Report: Mormon Issue Working Against Romney In Iowa, And For Huckabee

Comments (45)

Jason Steed wrote on November 28, 2007 10:48 AM:

Seems to me the most basic definition of "Christian" is "one who believes in the divinity of Jesus."

Mormons believe in the divinity of Jesus, so at least on a basic level they ought to be considered "Christian."

What is more interesting to me, though, is that Judaism explicitly denies the divinity of Jesus. I would think the most basic definition of "anti-Christian" would be "one who denies the divinity of Jesus." Yet, somehow, I doubt that any of these fundamentalist, evangelical Right-wingers would be willing to tell the press that people shouldn't vote for an observant Jew as a candidate because he or she is "anti-Christian." Such a tack would be anti-Semitic, which everyone agrees is a Bad Thing.

Why isn't anti-Mormonism a Bad Thing?

Daniel wrote on November 28, 2007 10:53 AM:

Stunning news JUST out: Huckabee is now leading Romney for the first time in the latest Iowa poll out this morning!

Helter wrote on November 28, 2007 11:08 AM:

Wow, I'm stunned by that statement by the Huckabee volunteer. Sounds like Huckabee is lining up the bigot vote. When does he hire on the anti-semitic consultant?

Steve wrote on November 28, 2007 11:34 AM:

Many Christians have a problem with the Mormon faith - and for good reason. It's a religion that has mistreated women (through polygamy) and most Americans are uncomfortable with it.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 28, 2007 11:39 AM:

Remember that the Huckleberry crowd slimed Brownback for being the wrong sorta Christian earlier this years and that worked out well for him . . .

tekel wrote on November 28, 2007 11:50 AM:

Title should be: "Mormon Issue Working Against Romney EVERYWHERE BUT UTAH"

And this is as it should be. LDS is a cult, made up by a fraudster to justify his immoral behavior, just like Scientology. Jason Steed asked above: "Why isn't Anti-Mormonism a bad thing?" The answer is that all religion is a disease of the mind that allows the strong to prey on the weak, and LDS is a religion that's crazier than most.

Do you really want someone who has spent his entire adult life defending the ideas that God hates black people and that it's OK to have multiple wives to be the President of the United States?

Jason Steed wrote on November 28, 2007 12:23 PM:

tekel,
You're a bigot -- no better than any racist. Hard to preach liberal tolerance and multiculturalism and pluralism while hating people for their beliefs, isn't it?

Mitt has not "spent his entire adult life defending the ideas that God hates black people and that it's OK to have multiple wives." No Mormon spends any part of his or her life "defending" either of these notions.

Most Mormons are uncomfortable and even ashamed of the Church's historical treatment of Blacks, and have trouble answering for it. No Mormon believes that "God hates black people."

And Mormonism abandoned polygamy in 1890 -- anyone who practices it is excommunicated and NOT a part of the "real" Mormon religion. Most Mormons have trouble explaining/justifying the historical practice of polygamy, and no Mormon believes it is currently "OK to have multiple wives."

So, not only are you a bigot, but you're an ignorant one.

Jason Steed wrote on November 28, 2007 12:46 PM:

tekel,
I followed the link to your blog -- it's a pity that you choose to express such bigotry toward people who hold a set of (religious) beliefs that differ from yours. Aside from that, I would probably agree with your attitudes toward a lot of other things (law, politics, etc).

FWIW: it is possible to be religious and a leftist-progressive. Personally, I am the latter because I am the former. You might attack your religious opponents more effectively by charging them with failing to actually adhere to their own religious beliefs, rather than simply denigrating them for having religious beliefs in the first place.

phil james wrote on November 28, 2007 1:13 PM:

Religion should be absolutely no part of the debate. If you tell me you are going to make your decisions in public office based on your Christian religion or Mormon religion or Talmud or Koran or any other religious prescription, then I want you to get the hell out of politics and go home. This is a secular nation, not a theocracy, and I don't want any president trying to shove their religion down my throat or down anyone else's. And one need not look far to justify this position as our most recent self-professed religiously-guided president has been an unmitigated disaster

Jason Steed wrote on November 28, 2007 1:32 PM:

I believe in a strong separation between church and state. There certainly should be no religious litmus test for who should or should not hold office. But I don't think religion should be excluded from the debate altogether.

If ideology or political philosophy matters; if ethics and morality matter; if personal habits and characteristics matter; if background and personal history matter; if stances on issues and policy plans matter -- and all of these things do, I think, matter, and should be part of the debate (can't we agree?) -- then I'm not sure how one can say that religion should not be part of the debate. Religion (or anti-religion) is, after all, inescapably, inextricably wrapped up in all of these other things.

The key, I think, is to be respectful of differences. To have a clean debate.

