Romney and the state of Mormon apologetics

[Ma'ake]

Mitt's nomination is a huge event in LDS history. In a way, this is the biggest LDS missionary/ public relations contact in the US, ever.

Political campaigns can be nasty, and with the numerous tiers of message purveyors there is some risk that aspects of LDS history or doctrine will leak into a broader examination of Romney, and could bubble up into something like an article in Time magazine.

My question is how Romney's nomination will impact the state of LDS apologetics? It seems to me the apologetics effort to this point is mostly focused on Mormon doubters and investigators. I don't think Mormon apologetics has been tuned for a broad, less religiously interested audience, in this case one that will be interested to learn more about what Romney believes, what makes him tick.

Here are a couple of issues that carry a double-edged sword for Romney:

Romney as the first Mexican President. There's an opportunity for Mitt to make significant inroads with Hispanic voters because of his family's Mexican history. But I think this is an issue Mitt will avoid, because grandpa Romney fled to Mexico so he could continue polygamy. If recent history is any example, the LDS church wants nothing to do with polygamy, especially exposing the extended period of time it took to fully route out polygamy once the change was made.

The Stapley-Romney Letter. This one was new to me, but it's another double-edge sword. (The letter was from an apostle named Stapley to Mitt's dad in 1964, urging him to reconsider his support of the Civil Rights Act. It has some pretty toxic racial views and cites Joseph Smith as the source of inspiration for those views.)

Mitt could justifiably point out this letter as both an example of an LDS politician resisting pressure from SLC, and also some bonafides of his being raised to eschew racism, but the letter brings up troublesome questions about how an Apostle could hold those kinds of views ("do people really believe God chose him to be an Apostle?") and questioning Mormons' willingness to sustain someone with those type of views as a leader held in high regard.

In any case, I think it's likely some issues are going to bubble up. How will they be handled? Mitt can't address them directly, that would be a foolish trap he'll avoid. But will the apologetics effort get a "tune up" for a broader audience?

[oxcoug]

The Stapley-Romney Letter. This one was new to me, but it's another double-edge sword. (The letter was from an apostle named Stapley to Mitt's dad in 1964, urging him to reconsider his support of the Civil Rights Act. It has some pretty toxic racial views and cites Joseph Smith as the source of inspiration for those views.)

Mitt could justifiably point out this letter as both an example of an LDS politician resisting pressure from SLC, and also some bonafides of his being raised to eschew racism, but the letter brings up troublesome questions about how an Apostle could hold those kinds of views ("do people really believe God chose him to be an Apostle?") and questioning Mormons' willingness to sustain someone with those type of views as a leader held in high regard.

Yeah for better or worse this year is going to be fascinating to watch.

On the above - I think he's got a pretty ready response on how an apostle in 1964 cld say such things - at this point in history the Democratic Party still officially sanctioned segregation.

[Ma'ake]

Yeah for better or worse this year is going to be fascinating to watch.

On the above - I think he's got a pretty ready response on how an apostle in 1964 cld say such things - at this point in history the Democratic Party still officially sanctioned segregation.

And it's quite possible this may be all there is to that political point (if it even arises), but it is still a problematic position to take as a tacit defender of Mormonism, and that response might be troublesome for the US missionary effort.

"I thought your church was supposed to be directed by God & Jesus Christ, directly. How did this guy miss the boat that far? I thought they were supposed to be ahead of the game, leading the world toward God's way. What's up with the Salt-Lake version of a Dixiecrat being an Apostle?"

(Actually, I would imagine most investigators would have no idea what was a Dixiecrat was.)

[PaloAltoCougar]

Driving to work this morning I listened to a CNN story about the Romneys in Mexico. It included an interview with a 2nd cousin of Mitt's. Among the points made, the colony is proud of Mitt, none of them practices polygamy and they haven't since the Manifesto, and if the U.S. plays Mexico in soccer, they cheer for Mexico. Overall, a Romney positive.

[SeattleUte]

Yeah for better or worse this year is going to be fascinating to watch.

On the above - I think he's got a pretty ready response on how an apostle in 1964 cld say such things - at this point in history the Democratic Party still officially sanctioned segregation.

BS Who are you referring to? George Wallace?

In 1964 Stapely's letter was prompted by the prospect or passage of the Civil Rights Act that year (I haven't checked which came first), and the Act was signed into law by a sitting Democratic president, and supported by an overwhelming majority of Democratic members of Congress. This was one of the main reasons the Democratic party lost the South probably forever in 1968. Meanwhile, many prominent Replublicans like Bork, Renquist, all Mormon GA's, etc., opposed it.

Actually, Romney is ready for this one, and his response is the opposite of what you suggest. Romney is ready for this one because his campaign or he or his family no doubt released the Stapely letter in anticipation of this moment. His response is: "Look, my father stood up to the Mormon church leaders, which is what prompted this letter. He then continued to support Civil Rights notwithstanding this horrifying letter which suggested God might strike him dead and his eternal salvation was at stake if he supported Civil Rights." (Romney no doubt will say it less purpley but that is the message.) Then everyone will see that Stapely asked George to keep the letter private between them, and it's now been made public.

I think the letter can help Romney, and it's in anticipation of these points that the family released the letter.

Take a look at George Romney's's Wikipedia page, of course carefully tended by the Romney family and campaign. This is a chance for Romney to distance him from paleo-Mormonism. Romney's presidency even the nomination is a wonderful thing for Mormonism in that it brings Mormonism closer to purging terrible past racism by apologizing and renouncing the historical racism as just that.

Romney is my candidate now, not yours Ox, LA, YOhio, the rest of you. He's mine.

