The Boston Globe on Evangelicals and Mormons
The article points out that Mormons are “almost as monolithically Republican as African-Americans are Democratic. They tend on most major issues to be culturally and economically conservative, and in the past few presidential elections 80 to 90 percent of Mormons have voted for the Republican candidate.”
“It is this alignment that Romney has tried to exploit in courting his party’s vital conservative Christian bloc. He has emphasized his opposition to embryonic stem-cell research, and sought to distance himself from earlier statements that suggested moderate views on same-sex marriage and abortion. According to Gregory Rodriguez, a political analyst at the New America Foundation, Romney has even called himself an “evangelical Mormon.”‘
Now here is some red meat for democrats, as for why they shouldn’t like Mormons. I like the use of the word “exploit”. When democrats court people that tend to agree with them, does the Boston Globe use the world “exploit”. And has anyone heard Romney call himself an “evangelical Mormon”? Were did he get this?
“Indeed, when Romney and others talk about his Mormonism in the context of the coming campaign, the assumption is that, despite the theological differences between LDS and evangelicals, politically the two groups are on the same page.”
“But while few dispute the social conservativism of the LDS church and its members, it is also true that on some key issues they don’t fall neatly into line with the religious right’s priorities.”
Great. Tell evangelicals that we are all moderates. This is divisive because it is an over simplification and it is not true. We are moderates in the same sense that evangelicals are moderates. Some of us are and some of us are not.
I think a lot of Mormons and evangelicals miss-interpret the lesson learned from the following scripture:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/rev/3/16#16
I think that this scripture has to do with standing up for what is right, with specific issues. I don’t think that means that one party is always right, or that extremism is good. One party does not own God and his causes, and Jesus taught against bad extremism. The apostles gave their lives for the truth. They were good extreme. But they didn’t take the lives of others for the truth. They didn’t kill. They didn’t lie, to move the cause forward. They didn’t oversimplify issues. The need to be hot or cold does not mean the ends justify the means. I think Romney is respectful. I don’t think you have to be full of hatred to democrats, just to prove that you are a good republican. This is one of Romney’s strengths but it is turned into a weakness when people use labels, like moderate. You can stand for truth without oversimplifying or demonizing your enemies or their position. You can still have strong convictions and be what some people call a moderate.
This is a must read from George Washing for those who advocate party (or faction) extremism
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm
George Washington says,
“…They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.”
“It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.”
“I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.”
“This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.”
“The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”
But I digress.
The article asserts that Mormons are more moderate than evangelicals, which is an oversimplification and not true. Evangelicals are no more exactly like each other than Mormons.
This is where I think I need to put in some of my criticisms for the news. Instead of telling people that they need to attend an evangelical church or Mormon church in order to explain what is going on, they make it sound like they have all the answers. All you need to know about Mormons and Evangelicals can be found in the Boston Globe. It’s not their fault, it is the nature of journalism to suck. They don’t tell you to go to an encyclopedia or talk to an evangelical. They just want you reading their adds.
Here are some of my favorite anti-journalism quotes.
“People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news.”
- AJ Liebling
“All successful newspapers are ceaselessly querulous and bellicose. They never defend anyone or anything if they can help it; if the job is forced on them, they tackle it by denouncing someone or something else.”
- HL Mencken
“If you believe everything you read, better not read. ”
- Japanese Proverb
And the grand daddy of them all that sums up my point is this:
“To read a newspaper is to refrain from reading something worthwhile. The first discipline of education must therefore be to refuse resolutely to feed the mind with canned chatter.”
- Aleister Crowley
That is my point. Reading the Boston Globe is worse than reading “canned chatter” it is reading partisan, party, (faction), canned chatter. It purports to tell you about the differences between Mormonism and Evangelicals, but you would be much better served going to an encyclopedia unless you want to be deceived. You would much better be served going to one of their churches. You would much better be served talking to or forming a friendship with members of these communities. Or go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicals
or here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints
The canned chatter that I speak of is this guy from the Boston Globe who tries to tell us about Mormons and Evangelicals but has probably never stepped foot inside of a Mormon or Evangelical church, let alone read the Bible. Maybe he has been to these churches and read the Bible, but that is not my point. The point is he is saying you can understand these communities by reading his article, without going to the church or reading anything else. I guess its not his fault. It’s not his job to educate people. But maybe it is. When he is trying to tell the difference between Mormons and Evangelicals shouldn’t he link to additional information? Shouldn’t he acknowledge that he is making drastic over simplifications and mischaracterizations? People who read this article will have a misconception of what it is to be Mormon and Evangelical.