Making religion part of the debate is not tantamount to having a theocracy. And being a secular nation (assuming that really is what we are) does not require eliminating religion from public discussion.

Bush has indeed been a disaster, and we can probably associate at least some portion of that with the influence his religion (or at least his religious rhetoric) has had on things; but this does not lead logically to the conclusion that religion should be excised from all debate, and should not have any role in or influence on an office-holder's views or policies.

The desire to exclude millions of people from political debate and from the political process because they are religious, or because religious matters are important to them -- well, that's profoundly undemocratic, isn't it?

Richard wrote on November 28, 2007 2:12 PM:

Huckabee should be ashamed of his organization for its bigoted narrow minded outlook. Romney is a far more compassionate person I bet he would even appoint a Muslim to his cabinet.....

Gidget Commando wrote on November 28, 2007 2:45 PM:

Richard wrote on November 28, 2007 2:12 PM:
Huckabee should be ashamed of his organization for its bigoted narrow minded outlook. Romney is a far more compassionate person I bet he would even appoint a Muslim to his cabinet.....

You forgot the tag. Romney's touting his universal health care stuff from Mass., but forgot to tell people he denied thousands of full-time state employees health insurance by calling them "temps". Every city was bleeding cops, firefighters and teachers, but he added 1,000 bootlicking managers to his rolls. Christian is as Christian does, and I say as a Massachusetts resident, his acts stink to high heaven.

Ashley wrote on November 28, 2007 2:45 PM:

I'm very upset at Barbara Heki's commet toward the Mormon religion. Being a Mormon myself, her comment only states that she knows nothing about the religion. We believe in God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Don't you? And don't all churches have a bad history at some point in time? The Catholic church had the gay scout leader, and I'm sure people don't view the Catholic church as gay men because that's not true. No one in ANY church is perfect, so why isn't that an issue? It is a shame that people only say what they think instead of the real facts. If Barbara Hecki had spoken to missionaries before making that statement, she might have held her tongue--as she should have in the beginning. Bashing of other candidates shouldn't be happening, and religion should not be the central debate either. We've all seen Bush at his best and worse, and what did religion have to do with it? We should all want a president that will lead the country in the best way possible no matter his religious beliefs. We are so strong on the idea of seperating church from state, yet when presidential debates come up, that's the first thing on everyone's mind. Interesting. No president tries to influence his religion on any person, but he will lead the country the best way he sees fit. So instead of speaking blasphemy about religions, vote for the candidate that best supports your views--DESPITE religion. The main isues are gay rights and abortion right? War is as well, and if a candidate supports how you feel 100% and they happen to be mormon, SO WHAT?! I'm not saying that I'm going to cast my vote for Romney because I want to see what every candidate has to say and how they feel on a variety of issues. Take religion out of the picture and tell me who you would vote for. I feel like this: if there was a candidate that was Athiest that had better ideas than the rest of them--I would vote for him, and I bet our country would flourish. Bush had religion and how far have we come? Exactly.

Jason Steed wrote on November 28, 2007 3:08 PM:

I should clarify (to those who may have misunderstood -- Richard? Gidget?) that my criticism of the Huckabee camp's anti-Mormonism -- while it may be taken as a kind of defense of Mormonism -- should NOT be taken as a defense or endorsement of Romney. I'm as troubled by many of his statements and stances as others are. All I've been saying here is that Romney should be taken to task for those statements and stances -- NOT for his Mormonism. And Huckabee hacks should refrain from attacking Mormonism en route to, or as a means of, attacking Romney.

phil james wrote on November 28, 2007 3:08 PM:

Jason Steed: Ashley made my point for me with this statement: "We believe in God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Don't you?" This is why religion should NOT be part of the debate. The answer to that question is entirely irrelevant to what this country needs to do for it's citizens over the next 4 or 400 years. Entirely irrelevant.

Jason Steed wrote on November 28, 2007 3:24 PM:

phil:
I will presume to answer for Ashley, to say that she was posing that question to the Evangelicals who are fond of anti-Mormon smears. In other words, to rephrase (Ashley: please forgive the presumption), I think Ashley was saying, "Hey all you Evangelicals out there, we believe in the same Godhead that you believe in, so why are you calling us anti-Christian?"

Do you really think that "this is why" religion should not be part of political debate? How does that conclusion have any logical connection to Ashley's retort to the Evangelicals?

I'll agree with you: In answering the open question (a) "What does this country need to do for its citizens?", the answer to the closed question (b) "Do you believe in God/Christ/etc.?" has no direct relevance or usefulness. The simple yes/no answer to closed-question (b) has no direct application to whatever complex answer we might concoct in answer to open-question (a).

But you're either in denial or you're just plain ignorant of the permanence and permeation of religious beliefs and concerns, if you think that the more complex ways in which one might apply or enact one's simple yes/no answer to question (b) do not have any influence on or relevance to how one might go about answering question (a).

