Posted on 06/11/2011 11:32:51 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
Editor's Note: On May 24th, Warren Cole Smith's article, "A Vote for Romney is a Vote for the LDS Church," appeared in a symposium on faith and the future of social conservatism, and at Patheos' Evangelical Portal. It provoked an enormous response both from commenters at Patheos and from political commentators around the country. Smith, an accomplished journalist and publisher, agreed to address some of the criticisms in this interview.
Have you been surprised by the response your article has received?
I was pleasantly surprised, for the most part. A few of the responses have been nasty and personal. I want to be clear that the really nasty ones, as near as I can tell, have not come from Mormons. In fact, one guy went out of his way to tell me he was not Mormon before he unloaded a profanity-filled rant. A few others seemed not to care or not to understand the points I was trying to make, but many others have been cordial and even helpful. I welcome the give and take, and I don't mind the controversy. In fact, I probably enjoy it more than I should.
I would add, however, that among the comments that have been least helpful have been those coming from the LDS church itself. My words have been taken out of context and my positions mischaracterized. If I really said some of the things that they accuse me of saying, I wouldn't believe me either.
Some have accused you of bigotry. Is there any way to convince people you're not bigoted?
First of all, the word "bigot" is an ideologically charged word. It's an ad hominem attack, not a true argument. I don't mean to be dismissive or glib, but I have trouble taking the charge seriously, and little motivation to defend against it. If my ideas are false, then expose the falsehood. I'm perfectly happy to let my arguments fight it out with theirs. The truth will win. I'm not saying that there aren't true bigots out there—religious, racial, and otherwise. Too often, however, words like "bigot" are used by people who can't muster a true argument.
Can you clarify how you came to your views on Mormonism?
Just to be plain, my view of Mormonism is this: It is not orthodox, biblical Christianity as understood by the three great streams of Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) and as expressed in the historic creeds of the church. To be slightly more specific: Mormon doctrine ascribes attributes to God and to Jesus that orthodox, biblical Christianity has historically held to be false. And orthodox, biblical Christianity proclaims as essential certain attributes of God and Jesus that Mormon doctrine denies. I know of no serious theologian or historian of religion—of any theological stripe—who would disagree with this position.
What I think is causing the problem here is that Mormons like to assert that they are Christians "just like us." They often tell me, "We worship the same Jesus you do." It is to these assertions that I am saying, "Well, no, that's just not true."
What's interesting to me is that Mormons who really understand what their church teaches agree with me. They know their doctrine is different. They know the Jesus they worship is not the Jesus worshipped by Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians. I will sometimes ask a Mormon: "If your religion is no different from mine, if we truly believe the same things, would you be okay with your children and grandchildren becoming Baptists, or Presbyterians, or Catholics?" No serious, faithful Mormon would answer yes to this question.
As for my experience with the Mormon Church: I've lived in the Mountain West, where the Mormon percentage of the population is higher. I've been involved in the Boy Scouts at the regional and national level, where the influence of the LDS church is strong—and, I would quickly add, positive. These experiences have given me a long interest in the church. I've read not all but significant passages of The Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants. My friend and former TIME Magazine religion editor Richard Ostling's book "Mormon America" has also been a help to me. I've also been involved in evangelism and Christian apologetics for years. Understanding the Mormon faith has been a part of that training and education.
You made several arguments in your article. What, would you say, is your most essential concern? The Mormon doctrine of continuing revelation, the Mormon view of history, or the concern that electing a Mormon would help LDS evangelistic efforts around the world?
As an evangelical Christian, all of these ideas matter to me. And should. These are not peripheral questions. The Mormon doctrine of continuing revelation—accepting as it does The Book of Mormon and other documents as divine revelation—is a dagger to the heart of the historical Christian understanding of Scripture and revelation.
Without going too deeply or specifically into the doctrinal questions (though I will if you want to ask more questions), let me just say in general that continuing revelation or the Mormon view of history (specifically, that Jesus came to America and that Native Americans are descended from a lost tribe of Israel) are just two of scores of beliefs and practices (baptism of the dead, a denial of Original Sin, celestial marriage, the list goes on) that either deny essential Christian doctrines or affirm as essential doctrines what the Christian church has declared through the ages to be false. Any Christian who cares about the purity and peace of the Church—and that should be every Christian—should care about these matters.
