Category Archives: LDS Society

An LDS comic strip worth reading

Over at Mormon Matters, I ran across a post by Jamie Trwth with a link to his comic strip “Latte Day Saints“. Here’s one of my favorites so far:

Heh. I’ve said for years that anyone who thinks that Mormons are mindless sheep has clearly never served in an LDS leadership position.

Jamie’s post at Mormon Matters is also worth reading, when he — as a black Latter-day Saints — describes the anti-LDS discrimination he’s encountered in Alaska when trying to register his child in private Christian schools. ..bruce..

A sweet look from outside [OOPS!]

EGG ON MY FACE: Kathleen Flake is LDS. My fault for leaping to the assumption that a professor of religious history at Vanderbilt was not LDS. Thanks for the comments that corrected me. Sigh….

As Latter-day Saints, we (well, I, but I suspect most of you as well) reflexively brace for misunderstandings and misrepresentations in non-LDS coverage of our doctrines, society, and practices. So it was refreshing — and moving [but mistaken on my part!] — to read this insightful piece by Kathleen Flake from the On Religion website about President Hinckley’s funeral:

The Latter-day Saints buried their prophet on Saturday. Thousands attended the service in person and millions more faithful watched in chapels around the globe, as well as on the internet. What they saw was an unusually personal ceremony for a very public man who led and to large degree defined the contemporary Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Notwithstanding the numbers and titles of participants, Gordon Hinckley’s funeral was a family affair both in word and sacrament. It was an extraordinary display of what makes Mormonism tick.

Be sure to read the whole thing. Hat tip to the Deseret News LDS Newsline. ..bruce..

Republican Mormons and Obama: a true-life story

The issue of potential LDS support for Obama continues to bubble around the bloggernacle; see for example here and here for opposing views. I will note for the record that I haven’t on this blog stated that I would support Obama or that I thought other Latter-day Saints should. What I have stated, repeatedly, is that with the right pro-active outreach from Obama himself, he could well win over Utah against a McCain/Huckabee or even a McCain/not-Huckabee ticket.

Here’s the interesting part. I’m in Utah this week, visiting relatives (kids, grandkids, in-laws, etc.), but I made some time today to have lunch with an old friend/colleague whom I’ve known since I taught at BYU some 20+ years ago. We exchange e-mails a few times a year, but it’s probably been a decade since we’ve actually seen each other face to face.

Anyway, we’re sitting at lunch today, and out of the blue, my friend — I’ll call him Bill — starts to raise the issue of the upcoming election. I’ll note for the record that he has never read this blog and he hasn’t read my other blog for a few months. Also, this is the issue he chose to raise; I had said absolutely nothing about politics or the election. And yet he proceeds to explain his feelings regarding the Republican primary race, particularly regarding the anti-Mormon aspect to it, then tells me that he’s been reading Obama’s book (The Audacity of Hope), which he says is actually quite rational and even-handed (his words). The upshot: he tells me that he’s voted a straight Republican party ticket for 25+ years, but he’s seriously considering voting for Obama in the fall, particularly if Huckabee is on the Republican ticket, but even if it’s just McCain plus someone else.

As I said elsewhere, the plural of ‘anecdote’ is not ‘data’. But it was startling to have Bill bring this up out of the blue and — with no input or prompting from me, and as I said, never having read this blog — recite to me almost exactly the same decision-making process that I’ve been describing here and that others have described elsewhere.  This is a self-described staunch LDS conservative, well-educated (PhD) and established in his profession, with a large family at home. Yet he’s ready to vote for Obama for all the reasons that we’ve been kicking around.

For what it’s worth.  ..bruce..

P.S. If you are interested in my personal political thinking, see this post on my other blog.

Huckabee backpedals, Marty critiques

GOP candidate Mike Huckabee now says that he was misunderstood in making what were perceived as anti-Mormon comments:

WASHINGTON — Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee says it is “unfounded” for anyone to say he has alienated the Mormon community or that he used rival Mitt Romney’s LDS faith as a wedge issue.