A quick example: Someone might answer "no" to question (b) and apply or enact that belief (or anti-belief) in such a way as to want to ban discussion of religion from public discourse and political debate. (Sound familiar?) Such a policy would be part of one's possible answer to question (a), and would have significant impact on many other policies that might be involved in that answer to question (a).

Do you still want to claim that how one answers question (b) is "entirely irrelevant" to question (a)?

phil james wrote on November 28, 2007 4:00 PM:

Because, Jason, whether Evangelicals do or do not profess belief in any particular tenet of faith in common with a Mormon or Jew or Muslim or Presbyterian has absolutely nothing to do with the ability of any individual evangelical, mormon, jew, Catholic, wikkan, muslim, or hindu to govern well or ill. It is their individual character, skills, empathy, intelligence, fortitude, and a whole host of other personal traits that need to be considered--for example, whether they showed up for national guard duty as required or whether they took 5 deferrments to avoid service to the country they profess to cherish--in voting and the debate about religion is pure unadulterated smoke.

Jason Steed wrote on November 28, 2007 4:20 PM:

phil,
I think we might agree with one another more than I initially thought. I thought that you were trying to say that any and all talk about a candidate's religious beliefs ought to be banned from the debate. I don't agree with that, because I think a candidate's religious beliefs have some bearing on -- some relevance to and influence on -- his or her "individual character, skills, empathy, intelligence, fortitude, and a whole host of other personal traits that need to be considered." I think it is legit to inquire into a candidate's religious beliefs, and to debate their relevance and value, so long as there is no religious litmus test for who can or cannot hold office, and so long as we refrain from denigrating the religion itself, or the candidate for the mere fact of his or her belief.

I thought previously that you were saying all discussion of religion (even discussion of religious beliefs as they pertain directly or indirectly to a given candidate and his or her political views) ought to be eliminated. Now it seems you are saying that we shouldn't get caught up in debating the truthfulness of the tenets of any given religion, or in debating the comparative value of different religions (i.e., this one is preferable to that one). I can certainly agree with that -- and, indeed, that is in tune with what I've been saying all along.

Goldspinner wrote on November 28, 2007 4:23 PM:

Sadly, Romney's religion IS a valid issue. As a former Mormon who spent far too much time behind the Zion Curtain, lemme tell ya: Utah is already a theocracy. Never heard of what really happens in the State of Deseret? Of course not, try looking up how many radio and TV stations Bonneville media owns or their newspapers. Please notice their respective metros or their "partnership" with the Washington Post.

The LDS Church has multibillion dollar holdings that already control substantial components of the US economy in areas as diverse as banking, insurance, mining, farming, water rights, public utilities, and food commodities. The LDS church conducts extensive surveillance on members that are seen as "problematic" and this includes threats, intimidation, and illegal wire-tapping by the Strengthening Church Members Committee (SCMC). Non-members are also monitored. Guess what happened to the BYU students who protested VP Cheney's last visit to Provo?

The church secretly channels funds to various 527 groups that have been active in a number of political issues and campaigns. Based on who Romney's bundlers are, it's really no great surprise where some of his funds are coming from. Some of us still remember direct church involvement in the Watergate scandal and the fight to ratify the ERA.

Official LDS doctrine still actively condones racism. People with dark skins are still "cursed" and the last time I checked, church-owned BYU had NO black professors at all and less than 1% black enrollment. We're talking about a major university doesn't provide maternity leave for faculty or staff, either. Female students are actively encouraged to marry young and have several children instead of working, even while in college. As an active temple recommend-holder, Romney accepts these positions.

LDS doctrine is all about establishing a Mormon theocracy in the United States prior to the Millenium. The so-called "White Horse Prophecy" is the blue-print. Officially discounted, Senator Orrin Hatch liberally quoted from it during the time that he ran for president back in 1999. So did Governor George Romney when he ran for the same office. Romney also swore to dedicate all that he has or ever will have to the LDS church. It's part of the temple ceremony and one of the reasons that the ceremony is a "secret" to all but the most faithful members of the LDS church. There's more, like the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but you get the general idea. Romney's religion IS an issue that bears public scrutiny.

phil james wrote on November 28, 2007 4:45 PM:

Just as JFK addressed the issue of whether he would be taking direction from the Pope so too should Mitt state whether he ascribes to the LDS tenets Goldspinner details. He should do this openly, explicitly or he should be challenged to do so if he does not volunteer.

RandyR wrote on November 28, 2007 5:13 PM:

I would like to ask if the Mormans believe, "A woman will be subservient to her husband." I have always understood that of the Mormans and I resent it.

The question is does Mitt also accept this tenant of the Morman faith.