Back to the article.
He says,
”But while few dispute the social conservativism of the LDS church and its members, it is also true that on some key issues they don’t fall neatly into line with the religious right’s priorities.”
Well no du! Mormons don’t all agree with each other. Evangelicals don’t all agree with each other. Only journalist think they can explain the world so that it all “falls neatly into line” with each other.
Continuing,
“To be sure, Mormons and conservative Christians, both Catholic and evangelical, are on the same side of two of the bitterest culture-war battles being fought today, over gay marriage and abortion. On others, though — stem-cell research, the teaching of evolution in schools, public funding for religion, and end-of-life care — the LDS church is harder to pin down. In part this is due to the church’s unique theology, but it may also derive from Mormonism’s early history as a marginal sect suspicious of (and suspected by) the US government. Mormons today are among the nation’s most patriotic groups, but many retain a sharp sense of their minority status.
“Romney himself has been quick to point out that he is not running as a representative of his religion. And like John F. Kennedy, he has demonstrated over the years a certain independence from his church. And yet, lost in the discussion of Romney and Mormonism is that, unlike Kennedy, Romney’s stances on key issues dear to the religious right may actually make him more conservative than his own church.”
How can he say Romney is more conservative than his own church? The Mormon church is silent on 99% of political issues, and so Romney is both more conservative and more liberal than a church that does not take political stances. This is the problem with media. They have the usefulness of cheerleaders. They get a degree in Journalism, and think they are qualified to discuss everything.
I do not want to hear another journalist talk about religion, who does not have a degree in religion.
(click below for the next page)
December 31st, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Damn (and that was the only word that I could come up with here that was appropriate), I think that was the longest post ever made here. You did an absolutely wonderful job expressing yourself and you did a great job telling it like it is. Thank You so much for all your hard work in putting that together.
Ann Marie
December 31st, 2006 at 4:33 pm
I hope people know that it was just my opinion. It is just my opnion, and no one else’s on the blog… I have never spoken to Romney or anyone who works for him…
December 31st, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Let a Libertarian lay down some Founding Father wisdom;
“If a Nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be…if we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
“Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
December 31st, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Thomas Jefferson would not go for the pseudo-scientific ID crap that Romney defends. He was way too science oriented to do that.
December 31st, 2006 at 7:29 pm
Mike your posts are too long! Use the KISS method (Keep It Short and Sweet)! My goodness! I was getting into it for the first paragraph then I began to scroll down and got discouraged. All I have time for is a quick read! I guess I am just gripping a bit but you get my point?
December 31st, 2006 at 7:51 pm
All your points were well taken. I too didn’t have time to read it all, but the parts I did read were well thought out. What you need to do Mike is write a book. Seriously, get a publisher behind you, compile all your posts and research, and write a book. Not bad for an engineer.
December 31st, 2006 at 8:42 pm
On the Mormon issue, Mike don’t get so worked up about the left wing slant on it. The left is opposed to any organized religion and their opposition to Romney on the basis of his religion will backfire, since this is a country of faith. Actually, Romney’s Mormon is a net plus for him, if he is able to reassure evangelicals, like myself, that there is no ulterior agenda to promote or legitimize Mormonism from the bully pulpit of the presidency. Also he would do well not to suggest that Mormonism is just as palatable as Christianity. I think it is important for Romney to say that as much as there are similarities and shared values between the two faiths, the fact remains Mormons are distinct from Christians. Otherwise why be a Mormon? If he does this then the focus will be less on doctrines to prove the efficacy of Mormonism with respect to Christianity and more on the shared values and conservatism between Mormons and Christians in general…A big plus is that Utah with its large Mormon population is the reddest of Red States, which is not a coincidence. It’s a testament to the conservative, patriotic values Mormons have and which Romney must prove he has to gain conservative primary voters’ votes.