Huckabee, talking to reporters over breakfast in Washington Tuesday just two blocks from the White House, blamed a single remark he made to The New York Times Magazine last year — when he asked whether Mormons believed Jesus and Satan are brothers — as the cause of the angst in the Mormon community.

The LDS Church issued a statement following that remark that acknowledged the belief that Jesus and Satan were both children of God, as well as all of humanity. Still, Huckabee’s comment was seen by many as pejorative.

Some members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have charged that Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister and former Arkansas governor, was tapping into wariness about Mormons in campaigning against Romney. Some even raised the specter in letters to the editor that they would vote Democratic if Huckabee were the GOP nominee.

Huckabee said Tuesday he would have concern if anyone said he had estranged the Mormon community. 

Fine. If Huckabee is serious, here’s all he needs to to: publicly and unequivocally state “Yes, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Christian church.”

Not holding my breath.

In the meantime, Martin E. Marty — who, unlike Huckabee, actually knows a fair amount about the LDS Church — has his own observations about what went on in the GOP primaries:

Now that Governor Romney is off the campaign trail — we don’t do any columns of candidates on the trail — we can, without commenting on him or the part his church and faith played in his demise, do a retrospective on the Mormon-hate that blighted air waves, the internet, and some printed quotations while he was spotlit…

Taking testimony about the evils of Mormonism by ex-Mormons is likely to be as objective as it is if it comes against Catholicism by ex-Catholics. Were it our calling, we could find profound fault with many policies and actions of some Latter-Day-Saints or members and leaders of other faiths. My own company, that of historians, is in the business of telling stories about others’ stories. No one is to be uncritical, where there is often much to criticize. But criticism is one thing; hate-speech and untruths are another.

Amen, Martin.  ..bruce..

Obama and the Mormons, redux

It was via an article by Rob Graham over at the Beehive Standard Weekly that I first learned of the outreach by Barack Obama campaign personnel towards Latter-day Saints here in the West. Now Rob has put together a rather lengthy commentary summarizing what’s been kicking around on various news sources and blogs: if Obama (w/out Clinton) is the Democratic candidate this fall, large numbers of Mormons may abandon the GOP and vote for Obama instead:

 The many Mormons I have spoken to in attempting to obtain a read on how Mormons will vote in November are universally stating that they will either not vote for the Republican candidate, which is likely to be McCain, or they will vote for Obama as a candidate who will include Mormons in his campaign. If the candidate is Huckabee, the Mormons will turn out in droves to reject him as he openly used religion against the Mormons, which would result in a heavy vote for Obama.

Obama has taken note. In Obama’s Super Tuesday speech, he made it very clear that his candidacy is inclusive of disaffected Republicans, as well as those who share differing religious views — e.g., code word for Mormons. He is a smart character and he knows what it feels like to be on the receiving end of bigotry. He perceives he can tap into that well and turn the Mormon vote in his direction. He can also bridge to the Mormons on race as Mormons have been viewed as intolerant because of excluding their priesthood leadership responsibilities where the rank-and-file Mormon population is far from racist and as a group they have been seeking a way to heal the perceived racist policies of the past. Many prominent black Americans, such as Gladys Knight, who have joined the church have found racial ignorance in the church’s mostly white and Hispanic population, but not intolerance or open racism in the church. With some patience, Obama can appeal to the members of the Mormon faith and become a popular symbol for overcoming the church’s past perceived isolationist and racially-based policies.

Of course, Obama sees the possibilities and recently sent his wife out to Salt Lake City to meet with two members of the Mormon Church hierarchy and had photographs taken with them. It was all smiles and mutual understanding. No one would have thought the Mormons would embrace so openly and warmly a black American candidate and his family, but bigotry, religious intolerance and racism does create a common cause and mutual understanding among its victims.

