While I think it’s commendable that others continue to feel passionate about their support for the former candidate, I confess that the present outlook dampens my blogging spirit for now.  Thus, I just want to announce, for anyone who cares, that RomneyExperience is officially in a state of near-permanent hiatus.

Is it possible that RomneyExperience could come back someday? Absolutely.  The most likely scenario for such an eventuality is a repeat Romney run in 2012.  Other possibilities would include a V.P. nod for Romney, as well as some other Mormon on the GOP ticket (don’t laugh, it’s not impossible).

But for now, please accept my thanks to everyone who read, passed on links, discussed, corresponded, asked questions, and otherwise participated in the RomneyExperience.  This was a lot of fun, and now it’s time to move on.  This site will remain live for the foreseeable future, and if you are interested in knowing about future projects, just keep your subscription live, and I’ll post any news here.

Again, thank you all for all your support and participation.

Best,

Ryan

The consensus among those quoted in the piece, from pollsters to professors to low-level Mormon bloggers is that the GOP primary revealed a surprising depth of suspicion toward Mormons held by many people across the country (semi-famous Mormon Ken Jennings is the exception). No one says (as no one credibly could) that anti-Mormonism was the sole cause of Romney’s decline, but it seems that most agree his religion was a major factor.

Whether Romney was done in by his religion is an important question for the American polity, as a measure of American tolerance and progress, as well as an analytical tool for future campaigns. But for Mormons, the question is much more personal. It’s a means of figuring out whether this group of people is accepted as fully American. While most Mormons have long been comfortable assuming that designation, they now have good reason to question it. What stings is how surprising that conclusion is for some:

“I don’t think that any of us had any idea how much anti-Mormon stuff was out there,” said Armand Mauss, a Mormon sociologist who has written extensively about church culture, in an interview last week. “The Romney campaign has given the church a wake-up call. There is the equivalent of anti-Semitism still out there.”

***

“It seems like it’s been open season on Mormons,” says Marvin Perkins, a Los Angeles Mormon Church member who lectures about the history of blacks in the church.

***

“People were haranguing us on the Internet,” Mr. Ballard said in an interview.

***

“There will be a long-term consequence in the Mormon church,” says Mr. Mauss, the Mormon sociologist. “I think there is going to be a wholesale reconsideration with how Mormons should deal with the latent and overt anti-Mormon propaganda. I don’t think the Mormons are ever again going to sorrowfully turn away and close the door and just keep out of the fray.”

Ms. Sataline’s in-depth piece is required reading for anyone wondering about the consequences of religious politicking in America.

Meanwhile, the Salt Lake Tribune posted a similar piece today, by its own excellent religion reporter, Peggy Fletcher Stack, which carried similar observations:

Most thought publicity for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whether positive or negative, would be a good thing. With optimistic naiveté, many believed the more people knew of Mormonism, the more Latter-day Saints would be accepted into mainstream America, legitimate players on the national stage.

That didn’t happen. Instead, some said, Romney’s failed campaign revealed what many Americans really think about Mormons. It forced Latter-day Saints to acknowledge that they don’t just belong to another American denomination.

“We have to live with the fact that a lot of people think our beliefs are strange,” said LDS historian Richard Bushman, the professor emeritus at Columbia University who helped explain Mormonism to a skeptical public. “Mormons have never had so much exposure as we have in the last year, so much genuine curiosity on the part of high-level media. I don’t think we’ll ever be the same.”

While I agree that many Mormons feel a bit less secure in their place in public life today, I disagree that the net effect of this campaign has been negative for the LDS Church. It has certainly had the effect of driving members of the faith to a better, more nuanced understanding of their doctrines and history, and in many cases inspired them to greater advocacy of their beliefs. Further, while some have expressed disappointment that the Mormon question remains yet to be answered some time in the future, it seems clear that the next person on whom that burden rests will have a somewhat easier test to pass than Mitt Romney did. Just as the nation asks its toughest questions of a candidate in his first run and then moves to a different narrative the second time around, Mormons can probably expect slightly less obsessive focus the next time they see one of their own in the public eye.

Assuming we ever see another Mormon with sufficient temerity to try such a thing.

What the commentators aren’t remembering were both the anonymity of Mitt Romney and the gaping hole on the right end of the GOP field. The man needed a niche to fill, and that niche was there for the taking. One more thoughtful moderate refusing to speak to the base would have flamed out instantly, and Romney was smart enough to know where he could fit in. But he wasn’t smart enough to anticipate the less visible, but far more serious threat to his candidacy- the rise of the “Authentic Christian Leader.”

Long before Mike Huckabee, there was plenty of talk about whether a Mormon could be elected president. Many doubted, and the polls seemed to back them up. But for the optimists (of whom Mitt Romney was one), there was abundant counter-evidence. Those same polls showed voter resistance to a “Mormon candidate” steadily decreasing from spring to summer to fall. Romney saw a corresponding bump in his numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire. For every big story in the mainstream press about nutty Mormon beliefs, there were three or four small-town papers running pieces on the very normal, upstanding Mormons in their own communities. The press became better informed about Romney’s faith, and slowly stopped mentioning it in every story about the “Mormon candidate.” Romney had a chance.

