Liberals, not evangelicals, will have the bigger problem with Mormonism

The idea that polyester-attired preachers will be winding hayseed congregants into a fit of anti-Mormon hatred because Mormons believe Jesus Christ has a wife is a myth, although it will continue to be pushed.

Somewhere, in a trailer in the Panhandle, a Bubba preacher is mulling over whether he should burn a Koran or call Mitt Romney an agent of Satan. Over at MSNBC, Ed Schultz is trashing Mormonism, and by extension, Mitt Romney. So are Lawrence O’Donnell and Chris Matthews. In other news, evangelicals in South Carolina and Florida are ready to easily boost Romney to wins in the South Carolina and Florida primaries. Tales of evangelical hostility to a Mormon presidential candidate (read) are way too hyped. The group that is most likely to oppose Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon are liberals.

Romney will win the Republican Party nomination. He’s at 40 percent nationally in one poll, 37 percent in Gallup (read) and it’s ludicrous to think that evangelical, Tea Party-ish conservatives are more annoyed with Mormonism than the policies of the Obama administration.

Opposing a candidate because he is a Mormon, or a Muslim, is on its way to becoming as despised as opposing a candidate because he or she is a Jew, or black. But last year, more Democrats than Republicans said they’d oppose a Mormon. (Read) I think that disparity will get wider as Romney gets closer to winning the nomination.

Is the liberal problem with Mormonism the result of bigotry? No. Or who God is or whether we can become gods? No. It derives from the battle over gay marriage, particularly Proposition 8 in California, where Mormons played a role in anti-gay marriage campaigns. It also involves perceived LDS positions on various other morality issues, anywhere from abortion, school prayer, religious expressions on public property, etc.. On these many issues most evangelicals are allies with Mormons, who have angered liberals by institutionally opposing gay marriage, etc.

Share
This entry was posted in The Political Surf and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Liberals, not evangelicals, will have the bigger problem with Mormonism

  1. Myth Buster says:

    Mormonism is founded on impossibilities: 1. Mormon cannot be sons of Aaron, a requirement for holding the Levitical Priesthood. 2. Mormons cannot be descendants of Joseph, either Ephraim or Manasseh as anyone can be accepted into the church. Mormons cannot hold the Melchisedek Priesthood as Jesus Christ is Melchisedek; He authored the Abrahamic Covenant, Davidic Covenant and the New Covenant. Being liberal or evangelical has nothing to do with this.

  2. Bob Becker says:

    Oh, my…. Doug has lost his judgment in the fog of his current campaign Romney-worship.

    Liberals, like myself, have problems with Romney’s policy positions on a variety of topics…. presuming those policy positions hold still long enough in Romney’s flip/flop approach to his core policy beliefs to be identified. He’s ardently anti-abortion at the moment, but he was not when Governor of Massachusetts. Who knows where he’ll be on the issue if he gets the nomination and starts lurching back toward the center if he thinks he has to to win? He says he’s now opposed to a market-based mandatory public health care plan, though he was the main architect of precisely that plan when he was governor of Massachusetts. Since polls still list health care and its costs as a major concern of middle class American voters, who knows where he’ll come down on that issue if he secures the nomination? The list goes on and on.

    It seems Mr. Romney owns no [allegedly] core policy believe he is unwilling to barter away for votes he thinks he needs. And on that, I’ll grant you, liberals, at least some of us, are opposed to him, and to every other wet finger in the air “tell me what you want me to say and I’ll say it!” candidate for public office.

    Yes, generally, liberals are opposed to legal discrimination against gays and to denying them the very liberties all the rest of Americans posses and exercise freely, yes, liberals largely favor making sure that every woman in America has the same choices [plural] Bristol Palin had when she found herself unintentionally pregnant. And yes, liberals are generally in favor of a national health plan… not particularly the Rube Goldberg plan President Obama and the Congressional Democrats managed to cobble together over petulant Republicans shouting “No, no no!” as their only alternative. But in the absence of something better, liberals tend to support the current plan as a beginning. All that’s true.

    But their opposition to Mr. Romney on those issues is based on his policy positions at the moment, not on his faith. However much Doug wants to dance around the facts and pretend otherwise, it isn’t liberals who have been saying since the last nominating round four years ago that Mr. Romney’s LDS faith makes him unacceptable to “real Christians” as either the GOP nominee, or as President, it’s the Christian Right. That meeting just held in Texas where ministers appalled at Romney’s faith ministers tried to agree on a single “Stop The Non-Christian Mormon!” from getting the GOP nomination was not, after all, stuffed with liberals.

    I can understand why Doug wants to shift the focus, since dwelling on the rancid religious hate among GOP Christian extremists for his favored candidate is not a topic he contemplates with equanimity. Nevertheless, the facts are what they are: the group opposing Romney on grounds of his LDS faith are arch conservative Christian extremists… not liberals.

  3. Pingback: Fire, and Effective Fire | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder

  4. Pingback: South Carolina Mormons welcome GOP spotlight on their faith – Sacramento Bee

  5. The Corrector says:

    alright buddy. So hears the deal. Not to bash but one, Christ wasnt Melchezidek. Melchezidek was Melchezidek. He was a High priest whom Abraham Tithed to. Christ was a High Priest
    “after the order of Melchezidek”. So therefor if Christ could be a Priest “after the order” of someone then could someone not do the same if done with proper authority? AS well as you catch yourself in a loop. It is true that in the days of the old testiment only the sons of Aaron, or those of the tribe of Levi could hold the Aaronic Priesthood, which was the authority to preform all the physical doings of ceremonys in the Church of God. Now, The Melchezidek Priesthood is still the Priesthood, even though it deal with mroe spiritual things, such as healing the sick and “casting out devils”. It also Entails of all the duties and authority of the Aaronic Priesthood.
    Jesus Christ was of the Tribe of Judah. So Therefor in order for Him to have the Melchezidek Priesthood he would also have to hold the Aaronic Priesthood. And according to your logic that wouldnt be possible because he isnt from teh tribe of Levi.