Like Evangelicals, Mormons also have their differences with liberals, but the feeling is different with Obama as he is reaching out and acknowledging the differences, but emphasizing the similarities while assuring Mormons that they would be treated with respect in expressing their differences. A close analysis of Obama’s policies finds some common ground which could result in broad-based support from Mormons. For instance, the Mormon emphasis on family values, education, welfare, compassion, self-reliance and the like are all significant political similarities.

Be sure to read the entire article. Graham pulls all the pieces together to a level of detail that no one has to date, at least not that I’ve seen.  I fully believe that with some relatively modest but explicit outreach towards Latter-day Saints, Obama could indeed gain hundreds of thousands of votes in key Western states, including Utah, Idaho, Arizona, Colorado, and California. Given how few votes the last few Presidential elections have hinged upon, that could be enough to help Obama win the Presidency.  ..bruce..

A simple step for Obama

OK, Obama won the Utah Democratic primary (quite handily) and has other things to worry about for the next six months than how Utah will vote in the fall (such as, winning the nomination in the first place). But it strikes me that in an Obama/not-Hillary vs. McCain/maybe-Huckabee matchup, Obama could probably flip Utah (and possibly Idaho) from the red column to the blue — and gain support in heavily LDS areas of California and Arizona — with a simple statement along these lines [note: this is my suggested language, not anything that Obama has actually said]:

Republicans seek to divide, seek to exclude, seek to reject those who do not meet some obscure or arbitrary standard. We saw this during the Republican primaries, when an entire church — a uniquely American religion, one whose members are widely admired for their citizenship, their upright lives and their service to others — was repeatedly criticized as being not Christian, in fact as being of the devil. What’s more, this was done those who set themselves up as judges of all things Christian, by supporters of the Republican candidate for Vice-President, Mike Huckabee. Well, to our Mormon sisters and brothers, you who are our Christian sisters and brothers, we say: come home. Come back to the Democratic Party, which you supported through so much of the 20th Century. We have no questions of your Christian faith; indeed, your global humanitarian service, local community involvement, and commitment to religious pluralism are exactly what we want and need, what we as Democrats stand for. It is we, the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party, who say as your founder Joseph Smith said: ‘We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men and women the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.’ We seek to include, not exclude, to accept, not turn away. We are not afraid of your successes as a church; we welcome them and want to learn from them. To paraphrase the late Martin Luther King: we judge you not by the particulars of your faith but by the content of your character. Like many of us, you have known persecution and prejudice, and you cherish freedom and civil rights. And like many of us, you seek to build a better world. As our Christian brothers and sister, come join the rest of us — in all our variety of beliefs, faiths and convictions — in building that better world. Come home.

And with that one, short speech, Obama could well turn vast numbers of US-based Latter-day Saints into supporters, particularly given these factors. They may not change party registration (though I suspect quite a few would, particularly if Obama continued his outreach to Latter-day Saints after election), but I think they would vote heavily for Obama over McCain (and particularly McCain/Huckabee) in the fall.

Of course, if the GOP ticket is McCain/Romney, it wouldn’t matter what Obama said; Latter-day Saints would vote Republican in a big way. ..bruce..

Could Utah go Democratic? [UPDATED]

I’ve been saying for some time that there’s a real chance that Utah, considered the most Republican of all states, could actually go Democratic in the Presidential election this fall, particularly if Mike Huckabee is on the GOP ticket. As I pointed out in that previous article, Utah through most of the 20th Century (particularly the 1917-1985 period) elected a Democratic governor and at least one Democratic Senator about 75% of the time.

Now, an article in this morning’s Deseret News reports the following in the aftermath of Romney’s departure from the GOP nomination:

Only 30 percent of Utahns polled in a new Deseret Morning News/KSL-TV survey Thursday said they’d vote for the presumptive Republican nominee for president, Arizona Sen. John McCain.

And nearly as many, 25 percent, said they would cast their ballot for a Democrat, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. Eleven percent said their choice was another Democrat, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.

The other Republicans still in the race, Texas Rep. Ron Paul and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, had only minimal support — 3 percent for Paul, a onetime Libertarian candidate for president, and just 2 percent for Huckabee, a Southern Baptist minister.