And then a former Baptist Preacher rode into town and everything fell apart. In a field of nine candidates on the GOP side, Mike Huckabee distinguished himself from the third-tier with a twinkling personality and an occasional laugh line, but few could have said early on that he had anymore going for him than a Duncan Hunter or a Sam Brownback. Somehow he survived when those others faded, and he started looking for his own niche in the race as well.

Surprisingly, he found that niche right about where Mitt Romney had already staked his own claim. There were differences in their positions, but on social issues, there was little daylight between them. But where Romney spoke in terms of policy and data, Huckabee posed as an “Authentic Christian Leader,” and alluded to the source of his campaign’s strength as “not human“. Romney consistently refused to run on religion (which most agreed would have hurt him, had he tried), while Huckabee bragged about holding a theology degree (later repudiated) and sniggered about obscure Mormon doctrine (later equivocated). And surprisingly, despite myriad opportunities, Mike Huckabee never once said anything to signal to anyone that holding Mitt Romney’s religion against him would be a bad thing.

Every candidate seeks to emphasize those parts of his own character that illuminate unattractive contrasts with his opponents. When it looked like 71 year old McCain might be the frontrunner, Romney ran an ad of himself jogging vigorously. When Romney was ascendant, Thompson emphasized his own “consistent” conservatism.  In that same vein, Mike Huckabee’s explicitly Christian campaign can only be viewed as another contrast technique. He did not attack Mitt Romney’s religion, but he did everything he could possibly have done to exploit it covertly. His Bible-thumping campaign (which continues today, via the widow’s mite and the smooth stones), completely lacking in any depth of foreign policy prescriptions, economic sophistication, and general discipline took off like a rocket, and the Romney camp never knew what hit it.

Could Romney have lost Iowa if he hadn’t been a Mormon? Sure. He had plenty other negatives, most importantly his inability to escape the flip-flopper charge (which was later shown to resonate far more with those who view Mormonism suspiciously than by those who do not). But the fact is, he lost Iowa because of the religious rise of Mike Huckabee, and the religious rise of Mike Huckabee happened because voters never got comfortable with Mitt Romney.

That discomfort was repeated in almost every subsequent contest. In New Hampshire, the polls had him neck and neck with, or barely behind McCain, but he finished several percentage points back. In Florida, several polls projected Romney as the winner, but he lost there too, by five points. Romney led California in many polls, and promised at least a very competitive finish, but ended up winning in only three counties in the entire state. Even the exit polls on Super Tuesday suggested he might win Delaware, which he lost badly, and could threaten in Arizona, which he never did. Georgia and Missouri were also within his reach, but ended up far from it in the end. In state after state, Mitt Romney was projected as a winner or contender, but he always finished below expectations in each contest.

Meanwhile, a national consensus emerged that Mike Huckabee’s campaign was now worse than futile.  So when conservative pundits began calling for a wholesale abandonment of John McCain, most in the national media assumed McCain’s loss would be Romney’s gain.  But for some reason, those who listened to Rush et. al. walked away from McCain and into the arms of the Baptist candidate that didn’t have a chance.  When all those pundits said to vote against McCain, all those Southern voters decided they could do so only if it wouldn’t mean they’d have to vote for a Mormon.  So they found a completely unworkable candidate instead.

Political scientists agree that black candidates can always expect to finish worse than the polls predict. This is likely because more people claim to be open to voting for black candidates than are actually willing to do so. The surprising disparity between the expectations set for Romney in each state and his actual performances raises questions about whether Mormons share that same disadvantage. After 2008, there can be no doubt of such a disadvantage when running against an evangelical in an evangelical region.

Of course, it’s hard to argue with the impulse to vote for someone like yourself. And evangelicals weren’t alone in doing so, as evidenced by the huge percentage of Nevadan Mormons that voted for Romney, and the enormous win Romney got in Utah. But there is a difference between Mormon support for Romney, and evangelical support for Huckabee. Mormons are a small, self-conscious minority in America, and as such may be expected to get a thrill from seeing one of their own perform well. Many Mormons have noted a real sense that their own acceptance in the American mainstream seemed at stake in the Romney campaign. The same cannot be said for mainstream evangelical Christianity, a huge, entrenched force in American religious and political life. In such a large, secure group, the rejection of like-minded outsiders looks like stubborn xenophobia, not simple in-group boosterism. In short, while one never wants to see votes given out based on identity, there’s a world of difference between hoping your little group is well represented by its rare success story, and exploiting your group’s dominant position by excluding all others from consideration.

