Romney's Mormonism: Candor, Please

Though your article is largely accurate, albeit heavily skewed in to the negative...I do have a couple of nitpicks about your representation of Mormon teaching.

1. The role of Jesus Christ our Savior is not "something of a mystery in Mormonism". I could go on and on with exclusively Mormon scriptures and quotes to prove my point but will only use one from the Book of Mormon,

Moroni 10:
32 Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.
33 And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot.

He is my savior, my redeemer, my king. Only through His Atonement will I be saved, redeemed, or exalted.

2. In Mormonism we believe that: a) all people are the spirit children of Heavenly Parents (ie. sons and daughters of God literally created in His image). b) As we join the body of Christ through Faith in his name and grace Christ, and by making covenants with him trough baptism etc., we become his sons and daughters...another meaning for sons or daughter of God.

3. Actually, you were right to begin with...through the eternal union of a man and a woman...THEY become gods...both of them. This is an issue that many misunderstand. For us the family is not only God's ordained unit of association here in mortality...but the pattern of our "species" if you will, throughout eternity. Where was there ever a Father with out a Mother? For the man is not without the woman neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

It is not an issue of becoming "equal" with or replacing God our Father, but through the Atonement of Christ "growing up" to be like him. What loving Father would desire less? In life we never can actually become or replace our parents, but as children most of us grow to be adults and take on the same kind of responsibilities and experience the same kinds of things our parents did.

4. On your description of what we call the "God Head"...we DON'T believe that "THEY including the Holy Ghost" were "once" men with "flesh and bone". If one believes the thoughts of Joseph Smith and some others...we believe that God the Father may have once been a Man with a body of flesh and blood as we have now and gained his exaltation as a Perfected Being with a glorified body of "Flesh and Bone". This is a somewhat mysterious idea that we don't know much about, and consequently seldom discuss.

Jesus Christ, in our belief is the Jehovah of the Old Testament, the Creator of this world. Before his birth as a child in Bethlehem he was a God and a personage of Spirit. Through his suffering, death on the cross, and subsequent resurrection, he performed the Atonement provide a way for us to become "at one" with God. He is the Risen Lord and now has a glorified Body of "flesh and bone". He said in after his resurrection to His Apostles, "Touch me, feel the wounds in my hands and feed, for a spirit hath not flesh and bone as ye see me have." I'm not sure I got the quote word for word but you get the idea.

The Holy Ghost we believe is a personage of Spirit, and has never had any kind of physical body. Some speculate that one day he will, maybe during Christ's Millennial Rein. The point though is we defiantly believe he neither has nor has had a body.


Anyway, that was more that a couple but I just had not nitpick. Thanks.

Hi CBA: I wrote a LONG reply to your fascinating comment, but somehow I vaporized in cyberspace. Perhaps I'll recreate it later. My main point is that Governor Romney should in fact talk about his faith, including how it differs from "mainstream" (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox) Christianity. His advisors are going to tell him to do the opposite, to blur differences and to overstate similarities. That approach could be a disaster, making him look deceptive. Ironically, perhaps, Romney can perform a great service to the LDS Church if he levels with people. In times past, the LDS Church has made major changes (elimination of polygamy, elimination of a bad policy regarding Blacks) and they've reflected well on the Church. Other changes, particularly regarding the role of women and homosexuals in the church and the recognition of the importance of academic freedom and diversity of views, are also necessary. It does not in fact require a special revelation from God to become a better people and a better institution. It just requires a commitment TO DO THE RIGHT THING. I see the LDS Church as marginally Christian, but the American people would elect even a non-Christian (for example, a Jew) who has different beliefs but is a moral, thoughtful individual who's candid about his/her beliefs. Sometimes, candidates (e.g., Giuliani) get in trouble for expressing what they truly believe. Well, so be it. "Honesty is the best policy," even when it seem not the "politic" thing to do.

Full disclosure: I'm Mormon.

Regarding the blog entry: Is it really Mitt's job to explain his religion's doctrine to every one? Or even (as is indicated here) obscure events surrounding the church? It seems the impossible is asked here. Thats a job for a church to do, and is not something I'll spend time doing here.