As I noted before, not just the Huckabee campaign but also (to a lesser extent) the McCain campaign has been involved in anti-Mormon smears while campaigning against Romney. Those should halt now that Romney’s out of the race — but the Republican Party should not underestimate how many Mormons are upset by the anti-Mormon prejudice rampant through the Religious Right portion of the GOP, particularly as it has come out during the campaign. If Obama wins the Democratic nomination and continues his outreach efforts to Mormons, and the GOP puts forth a McCain/Huckabee ticket, Utah could seriously be in play this fall. ..bruce..

UPDATE: While it’s merely anecdotal, here’s a post on an LDS blog that captures what a lot of Mormons are feeling. (Be sure to read the comments as well.)

UPDATE: On the other hand, just to keep perspective, the last time that Utah went Democratic in a US Presidential election was 40 years ago, in 1968, when Utah (like pretty much the rest of the country) went for Johnson over Goldwater.

UPDATE: On the third hand, here’s an experience I just had where a friend — a Utah Republican of long standing — informed me out of the blue that he’s seriously thinking of voting for Obama.

Why the divide?

Morehead’s Musings has an extended interview with Armand Mauss, an LDS sociologist who has done extensive research and writing on sociological aspects of the LDS Church. Mauss concisely states my core question about the Evangelical rejection of the LDS Church as ‘Christian’:

I recognize that there are some serious theological issues that make Mormons seem especially scary to many Evangelicals. In one way or another, most of those issues seem to shake down to doctrines of deity. Mormonism will never be able to accommodate the traditional Trinitarian theology, and that theology, in turn, seems to be the “litmus test” of “true” Christianity for Evangelicals. When Mormons, in all sincerity, claim to believe in the divinity of Jesus, and in His indispensible salvific role in human history, Evangelicals tend to dismiss such claims because they are not made within the context of Trinitarian theology. There is some irony in this Evangelical dismissal of the “Mormon Jesus,” since many surveys in recent decades have shown that many, if not most, of the modern clergy of the “Protestant mainline” do not believe in the literal divinity of Jesus or in His literal resurrection. Yet no one would claim that these denominations –- or even their clergy — are “not Christians.” Evangelicals also object to Mormon doctrines about the role of Jesus in the pre-existence, and/or the Mormon conception of God as once mortal – even though such ideas are strictly theoretical and play no part whatever in modern Mormon worship, or in the de facto Mormon focus exclusively on the God of Abraham as the only God ever encountered in Mormon scriptures and discourse. For some reason, these theoretical Mormon “embellishments” on doctrines about deity disqualify them from the “Christian” label, but Roman Catholics are not disqualified by the elaborate cult of Mary, or by such doctrines as the immaculate conception or transubstantiation, none of which are strictly biblical. It seems that for mainline Catholics and Protestants, all extra-biblical ideas are forgivable as long as they embrace a Trinitarian deity, but Mormons can’t be permitted their extra-biblical ideas and still be part of the Christian “family.”

I am no theologian, and I must confess that I find theological disputes generally tedious; as a social scientist, my main interest in theology is pretty much limited to its implications for behavior. I guess that’s why I find it difficult to understand why the “divide” has to be so “wide” between Mormons and Evangelicals.

Read the whole thing. ..bruce w..

Mitt Romney’s new ward? [UPDATED]

[UPDATE 01/14/07] A reader kindly pointed out to me that if you go to the “Worship With Us” section on Mormon.org and type in the White House address, it shows that Romney would attend DC 3rd Ward (there have obviously been some changes since I left DC back in 2005). I’ve updated some of my comments below appropriately.

====================================

I belong to an “LDS/National Security” e-mail list (and the fact that such a listserv exits should give this author some pause for thought). Most discussions are serious, but some occasional humorous bits come through. I found this one particularly funny since I lived for six years in the ward (Chevy Chase Ward, Washington DC Stake) that Mitt Romney and his family might well attend were he elected, including a few years in the bishopric (congregational leadeship) of that ward. I’ve stuck in a few notes based on my experience there. ..bruce..
============================

Mitt Romney’s new ward?