Just like in all the best political scandals, there will also be plausible deniability here.  Romney might have lost because of his religion, but it could have been because of his flip-flops, or because he didn’t have a core, or because he just seemed too perfect.  But the scandal is that even those charges were inextricably linked to his Mormonism.  We’ve noted that the flip-flopper charge was the favored attack of admitted anti-Mormons.  The famed “lack of a core” only works when you refuse to credit Romney for his passionate lifelong commitment and contribution to his faith.  And the “too perfect” meme is just a low-level reference to his abstinence from drinking, cussing, and general uncouthness, and to his photogenic Mormon family.  Fred Thompson the successful actor with the beautiful wife, and Barack Obama, the dynamo with the darling family, never seemed to be too perfect for America.  But for some reason, Mitt Romney was.

In the final analysis, most people who voted for Mike Huckabee probably didn’t do it out of hatred for Mormons.  It’s just that many of them saw Huckabee’s religion as one of the most salient reasons to support him.  And Huckabee’s voracious appetite for that kind of support provided easy cover for anyone wanting a way out of voting for a Mormon.

After all is said and done, the big question remains unanswered, and probably will remain so for a very long time.  Mormons have watched an unbelievably successful man who seemed created for the presidency rejected by America, and will always wonder why that happened.  No one who paid attention can reject out of hand the notion that his religion had something to do with it.  And Mormons, will carry on with revived uneasiness about their place in this country.  One hopes that new bridges will be built and new alliances forged.  But those bridges will likely be built, as they were in the past, in support of other candidates, where Mormon support is needed but Mormon leadership never contemplated.  One wonders if such bridges can ever be as strong after 2008.

Article VI Blog: Sort of.

I am convinced that my own experience, as the Romney candidacy has unfolded, has been shared by most of my fellow Latter-day Saints. We have been genuinely surprised by the reactions to the Governor’s run. We did not expect Al Mohler to agonize publicly over whether he could, as “a matter of Christian discipleship,” justify voting for a Mormon. We did not see Huckabee’s question, “Don’t Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are brothers?” coming, and we were stunned when it did. (The outrage came later.) The Iowa outcome caught most of us flat-footed too.

This group saw these developments “in sorrow more than anger.”

God-O-Meter: Partially.

An advisor to the Romney campaign says that Mormonism was a big issue, but that Huckabee was a bigger one. “I heard from people that he did not have conservative record and the Mormonism, I never stopped hearing about that,” the advisor said. “But if Huckabee would have dropped out earlier, we’d have a horserace going on. He divided the vote.”

At the same time, Romney’s Mormonism and Huckabee’s rise probably have a lot to do with each other. Would Huckabee have risen as strongly as he did, almost entirely on the strength of evangelical support, if evangelicals were less disinclined to support a Mormon?

Russell Arben Fox of Times and Seasons: No. (Commenters: Yes!).

I would be sad–I would be angry, I would be frustrated and depressed and pissed–if the only message here was “no one will listen to a Mormon, because they hate us.” But at most, I think the message here is “if a Mormon without any deep roots in or even much of a relationship with the Christian rights decides, for some mix of personal conviction and political calculation, to make a play for Christian right voters against a former Southern Baptist preacher, one that will not be above making jokes and comments here and there to demonstrate his bona fides to his core supporters, prepare to not win.” The anti-Mormonism out there–which surely is real, but is just as surely, I think at least, to be mostly implicit and/or subconscious and/or in the eye of the beholder–is just going to the icing on your farewell cake.

T&S commenter Dave:

Hate is kind of a strong word; contempt is the better word. It’s not because he ran against Romney or caused Romney’s candidacy to fail that Huckabee deserves contempt, that’s just part of politics. It’s because he used a sly form of religious bigotry to drum up support for himself (a bad thing on general principles) and because it was directed at my religion (a bad thing for me and my family). Huckabee merits contempt and I’m happy to oblige him. He’s a religious edition of Richard Nixon.

Exit polls: Possibly

Now, if Romney hadn’t given evangelicals second thoughts simply over his religion, would Mike Huckabee have happened? It may be Romney needs another four years to convince evangelicals his religion won’t interfere with their priorities.

Huckabee: Let’s chat about this sometime over lunch at the Naval Observatory.

So it is oddly fitting that in the final stages of the campaign, Romney’s religion comes back to the fore, based on events far out of Romney’s control and far-removed from the world of politics. When Gordon B. Hinckley, the longstanding and well-beloved President of the LDS Church, passed away last week, Romney announced immediately that he would attend the funeral. This resulted in some head scratching in the media, as commentators wondered how to interpret Romney’s willingness to be overtly Mormon just two days before the largest primary event of his candidacy. Was his new candor regarding his loyalty to his faith evidence that he had conceded the race? Or was this some kind of new pander to play up his authenticity?

The AP’s Glen Johnson sees the new openness as a mere artifact of the low religious tension in the upcoming primary states, as opposed to that in past primary states like Iowa and South Carolina. USA Today has Jan Shipps, an oft-quoted academic with an expertise in Mormonism saying that “[Romney's] in a bind. If he goes (to the funeral) people will say, ‘Oh, his religion is more important than his campaign.’ If he doesn’t go, people will say, ‘He doesn’t care about his religion, he cares about politics.’” The same story also quotes a University of Utah Political Science professor saying that Romney “could not not be there. Given the world of (Mormon) political insiders, this is an absolute must-attend.” In other words, attending President Hinckley’s funeral was a political necessity, in the eyes of some.