    You might want to study up before you bash people on what they believe. Or, ya know. Talk to one of them instead of a third party that pretends like they know what they are talking about. Call up a mormon missionary. you can find them online. They wont try to convert you, but they can teach you what they really believe.

    Just Saying.

    • Myth Buster says:

      Melchisedek was “King of Salem” ie Jerusalem; “Priest of the most high God” to whom Tithes of Abram went. After which Abram became Abraham; the “h” signifying God was with him. Melchisedek was God in Flesh as Jesus Christ would later be.
      Sons of Aaron from Levi were Israel’s priests until the rebellion under Korah during the 40 years in Arabia corrupted it; Quyrash bedouins later formed the Muslim religion in Mecca.
      Mormon men usually receive patriarchal blessings of descent from Ephraim or Manasseh (sons of Joseph), an impossibility since anyone can join the church. They then receive the Aaronic Priesthood of Levi and then the Melchidesek Priesthood of Judah; obvious impossibilities as nobody can change their genealogy.

  6. Seth R. says:

    Well, I agree with the overall sentiment that liberals will have more hostility to Mormons than conservatives.

    However, you got one thing wrong – Mormons are not “allies” with other religious conservatives on the school prayer issue. Actually one of the key federal court cases on school prayer was brought by a Mormon kid who was tired of being forced to listen to Baptist prayers every day at school. Likewise on topics of public display of religion and evolution, Mormons are not half as enthusiastic as conservative Evangelicals. And on abortion, the LDS Church has consistently refused to follow the legal strategy of the Christian “pro life” movement in defining fetuses as “a life” in an attempt to get abortion classified as a form of “murder.” The LDS Church has long allowed exceptions to its stance against abortion for “health of the mother” or in rape or incest. As such, they have always refused to take the rigid “murder” stance advocated by other Evangelicals.

    There are a lot of fault-lines running between Mormon conservativism and Evangelical conservativism, make no mistake.

  7. Midwinter says:

    Looking at national trends (Dem vs Rep) on this is silly. That’s not how people win elections (see Al Gore); people win elections by winning states and electoral votes, and the GOP has, for 40 years, depended on the votes of Southern conservatives and evangelicals in order to win the presidency—and almost a third of them don’t want to vote for a Mormon republican candidate.

    And this is before there’s really been any anti-Mormon campaigning going on. Just wait until the whisper campaigns about Mormon theology start.

  8. Erick says:

    I think Doug is correct, but it should still be articulated that the liberal opposition to Romney’s Mormonism will be of a different tenor than the evangelical opposition. It will all be political, emphasizing the separation of Church and State. Proposition 8, where it is scrutinized, will be treated as an attempt of The Church (considered inclusively of all supportive religions) to influence the State in policy making.

    Still, Romney has three strikes against him when it comes to defeating Obama. First, the Obama health reforms were modeled after the massachussets plan. Second, Romney has a sort of a history on waffling on gay issues and abortion rights. Third, he is personally about as iconic of Wall Street Big Business as a person can get. In spite of all the discussion of merit or discredit his experience with Bain Capital may present, just that imagery alone of C-suite corporate America is enough to stack the deck against him.

    So far Romney has been reluctantly endorsed as the best option among a list of candidates that have each failed to create too much excitement among their own party, with the exception perhaps of Ron Paul among the Libertarian fringe of the Republicans. This isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement, and makes it doubtful that he will be able to pick up more support in the general election.

  9. nathan says:

    “Yes, generally, liberals are opposed to legal discrimination against gays and to denying them the very liberties all the rest of Americans posses and exercise freely”. That, in and of itself, is the problem with the liberal and gay and lesbian movement, you want rights that you see as civil rights but are more than ready to stomp on the rights of those that want to marry more than one man or woman or consenting tax paying adults who are related (brothers and sisters) and actually have the ignorant stupitity to call it disgusting. Liberals are either “all in” or “all out” in this so called civil right fight. Either marriage gets redefined for every American out of the mainstream or it does not get redefined at all.

    • Erick says:

      Huh!!

      First, historically it was the progressive democrats that were most friendly to Mormon polygamists. At present there has been very little political consideration of polygamy to gauge current liberal sentiments on the matter, though conservative evangelical groups have been publicly outspoken on the issue as a slippery slope defense of their prop 8 position. So, who’s to say what the liberal position on polygamy is.

      As for marrying siblings, are you stupid?

  10. Richard says:

    I have more friends outside of my church then in…and believe me, the Pentecostals and Baptists that surround me have a huge problem with what I believe. They are my friends despite that though….

  11. nathan says:

    “As for marrying siblings, are you stupid?”
    Keep your head in the sand, in fact go to the local hardware store and buy a shovel to go a little deeper. Check out the internet about couples all over western Europe and the U.S. who are brother and sister and who have had kids and don’t see why they are having their “civil rights” trampled on. You cannot redefine marriage for one group and not define it for everyone else. If you are a tax paying consenting adult then all is fair game in the liberal mind, (except when it is something they don’t agree with).

    • Erick says:

      Nathan:

      I agree with the Polygamy argument, but for reasons of public health, insinuating that siblings ought to be allowed to marry is really, really, really, stupid! Perhaps it is only my social conditioning, but I would also like to excercise my entitlement to ignorance by also having the audacity to call it “disgusting”.

  12. Dovie says:

    And you explain Harry Reid’s success how?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>