December 31st, 2006 at 8:42 pm
Romney didn’t defend ID, I did. I’m not sure what Romney thinks about ID… unless you have any quotes that I don’t know of…
December 31st, 2006 at 8:55 pm
Thanks for the Thomas Jefferson quote on the newspapers… I added it to this site:’
http://myclob.pbwiki.com/News
December 31st, 2006 at 9:02 pm
Steve, I hope you are right when you say that “Actually, Romney’s Mormon is a net plus for him, if he is able to reassure evangelicals, like myself, that there is no ulterior agenda to promote or legitimize Mormonism from the bully pulpit of the presidency.”
I don’t know if you guys have read Ender’s game but it seems like the Boston Globe is trying to create friction between our two communities by picking winners and loosers, and over simplifying things…
Feel free to tell me if I got anything wrong in the article, or if you think I went out there into la-la-land or anything… I’m just kind of making this up as I go, and I don’t know if I’m doing a good job of representing Romney or not…
December 31st, 2006 at 9:12 pm
I was watching Meet The Press this morning and I found out that a new New York Times poll finds Sen. McCain the front runner, Gov. Romney at 2nd and Rudy at 3rd. He’s really gaining in the polls.
January 1st, 2007 at 2:53 am
myclob-that is some WOW research there, YOUR MY HERO! great work!!!
January 1st, 2007 at 9:29 am
I am a Mormon-Libertarain and some of my mormon-libertarian friends have been waiting on this to evolve for quite sometime. Mormon voters are different than the evangical voting block.
Also when you get down to the meat of things the religious right wants mormons to vote with them but at the same time they won’t vote FOR us. We mormons are the redheaded stepchild of the Dobson family. Generally speaking people respect us but only to a point.
I hope Romney can overcome this silly bias of the evangelicals because he is the smartest man running for president.
January 1st, 2007 at 12:07 pm
TV elects the candidate. Who do you think is going to look better in front of that camera? McCain, Guliani or Mitt? Mike’s review was right on but it gave me analysis paralysis. I truly do feel the nomination is his to lose. His handlers need to follow the example of Mitt’s church. Take the low key approach. Stay on message and don’t react when those former politically correct pundits begin to rail on his religion. They would not dare take on his sexual orientation, his ethnicity, his gender ( if he were Nancy Pelosi )but it is OK to attack his religion. That alone is going to undo the liberal press who are trying to bring Mitt Romney down. Every negative avenue they adapt decries their hypocrisy.
January 1st, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Thanks Lee, I’m working on a Major re-write of the above article…It was a rough draft… I hate editing what I right… I just like spewing it forth, but I know I am kind of all over the place… my next version will be much better, and I hope will not give anyone any paralysis.
January 1st, 2007 at 3:18 pm
I think you will find that the reason the LDS Church is silent on 99% of political issues is because most issues are outside their stated mission of bringing people to Christ. Simply, most issues are not directly relivant to the Church’s message. This is a religious organization, not political. People who think otherwise just don’t get it. Sure, the Church will make an occasional position statement, but you notice it is nearly always in response to a direct and forceful attack on families or religious freedom. And those position statements are limited (at least in my experience) to the institutionalization of policy that would be harmful to families or religious freedom. The Church encourages its members to be involved as citizens (with no direction as to party affiliation), but will refrain from getting involved as an organization. It’s a church, not a PAC.
January 1st, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Right on Jay. Any Libertarian who cares anything about capitalism, who has any kind of brain about how to make an impact in our favor through voting would know they should cash this year’s votes behind Romney for President, rather than the Libertarian canidate.
Libertarians are only able to get Libertarians in office at local levels. Most of the time, we’ll vote for the Libertarian [President] out of principle. That when there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between R&D canidates. Now there is a HUGE difference between Romney and the other prospects. I feel Romney would be the only one who’d try to make serious changes, ones that improve the economy.
I can see it now.
“Romney stops the White House from buying $1000 toilet seats and $25 hammers! The Turn-Around Specialist balanced the budget!”
“Romney proposes a plan that will end Social Security Taxes! Government will still pay people currently on social security. But the new working class will have a mandate of investing a percent of their earnings in to private retirement funds. As 16 year old who spend the same amount of money that went to Social Security if put in a retirement fund, they can retire at 40 years old with $7 million.”