Yet others found a suspicious evasiveness in the candidate’s funeral plans. Salon Magazine’s Mike Madden is put off by the campaign’s privacy about Romney’s plans while in Salt Lake, as if one might expect him to set up a press conference with the funeral cortege passing slowly by in the background. In fact, you could almost smell a hint of suspicion in the Salon article that the LDS Church was itself complicit in helping Romney escape attention, by avoiding any religious ritual that could highlight the Mormon-ness of the affair. On the contrary, while it was conducted at an enormous scale to accommodate the huge masses interested in the event, the funeral was a very typical Mormon funeral in terms of content. The sincere speeches and sedate hymns, while anything but rewarding to a reporter looking for a thrill on Temple Square, were familiar displays of Mormon-ness, a lifestyle that is maligned for its strange eccentricity at the same time that the critics gripe about how boring the whole scene can be.

But in the midst of all this coverage, there’s a different story, about a 97-year old man who died this week, a man held by some 13 million people as a prophet and great spiritual leader.  His funeral was attended by 21,000 people that cared very little for the political implications of the day, but wanted only to pay their respects to a leader who had lived a thoroughly exemplary life.  Yet few in the press corps were willing to consider that Mitt Romney may have been driven by the same motive as the rest of those attendees.  It is no coincidence that the most insightful and probing story in the mainstream press about the funeral (kudos to Newsweek) both ignored Mitt Romney, and was written by a Mormon.

Ultimately, no motive or calculation should be imputed to Romney for spending crucial campaigning minutes in devotion and contemplation besides a simple desire to be himself and life the life of the Mormon he is. This is most easily proven by how impossible it would be for his advisors to calculate the effect of such a move, for which there is not even a hint of a script, even if they had tried. This weekend, Mitt Romney, the man, went to the funeral of another man, whom he knew a little, and whom he revered as a prophet. The media clearly lacked a script as well, and that’s as it should be. It is difficult to find public meaning in moments this private. And true to his core, which is so famously thought not to exist at all, Mitt Romney navigated the unscripted moment with grace and humility, failing to score points or protect himself from the barbs of his critics. Whatever else the world may want him to be, Romney is neither a hollow shell nor a secret cultist. He is a man of faith that sometimes needs a moment to live out that faith. Even two days before Super-Tuesday.

In fairness, the recent story also includes quotes from Richard Bushmand and Richard Ostling, the former an active member of the church, and the latter a respected source on the subject.  But still, that only brings the two-day tally to the following: Impartial commentators: 2; Prominent Mormon dissidents/critics: 4; believing Mormons: 1. What gives?

Like David says- it’s time for Jennifer Dobner to update her rolodex.  (See also unbiased coverage of Dobner’s balance problem at GetReligion).

This tip is offered free of charge to Jennifer Dobner of the Associated Press.*

*Whose coverage, I should note, appears otherwise to have been fair.  Unnecessarily out of balance, but fair. 

But for many who have followed the Romney-religion discussion closely, hearing Minnery talk about Romney’s ‘acknowledgement’ came as quite a surprise. Romney has walked a fine line on his religion, but it’s been rare to see him make any big mistakes on this issue. Admitting that his faith is not a Christian one would be a very big mistake– it would anger a lot of Mormons, which would likely result in countless stories that he has distanced himself from his faith, and play into more ‘flip-flopper’ charges.

Fortunately for everyone involved (except for Minnery, I suppose), it’s just not true. In a followup article, Time tracks down Minnery’s basis for believing that Romney concedes that he’s no Christian. Minnery said there was a passage in Romney’s ‘Faith in America’ speech that gave him the impression that Romney admitted he wasn’t a Christian. Here’s the passage:

There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history.

See the part where he says Mormons aren’t Christians? Well, I didn’t actually include that part. Neither did Romney. The above is the full statement regarding Romney’s belief in Jesus Christ. And it was deemed sufficient by Focus on the Family to conclude that Romney concedes Mormons aren’t Christians.

To most people that seems like a horrible misinterpretation, even a willful one. And I agree, but there is some extra nuance that makes it even more interesting. That is, this little controversy plays up the strange, convoluted logic of evangelicals who claim to know what exactly it means to be a Christian. For most people, seeing a person declare faith in Jesus Christ as the “Savior of mankind” is more than enough basis to call that person a Christian. Not so with modern evangelicals, for whom ‘Christian’ has become more a signifier of denominational purity than adoration of Christ. In their attempts to exclude Mormons from the club, evangelicals have had to do all kinds of gymnastics to tell us what “Christian” really means, and have ended up throwing Christ right out of the analysis. Reliance solely on the Bible, but also adherence to certain extra-biblical creeds, and emphasis on this New Testament passage (but not this one!) and historical unity with other Christian churches (except for all the disunity all the Christian churches have had with one another) are all more important than a declaration of Christ as savior.