I said previously and would reiterate here that the election of a Mormon president would be a tremendous step toward normalizing Mormon beliefs. It would be a tremendous shot in the arm for Mormon evangelism around the world. As an evangelical Christian who believes that Mormonism is a false religion, I think it only makes sense that I would not want to be a part of any effort—either intentional or not—that would spread a false religion.
Other evangelical leaders, like Jim Daly of Focus on the Family, have said that we do not ask an airplane pilot what his religion is, we just want to know whether he can land the plane. Should we focus on things like leadership, political experience, economic prowess, and the like, rather than theology and religious beliefs?
Actually, we do ask airplane pilots what their religion is, at least indirectly. I have a theologian friend who is fond of saying, "There are no postmodern airplane pilots." By that he means that pilots are not just people who have learned what levers to push and what knobs to twist, but they are people who have a core set of beliefs and values about how the universe operates. They understand and believe in the physical laws of the universe. The behavior of an airplane pilot is not random. His behavior in the cockpit directly connects to his beliefs about the world.
But even if you reject that argument, I would further argue that successfully navigating the office of the president is not a job for a technician or tradesman, someone who has trained his muscles to push levers and twist knobs. Indeed, our government has gotten so large and complex, he couldn't possibly even know where every lever or knob is. Theodore Roosevelt rightly said that the presidency was a "bully pulpit." The president provides moral leadership. George H.W. Bush was, from a technical point of view, probably the best-prepared president of the twentieth century. He had served at every level from congressman to vice president. But he was widely lampooned—and banished from office after one term—because he couldn't master "the vision thing." The president projects an image of America to the world. We have a right to expect that the man or woman who fills that chair projects a vision consistent with the beliefs, values, and ideals we've long held as a country. If Romney can make his case to the American people that he shares these values, then he will deserve to win and he likely will win. But that will take some very heavy lifting.
Finally, I can't help observing that the very nature of this question highlights the trouble we have in talking about these questions in the twenty-first century. There is a false dichotomy in our era between the sacred and the secular. To suggest that religious belief might be either a product or predictor of behavior, especially that false beliefs might lead to dangerous or destructive behavior, is simply outside the modernists' narrow, essentially materialistic cosmology.
Tim Rutten in the Los Angeles Times and Michael Otterson in the Washington Post have accused you of imposing a de facto "religious test." You wrote that Mitt or anyone who promotes a false and dangerous religion is "unfit to serve." Do you mean that Mitt and others like him should have no right to run, or that there should be a law against such a person running? Or do you simply mean that Christians ought not to vote for him?
I found these accusations, like the charge of bigotry, to be mostly unhelpful. First of all, the term "religious test" generally has a specific meaning. Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution says, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Religion cannot be used by the state as a qualifier or a disqualifier for office. What this means, and what I affirm, is that Mitt Romney or anyone else has the right to run. The accusation that I was calling for a "religious test" was a textbook "straw man" fallacy.
That said, let me clarify what I said about being "unfit to serve." That sentence in context is this: "I believe a candidate who either by intent or effect promotes a false and dangerous religion is unfit to serve." I struggle to understand how anyone could disagree with that statement. Where the disagreement occurs is my further assertion that Mormonism is false and dangerous and that a Romney presidency would promote Mormonism. I know that even some evangelical Christians disagree with me on this point. They say that a Romney presidency would not promote Mormonism. I respectfully disagree, and I think the stakes are too high—people's souls—to play around in the gray areas and hope we got it right.
But back to the original question: While I am not advocating a state-administered religious test, I certainly believe that every voter has the right to take a candidate's views, religious and otherwise, into account in his or her vote. So doing does not make me a "bigot" or mean that I'm imposing a "religious test." It simply means that I believe a person's religious views tell us a great deal about what a person's governing philosophy will be.
I can't resist asking again: What's so controversial about this? Tens of millions of Americans believe religion is important in the selection of a president. A day or two after Patheos posted my original article, a poll came out saying that about a third of white evangelicals were "less likely" to vote for a Mormon. After doing a little math and factoring out children, that's about 10 million voters. Another poll said that about 40 percent of all Americans would be less likely to vote for a Mormon. That same poll, by the way, said that about 33 percent would be less likely to vote for an evangelical.
Americans take religion into account. I personally don't think that's a bad thing, but it should be clear that for Romney and Huntsman, these polls are bad news.