So….if Mitt Romney became President of the US (from this point forward referred to as POTUS), won’t we have something we’ve never had before – a president who goes to a specific church? All other presidents belonged to religions that didn’t have tight congregational boundaries. Now, think about that: What Ward would POTUS be in? [See above.] If you are his new Bishop, here are your top 10 questions:

1. Will you allow an inaugural ball to be held in the cultural hall? Do you mount security cameras on top of each basketball rim and have a secret service detail stationed on the stage?

2. Can you call Mitt and Ann as the Nursery leaders… even if you really feel inspired?

3. Who is going to home teach them? Will you call someone who needs activation but may not pass the vetting and national security screening?

4. If Harry Reid [who is in the Chevy Chase Ward] and Mitt Romney are in the same High Priest group, will you need to be there to keep order?

5. Exactly how will tithing settlement work? Will the Secretary of the Treasury come, too?

6. Will you be inviting the new Romney family to speak in Sacrament Meeting… and if they go a little over, at what point do you ask them to sit down?

7. Will the Secret Service do a sweep of the building before each meeting? And if the Romney’s always leave before Sunday School, will the Sunday School president need to interview them? If they stay, where will you hold the class?

8. Can you call the Secret Service agents to help out in Primary?

9. If you give Mitt a calling and the two Democrats in the Ward [NOTE: there’s a lot more than just two Democrats in any of the DC wards and branches] raise their hand AGAINST sustaining him – partly out of habit – does the Supreme Court need to be involved?

10. If you can’t give them a calling (job), and they don’t attend very often (for presidential stuff), will that mean they’re ‘inactive?’ If they’re not active, can you give them a Temple Recommend? And if you do, can they go? Will the Secret Service have to screen the temple too?

11. If the President wants to hold Sacrament Meeting at Camp David or the White House for security reasons, is that a conflict of Church and State?

If you’re assigned to be the Romney’s home teacher:

1. Can you just drop by, no appointment?

2. Can you even call them for an appointment, or do you have to go through the Chief of Staff?

3. Can you bring by Christmas sweets and cookies? Will they be analyzed? And for how many people – family, secret service details?

4. If you don’t come, can the IRS do an audit on you?

5. Will they want to do a national security background check?

6. Do you have to have a permanent companion who has been vetted? Can you just grab any teacher or priest to come with you? And what if that priest has been a little wayward? Do you need to search him first?

7. Do you have to help him move in and out of the White House?

8. If Ann Romney gets sick, are you allowed to bring in meals or at least tell the Relief Society about it?

9. What can you share with the Bishop about the Romneys?

10. Do you have to ask them about their year’s supply?

11. If you get a late night call for a blessing, will reporters follow you around wanting to know what was wrong and what you said?

If Mitt Romney is assigned to be YOUR home teacher,

1. Is telling the group leader you haven’t been home taught a national security breech?

2. If he wants to come at the end of the month, do you accept his reason, ‘I’ve been out of town’?

3. Will he drop by unannounced, or will the media crews give him away?

============================

Heh. The good news is that if Romney were to attend the Chevy Chase Ward, the Washington DC Stake would probably finally buy the property next door to the Chevy Chase Ward building and put in some decent parking — which the Chevy Chase residents in that neighborhood would probably be very grateful for, given all the street parking that gets taken up every Sunday. ..bruce..

Stewardship, accountability, and community response

[NOTE: I originally wrote this essay back in 1994 for Vigor, an LDS samizdat put out for several years in the 90s by Orson Scott Card. Given some of the discussions making the rounds in LDS blogs, I felt it’s still as timely now as it was back then. It is reproduced here — with just a few additions, all in brackets and italics — by permission.]