Rather than engage in the nonsensical philosophizing one must do to make sense of this, the Romney campaign has kept their response very simple, in the process taking a much firmer stance on the “Christian” issue than they ever have before. Here’s Time quoting a Romney spokesman:

Now some people define ‘Christianity’ differently,” Fehrnstrom continued. “Some people believe that ‘Christianity’ is a group of evangelical churches. Others believe that ‘Christianity’ is any church that follows the teaching of Jesus Christ, and that is what the LDS church believes.” I asked Fehrnstrom if that was also what Romney believed. He said yes.

It’s hard to believe we’ve come to a point where a “Christian” leader sees a candidate claim Christ as personal savior and then (1) concludes from the statement that the candidate is not a Christian and then (2) announces that conclusion as a reason to support the candidate. Strange times we’re living in. Anyone else think politics would be better off without all this religion stuff? It’s worth considering.

P.S. David Brody posts on this story, and draws a spot-on conclusion: that the Mormon issue has now completely expired.  I heartily agree. 

Article VI Blog has updated its post on the Brian Williams ‘Mormon President’ question. In their original post, they reviewed a copy of the poll to which MSNBC had linked, which did not include any question regarding Mormonism. It appears now that there was such a question (though it showed that more respondents were nervous about a Baptist Minister’s ability to unite the country than that of a Mormon), which was not visible in the version published by MSNBC.

I should have done more to verify this story, and apologize for both my error and the accusation that Williams “lied.”

Article VI Blog has the scoop on the numbers behind the “Mormon President” question in last night’s debate. For those who didn’t watch, Williams told Romney he had a Wall Street Journal Poll, in which “44 percent of respondents say a Mormon president would have a difficult time uniting the country.” It was an odd question given the recent calm in the campaign regarding Romney’s religion. But hey- if that’s what the voters are saying, it must be relevant, right?

Would it surprise you to find out that that is very much NOT what the voters are saying? Indeed, the word Mormon doesn’t appear anywhere in the poll at all. Nor does the concept of Mormonism, or even religion in general. This is a straight poll with some very basic questions about who the respondent supports for president, etc. The final question reads as follows:

One of the goals people have mentioned as important for the next president to have is the ability to unite all Americans around goals and objectives for the country and to reduce the partisan fighting in Congress. I would like to list various presidential candidates. Please tell me whether you feel this person would be very successful, fairly successful, not too successful, or not at all successful in uniting the nation.

See anything in there about Mormonism or religion? Me neither. Responding to the poll, 22 percent thought Romney would not be too successful, and 22 percent also said he would not be at all successful. The total is 44%, giving Williams his cited number. But the number is for those who think Romney would be less than successful uniting the country, not those who think it’s because of his Mormonism. NBC must have just assumed, either sincerely or because it makes for a fun debate question, that this problem relates to Romney’s Mormonism. Problem is, there’s no support for such a crass conclusion. Anyone think there couldn’t be a thousand other reasons for that response? Especially given that many other candidates received very similar results (Giuliani came in at 46%, Huckabee at 43%)?

Unless NBC has some other explanation for how Williams drew that conclusion, this is really poor form, and they deserve to be kicked around for it. To have your flagship anchorman inserting blatant editorial conclusions into polling data in order to call a candidate out on his religion is just way beyond the line. Funny thing is, no one in the main stream press has picked this up yet. Hopefully NBC doesn’t make it through the weekend without some egg on its face.

Of course, in order to dismiss Mormon claims as fantastical, but not offend every other religious believer, you have to come up with a creative way to distinguish the miraculous claims of the former from those of the latter. Given that Christians, Jews, and other major religions make claims just as extraordinary and just as unverifiable as any Mormon does, this can be tricky. Thompson decides to draw his line between the Book of Mormon and the Bible by saying that “nothing in it actually happened. Nothing.”

We’ll get to why he’s wrong in a moment. But first consider the logic here- the Book of Mormon should be dismissed because it posits an entire history we cannot verify. Whereas, the Bible at least has the courtesy to present its fantastical stories and impossible miracles in an area for which we have some historical record. And yet isn’t it interesting that so much set forth in the Bible cannot be verified? Did you know, for example, that scholars can only locate approximately 36 of the 475 place-names mentioned in the Bible? (See Givens, By the Hand of Mormon, p. 148). Isn’t that sort of strange for a book that is widely assumed to be easily proven with the use of history? And how about the fact that no one can find any evidence of a census that would have forced Joseph to go to Bethlehem in the year of Christ’s birth? (You’ll have to look that one up.) If you think these little voids in the historical record are unique, you don’t know your Bible.