For a Republican to win the White House, evangelicals must not just vote for the Republican candidate, they must turn out enthusiastically as volunteers and contributors. When evangelicals are lukewarm, the Democrats win. Period. That's what happened to McCain in 2008, to Dole in 1996, and to Bush in 1992. In fact, evangelicals made the difference for Carter in 1976. You quite literally have to go back 40 years to find a [Republican] candidate who won the White House without specifically reaching out to religious conservatives. If 10 million evangelicals stay home from the polls next year, who might otherwise have voted for the Republican nominee, the Republican nominee doesn't stand a chance.
Romney's strategy so far has been to talk about his values without talking about his religion. The calculation is that just as America accepted John Kennedy's Catholicism, or for that matter Barack Obama's blackness, so too is America ready to accept Mitt Romney's Mormonism. But they forget that Kennedy had to give his famous speech to the Houston Baptists about religion, and that Obama had to give his famous speech in Philadelphia about race. Romney's strategy so far has been to talk about "values" and hope that will be enough for evangelicals. It won't.
In fact, if Romney's front-runner status continues, the scrutiny will intensify. Americans eventually did accept Kennedy and Obama, but not before they stood up to the American people and proclaimed plainly, each in his own way, "This I Believe." The American people heard those words and responded, "So, too, do we believe."
Romney's problem will be that if he really believes what the Mormon Church believes, he dares not make that speech. The American people will say, "Really? Are you kidding me?" Or, if he makes "The Speech" and says he doesn't believe what the Mormon Church teaches, fellow Mormons will feel betrayed and even those who have trouble with the Mormon Church will nonetheless wonder about a man who can't stand up for his own. The bottom line: I don't see how he can square this circle.
Finally, not all of the responses to your article have been critical. More than one has said you're the last honest evangelical, courageous enough to say aloud what many believe in secret. Have you heard from many who agree with the views you expressed in your article?
I have, and I'm grateful for their support. I would also add that while I didn't ask for this controversy, I don't regret starting what I think is a significant, necessary conversation. I don't mind the criticism. I don't remember who said "my critic is the watchman of my soul," but I believe that to be true. Indeed, that idea is one of the main reasons I became a journalist.
For other noteworthy responses to these same questions, see the symposium on faith and the future of social conservatism.
On all threads, but particularly “open” threads, posters must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Making a thread “about” another Freeper is “making it personal.”
When in doubt, review your use of the pronoun “you” before hitting “enter.”
Like the Smoky Backroom, the conversation may be offensive to some.
Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/
Thin-skinned (emotional, whiney or mercurial temper) posters are the disruptors on open threads.
thank you for posting this. very thought-provoking.
” Tim Rutten in the Los Angeles Times and Michael Otterson in the Washington Post have accused you of imposing a de facto “religious test.” “
///
if the LAT and WP are defending Romney, that is ALL i need to know!
(Libs certainly don’t defend true conservatives on principle. They are the same people that gave us McCain!)
With Romneycare, and how squishy he is on many conservative issues, i never even thought about his religion.
(and I actually DO have friends who are Mormons...)
But, if Romney WAS a true conservative, I would now have to more thoughtfully consider the above points, the Author made. (They are also very relevant to the flak Herman Cain is taking, regarding Islam and “religious test”.)
Screw Mitt; no matter how much he changes his line of BS to look conservative or how much he claims that being Mormon predisposes him to being conservative, he's at best just another RINO political hack and at worst a complete disaster like the dolt we now have for president.
Ha!
Guess what they say about the BIBLE!!
Ha!
Guess what they say about the BIBLE!!
For anyone knowing the PR emphasis of the Mormon church, this is a no-brainer conclusion.
A Mormon presidency would open the door wide open for the massive LDS public relations propaganda campaign. (This especially applies to POTUS and may or may not apply to all political races).
Bill Clinton was a presidential role-model disaster for our young generation re: the scandal. Any president the voting block elevates to the highest role model position in our land accords the highest vote of respectability to the public aspects of what that person stands for.
If that person, for example, is a neatly tucked-away communist who's adopted a mask of "family values," & we elect him president, we are telling our kids that communism is OK to emulate. Furthermore, we are handing proselytizing fuel to communists everywhere. It would fuel their door-to-door boldness and other aggressive campaigns to be able to say, "See. Our respectable Communist leader holds the highest office in the land. Come study what helped make the man he is today!"
I've been saying this for the past four years...it's quite obvious.
bttt
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.