But, I am not an unbiased observer. My brother was a new Morman convert. He was told by his Bishop to Marry a particular woman and if he didn't he wouldn't be able to go to the highest level of heaven. Shortly thereafter he married a woman who had spent 7 of the last 10 years in the crazy place. He barely escaped alive. After becoming separated, a church member kidnapped his new born daughter to be placed in a good Morman home. It took my brother perhaps 10 years to right his life from this horror.

Before he died he was able to tell me some of the lesser known Morman practises. One included how Mormans really treat poly marriage. It seems that it is the practise of some Morman men to allow unmarried women and their children to live with their familys to contribute to their welfare. I've noticed this arrangement is fairly common within the Morman community. Now if these people have taken vows would be purely conjecture. But it seems very important to protect those unmarried women.

Jason Steed wrote on November 28, 2007 5:14 PM:

goldspinner,
Much of what you say is anti-Mormon conspiracy-theory bunk, and simply and factually incorrect and untrue. It hardly deserves a serious or thorough response.

It does, however, conjure up echoes of the anti-Semitic yarns that have been spun over the centuries, spawned from the irrational hatred and fear of the Jews -- all that talk of plans for world domination, secret channels, controlling the media and the economy, etc. Bravo.

You should get a group together, put on some white hoods, and take action. Maybe build some gas chambers or something.

People like you scare me far more than any people who might be the target of your vitriol.

Jason Steed wrote on November 28, 2007 5:27 PM:

RandyR,
More lies.

Again, all the rational observer has to do is insert "Jew" or "Black" or "homosexual" into any of these sentences, in place of "Mormon," and the irrational prejudices will become more clear.

And the answer to your question is this: No, Mormons do not believe that women ought to be subservient to their husbands. The belief is that a Mormon couple cannot reach the "highest level of heaven" (as you call it) unless they are perfectly united and coequal -- one, as God is one. Does that sound like it involves subservience to you?

Do you have such disrespect and disregard for women that you think millions of them would tolerate and remain in Mormon marriages (let alone happily enjoy them) if they were treated the way you are suggesting they are treated?

A true respect for women would assume that they are intelligent and autonomous and capable of making judgments and decisions for themselves. The ones who feel mistreated (and there are certainly those who are in fact mistreated, as there are among any demographic group) do leave -- or, at least have as much access to the protections women have, regardless of religion. Do you really mean to suggest that Mormon women as a whole are too weak and too cornered to save themselves?

You need to talk to more real-live Mormons, and quit relying on rumor and hearsay to feed your prejudices.

RandyR wrote on November 28, 2007 5:29 PM:

Ashley

You asked what exactly does Bushes religion have to do with what he does?

Perhaps, if you had a disease that could be cured by stem cells you might understand how Bushes imposition of religion into policy has hurt us. I have two of those diseases and will probably die for lack of a stem cell cure.

Maybe money the use of condoms in Africa would stem the spread of AIDS. Bush's religion forbids this, so no money. But again his religion trumps our lives.

And I suspect religion will inject itself into everything Romney would do.

Jason Steed wrote on November 28, 2007 5:44 PM:

RandyR,
I completely agree with your criticisms of Bush and his religiosity. And I am not a Romney supporter -- but for other reasons.

I take exception to your (irrational and unwarranted) tendency to lump Romney in with Bush -- and, by extension, to lump Mormonism in with Evangelical Christianity (EC).

It is EC that has an established history of imposing religious beliefs onto govt policies -- that's what the Religious Right is all about. Bush is their man, and he's done a bang-up job for them.

But Mormonism is not part of the Religious Right. (That's precisely why Huckabee's anti-Mormon smears have traction -- because the Religious Right sees Mormonism as alien.)

Mormonism has a long track record of maintaining strict separation between church and state. The Mormon Church does not accept available federal funds for its educational institutions. The Church never endorses political candidates or parties, and RARELY takes a side on particular issues. (Abortion and gay marriage are the only exceptions to this policy in the past 25-30 yrs.) It tells its members to study the issues and the candidates, to be politically informed and involved -- but it refrains from officially or overtly influencing its members to vote in any given direction. (Again, with the rare exception regarding a particular issue now and then.)

Contrast all of that with EC and the Religious Right.

It might help if Mitt did the JFK speech -- but why should you care if he doesn't? I assume you're not voting for any Republican candidate anyway....

phil james wrote on November 28, 2007 5:53 PM:

Here's a simple statement I suggest every candidate should make: If elected I understand that I have been empowered by the people to do the business of the people for their welfare and for no other purpose whatsoever. I understand that I govern at their will under the laws and only within the limits of the laws enacted by their elected representatives. I have no other agenda but to serve in that capacity. I do not and would not claim to be annointed by the will of any deity as an advocate of any religious doctrine and I hold my own beliefs and everyone else's as their own personal charge and no one else's.