In truth, there are hundreds of Biblical references to people, places and events that simply cannot be substantiated by historians. Thus, Thompson’s cute distinction, dismissing on the one hand a book without much affirmative historical support, and crediting a book that took place in the known world but which has countless historical implausibilities, utterly fails. The point of the Bible is not to say that Palestine existed, but that God worked constantly with his children and sent his Son to die and be resurrected. Saying that we can believe the Bible because Palestine existed is like saying we should believe in Greek Mythology because we’ve found Greece. Stated differently, if you insist on scientific evidence for every claim, what does it matter that the unprovable miracles in one book took place somewhere we’ve heard of, and the unprovable miracles in the other book took place somewhere that is unfamiliar? Both sets of claims are “counterknowledge,” i.e., both require faith. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves pretending that the Bible and the Koran came complete with citations to scholarly authority and the Book of Mormon took place on a different planet. (And by the way, the Book of Mormon story begins in Jerusalem, refers to the very verifiable reign of King Zedekiah, and continues through several known locations, which erases Thompson’s false distinction with the Bible anyhow).

Now, as to whether “nothing in [the Book of Mormon] actually happened,” here again, Thompson is badly misinformed. To be sure, no one has been able to prove most of the narrative truth of the Book of Mormon. Much of it took place in the new world after all, positing civilizations that could have arisen and fallen thousands of years ago, living in undisclosed locations somewhere in the Western hemisphere. The failure of historians to positively locate this needle in the haystack of our two continents is certainly no evidence of absence.

However, some surprisingly strong arguments have been offered in support of one of the Book of Mormon’s significant parts. Specifically, the early chapters of the Book of Mormon tell of the journey of one family from Jerusalem to the Red Sea, and from there through the Arabian desert all the way to the end of the Arabian peninsula. Although this area was almost completely unknown to Americans at the time the Book of Mormon was published (indeed, much of it had never even been charted), the Book shows an astonishing propensity for nailing the details of the landscape it covers. For example, these travelers pass through a place called Nahom in their travels, something no one had heard of at the time of publication. Recently, it has come to light that an area directly in the path of the Book of Mormon’s wanderers has been known by a functionally identical name, and controlled by a tribe of that same name, for thousands of years. Other evidence of the early travels of these characters continues to mount, including the Book of Mormon’s uncanny prescience in locating mountain ranges and describing a rare spot of wooded, ore-rich coastline in Oman that figures prominently in the story. (See here for a more extended treatment of these evidences).

None of which is to say that the Book of Mormon must be true. Rather, that it is simply dishonest to continue to say that there is absolutely NO evidence supporting its claims. (Much more could be detailed here, but apologetics is not the focus of this blog.) And before we leave this topic, note how confident Mr. Thompson is in asserting that “Jesus of Nazareth never set foot in America.” No support is offered for this assertion. How Thompson could be so sure of the post-resurrection travels of the Son of God is a mystery to me, unless he’s comfortable relying on a bit of “counterknowledge” of his own.

Finally, Mr. Thompson claims that the Smithsonian has declared Mormonism’s claims to be untrue. To be more precise, it is true that at one point the Smithsonian took the position that Book of Mormon claims were implausible (saying nothing about the vast bulk of Mormon doctrine, of which there is much beyond the Book of Mormon, of course). However, Mr. Thompson fails to note that the Smithsonian’s earlier statements on Book of Mormon archeology drew strong critical response, much of it in the way of solid scholarship. Reacting to these rebuttals, the Smithsonian withdrew its earlier statement, replacing it in 1998 with the following innocuous declaration:

Your recent inquiry concerning the Smithsonian’s alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in the Office of Communications. The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian institution has never used it in archeological research and any information that you may have received to the contrary is incorrect.

Journal of Book of Mormon Studies (Provo: FARMS, 1998), 77

Mr. Thompson’s reliance on a decade-old statement as definitive proof of Mormonism’s falsity, while ignoring the updated statement, is either sloppy or disingenuous, and again, smacks of “counterknowledge” all his own.

For more on whether Mormonism is “obviously false” see this post.

But for those still unfamiliar, here’s the text of Article VI, in pertinent part:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

This becomes both the foundational text and the jumping off point of a new movie about religion and politics in America, called, simply Article VI. (click here to visit the official site). Contrary to what you might think, this movie is not about Mitt Romney. In fact, it uses the 2008 race merely as a frame for bringing out a multitude of opinions on the core religious values that govern spiritual America, and the political values that attempt to share that same space without causing too much disruption. The result is a fascinating mixture of vituperation, rumination, and condemnation, with lots of different people participating.

Notably, and perhaps not surprisingly, all of the condemnation and harsh judgments come from members of one broad group- evangelical Christians. We see different members of this group ranting bitterly at Mormons attending a conference, praying loudly from the gallery of the U.S. Senate to drown out the opening prayer being offered by a Hindu clergyman, peddling messages like “truth is hate . . . to those who hate the truth” from the sidewalks, and even condemning Mormonism from the pulpit. We also see evangelicals (including Richard Land, and EFM’s David French) offering reasoned exhortations to moderation and exploring the boundaries of their own political theology as well.

The focus on evangelicals is predictable, given that group’s centrality to the discussion of religion and politics in America. Conservative Christians make up a very large percentage of total Americans, are often well-organized, and can wield great political power. Either as a cause or effect of that power, they often feel comfortable taking sharp political action motivated by their faith. Thus, it’s not uncommon to see an evangelical leader judge a candidate by his faith, and spew the unlucky pol from his mouth upon findings of lukewarmness, which always makes for great cinema.