I’ve followed with interest and not a little dismay the increasingly strident discussions in various forums of how to deal with the imperfections of Church leaders. On one side are those who claim for Church leaders an infallibility and wisdom which they do not claim for themselves. On another side are those who feel that a “community response” — full-page newspaper ads, press conferences, public seminars and printed articles (often with scathing criticism) — is right and necessary. [I might add “LDS blogs” in here as well.]

When you have two (or more) sides of an argument going around and around without resolution, it’s usually due to conflicting unstated premises. The key issue, largely unvoiced, is this discussion: to whom is a person with a given stewardship accountable? Is it the people over whom he or she (“he” hereafter, just to save typing and since we’re mostly focusing on priesthood leaders) has a stewardship? Is it the person or group of people for whom he is a steward? Is it both, and if so, how does he resolve conflicts between the two demands?

My personal belief is that someone with a stewardship is accountable solely to the person or people for whom he is a steward. In some contexts, that may well be the people over whom he has a stewardship, for example, an elected official is accountable to those who elected him. In the context of the Gospel and the Church, that is rarely the case; none spring to mind, but I won’t flatly exclude the possibility. The bishop of my ward is responsible for the welfare of its members, but is not accountable to them (myself included). He is accountable to the one who gave him his stewardship, namely the Savior, and to any of Christ’s representatives who have stewardship over him, such as the stake president. That stewardship moves up the priesthood line authority to the general authorities, who are all directly or indirectly accountable to the First Presidency; the First President’ counselors are accountable to him, and the First President is accountable only to Christ.

Given my stated premise about stewardship, we can now look at the key issue: if I think someone with stewardship over me (or even not over me) is in error, how do I handle it?

If the bishop acts in a manner which I feel significantly conflicts with his stewardship, my first responsibility is to approach him directly and privately discuss it. If that doesn’t resolve things, I have the opportunity — and, in some cases, the responsibility — to inform the stake president. Likewise, if I judge my stake president to be in error, I can deal with him directly, and if that doesn’t resolve things, inform the general authorities of the Church; the exact channel may depend upon the issue. If I judge a general authority to be in error, I can address my concerns directly to him; lacking satisfaction, I can then go to the First Presidency. And if I think they’re messing up, I can take things right to God. (Actually, I can do that in any situation, but since He’s appointed earthly stewards at all other levels, I figure He expects me to use them when appropriate.)

In this context, it’s interesting to note that we have the Lord’s promise that He will never let the President of the Church lead us astray; we have no such promise for any other church leadership position, so obviously the Lord expects us to use these checks as needed

What is critical in this process is that it should be done with the same confidentiality, sensitivity, understanding, patience and forgiveness — in short, the same Christ-like behavior — with which we would desire our own imperfections and errors to be handled. The Savior taught that “if they brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone; if he shall hear thee, thou has gained thy brother.” (Matt 18:15) The Savior goes on to say that if that brings no results, we should inform the Church — which I would interpret as meaning the appropriate divinely-appointed stewards, not our circle of friends, the members of our ward, or the readership of Sunstone and Dialogue [not to mention the entire Internet]. We would probably be outraged, and rightly so, if we found that a church member — much less a church leader — was publicly criticizing our performance in our church duties; we’d even be upset over private criticism, if it was shared with those not involved in the situation. Yet all too often, we feel little compunction — and, worse yet, a great deal of self-righteous satisfaction — about doing the same, whether privately, over the net, in print, or even over the pulpit or lectern.

Given the above, the idea of a “community response” to the statements, decisions and actions of church leaders is as appalling and inappropriate as would be a “community response” — complete with private discussion and correspondence, newspaper ads, public lectures and published articles — as to how well any one of us is carrying out his or her stewardships within the Church and within his or her family. It ignores the dignity of the individual, and commandments toward charity, tolerance and forgiveness, and the channels which the Lord set up to deal with these issues. I suspect the Lord will not justify us in such a course, and that — whatever the errors of those we criticize — upon us will remain the greater condemnation.

Bruce F. Webster [Vigor, Issue 5, August 1994]