Posted on 05/18/2011 6:29:12 AM PDT by Colofornian
Yes, world, it is true: not all Mormons are alike. That's the news that's making headlines as buzz continues to build about the nascent presidential campaign of former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, Jr.
Of course, I've been saying it for months here at RD: Romney is what many Mormons call a TBM--or "true-believing Mormon"—an orthodox believer and devout practitioner of the faith. Huntsman? Well, he's something else—an other-than-orthodox Mormon of a variety that contemporary Mormonism may not yet have the vocabulary to describe.
Early Thursday morning, Matthew Bowman at the New Republic tried to spin the differences between Romney and Huntsman as generational and Huntsman's more easygoing Mormon style as evidence of the LDS Church's evolution from mid-20th century models of "business Mormonism" to a more cosmopolitan 21st century outlook. (Both Romney and Huntsman are baby boomers. Generational? I'm not so sure.)
But Time's profile of Huntsman (also published Thursday morning) made it seem that there might be more profound differences at work in the Romney-Huntsman divide. Time's Melinda Henneberger wrote:
And as for whether or not Huntsman still belongs to the Church of Latter-day Saints, I know less than I did before I asked him. ("I'm a very spiritual person," as opposed to a religious one, he says, "and proud of my Mormon roots."Roots? That makes it sound as if you're not a member anymore. Are you? "That's tough to define," he says. "There are varying degrees. I come from a long line of saloon keepers and proselytizers, and I draw from both sides.")
"Still belongs"? "Tough to define?" Those words quickly made headlines in the Mormon world and beyond, drawing heavy criticism from orthodox Mormons, and leading some observers to suggest that Romney and Huntsman represented two entirely different "strains" of the LDS faith. (A spokesman later clarified that Huntsman "remains a member of the church and proud to be part of the fabric of a large, vibrant faith.")
To understand why Huntsman described his Mormonism as "tough to define," it might help to understand the complicated world of Mormon identity politics.
What do you call a Catholic who grew up going to CCD but now attends mass only on Christmas, Ash Wednesday, and Easter, and supports gay rights? Catholic.
What do you call a Jew who loves bacon, doesn't believe in God, and attends shul only on High Holy Days? Jewish.
What do you call a Mormon who attends church once a month or less and leans liberal? Depends on who you ask.
For orthodox Mormons, Mormon identity is simple: black and white; in or out. If you attend Church weekly, believe literally, and maintain orthodox standards of behavior, you count as Mormon. Otherwise, you don't. (For the record, members attending once a month or more make up less than 20% of the 14 million members on the books of the LDS Church.)
For other-than-orthodox Mormons, Mormon identity is a more complicated spiritual and emotional mix, bound up in multiple factors like ancestry, upbringing, culture, experience, conviction, observance level, and institutional affiliation. And whereas religions with longer histories have generated multiple channels for religious practice—ranging, in the case of Judaism, from ultra-orthodox to reform and reconstructionists—there is only one Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Of course, Mormon communities have always hosted our fair share of internal diversity. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when Mormonism was an isolated to a closely kinship-networked group of settlers in the intermountain West, Mormonism was home to all types--both "saloon keepers and proselytizers," as Huntsman described his ancestors in the Time magazine interview. But over the course of the 20th century, as Mormons migrated out from the Wasatch front and assimilated into the world around us, we drew deeper lines between inside and out. And those lines have often been predicated on orthodoxy of thought and behavior.
In recent years, I've seen Mormon congregations embrace "Jack Mormons" (an insider term for a lapsed member), or liberal and unorthodox Mormons like me. But I've also seen Mormons characterize other Mormons as being "not Mormon" or even "anti-Mormon" (a term that carries a charge comparable to that of anti-Semitism) for expressing views that diverge from Church leaders on issues like women's equality or gay rights. And I've seen orthodox Mormons shun their own relatives and encourage or even goad them to leave the LDS Church for perceived lack of orthodoxy.