[UtahDan]

I think the calculation for Mitt is this: how do I stay as far away from my faith as I can in the election without being accused of abandoning my principles for expediency? I think so far he has done a good job. Just say you are proud of your heritage, that you are not going to defend it and shouldn't have to, but that you believe ______.

[SeattleUte]

Yeah for better or worse this year is going to be fascinating to watch.

On the above - I think he's got a pretty ready response on how an apostle in 1964 cld say such things - at this point in history the Democratic Party still officially sanctioned segregation.

Did the democratic party still support segregation in 1978?

[DU Ute]

Did the democratic party still support segregation in 1978?

Hey, now. You need to stop with this, it's making your candidate look bad.

[Ma'ake]

I think the calculation for Mitt is this: how do I stay as far away from my faith as I can in the election without being accused of abandoning my principles for expediency? I think so far he has done a good job. Just say you are proud of your heritage, that you are not going to defend it and shouldn't have to, but that you believe ______.

Mitt will stay away from the religious discussion, but the questions will be raised, anyway, and they may be uncomfortable. Does Daniel Peterson come to the rescue with a more "secularized" explanation that satisfies the questions many will have for how Romney believes this stuff, but doesn't open the door wider for more widespread internal questioning. "Did an apostle really say that? What the heh?"

The last thing I would expect is to see Romney completely backed into a corner like Mr Crimson debating a naive young coed, getting her to admit "I don't really understand everything I believe, but I know it's true".

[myboynoah]

Actually, Romney is ready for this one, and his response is the opposite of what you suggest. Romney is ready for this one because his campaign or he or his family no doubt released the Stapely letter in anticipation of this moment. His response is: "Look, my father stood up to the Mormon church leaders, which is what prompted this letter. He then continued to support Civil Rights notwithstanding this horrifying letter which suggested God might strike him dead and his eternal salvation was at stake if he supported Civil Rights." (Romney no doubt will say it less purpley but that is the message.) Then everyone will see that Stapely asked George to keep the letter private between them, and it's now been made public.

I think the letter can help Romney, and it's in anticipation of these points that the family released the letter.

Take a look at George Romney's's Wikipedia page, of course carefully tended by the Romney family and campaign. This is a chance for Romney to distance him from paleo-Mormonism. Romney's presidency even the nomination is a wonderful thing for Mormonism in that it brings Mormonism closer to purging terrible past racism by apologizing and renouncing the historical racism as just that.

Romney is my candidate now, not yours Ox, LA, YOhio, the rest of you. He's mine.

Bingo, but less "purpley." I don't know that the family released the letter and don't even know if it will come up, but should it come up, Mitt will turn it to his advantage by noting how his father stood up to bigotry (even within his own church), that many of the overt vestiges of racism are thankfully behind us as a nation, that the struggle conitues, and that he will follow his father's lead to ensure civil rights in the good ole U.S. of A.

And I do agree with your note on the wonderful effect Mitt's nomination can and hopefully will have.

BTW, YO was a Huntsman man.

[CardiacCoug]

Mitt will stay away from the religious discussion, but the questions will be raised, anyway, and they may be uncomfortable. Does Daniel Peterson come to the rescue with a more "secularized" explanation that satisfies the questions many will have for how Romney believes this stuff, but doesn't open the door wider for more widespread internal questioning. "Did an apostle really say that? What the heh?"

The last thing I would expect is to see Romney completely backed into a corner like Mr Crimson debating a naive young coed, getting her to admit "I don't really understand everything I believe, but I know it's true".

Romney has practiced his response to religious questions for 20 years in political settings.

It's something like "I don't speak for my Church and my Church doesn't speak for me. I'm not here to answer questions about religion -- I'm here to talk about the country and how to turn this economy around...."

I really liked Huntsman's responses to questions about his Mormonism, talking about how Mormons are a diverse group, etc.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Did the democratic party still support segregation in 1978?

1864, an emphatic yes. The party platform one year was, "It's a White Man's party! "

1964, most certainly not (at least outside of conservative Southern Democrats). The Southern Conservatives were strongly opposed*. Al Gore, Sr. filibustered the legislation for many days. The Republican Party joined the Northern Democrats to break the fillibuster and pass the legislation.

*edit - Southern conservative Democrats were strongly opposed to the Civil Rights legislation, and were strongly in favor of segregation. Most of the rest of the Democrat party, however, supported the legislation and opposed segregation.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I am waiting for this line of questioning.

"Mr Romney, your church used to practice polygamy just like the Fundamentalist group in Texas and southern Utah. But they stopped in the late 1890's, didn't they?"

" Mr Romney, your church believes spouses can be sealed together for time and all eternity in the temple. But if a woman dies, then her spouse can be sealed to another woman, without cancelling the the sealing to the first wife. So in effect your church believes in polygamy in the hereafter. "

"So how can you say your church doesn't still condone polygamy? "

[myboynoah]

I am waiting for this line of questioning.

"Mr Romney, your church used to practice polygamy just like the Fundamentalist group in Texas and southern Utah. But they stopped in the late 1890's, didn't they?"

" Mr Romney, your church believes spouses can be sealed together for time and all eternity in the temple. But if a woman dies, then her spouse can be sealed to another woman, without cancelling the the sealing to the first wife. So in effect your church believes in polygamy in the hereafter. "

"So how can you say your church doesn't still condone polygamy? "

I can't wait for that line of questioning as well.

[jay santos]

I can't wait for that line of questioning as well.

Yeah, the appropriate response would be. Confused stare followed by "what the hell are you talking about?"