This constant carping on about 'The Mormon Question', gets tiring. Some people won't vote for a Mormon candidate who is the closest to their ideology simply because of his religion. Whoop-dee-do. I know I sound like a Democrat here, but I am disheartened negative things (like...this blog) are brazenly written about Mormons and different rules apply to Mormon candidates but these lack any equivalent for other races, faiths, etc.

Hi, I can understand your frustration, but it was Mitt Romney who raised the issue to the South Carolina Republicans (in his misleading remark about Jesus Christ being his "personal savior").

One thing that is ironic: when George Romney (Mitt's dad) was a serious candidate for President, the "Mormon issue" hardly arose, if at all. Perhaps that was because there were significantly fewer Mormons (mostly centered in Utah) at the time.

It is going to be Mitt's job to explain his religion to evangelical Christians (and partly to mainstream Christians) in part because of Mormonism's claim -- a very insulting one to many people -- to be "the one, true religion," meaning that other people's Christianity is "one . . . of the untrue ones."

If Mitt were a Muslim or a Buddhist or a Confucian, he would face the same challenge. Remember the firstorm when a Muslim congressman wanted to take his oath with his hand on the Koran? I'm not a big fan of Islam, but I certainly believe he had a right to use a book he regards as a sacred text.

As a Mormon, Mitt has many positive things about the Church that he can point to, including the Church's emphasis on self-reliance, families, and healthy living. He should also, as I suggested, suggest ways in which the Church can improve its performance in tolerance, respect for women (and not just as mommies), and other areas. When Christ says in the Bible, "my church" (the only time he uses that phrase), he means His institution completely populated and run by fallible human beings trying to become better, which is the case with any church.

Personally, I believe the LDS Church has shot itself in the foot in many ways, convincing others that as Woodward says, it is clannish, stand-offish, and not entirely candid about what it believes. Romney's candidacy has to bear the burden of that.

I said in my piece that if Romney were the candidate of the Republican Party in 2008 I would vote for him. He is not my first choice (Giuliani), my second (McCain), or my third (Thompson or Brownback). However, as you indicate, he is a conservative, and he certainly knows how to raise money.

My fear: unless he is very candid about the basic principles in which he believes -- he doesn't have to get into theological niceties -- he can't win.

Anyway, thanks for writing.

steve

In one of my earlier columns, I talked about my great admiration for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, author of the book "Infidel." I mentioned in another column that she gets criticism for calling herself an agnostic. I noted that I believe that, in what God calls "the fullness of time," she will become a Christian. If she were eligible to run for President (she's not), I would seriously consider voting for her. I would vote for her for Congress or the Senate. I admit she's an exception for me, because of her brilliance, courage, and love of liberty. By the way, I'd also vote for Condi Rice, who is a Christian and who may be on the ticket in 2008.

I'm not at all blind to the number of LDS young men and women who have taken up arms for this country. I revere their commitment and sacrifice. Such people have a right to run for any office in this land.

My main point is that, if they want to win in an electorate consisting 95%-plus of non-Mormons, they must be candid about exactly what they believe.

Its a stretch to say that Mitt 'raised the issue' or was looking for a religious argument or dialogue, and therefore...negative things should be written about the LDS church.

Again, I don't see the logical conclusion that Mormon political candidates need to explain religious doctrine. Yes, we believe ours to be Christ's restored church, and this is very difficult to for others to hear. But where is the similar requirement, for example, that Jewish candidates go public with explanations on why they do not believe Jesus is the Messiah?

Your implication that Mitt is dishonest about his beliefs because he's 'not candid' is also a stretch. Its obvious from your writings you disagree strongly with the LDS faith and the few things you suggest are either out of his control (ie. stop LDS clannishness!), or would go counter to his faith. Whatever...God Bless America.