That means that any Mormon who goes through the fairly common experience of being raised a literal believer and orthodox practitioner but transitions to a less orthodox worldview as an adult (or coming out as gay) may find themselves rejected by their family and their social community of origin and cut off from the major institutional sources of their primary identity. Faced with such rejection, some unorthodox Mormons have quietly begun to label themselves New Order Mormons or Post-Mormons. Some describe themselves as ex-Mormon, but maintain a profound interest in Mormon issues and happenings. And because the stakes are so high, many unorthodox Mormons try to maintain as much privacy as possible, or even hesitate to fully claim a Mormon identity in public, if they do not meet the standards of Mormonism's most orthodox believers. Some want to avoid the kind of "no-win" situation admitting lack of orthodoxy often provokes in Mormon social contexts. Others do not want their unorthodox behavior to reflect poorly on a church they respect for its rigorous way of life.
It's as complicated an identity politics as I've seen in any American community. Just this week, a good friend chided me, "I'm sure you'd feel more at home in Judaism. You can believe whatever you want as long as you mumble a few prayers and appreciate a good kugel." And, man, do I love noodle kugel.
If he is an unorthodox or cultural Mormon, I completely sympathize with the tricky rhetorical position Huntsman has found and will continue to find himself in. But for Huntsman to say it is "tough to define" whether or not he is Mormon is like Chuck Schumer—a reform Jew who does not keep kosher and goes to synagogue on high holidays and whenever else it's convenient—saying it's "tough to define" whether or not he is a Jew. (For heaven's sake, with bloodlines like his, Huntsman is basically Mormon royalty, and his wife was quoting LDS hymns to the Time magazine reporter.
And the truly unfortunate thing is that Huntsman's slippery talk on Mormon identity may put him in bad a light as Mitt Romney, now infamous for his double-talk and "flip-flop" on healthcare. (Dana Milbank went so far as to compare Mitt to conjoined twins recently born in China. Ouch.)
In dodging the question of Mormon identity, was Huntsman acting the part of the slippery and crowd-pleasing politician? Or was he trying to negotiate the often difficult path of the other-than-orthodox Mormon? Either way, I claim him as a member of the tribe.
Well, of course. Romney is a former Lds bishop.
TBM Mormons believe in baptizing the entire dead world so that they, too, can become Mormons...no matter what they were in life...
TBM Mormons believe they will become gods...so for Romney that means that the White House is just a career stopping point on his way to the Great White Throne...where he will be worshiped, glorified, prayed to, and the like.
IOW, Romney was a 1966 Lds missionary when Mormonism was steeped in racism...disallowing blacks into the priesthood...and Huntsman was a 1979 Lds missionary...the year after Mormonism tried to moved away from its racist past.
I’m gonna love this wing ding in Utah.
Romney and Huntsman supporters will be at each other’s throats.
Palin could win Utah under this scenario. LMAO
I know some people might be tempted to answer "Harry Reid." But I'm pretty sure he attends a LOT more often than that!
Reid is also a sanctioned home teacher by the Lds church.
Whatever any Mormon is, he is NOT a Christian. Period.
“What do you call a Mormon who attends church once a month or less and leans liberal? Depends on who you ask.”
You call him “Jack.” Goes pretty well with “Jon,” too.
“Jack Mormons”: The LDS answer to “Pew Catholics” and “Back Row Baptists.”
Headline: Why is Huntsman’s Mormonism “Tough to Define”?
Maybe because he doesn’t really believe it or care for it that much? Lot of liberals are that way about their religion / denomination, etc. Nothing new here.
That he’s a Mormon isn’t as big a problem for me as that he’s a buffoon.
Well, it's frankly par for the course for Mormon leaders.
Does the Mormon god care about skin color?
Yes, pre-1978.
No, pre-1978.
Yes, if you still believe the Book of Mormon & Pearl of Great Price, half of Mormon "scriptures"...
...and yes, if you believe D&C 134:12...a third Mormon scripture.
No, if you believe Lds Inc's PR Dept.
Does the Mormon god think polygamy is abominable?
Yes, if you believe the Book of Mormon.
No, if you believe Mormonism's Doctrine & Covenants.