But while the focus on evangelicals may be predictable, their treatment in this movie is far from standard. The movie casts several villains, willing to say all the right (read: mean) things about Mormons, Hindus, and everyone else that is obviously going to hell. However, somewhere near the middle of the film, there’s a transition in which these people move from being hateful talking heads to people full of real concern for America with actual notions of love for those they’re hoping to reach. The stock evangelical villains suddenly become quite sympathetic and are allowed to step out of the caricatures set out for them in the early part of the movie, as well as in countless media profiles.

It’s a brilliant film-making choice, as it allows the viewer to conclude that these issues are far more complex than one might think at first glance. The issues gain complexity not because they are hard to work out (they are), but because most points of view are heartfelt and motivated by sincere and unimpeachable intentions. One telling example of this perspective is in the movie’s portrayal of Reverend Bill Keller, by far the most vehement condemnor of Mormonism in the whole pantheon of anti-Mormon spokesmen this year (see here for one example). Keller is up to his usual tricks here, but near the end, he gives a very credible testimony of his hopes for those that wander in evil/Mormon paths, signaling that perhaps we can no longer divide our religious characters neatly into loving spiritualists and hateful firebreathers.

Article VI is a surprisingly personal movie, following the film’s director in his interviews with others, and in his attempts to reach and understand those who criticize his Mormon faith. This dynamic adds an emotional perspective to the film, showing the punches thrown by many critics of Mormonism alongside a person that is to some extent absorbing those punches. However, there may be moments in which the use of personal narrative passes just a bit too far from perspective-enhancement to self-indulgence. If the movie has a weakness, it is that it takes this personal viewpoint just a shade too far, casting Mormons more as victims in this fight than participants in the hurly-burly of sectarian give and take.

On the whole, however, this is the work of a mature film-maker, skillfully meshing controversy with analysis and deeply-felt spiritual feeling, and still packed with historical and political information that will be new even to those that have followed this issue closely. This is a great entry in our ongoing debate about the role of religion in our nation’s government. One only hopes it can gain the exposure it deserves while these questions remain as pressing as they are. If you care about faith and politics and the crazy, fiery ways in which they intersect, Article VI is a great way to get your fix.

Mitt is most likely to be thought of as a flip-flopper by those with anti-Mormon sentiments.  A new study out of Vanderbilt University attempts to understand why the flip-flopper tag has stuck to Romney, but not to many other candidates with records just as curvy.  The study concludes that “of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping, many admit it is Romney’s Mormonism and not his flip-flopping that is the real issue.”  If Romney does eventually go down to defeat, some will question whether his religion played a significant role.  However, most will likely say that it was his flip-flopping record that sealed his demise.  If this study is correct, that may mean it was his religion after all.

Published before the Nevada caucuses, this piece in the Guardian asserted that “Romney Looks to Fellow Mormons in Nevada.”  Feel free to search the story for any support of that headline.  It’s clear that Mormons did strongly support Governor Romney in Nevada.  What is not clear at all is that Romney made some special play for Mormon support, as this headline suggests.  Despite rampant discussion of the intensity of Mormon support for Romney in that state, the most salient truth on the topic is that Romney had nothing to do with it.  There’s a big difference between certain groups flocking to a candidate unbidden and of their own will (Romney’s Mormon support in Nevada) and a particular identity base being constantly coddled and spoken to in code and otherwise courted until they dutifully support a candidate (Huckabee’s evangelical support in Iowa).  Whatever else may be said about the Nevada Mormon vote, Romney came by it honestly.

Ron Rosenbaum (who coincidentally works for Slate.com, Campaign 2008′s official purveyor of anti-Romney bile) posts on his blog with the following “Question for Mitt Romney:”  “Did You Take a Stand Against the LDS Practice of Baptizing Holocaust Victims — and Adolf Hitler?”  It’s the kind of gotcha piece that has become a classic these days- find some sketchy thing that was going on long ago and then find a way to tie a candidate tenuously to that practice by triangulation.  Usually there’s no evidence at all to link the candidate with the controversial issue (anyone know if Romney participated in baptisms for Holocaust survivors? Didn’t think so), so the scandal-monger just steps back and asks “But did you take a stand against it????”  As if everyone in the world is required to “take stands” against every wrong going on in the world around them.  Ron Rosenbaum, did you take a stand against self-serious photographs being posted on blogs?

Of course, the scandal has a bit more heft is there actually is a “wrong” to take a stand against.  But the LDS practice of baptizing the dead has always been tossed around as a possible controversy without ever really breaking through to the level of real scandal, to the great disappointment of many critics.  One of the reasons people have a hard time getting behind this one is evident in Rosenbaum’s statement of the problem- that the LDS had the practice in the past (now ended) of performing proxy baptisms for holocaust victims AND other notables such as Adolf Hitler (meaning that the LDS performed such works for all dead people, and among them were some holocaust victims, as well as WWII era Nazi dictators).  Thus, in the first instance, Rosenbaum suggests that Mormons are attempting to sully the religion of the Jewish victims, but also somehow honoring Hitler via the same treatment.  Which is it- do baptisms for the dead rob the dead of their dignity, or unduly dignify dead villains, or both?  The suppositions on which all such arguments depend are so abstract and hypothetical that it hardly makes for any kind of engaging scandal.  But to take a step further into abstraction to tie Mitt Romney to the whole thing, via his failure to “take a stand” pushes the scandal-making tradition from respectable parlor game to wacky conspiracy theory.  Not really befitting a real journalist, even if he is just writing on his blog.

