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!
It’s been interesting this year to watch the Church and Mitt Romney reach out to Christians for their own reasons and in their own ways.
Gov. Romney has been actively courting GOP-influential evangelicals as a key to his nomination. Rather than directly speaking on his religion (as so many pundits are demanding he do), he has continuously emphasized that it has informed his “values” which are similar to the rest of religious conservatives.
“The values of my faith are much like, or are identical to, the values of other faiths that have a Judeo-Christian philosophical background,” he said at a campaign event in New Hampshire this month. “They’re American values, if you will.”
In contrast, the Church has renewed its efforts to define itself as a Christian church while emphasizing its peculiar differences. President Hinckley and Elder Holland’s General Conference talks rejected the creedal beliefs of mainstream Christianity based on what Holland called “post–New Testament Christian history”:
So any criticism that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not hold the contemporary Christian view of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost is not a comment about our commitment to Christ but rather a recognition (accurate, I might add) that our view of the Godhead breaks with post–New Testament Christian history and returns to the doctrine taught by Jesus Himself.
Last week the Church followed up these talks with a press release emphasizing that “As people learn more about Latter-day Saint beliefs, they may see some distinct differences and yet find some unexpected common ground.”
Governor Romney glosses over his religious differences (smartly I think) while the Church unapologetically emphasizes its differences, and yet they are both seeking to establish that Mormonism (or at least a Mormon) has a place in the public square. (Just to keep piling on, Harry Reid’s comments last week were not helpful in this effort)
There will always be evangelical clods who will feel they have a divine mandate to harass the Church and protest General Conference, but politically, I think there has been evidence that progress has been made.
- President Hinckley met with the late Jerry Falwell earlier this year where they discussed opposing against same-sex marriage efforts in California.
- Evangelical leaders seem to be reluctantly realizing that Romney is their best hope for representing their values and some have started to endorse him (whether he should accept some of them is another matter).
The Church has made it clear we don’t want to agree on everything theologically. Or politically. Just some respect and an acknowledgement that Mormons don’t have horns would be nice. When Bob Jones University can join the 21st century and endorse a Mormon for president, I think there’s reason for hope.
Tags: 2008 campaign, anti-mormons, evangelicals, general conference, Harry Reid, Mitt Romney, mormon
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link
http://www.asoftanswer.com/2007/10/19/agreeing-to-disagree/trackback/
19 October 2007 at 6:52 pm
Chris H.
It seems that going back to the Equal Rights Amendment we have found evangelicals to be our political allies. While I am repulsed by both their theology and their politics, I have always been amazed by how Mormon’s seem to view evangelicals as allies.
“When Bob Jones University can join the 21st century and endorse a Mormon for president, I think there’s reason for hope.” Yeah, an endorsement from an openly racist institution. It is sort of like George Wallace asking Ezra Taft Benson to be his VP candidate. Hope?
19 October 2007 at 10:33 pm
Dave
Yes, it seems Romney’s candidacy is forcing a very public discussion about Mormonism onto the media and the Church itself. How fortunate the Church tooled up its PR capability, its media relations, and its online Newsroom just in time to be ready to handle the attention so smoothly.
19 October 2007 at 10:51 pm
David H. Sundwall
Chris -
Should Bob Jones U stay racist and remain hateful towards Mormons and Catholics? They seem to be making progress, if ever so slowly.
I think it’s a good thing (and ironic) that fundamentalists are being forced to accept that a Mormon politician may be their best hope for being a standard bearer in next year’s election.
So what if you don’t like their (or Romney’s) politics. If it makes any easier for you, think of it as the doctor is making them take some bitter medicine.
And from what I understand, BJU has abandoned any racist policies. That should be considered a good thing. It was when our Church had to go through a similar process.
A lot of the scrutiny on the Church has been aggravating and unfair but as Dave says, the Church has handled it well and will come through for the better regardless how the Romney campaign fares.
20 October 2007 at 3:08 pm
Todd Wood
Is Stephen Jones racist?
We took classes together.
Curious to know Chris H.’s dogmatism on BJU in 2007?
21 October 2007 at 10:09 pm
Chris H.
Todd,
Who is Stephen Jones?
“Curious to know Chris H.’s dogmatism on BJU in 2007?”
I am not sure what you mean. I may have been unfair in my stereotyping of BJU, I apologize.
I am pretty sure that the heart of southern conservatism (the life blood of the GOP), of which Bob Jones is a pillar, is symbolic racism.
Dave S.,
I realize that Romney needs to make bedfellows with these groups to get elected. I keep hoping that this Harvard educated former-moderate is just jumping through election hoops. I am glad that they have repented of some of their racism. I am suspect of institution that waited until the 1990s to do so. Of course, 1978 was a bit slow.
I hope that all is well in the great state of Maryland.
Both Daves,
I do think that this has been an impressive PR moment for the Church. It is true after all.
22 October 2007 at 3:06 pm
David B
The problem, of course, is that Mitt Romney’s political positions are widely seen as the political positions of Mormonism (though less so in the Northeast and the Jello Belt, probably, since there people more likely know how different his positions were three years ago), no matter the church’s statements to the contrary, precisely because Mitt Romney hasn’t explicitly and loudly stated otherwise. He really needs a JFK “I believe in an America…where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope…or any other ecclesiastical source” moment (if it’s not too late to do so already), but so do Mormons generally.
In this regard, Harry Reid not only didn’t blow it, he probably did Mormons a bit of a service by pointing out in a headline-grabbing way that Mormons are a lot more sociopolitically diverse than people generally think.
23 October 2007 at 12:33 pm
David
David B -
I agree that Harry Reid is good for showing that Mormons are more diverse than being standard bearers for the GOP.
However, I disagree that he needs a JFK type speech. That is a constant refrain of many pundits but he has continuously said what you are talking about in interview after interview. I believe if he gives a speech, it will legitimaize the issue further, making him subject to answering more and more follow-up questions and then, have to defend the Church and its beliefs. That is something he has been carefully avoiding.
Good to hear from an old College Park Institute friend.
24 October 2007 at 5:34 pm
Nick Literski
I can’t for the life of me see how any faithful Mormon would find it “progress” to see the man they consider a prophet engaging in back-room political scheming with the likes of Jerry Falwell. What deity would direct his messenger to cut a deal with the devil?