Final thoughts: Given the subject matter, I think you would have done better to write more on _realistic_ ways Mitt specifically can assuage non-Mormon voters, and spend less of the space on personal ad hominem feelings about the LDS church generally. I do support Romney at this time, and that he's a co-religionist is interesting, but not the primary reason. At this time he's the most electable conservative (yeah, yeah, like Brownback will ever gain traction). Apparently I'm not alone thinking this: http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MattTowery/2007/04/12/most_media_clueless_about_2008_presidential_race

One thing I detect is that you think I'm (shudder! gasp!) "anti-Mormon." Trust me, I'm not. I believe Jewish candidates (Joe Lieberman was one before the Dems cast him into outer darkness) bring a fairly well-known religion tradition along with them. They are followers (at least the religious ones like Joe) of the Old Testament, which comes to a conclusion before the birth of Christ. The Mormon tradition is much less well-known than Judaism (which itself is a foundation belief system for Christianity).

Romney raised the issue when he uttered "Christ is my personal savior" remarks to South Carolina Christians. I believe he was being deceptive in using terms that mean one thing to Christians and another to Mormons (who are Christians of a different kind from us garden-variety Christians).

I believe a man's or woman's faith and social values (a strong part of the LDS Church) are critical to determining who he or she is. I doubt if Mitt Romney would disagree about that.

There have been many criticism made (past and present) about elements of the Mormon culture -- the treatment of women being one. When someone raises questions, the proper response is not to say, "The Church is true, and you're an anti-Mormon who read Ed Decker." Notice: I have neve read one word by Ed Decker.

This is the Age of the Internet, for better or worth. You can look up (google: "Mormon Temple Cermonies") everything that happens in the Mormon Temple, regardin weddings, baptism for the dead, and the like. There are very few secrets left in this world. If you want to find word-for-word Joseph Smith's King Follett remarks, it will take you about 15 seconds to find it. I don't think Joseph Smith's remarks qualify as "anti-Mormon" (an awful term) literature.

The proper response is to discuss the issue and where there are valid points, which there are, to make the necessary changes. If "eternal progression" means anything, it means exactly that. It means making improvements, personally and collectively. This seems to be a point that's impossible to get across to (many, not all) Mormons, but I persist -- perhaps unto the grave.

The Mormons in America are my brothers and sisters, in a sense that we are all citizens of this imperfect but wonderful country. I wish them well. I hope all of them, male and female, become all they can be. I hope they wish the same for me.

Frankly, I wish the same for Americans of the Muslim faith, even though some of them seem to think I deserve death threats.

I realize people say cruel things sometimes about the LDS Church. It is not cruel to say, "Hey, I disagree with you, because . . . ." The other day the Rutgers women's coach said her job in regard to the players was "to love them, to teach them, and (when necessary) to discipline them." The discipline part applies mostly to young people, but the "love and teach" parts are what we should doing in good faith for each other.

I don't see Mormons as poor, misguided souls that I must guide along the paths of righteousness. I ask in return that the LDS show the same respect for other religious traditions (perhaps by urging missionaries not to try to convert Christians). If you don't show respect, you don't get respect in return.

If Mitt Romney wants to President, and he does, then he will have to explain his beliefs thoroughly. If he does so, then Taggart Romney won't have to repeat the effort when he himself runs.

Re Sam Brownback: My belief (hey, I'm not perfect) is that Rudy Giuliani will be the nominee. Sam Brownback is a pro-life conservative who seems to be good at getting elected. He's also from Kansas, which is somewhere in the Midwest. :-) Rudy wouldn't need a Southerner, although I like Lindsay Graham a lot. Brownback mainly because Giuilani will have to run with a pro-life, family-oriented VP candidate. If Rick Santorum had won, it would have been an easy choice, but Rick lost big-time. Romney for VP? Depends a lot on how he performs in the next year. Rudy is not a big organizer, and neither is Romney. The first election I remember clearly is Kennedy-Johnson, 1960, when Kennedy picked the least like VP nominee imaginable -- and someone his brother Bobby despised. (Johnson helped him carry Texas, and without Texas and some of the South, no President JFK.) Unless Rudy stumbles badly, he will carry Cal., NY, and PA with big majorities on Feb. 5, and it will be "all she wrote." Romney brings strength in the Mountain West, but Republicans are already shoo-ins in most of those states. (I'm writing my next column; don't mind me!)

On clannishness: I mainly raised it because Woodward mentioned it as important. I don't think clannishness is going to play a big role in the election.

Have a great weekend.