This thread may sound as if it belongs in the “Elections” forum but I see it more as an identity/religion debate.
We were constantly told that the recent American election was the first that did not include a white Protestant.
Now, the two VP running mates are RCs, and Obama is Protestant but black. (Logically, he is a person of mixed race, but since the US still clings to the definition of “one drop of negro blood” invented by slave owners and segregationists, let’s call him black for the purposes of this thread.)
Isn’t Romney a “white Protestant”? Assuming that the Gov. does not have a “drop of negro blood” we don’t know about, wouldn’t his Mormonism qualify him for that title?"
The definition of Protestantism I get from Webster is the following: “a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth; ***broadly: a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church ***” (emphasis mine)
I am not positive if Mormonism fits the more detailed first part of the definition in every single aspect, but does it not certainly fit the “broadly” part?
For that matter, Episcopalians, who are really just Americanized Anglicans, are often considered NOT to be Protestants but Anglo-Catholics. Have there beeen any Episcopalian Presidents of the US? If so, was JFK really the first non-Protestant to be President?
I think the simplest answer is that Mormonism deviates sufficiently from the Nicene Creed (whichever version) that it falls out of the “Catholic/Protestant” sphere for those who care about these things (vs the “all religion is dumb so who cares?” people).
The LDS doesn’t fit the first part of the definition at all except for the part about the pope, and there is a large segment of the Christian community who deny that LDS members are Christians at all, so that eliminates the second part, at least for those folks.
This is probably the key element in why Mormonism may not be considered Protestant: they recognize an additional book of divine revelation, the Book of Mormon, besides the Christian Bible. In this sense, they resemble Islam instead of more traditional Protestants.
I went to a LDS church in the late 70s with some friends. The pastor was going on about some LDS girl who went to college, and on her admission form, for religion she put down “Protestant”. Said pastor was getting his underwear all in a bunch. Ergo, it may be that they don’t even consider themselves Protestants.
Beyond the Book of Mormon, the LDS also recognize *Doctrine and Covenants *and *The Pearl of Great Price *as scripture, in addition to the KJV and Joseph Smith translations of the Bible.
I wouldn’t go nearly so far as to say the Mormons are more like Muslims than Protestants since the Quran supercedes the Judeo-Christian scriptures instead of supplementing them. I can see your point, though. Mormon missionaries are tasked with reading a certain portion of the BoM every day; the Christian Bible is included in supplementary readings (along with D&C and PoGP) that are more elective. I would say that Protestants view themselves as an improved, streamlined version of Catholic Christianity, whereas Mormons have hit the reset button altogether.
Frylock, I would also argue that there is a greater cultural divide today between Mormons and Protestants than between Catholics and Protestants. I’ve known a lot of Catholics whom I long thought were Protestant and vice versa. That’s never been the case with the Mormons I’ve known.
Also, I’m pretty sure most people call Obama black because he has dark skin and self identifies as black; it’s not some white supremacist purity of the race thing.
The United States military’s Chaplains Corps considers the LDS Chaplains to be Protestants. Which I find kind of amusing since the LDS church does not consider itself a Protestant church.
By “considers”, do you mean they actually base policy on this belief, or just that they are supposed to check “Protestant” on forms because the DOD doesn’t want to make the form longer?
Really? I heard it quite a bit. But maybe I remember because I had a similar reaction to the OP: Mormons aren’t Protestants? Hmmm…
But, I was raised Catholic, and we generally lumped all non-Catholic Christians into the “Protestant” category. I can see where there is some value in delineating those branches of Christianity that arose from the Reformation. I guess Mormonism doesn’t really fit that category.
Let’s not hijack this thread with a debate about the “single drop” idea. I may end up regretting my aside about Obama’s race.
But I question whether Obama or anyone with his appearance has any choice in the America of today but to identify himself as black. Try to imagine someone with his skin tone and features trying to say he was white. He would be ridiculed by blacks and whites alike. Yet saying he is black when he is 50% white and 50% black is somehow perfectly acceptable. Logic, please?
I actually said in my OP that the single drop concept was “invented” by slave owners and segregationists. It allowed the slave owners to freely bonk their female slaves without having to recognize their own offspring as anything but black (vide Thomas Jefferson).
Sorry, but the cultural custom has its origins in “some white supremacist purity of the race thing” and it will always have that baggage as long as America has abusrd situations such as blue-eyed, white-skinned people with one black ancestor and 10 white ancestors still considered “black” by BOTH blacks and whites.
So this proves either that Marley and I don’t read the same columnists, or maybe that a moderators’ view of things is not always identical with truth and reality.
Let’s split the difference and admit that “constantly” in my OP is somewhat hyperbolic. Let’s change it to “often”.
Yes, there have been many, especially in the early years of the U.S. Gerald Ford was the most recent, I believe.
ETA: here’s the list from Wikipedia; I had forgotten that Bush the Elder was also Episcopalian, as was GWB prior to his presidency (he later became a Methodist).
George Washington
James Madison
James Monroe
William Henry Harrison
John Tyler
Zachary Taylor
Franklin Pierce
Chester A. Arthur
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Gerald Ford
George H. W. Bush
George W. Bush (later Methodist)
Re-edit: Trivia note; John Tyler’s grandson still attends my own Episcopal parish church in Nashville.
Definitions aside, only about half of non-Mormons say that Mormons are Christians, so, that’s why Mitt wasn’t considered a Protestant. To much of the part of the country that cares, he isn’t. Honestly I was surprised that it was that low - before I heard about this poll I would have expected maybe 75%. Poll: Half consider Mormons Christians – Boulder Daily Camera
Episcopalians mopped up in the early days of the Republic. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe all had affiliations although they are arguably deist and were just in it because it was the state church (back when England was the state). Wm. Harrison was an involved Episcopalian; Tyler and Taylor were more probable disengaged Epis; Arthur, FDR, Ford, and Bush Sr. were all regular Episcopalians. Bush Jr. grew up in the church but converted out when he met his wife.
33 (of 112 total) SCOTUS justices and countless Senators and Reps have been Episcopalian, and AFAIK, the church has never had more than ~4% of the population in its membership (since independence).
To the point of your question, the ECUSA describes itself as “Protestant, Yet Catholic,” and apparently this is the result of a compromise from back when people argued about it in the 1960s. What I heard most of was Catholic-Lite: all the trappings, none of the guilt.