Finally, from the “Mormons Speaking Out” file, Leonidas Ralph Mecham, a Mormon and former chief administrator of the U.S. Courts, has written a letter to G.E. C.E.O. Jeffrey Immelt expressing displeasure with Lawrence O’Donnell’s anti-Mormon screed, which aired on NBC’s McLaughlin Group.  The letter is not exactly a model of restraint, and sometimes goes way too far in its rhetoric, but it gives yet another example of Mormons speaking persuasively against the widespread public mistreatment of their faith.  To view the letter, click on this link:Mecham Letter

Earlier this year, Richard John Neuhaus wrote that while he does not consider Mormonism to be a Christian faith, he is open to the possibility that many Mormons could be Christians. This likely means that setting aside strictly theological questions, those who lead lives fully of charity and Christlike compassion may be thought of as Christians in a broad sense. The picture of Mitt Romney painted in the Salt Lake Tribune portrays someone who fully deserves that distinction. Here are a few pertinent excerpts:

Regardless, Mormon women in Boston still talk about an extraordinary 1993 meeting Romney called to address the women of the stake.

More than 250 members poured into the Belmont chapel. One by one they called out their issues while he stood at the front with three pads labeled: policies we can’t change, practices we can change, and things we can consider.

Nearly 100 proposals were made that day, including having female leaders give talks in various wards as the men on the high council do; letting women speak last in church; turning the chapels into day-care centers during the week; letting women stand in the circle while blessing newborn babies; recognizing the accomplishment of young women as the church does of Boy Scout advancements; and putting changing tables in the men’s rooms.

Many women left with a new appreciation of Romney’s openness.

He was “so brave,” says Robin Baker, who has worked on Exponent II.

Sievers, who worked with Romney to set up the meeting, was ecstatic.

“I was really surprised,” she says. “He implemented every single suggestion that I would have.”

***

Not long after Grant Bennett fell off a ladder while trying to dislodge a hornet’s nest outside his second-story bedroom, Romney came to offer sympathy and show Bennett a smarter way to deal with the festering insects – from inside.

Before Doug Anderson had even finished getting family out of his burning house, Romney showed up with a brigade of neighbors to salvage beloved belongings from the remains.

Several Mormons affectionately describe him as a man who can’t remember names and can’t tell a joke, but did preach inspiring sermons.

“We loved hearing him speak,” recalls Bennett’s wife, Colleen. “He was so smooth yet so connecting.”

(By the way, for those worried that Romney would be too beholden to Mormon dogma or policy to govern independently, that meeting regarding the concerns of women should go a long way toward settling the concern. That Romney even held the meeting shows a departure from how many other Mormons leaders would have dealt with these issues; that he was so open to wide-ranging, and sometimes heterodox proposals shows that he was far from a blind follower even as a church officer. He could hardly be expected to be less independent as the nation’s president).

While these anecdotes don’t give the full view of what it means to be a Mormon bishop or stake president, they do indicate that Romney’s service must have required a real depth of spirituality and humanity, attributes he is not often assumed to possess. In order to give a better sense of what those positions required, I asked my older brother, a Mormon Bishop in the Bible Belt to describe his duties. I believe that Romney’s job description as bishop would have been very similar to the following:

As a Mormon Bishop, I am the leader of the local congregation. That means I am ultimately answerable for the physical, emotional and especially spiritual welfare of the members. This involves a great deal of time spent counseling those with serious issues such as marital problems, addictions, or emotional problems. I also spend time working with those who are seeking a deeper and more meaningful relationship with God.

Because we have no paid, full-time clergy, leadership at every local level is composed of volunteers. As Bishop, I oversee their efforts and coordinate with other congregational leaders, those who work with the children, the youth, as well as the men’s and women’s ministries. I am also responsible for the administrative matters–overseeing budgets, collecting and depositing offerings, the maintenance and use of the building and so forth. The church operates a large welfare program that assists struggling members with their needs, and that is also administered by the Bishop. Occasionally, I am given special assignments as well, for example, I am the designated contact person for transients passing through the Metropolitan area and am responsible to assess their needs and provide them with such help as may be prudent and useful.

Among Mormons, it is well-known that to be called as a Bishop means the end of one’s free time, and calls for huge sacrifices from one’s family. Bishops give great amounts of time to very complex and emotional problems with no pay and very limited training. If you find it impossible to picture Mitt Romney selflessly giving such personal, Christian service, then maybe you need to reevaluate what you think you know about Mitt Romney.