Jason Steed wrote on November 28, 2007 5:56 PM:

phil,
Well put. And I think Romney would have no qualms with making such a statement -- and making it sincerely (not because he's pandering). I'm not so sure that Huckabee could/would do the same.

votenic wrote on November 28, 2007 10:32 PM:

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

tekel wrote on November 29, 2007 1:37 AM:

phil: +1 insightful. Religion has no place in the law. Government is ultimately about making the law and applying it to people. As long as religions discriminate between believers and non-believers, they will necessarily separate people into elevated and subordinate classes. But our country is founded on the ideal of a classless society. So if we are to strive for the ideal of equality, religion can have no place in our government. This is why religious tests are explicitly forbidden to the federal government in the US Constitution. Perhaps someone should brief the Mittster on that before he makes his next stump speech.

Jason: -1 name calling. But no apologies offered, and no offense taken. I'm flattered that you took the time to click on the link. I call it like I see it, as you seem to do also. You can call me names if it makes you feel better- but I want to make it clear that I'm condemning not just LDS but all religion. Politicians who announce or profess their religious beliefs should be disqualified from serving in the federal government, period, full stop.

As for Romney pledging to put the secular law above his religion, he would of course make such a pledge, but he would be lying. And that's the whole problem.

Goldspinner: +1 facts. Of course any candidate who admits to holding a sincere belief in an invisible sky-wizard should be held up to public ridicule.

Goldspinner wrote on November 29, 2007 9:08 AM:

Jason,

Your comments amuse me. My years of ward, stake, and regional callings must have been ficticious. As a BLACK FEMALE former Mormon convert, my perspective was always filtered through the context of race and gender. I served a couple of missions back when I was a true believer so I can spout plenty of scripture and "deep doctine" when I feel like it.

RandyR is correct. Numerous LDS scriptures, the temple ceremony, and statements made by various General Authorities during the semi-annual General Conference talks support the "submission of women". If you need more documentation, try pulling up the General Conference talks on the LDS.org site. These addresses are considered on-going prophetic revelation and are part of accepted church canon. There's a lot more to the church than the Home Front commercials let on.

Here's one example:

LDS Family Services places unmarried pregnant women with selected host families. Years ago, two young women stayed in my home for a few months after I was contacted by the Regional Director of what was then LDS Social Services. The agency strongly encourages unmarried women to place their children for adoption with temple-worthy families because otherwise the children might not be "sealed" to their families and suffer devastating eternal consequences.

Hosts are "called" and receive no monetary compensation for their services. Never comfortable with what I eventually saw as the subtle coercion of vulnerable women in crisis, I never encouraged them to not keep their children. Now birth-mothers actively participate in selecting adoptive families. Nonmember birth mothers participate in the program but prospective adoptive parents must be married temple-worthy Latter Day Saints.

Jason, since it's apparent you're LDS by your use of Mormonspeak, surely you realize that everything I've stated is well-documented in official church sources. Are you actually Justin Hart, using a pseudonym? Thanks, tekel!

Duncan Ritcey wrote on November 29, 2007 9:56 AM:

Mike Huckabee said last night he believed in the Holy Bible. Well, last I checked Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David and Solomon all had plural wives (BTW, Mormons don't have plural wives anymore, so get up to date). Also, last I checked, only the Levites, Aaron and his sons, were allowed to hold the offices of a Priest, is this racist? Last I checked the Israelites were the chosen people of God and others were not, is this exclusionary and racist? Last I checked Paul told us to do our own work for wages, so is Huckabee not following the New Testament by getting paid as a preacher? Is Mike Huckabee breaking one of the Ten Commandments by Barbara Heki bearing false witness against Romney? Only God will judge, not us.

So I guess all this means is that Mike Huckabee is no different than Mitt Romney after all. They are all Christian. I believe they are both good, respectable men. These anti-Mormon attitudes are the same ones that led Missouri's Governor to issue an extermination order on all Mormons in the 1800s that was only lifted off the books recently. Let's "love thy neighbor" and quit the hate-speech.

tekel wrote on November 29, 2007 11:16 AM:

Duncan: I'm not anti-mormon, specifically. I'm anti-religion. In fact, LDS is less "bad" than, say, evangelical xtianity, because it has infected the minds of fewer people. But to the extent that LDS allows a bunch of old white guys to leverage fear of an invisible sky-wizard to order a bunch of people to do things that are not in their own self interest, it is an evil force in the world.

I read a comment last night on dkos that summarized my feelings perfectly- the gist of it was, anyone who publicly rejects evolution is simply unqualified to participate in consensus reality. All of their ideas and statements must be viewed with a skeptical eye, becuase they have objectively demonstrated that they are either stupid, crazy, dangerously irrational, or liars.

I do love my neighbors, even the mentally ill ones. I just don't want them in my government.

