The Washington Post has come out with a piece on Mitt Romney’s role as a leader in the Mormon Church (retreading an earlier piece in the Times) that is already being picked up by modern-day anti-Mormon zealots. On Twitter, Chloe Angyal of Feministing describes it thus:
In which Mitt Romney tells a middle-aged divorcee that her sex life is totally his business
Let’s set aside the question of whether or not Romney was sufficiently careful and pastoral in this delicate and difficult situation. The central fact is that whenever one chooses to enter a religious community—as so many Americans do—one precisely does makes one’s personal choices the business of one’s fellow believers. And in many congregations the responsibility for upholding doctrine and faithful practice falls to certain leaders, presumably, in this case, Mitt Romney. What was he supposed to do? Counsel his fellow believer—a believer whose soul had been entrusted to his guidance—to undergo a procedure that would violate the faith they shared?
It’s sad to see Angyal—a very perceptive writer—join up with the anti-Mormon left. The claim that Romney somehow illegitimately interfered in the private lives of women is just a personalized version of the anti-Mormon myth that emerged in the Prop. 8 debate:
Once again, we see intolerance coming not from religious actors, but from a narrow and brittle secularism that views any religious claims—even when privately expressed between a leader of a religious group and a member—as offensive and illegitimate.
Matthew Schmitz is the deputy editor of First Things. You can follow him on Twitter.
November 22nd, 2011 | 2:11 pm
It is my belief in the idea of continuing revelation, where reforms are consistently made because God continues to speak to humanity. I don’t draw the line at the First Century A.D. I am a Quaker, and a polar opposite regarding basic theology and political ideology. Mormons could not be any more different than us.
One does choose to accept certain tenets when a member of a faith group. For example, one could never believe as a Quaker that individual revelation between Holy Spirit and self is not of highest importance. Friends do not believe in a wholly corporate, shared notion of belief, where doctrine and dogma are present.
But as I examine the history of the Religious Society of Friends, of which I am a part, the role of women has changed with time. Women were always an active part of Worship, but their incorporation into leadership roles depended on regional location and specific Meeting/Church. With time, however, women and men stood on equal footing.
If I was to examine my faith group’s position on reproductive rights, I think most people I surveyed would state that the decision is between a woman and God. Indeed, this is also how I believe. So this notion is entirely compatible within a religious framework.
Conservative faith groups often draw lines in the sand. Liberal faith groups often do not, or if they do, they draw less of them. I think the argument here is whether pro-choice Mormons can be part of the Church, just like pro-choice Catholics, even though the Church’s official position with the latter is against abortion and birth control. It’s the exclusivity of belief that I think Chloe Angyal was speaking to in particular.
November 22nd, 2011 | 6:14 pm
In the late 19th century Utah had the most liberal divorce laws in the US and possibly the world. In 1869, Utah, still a territory, gave women the vote. In 1887, the federal government disenfranchised women in Utah. Anti-Mormon myths seize upon any issue at hand. If you look at anti-Mormon cartoons from 1870 to 1907, you would conclude that every Mormon polygamist had at least one wife who was black. Anti-Mormonism today is no less absurd.
November 23rd, 2011 | 7:32 am
To insist that a Mormon should not believe certain things is just another way of making your own belief (even if it’s a secular belief) the “state religion”.
Freedom of religion means just that – the state has no more right to coerce you into atheism than it does any other faith-based belief.
Ultimately questions that hinge on values are religious in nature; the fanciful notion that the big questions – for example, whether there’s a God, what the meaning of life is, what a family is or should be (and why), or what sex is for (and why) – are or could be “religious” if you answer them one way, but “not religious” if you give the opposite answer, is logical if you define “religion” in ways that include Christianity but exclude atheism – but the only way you can exempt atheism from being a “religious faith” is if you accept that atheism does not include faith because atheists alone are dealing with real “truth” (as opposed to everyone elses’ belief being merely superstition) – and that itself is an article of faith.
November 23rd, 2011 | 11:19 am
To insist that a Mormon should not believe certain things is just another way of making your own belief (even if it’s a secular belief) the “state religion”.
Blake,
Certainly the Mormon church was coerced into giving up polygamy by the federal government, and also pressured by public opinion into changing its position that blacks could not be Mormon priests. Was it wrong for this kind of outside pressure to be put on a religious body?
November 23rd, 2011 | 2:37 pm
If Romney as bishop had said the same things about pre-marital sex to a recently-divorced man who was resuming dating, would there have been any outcry from the press?
Yet, as bishop, he would have (or at least should have) said the same things to anyone in that situation, male or female. To be a member of the LDS church implies that one accepts certain beliefs, including beliefs relating to sexual conduct.
Romney (apparently–I wasn’t there) said precisely what was required by his office as spiritual leader of his ward.
November 26th, 2011 | 8:19 am
Certainly the Mormon church was coerced into giving up polygamy by the federal government, and also pressured by public opinion into changing its position that blacks could not be Mormon priests. Was it wrong for this kind of outside pressure to be put on a religious body?
First, let me point out that you are conspicuously conflating things that are not like. “Coercing” minority groups to obey the law is not the same as applying public pressure – and neither of these are the same as what I originally spoke about, which is using manipulation and real coercive force (as opposed to your straw man “coercion”).
But even with that said, it’s worth noting that Mormons don’t appear to have given up polygamy; it’s still alive and well – and appears to be making a comeback.
Because no government has the legitimacy to tell people what to believe – not unless you can find a way to re-establish the legitimacy of aristocracy (which the left is trying real hard to do, I know, with its “we know best” and “the people in flyover country are too dumb to be allowed to vote”…)
Legitimacy derives from the people, not the other way around, and that is why the more the government tries to reverse that, the more it loses legitimacy.
Which is why every attempt to do something about polygamy in Utah and Texas has ended up a public relations victory for the polygamists.
The problem with relying on manipulation and coercion to change hearts and minds is that changes turn out to be disturbingly short-term, and as the truth becomes more obvious, the use of heavy-handed force becomes more necessary.
Just look at today’s left wing for an example of what I mean by that.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact