Recently in Mormons Category

In a comment, Marcus French of the evangelical--or, perhaps more accurately, evangelistic--Voice of Revolution website suggests that the problem with the No Mob Veto letter condemning anti-Mormon violence probably has to do with its last sentence, which reads:

Furthermore, beginning today, we commit ourselves to exposing and publicly shaming anyone who resorts to the rhetoric of anti-religious bigotry--against any faith, on any side of any cause, for any reason.

I'm a little surprised at the lack of comprehensiveness of the list of signers of the "No Mob Veto" letter published in today's NYT. To be sure, this protest against violence against and intimidation of Mormons for their support of Proposition 8 comes from the right side of the spectrum (the Becket Fund), but I would have expected signatures from the ADL's Abe Foxman and David Saperstein of Reform Judaism's Religious Action Center (even though they opposed Prop. 8). And nothing from Mainline Protestantism or Islam. Doesn't Becket know how to put together a coalition, or was there some other problem?

It is no small irony that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should now be the object of nationwide ire for exercising its ecclesiastical power on behalf of "traditional" marriage. Once upon a time, the church looked to the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm the right of its members to practice marriage according to their own distinctive lights, and had Reynolds v. U.S. gone the other way in 1878, there's every reason to think that Mormons in good standing would still be committing themselves to bonds of plural matrimony. In the gay marriage wars of the past few years, a standard rhetorical question of many opponents has been that if same-sex marriage is allowed, can polygamy be far behind? You wonder how often that question was voiced by the rank-and-file Mormons canvassing last month on behalf of Proposition 8.

In a conversation Friday, Peggy Fletcher Stack, the longtime Salt Lake Tribune religion reporter who has probably written more stories about the LDS Church than any journalist alive, allowed as how this had not been a very good season for a church that's highly sensitive to its public image. First there was the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney, which roiled the evangelical dovecotes. Then there was the assault on the Yearning for Zion ranch in Texas that, if it hardly proved a big win for the Texas authorities, served as yet another reminder of Mormon polygamy to a public that may not distinguish too sharply between fundamentalist Mormons and their mainstream cousins. And finally this.

This, of course, the church brought entirely on itself. To be sure, it was part of a coalition of religious institutions promoting Prop. 8, and there's doubtless a temptation to ask why the much more numerous Catholics and evangelicals haven't drawn the bulk of the attention. That's got to be ingrained anti-Mormon prejudice, no? Maybe but maybe not. As we know from the election returns, most Catholics don't pay much attention to what their bishops say when it comes to voting, and as for evangelicals, there's no hierarchy that presumes to tell them what to do. It's a different story when the LDS Church sends out instructions.

There was a lot of shouting yesterday about the need to separate church and state, but under the law religious institutions, like other non-profits, are entitled to advocate for issues they care about without putting their tax exemptions at risk. What they shouldn't expect to avoid is denunciation and vilification from the other side. As the marriage wars continue, it will be interesting to see whether the famously nice folks in Temple Square decide to make nice or to double down.

Despite the candidacy of a prominent member of the church for the Republican nomination for U.S. president, there were virtually no political overtones in Monday's news conference in which officials of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced that the new president of the church is Thomas S. Monson.

Bruce Olsen, the head of the church's Public Affairs Department, conducted the news conference which was held in the lobby of the Church Office Building on the central campus of the church in Salt Lake City. He opened with a reminder that the church takes no position in political contests. He also warned members of the press that questions touching on politics would be ruled out of order.

Richard Cullen of the Politico alerts those keeping track at home of Tuesday’s big contest to move Utah out of the Mike Huckabee column. According to Cullen, many Mormons still harbor great resentment from Huck’s “the Devil and Jesus are brothers” slight. In the general election against a Democrat, polls have the sunny Baptist losing 58 to 42 percent.
Worse for the GOP is that, as Bruce Webster shows, Obama has been reaching out into the Mormon community. Michelle Obama visited LDS headquarters today and sources have indicated that Obama is looking to steal moderate Utahans if the GOP nominates McCain.

Gordon B. Hinckley, the 15th President/Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day, died on Sunday, January 27, 2008. He was 97 years old. For 73 of those years he worked full-time for the church over which he would come to preside in 1995. Although he only served as church president for a dozen years, from the time he was called into the church’s “First Presidency” in 1981 forward, Hinckley was the principal LDS administrative figure, the face Mormonism presented to the world.

Gordon Hinckley, 15th president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has died according to CNN. He was ninety seven years old. More to come....

Looking back at year’s end on Mitt Romney’s “Faith in America” speech, I see it as a touchstone for the new role of religion in contemporary American politics. The speech contained three major messages that indicate how much more complex faith-based politics have become since John F. Kennedy’s speech to the Houston Ministerial Association in 1960.

Romney’s first message concerned public skepticism toward Mormons. He argued that neither his nor any other candidate’s religious affiliation should be the basis for rejection—or election—to public office. This claim is based on a demand for religious liberty. Such liberty is imperiled by those who are critical of the special doctrines and practices of particular religious communities. Recounting well-known examples of bias against religious groups in American history, he admitted that his Mormon faith may “sink my campaign.” In response to this threat, Romney refused to discuss his Mormon faith in any detail, noting that “no candidate should become the spokesman for his faith” and he also pledged his church would not dictate his actions in the White House. This position closely parallels John F. Kennedy’s argument about separating his own Catholicism from politics in 1960.

Stuart Rothenberg agrees with the notion that Romney's speech did little to sway evangelicals. He feels that the speech did not bridge the fundamental gap that causes evangelical objections of Mormonism.

"Given that evangelicals see Mormonism as deceptive and an attempt to pass itself off as a form of Christianity, one speech about tolerance and the importance of faith is not likely to convince evangelicals to support Romney. I'm willing to bet that American Jews would overwhelmingly feel the same about voting for someone who is a "messianic Jew.""