Goldspinner wrote on November 29, 2007 11:20 AM:

Speaking truth to power isn't hate speech. Very few modern Christian denominations impose the degree of close control over its member's daily lives as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. These activities include where to live, what to eat/drink/wear, whom to marry and where, choice of occupation, use of free time and personal finances, approved speech, association with nonmembers and non-Caucasians, and so on. How many mainstream denominations encourage their members to turn each other in for alleged theological transgressions? Or routinely use illegal wiretaps or other means of surveillance as a means of internal control?

Why are former church members who are excommunicated in "Courts of Love" essentially banned from contact with active members including their own families? Last time I checked, ward bishops were still authorized as "Judges in Israel". This includes Mitt Romney in his stake leadership capacity. BTW, I was a member "in good standing" when I left and still have my last temple recommend. Like so many others, I just became disgusted at the extreme abuses of ecclesiastical power I continually saw while serving in my numerous callings.

Governor Boggs and the Missouri extermination order is SO last century...unlike the Mountain Meadows massacre which is still a source of profound embarrassment for the church. Wake up and smell the Postum.

Jason Steed wrote on November 29, 2007 11:24 AM:

tekel,
I'm not sure "bigot" and "ignorant" qualify as "name calling" -- do they? A "bigot" by definition is someone who is "utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." Look it up in the dictionary. You say yourself that you are utterly intolerant of all religions. You also appear to be particularly intolerant of Mormonism. This qualifies you as a bigot. To say so is not "name calling" -- it's a perfectly accurate and appropriate description. (Unlike the more amorphous labels like "jerk" or "ass" or "stupid," or whatever other epithet might be used in typical "name calling.") Also, you seemed to base your bigotry toward Mormons on misconceptions of what Mormonism believes -- and I think this qualifies you as ignorant of Mormonism's beliefs. So, again, I don't think I was guilty of "name calling."

goldspinner,
I think you are engaging in some calculated deception and misrepresentation. I do not deny that there are threads -- shades and hints -- of truth to some of the things you're saying. But you've spun it all out of control, in your efforts to denounce or denigrate Mormonism. Again, it's no different from the anti-Semitism that says Jews control the banks and media and are trying to take over the world. Sure, there is a thread of truth there: historically Jews have been overrepresented, as a group, in the banking and media/entertainment industries. But trying to spin this into a hatred and fear of Jews is just plain crazy -- irrational prejudice run wild. You're doing the same thing, only you're targeting Mormonism.

And by the way, I doubt you have the "credentials" that you claim. You say you "served a couple of missions" -- but Mormons don't have the opportunity to serve more than one mission until they are elderly/retired. Either you are (1) very old, looking "back" on your earlier elderly years when you served "a couple missions" -- which is doubtful, since (a) not very many very-old people are trolling blogs and (b) very few very-old people are busy campaigning against the Mormon Church; or you are (2) referring to "stake missions," which most Mormons do not typically refer to as "missions" in the same way as the regular fulltime mission -- in which case you are revealing your tendency to exaggerate and spin things for the purposes of building up your "credibility" in order to attack Mormonism; or you are (3) just plain lying, and you never really served "a couple missions" as you claim.

Also, you say you held ward, stake, and regional callings/positions. Help me to understand something: if the Church is so racist and sexist as people want to claim here, then why is it that a "BLACK FEMALE" held so many ward, stake, and regional positions???? Again, either your past positions are evidence that undermines the claims that the Church is sexist and racist, or you are just plan lying.

Finally, why is it so strange and horrible that a church that opposes abortion would do what it can to persuade young girls to either keep the baby or give it up for adoption (to a good Mormon family, of course)? The Church's primary objective is to discourage abortion. Totally unsurprising for a church of any stripe to do so, isn't it?

Jason Steed wrote on November 29, 2007 11:52 AM:

tekel,
FYI: Mormonism takes no official stance against evolution. It believes in creation, but the door is open to evolution as a possible means of creation. Many Mormons scientists (including some at BYU) believe in evolution.

goldspinner,
More lies and distortions and misrepresentations. I've been an active Mormon all my life -- and I dare say I'm more informed about the Church's history than many and more skeptical and critical of its activities than most tend to be, within the Church. But it's just a baldfaced lie to say that the Church tries to control its members in the ways and to the extent that you describe.

Regarding "where to live" -- nothing. No Church direction in this regard whatsoever. You can live wherever you want. I'm not even aware of any indirect influences in this matter.

Regarding "what to eat/drink" -- sure, there's the Word of Wisdom, which is a kind of dietary law. Not much different from Judaic dietary laws (and far less restrictive), or from typical Christian admonitions against drugs and alcohol, etc.