January 1st, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Romney is willing to cross party lines to vote for someone who he thinks will balance the budget…
Tsongas was viewed as social liberal and economic conservative. He was especially known for his pro-business economic policies that have come to be embraced by many in the modern Democratic Party. In particular, he focused on the United States budget deficit and its harmful effects, a cause he continued to champion after his primary campaign ended by co-founding The Concord Coalition
So welcome to the Romney team! Democrats, Libertarians, and anyone else who cares abuot the budget, and deficit!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tsongas
January 1st, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Quoting Al Crowley is pretty much like quoting Lucifer. Do you think Pres. Hinkley would quote him to prove a point?
January 1st, 2007 at 8:44 pm
I have no idea who he is I just like the quote… Who is he?
January 1st, 2007 at 9:26 pm
The deficit is a red herring used by both party. The Dems like to talk about deficits, so that they can eventually raise taxes to expand government. True conservatives like to talk about the deficit as a means to cut spending in the hope of reducing the size of government. However the federal government from time to time must run deficit to smooth out the business cycles, which Reagan began to do in the 80s (with his big deficits) and since we haven’t had a recession lasting more than a year. And actually in the last 25 years have had only two official (1991 and 2001)recessions. Come to think about it the two times we had surpluses, we had recessions. In 1991 we had a trade surplus and in 2001 we had a budget surplus. So all this talk about how good surpluses are have not been borne out in reality, since in each case (recently) neither surpluses prevented recessions. The real killer in the economy are taxes and onerous regulations and litigations on individuals and businesses. This is where the government kills jobs and makes it harder for businesses and individuals to complete. Not to mention the near government monopolies on education and health care. In these areas we need a maverick (no pun intended) who can cleverly change the political dynamics which created these monstrosities to begin with (serving special interest), into dynamics that can motor the economy for the good of all rather than the connected. With this said, I believe Guiliani, McCain, and Romney have strong qualities and experiences that can begin to turn things around. The question for primary voters will be who is most likely to deliver. By the way I agree that the Republican party must return to the conservatism of Barry Goldwater, who was essentially a libertarian. I think Reagan was a Goldwater republican and speaking as a evangelical, I don’t like the infusion of social conservatism in politics. I think it’s been overplayed by Rove and it’s time for the Rove era to past in favor of Goldwater/Reagan conservatism which was more focus on the excesses of government rather than using government to promote a social agenda.
January 1st, 2007 at 9:38 pm
I didn’t think evangelicals liked berry goldwater.
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:10 am
I do no think they did either, in the atlantic monthly article “holy cow” its said that romneys own father I believe walked out when he heard Barry speak.
January 2nd, 2007 at 4:12 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley
January 2nd, 2007 at 7:06 am
What we will never know is weather it was because Romney Sr was apposed to what he said, or if it was because he knew he would loose in a landslide, and he couldn’t figure out why the republicans would commit suicide like that…
I got the quote from Google’s quote of the day… I had now idea of what a freak it came from… should I keep using it? It is a great anti-newspaper quote, and they love freaks…
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Evangelicals have more to worry from Mitt Romney not being in harmony with the the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. His church does have a political position on abortion: only in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. The church also has a political position on gay marriage which is that there should be a Federal Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
January 2nd, 2007 at 2:37 pm
There’s no worry here. Mitt Romney’s position on abortion is in line with the Church’s, as is his position on gay marriage.
Romney has changed his position on abortion. It’s not uncommon for people, including politicians, to change their minds on the issues. The question is whether they will act with integrity. Romney has said he was wrong about his previous position on abortion and he has since been consistent in his opposition to it.
Today the Massachusetts Legislature voted on the proposal for a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The proposal got enough votes to be put on the ballot in 2008. This came about because Romney, together with a number of other private citizens, petitioned the state supreme court and the court ruled in their favor. What else do you want from him?
January 2nd, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Mormons, Evangelicals, and Catholics are ALL Christians. We should all begin to act like Christians, and stop pointing fingers. If we learned to work together with those who share our beliefs on a given issue, rather than nitpick about who believes in it more–we would accomplish a great deal more than we do now.