, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a bad idea to give religious charities an even footing with their secular counterparts.
Sullivan looks to Senator Smith and Hatch for what Mormons feel about stem-cell research. She doesn’t seem to recall that Hatch took a lot of flak from his constituents for advocating more research funding and is very likely out of step with the majority of Mormons. The Church may be neutral on this issue but a voting bloc that is very pro-life is likely to have qualms about stem cell research. I’m not sure what is best but Senator Kerry’s demonization of President Bush’s balanced position showed he had little regard for the ethical questions involved.
Sullivan suggests that “final straw” may be over the war on terrorism and the Patriot Act. She probably bases this assumption on some discussions at Times and Seasons and By Common Consent:
But perhaps the final straw for some Mormons comes, surprisingly, out of the war on terror. Above all else, Mormons value their ability to live according to their own values, unfettered by the intrusion of the state. So the passage of the Patriot Act, and other post-9/11 reforms intended to help the government keep tabs on potential terrorists in the United States, has set off alarm bells within the community. For the past three years, LDS blogs have furiously debated whether the Patriot Act is acceptable because it was pushed through the Senate by Judiciary Committee chair Hatch, or whether such an expansion of government power should always be viewed as inherently threatening to Mormons. Nor were they much happier about the war in Iraq. At the annual general council meeting before the war, Elder Russell Nelson, an influential church leader, counseled: “As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, what does the Lord expect of us? As a Church, we must ‘renounce war and proclaim peace.’”
Of course, most religions are against war (as are most people). A cherry-picked quote belies the belief that it is also theologically sound to defend one’s family and nation from harm, as many see the war on terrorism. And no offense to the great people at T&S or BCC but if media types think they are a typical sampling of Mormon thought, they need to do a little more research (Come check out my blog for the “true” Mormon position 
). But while she looks to Senator Hatch for guidance as to the “Mormon” positon on stem cell research she ignores his staunch defense of the Patriot Act and its extension.
The majority of Mormons probably are strongly opposed to abortion, but they are probably as troubled by other social, cultural, and other political issues. Senator Reid has already gone out of his way to distance himself from Church leadership on marriage and it is only more likely that he is will be forced to do so more. I don’t expect many Mormons to be following him.
Thanks Roscoe’s Blog.
UPDATE: Other (better, more concise) thoughts at UNcORRELATED, Metaphor Country, and The American Scene.
http://southdakotapolitics.blogs.com/south_dakota_politics/2005/week1/index.html#a0003163480#trackback
Read the rest of this entry »
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600103101,00.html
LDS and Mormon Blogs