Regarding "what to wear" -- nothing more than the typical (unsurprising) encouragement of modesty. Take it a step further, if you've been to the temple, and it includes the temple garments (underwear), which represent covenants and are not much different from the Judaic tallit and tzi tzis, or other religious symbolic garments worn in other religions. Hardly "controlling."

Regarding "whom to marry and where" - again, nothing more than the unsurprising encouragement to marry within the faith, and in the temple (for religious reasons). Far from "controlling," this is no different from the typical encouragement of any religion to marry within the faith, and in a holy place. Why does is this bad?

Regarding "choice of occupation" - baloney. No "control" or even influence in this area whatsoever, beyond the generic encouragement to be productive, to work hard, to be ethical, to support your family, etc. Do whatever you want, but try to do it in these ways.

Regarding "use of free time" - again, nothing outside the generic, typical (unsurprising) encouragement to be productive and to avoid immorality.

Regarding "personal finances" - there is a huge push within the Church to encourage members to get out of debt and to be self-sufficient, financially. How is this bad? Or perhaps you're referring to tithing -- members are expected to give 10% of their income to the Church (required, if they want to be in good standing). That's hardly unusual, for a church -- and no different from secular nonprofit organizations that require "membership fees" in order to sustain themselves. Again, how is this bad?

Regarding "approved speech" - I don't know what you're talking about here. You're not supposed to be profane, you shouldn't go around bad-mouthing Church leaders, etc. But there's not much "control" in this area -- unless you happen to work for the Church itself, in which case you might be restricted more than usual, regarding what you can say. But again, I'm not sure how this differs from so many other organizations. (And I'll admit, this is an area that I sometimes have my own concerns about -- and criticisms of. But I still don't think it's as bad as you make it out to be.)

Regarding "association with nonmembers and non-Caucasians" - baloney. In fact, quite the opposite -- members are strongly encouraged to associate with their neighbors and community, regardless of race, etc. Culturally, it's true that Mormons have a tendency to be a bit insular and clannish -- but that comes from a long history of being marginalized by the communities in which they've lived -- being treated as a nutty cult, just as you and tekel want to treat them. Funny that you would criticize them for not associating with others, when clearly people like you and tekel seem to want to avoid associating with them. Can you say "hypocrite"?

Jason Steed wrote on November 29, 2007 1:11 PM:

By way of clarification and full disclosure, I thought I would just offer the following:

1. I am an active (observant) Mormon, as stated.

2. I am NOT a Romney supporter. I would like him to do well -- you know, to "represent" us, as a Mormon community, in a positive way -- and I'm probably more forgiving of him than I might be of other candidates, because he's a fellow Mormon. But I still have a lot of problems with things he's said, positions he's taken, etc. I'm particularly disappointed in him for what appears to be opportunism, and for his pandering to the ultraconservative and Religious Right factions of the Republican party.

3. I am pretty far Left on the political spectrum -- a progressive who might even be willing to call himself a socialist, at times. And I believe that my Mormonism FULLY SUPPORTS my political views. I think that the conservatism of most Mormons has more to do with American cultural influences than religious/theological ones -- and is also, in some ways, the by-product of very recent Church history. Theologically/ideologically, I think Mormonism best supports either progressivism/socialism or perhaps libertarianism (depending on how one interprets or emphasizes certain ideas or conceptions).

Just thought I would throw those things out there.

pdm wrote on November 29, 2007 4:53 PM:

I'm no Mormon, but seems like Jason knows what he's talking about. Makes sense to me. Though I'm not sure how you can claim Mormonism supports socialism, while 85% of Mormons vote Republican.

Other than that, I think Jason's got the best of this argument.

But who cares about the Morman church and what Mormans believe? The original post was about some Huckabee staffer claiming Huckabee is the best Christian for the job. This shouldn't be about Mormonism, it should be about what's wrong with the GOP thinking they need the best Christian for the job.

Ashley wrote on November 29, 2007 6:45 PM:

I've enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts and opinions thus far. Many have made great and valid points. Pertaining to "pdm": The reason everyone is insistant upon explaining what the Mormons believe in is because people give statements that are false and some people actually believe the things they read 100% because they don't bother to check with the primary sources. Everything is simply a rumor passed from mouth to mouth and people end up voting for someone because they heard something negative about a particular candidate. Clarifying about a religion and their beliefs may help some realize what and whom they are supporting when they cast their vote in 2008. Having all the facts would help instead of basing his or her decision on a person's religion. If Huckabee is such a great Christian--where's the retraction saying his staff member was wrong for insisting the Mormon religion is anti-Christian? The name of our church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder Day Saints". Anti-Christian huh? Oh wait--if Huckabee did release a retraction--he would be saying he was okay with the Mormon religion and would lose some of his votes. See--this is supposed to be a political running, not a "who is the best Christian" contest.

pdm 2 wrote on November 29, 2007 9:30 PM:

I agree with pdm. Jason's a little more aggressive in his responses then he needs to be, but then hey-who wouldn't be? I'm Latino and I get a little hostile sometimes when I feel like people are being racist or anti-immigrant or whatever. But the point is the discussion shouldn't be about Mormon beliefs, it should be about Huckabee's anti-Mormon statements and if we want that kind of attitude in a president.