Yes, if you believe Mormonism's policy on threatening members who take a second simultaneous spouse on earth.
No, if you look at Lds doctrine on eternal marriage & realize some of their top leaders have been sealed for eternity to both of their wives, married in serial fashion.
Yes, polygamy is abominable if you believe in the 1830 Mormon church.
No, if you believe in the Mormon church of the 1850s to the early 1900s...when they still were secretly solemnizing plural unions.
Yes, if you believe what they said in 1890.
No, if you believe Lds "apostle" Bruce McConkie's Mormon Doctrine book, where he called polygamy a "holy practice" that would be re-instituted when the Mormon jesus returns.
As for Romney himself...Is Romney "pro-life"???
Not the early Romney, who embraced pro-abortionism from his mom when she ran for senate.
Not the 1994 Romney, who attended Planned Parenthood events and had his wife write them a check.
Yes, the 2001 Romney said he wasn't pro-choice per a letter to the editor in a Utah newspaper.
No, the 2002 Romney wasn't...he campaigned for MA gov as pro-abortion...and even sought out pro-abortion voters' guides to get his pro-abortion message out.
Yes, the late 2004 Romney was when he said he realized what embryonic research was.
No, the 2005 Romney wasn't when he promised he would maintain the pro-choice status quo position on abortion in that state (statement made May 2005).
Yes, Romney said in his early 2007 campaign speeches that every action he took as gov was "pro-life."
No, Romney signed pro-abortion healthcare for Mass...opening the door wider for taxpayer-funded abortion in that state and failed to veto a section of his bill that retained a member of Planned Parenthood as a permanent board member.
Yes, Romney told Chris Wallace that he NEVER saw himself as "pro-choice" 'cause he didn't "feel" "pro-choice"...(August, 2007).
No, Romney told Katie Couric in December of 2007 that parents could either give up their embryos for "adoption" or for research.
rino progressive.
Highly inaccurate. There are a multitude of splinter groups, ranging from hundreds of thousands to a few dozen members. Some of the fundamentalist varieties still practice polygamy.
Here's a list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sects_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement
He could not get re-elected here in Utah and he will not win this state in the GOP.
Never in my life have I seen so many human beings happy about their governor leaving as I did when Huntsman left for the diplomatic corps.
And when I say happy, I mean it. As you strolled into the local grocery store or Walgreens, people were poking each other in the ribs, saying “Can you believe Obama took this clown off our hands? Damn.”
Well, it's complex in some ways...but not in others.
For example, in the primaries last go-round, Mormons in Wyoming, Nevada, Arizona and Utah ensured that Romney got 94-95% of their vote!
Now that's identity politics!
What was interesting all through the FR forums of 2007 and early 2008 was that people had no prob fussin' 'bout voters who took a candidate's Mormonism into consideration - if they were non-Mormon voters...but if they were Mormon voters...that was OK!
Truthfully, not being from Utah, I don’t know the guy from Adam-—I was just reacting to the article.
And if a political junkie like me doesn’t know much about him, I’d say he has a serious name recognition problem.
Won’t be a factor.
A Mormon will never be President.
(Yet the two Mormon candidates will still get 94-95% of the Mormon vote in Utah...showing the world that it's still OK to consider a candidate's Mormonism when you vote!)
Highly inaccurate. There are a multitude of splinter groups, ranging from hundreds of thousands to a few dozen members. Some of the fundamentalist varieties still practice polygamy. Here's a list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sects_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement [Sherman Logan]
Excellent point.
(And it's not like these splinters aren't practicing what was mainstream Mormonism for 80 years! Re: polygamy)
My point was, and is, that these two factions (in this state) will fight tooth and nail. Picture a cartoon with feathers flying. LOL
I see neither side giving up. My girl just might end up on top. LOL
Stubborn LDS oxen, I’m thinking. heh
What do you expect from a Mormon columnist who identifies herself as "liberal?" Some of her assessments are right on; most are off.
And two of the most important -- spiritual and political -- she's way off!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.