In this thread in Elections, Dogzilla linked this editorial: “Why a Mormon Should Not Be President.” The author is a SLC native and descendant of early Mormon pioneers. I found the following paragraphs most interesting:
Is this a fair take on the Mormon faith? Is it really that dogmatic and hierarchical and insular? Any Latter-Dope Saints here care to comment?
of course the founders of Christianity were no intellectuals either and they also made some pretty wild claims.
and some folks said JFK shouldn’t be president because he would be under the pope’s thumb
no matter what a candidates religion it will have some influence on him or her as does their family upbringing, education, work history, party affiliation etc.
I don’t think being Morman is any better or worse then any number of other things.
I for one would have been quite happy with a Mormon named George Romney being President in 1960 and think Harry Reid, also a Mormon, has been a vastly more effective Senate Majority leader then Tom Daschle.
I am not a former Latter-Day Saint, but I’ll comment anyway. One could nitpick a few of the things that the article says, but broadly speaking it’s true. As discussed in this thread, the LDS Church is secretive about its dogma and the workings of its heirarchy. They also emphasize testimony of spiritual assurances of truth, rather than intellectual investigation. This article has some of the evidence for that.
(Of course certain persons will be along to claim the same is true for all religions. Yawn.)
Now whether or not Romney’s inability to shoot straight on almost any topic stems from his Mormon background is a different question. As I see it, all big-league politicians have to lie a fair amount, given the nature of government and politics in modern-day America. Anyone who had a big hang-up about lying wouldn’t rise very far in either of the major parties. I see no need to look at Romney’s grounding in Mormonism for an explanation of that.
To be a Christian you have, at least traditionally and/or technically, needed to ratify the notion that God the Almighty, whose Creation had been badly corrupted by yon slithery specimen and bad character on the part of the people He’d created, could only be allowed (by Whom? presumably Himself?!!) to forgive humankind if He were presented with the appropriate sacrifice, to which end he came down and manifested himself as Jesus of Nazareth for the express purpose of getting his ass killed, causing God to be dead until he wasn’t, which was after 3 days at which point he rose into heaven to sit at the right side of Himself in his Other Incarnation as God the Father, who now was allowed to forgive people for original sin. And now you have been Saved, but only if you acknowledge that you BELIEVE ALL THIS and accept Jesus into your heart as your personal lord and savior.
And once a month you’re supposed to participate in communion, whereby some bread or crackers become converted into the body of the dead Jesus, and some wine or grape juce become his blood, and you eat and drink those because he said you should eat his body and drink his blood in remembrance of him and it’s really important and stuff.
I’m not saying the tenets of Mormonism aren’t damned silly but they’ve got a valid legacy within institutional Christianity if you see what I mean.
In my opinion, the article is very insightful and accurate about Mormonism, but is less persuasive when it starts armchair diagnosing Mitt Romney.
The idea that Mormonism survives counterintuitively because of its unbelievability is a great insight. It is a very insular world when it comes to religious beliefs.
However, the insight that Mitt Romney is a privileged asshole who thinks he knows better than everyone else is not novel nor particularly related to Mormonism, except that it’s a very patriarchal authoritarian religion that rewards people being rich successful assholes. So do a million Prosperity Gospel evangelical sects.
If we’re getting technical here, that’s not actually true. That is called Impanation, and is regarded as rank heresy, even by the Catholics and Lutherans (who are otherwise all over the mystical shit).
What you’re going for is not quite so squicky - It’s called Transubstantiation. Basically, it isn’t REALLY the body and blood, just the ESSENCE of it, and nothing physically changes. That’s only for the Catholics tho.
On the other hand, the Lutherans DO go for Sacramental Union, which is a messy concept - once blessed, the bread and wine are both regular bread and grape juice AND *spiritually *the body and blood of Christ at the same time (but not physically, because that’s squicky), or for Consubstantiation(what my church taught) which tries to make it more logical (hah) by saying that the body doesn’t metaphysically/spiritually show up *in *the bread/crackers/rice cake, but that it shows up at the blessing and sort of philosophically hangs out. They’re both dead set against any of that being actually PHYSICAL - because, you know, that’s gross.
The more prissy among the Anglicans go for Transignification, which, as the name implies, indicates that there is a sort of sacramental significance to that particular bread and grape-liquid (not always alcoholic) because it has been blessed. No bodies.
Others like the Baptists are even less cool with the body and blood thing. Memorialists go for the “remember my sacrifice” idea. They’re totally squicked out by the Catholics and confused as hell by the Lutherans (not that I blame them).
Continue on against Christians or Mormons as you wish, but do be honest and informed about it. They’re crazy enough without having to make shit up to sound more dramatic.
Two rather cynical summations that amuse this Agnostic:
“The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree…
Yeah, Christianity makes perfect sense.”
and (paraphrased from faulty memory)
“God gave birth to himself, to sacrifice himself to himself, in order to save us from himself.”
Your own link defines Transubstantiation as “the doctrine that, in the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and the wine used in the sacrament is changed into the substance of the Body and the Blood of Jesus, while all that is accessible to the senses (the appearances - species in Latin) remains as before.” That sounds to me like it implies a literal, physical change.
Yes, yes, but all that is merely confusing, which is not unusual for religions; Mormonism is based on a historiography which is patently false, and sophisticated Mormons must know it as well as anyone.
I think you’re seriously overestimating the number of smart people willing to accurately assess the validity of their religious beliefs.
What are you even arguing here? That Romney secretly knows Mormonism is a hoax and therefore shouldn’t be President? Or that Romney really does believe in Mormonism and therefore shouldn’t be President?
Romney is only tangential here, that discussion belongs in Elections. I’m inviting debate as to whether the Church of JC of LDS really is what the author of the editorial says it is, i.e., something especially hierarchical, dogmatic, insular and clubby even compared to other religions.
Okay, then the answer is simple. Yes. Extremely hierarchical, dogmatic, insular, clubby, and I’ll throw in patriarchal and gerontocratic.
Everything the article says regarding Mormonism is spot on, with the single exception of a typo: ten tribes of Israel were “lost,” not two. Otherwise I think the author has some great insights into Mormonism, but not into Mitt Romney.