Goldspinner wrote on November 29, 2007 9:35 PM:

Jason and Ashley,

Tsk-tsk. Since when does being elderly count as the only reason for serving a second mission? Some of us have the means to serve multiple full-time missions...and I've never divulged my age. For all you know, I could be married to a former mission president!

As to your puerile arguments, here's something to think about: were you aware that all unmarried undergraduate BYU students under the age of 26 and not living with family members are REQUIRED to reside within a two-mile radius if the campus or be in violation of the BYU Honor Code. For nonmembers, that means that these students can be expelled for not living within the city limits of Provo, Utah. The Provo Daily Herald and the church-owned Deseret News and BYU campus newspaper, The Daily Universe have covered this policy since 2004. What other university in the country requires this of adults who are closer to 30 than 18?

Every statement that I made in my earlier post is also verifiable through official church sources, scholarly publications, and independent media reports. Rather than refute each of your claims, I invite you to conduct your own reasoned inquiry instead of labeling anyone who disagrees with you a religious bigot.

Ashley wrote on November 29, 2007 10:15 PM:

Goldspinner,

I don't understand where you came from with undergradute unmarried BYU students. What does that have to do with this at all? You make points, but it seems like you just want to inform people about what you read recently. I may as well have stated that continents near the coast erode at the pace that fingernails grow. Staying on topic might help. I haven't labeled anyone a religious bigot, but I don't believe people should speak before they research. I simply said I did not apprecate her comment because it was an ignorant comment. I also never said serving more than one mission wasn't possible. For all YOU know I could've been a member all my life and I'm very aware of where to check sources if needed. You're underestimating everyone else as you think we're underestimating you. Tsk, tsk yourself.

Jason Steed wrote on November 29, 2007 10:36 PM:

goldspinner,
You've just given us a glimpse of your tendency to exaggerate and spin things for your (anti-Mormon) purposes.

You clearly stated -- or at the very least strongly implied -- that the Church tries to control where its members live. But that is a far cry from stating that BYU has policies that include restrictions on where its students can live. These are not the same claims. And FYI, there are lots of other private schools -- and many public schools -- that have honor codes; some of these even include policies regarding living arrangements (e.g., no co-ed living, curfews, etc).

Honestly, I do have some concerns myself sometimes about the "control" BYU exerts over its community. But it's worth pointing out that students are perfectly free to choose NOT to go to BYU. In fact, the Church has even increasingly encouraged Mormon kids to go to other schools, because BYU is overloaded and has too many applicants.

Allow me to repeat: there are so many students wanting to go to BYU (fully aware of the honor code and its requirements) that the Church has taken to encouraging them to go elsewhere.

Does this still sound like a "controlling" situation to the rest of you reading this?

At the very least, you have to admit that it's a far cry from goldspinner's original suggestion that the Church controls where its members live.

And I didn't label "anyone who disagrees with me" a religious bigot. I labeled you (goldspinner) and tekel as religious bigots. Tekel openly admitted his bigotry toward religion. But you still want to claim that your misrepresentations are "truth," and you seem to be in denial of the fact that your intolerance for Mormonism qualifies as bigotry.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me. You don't have to believe what I believe. I just have problems with people who want to attack (irrationally and untruthfully) what I believe.

My last word: I agree with pbm and pbm 2. None of this should be about Mormonism. It should be about the Huckabee camp's anti-Mormonism. That was what I originally commented on -- and unfortunately the anti-Mormonism that followed in the comments provoked me into defending Mormonism. I'm not going to waste any more time on that. Everyone should respect -- or at least tolerate -- beliefs that differ from their own.

Nuff said.

Duncan Ritcey wrote on November 29, 2007 11:22 PM:

If encouraging people to live better lives is mind control, than I guess I'm brainwashed! We live in a society of laws and rules, so who gets to decide which set are right? We all have a religion, a mantra we live by. So everyone has A religion, values or tenets they live by.

It never ceases to amaze me the level of anger and hate towards a group of people. I don't care whether you believe in God or no God, evolution or creationism, how in the world are we going to have a better world for our kids with all the anger and hate? Get over your insecurity of Mormonism and be happy!

Ashley wrote on December 3, 2007 7:28 PM:

well said Duncan....well said.

Jason Steed wrote on December 5, 2007 11:17 AM:

If you have questions about Mormonism, see here:
http://onemormonsperspective.blogspot.com/

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)