We already know that a moron can be elected president of the United States, but can a Mormon?
The question is particularly relevant when a number of candidates for the Republican nomination for president have thrown their hats into the ring. So far two Mormon candidates hope to be the nominee who will seek to defeat the Democrat candidate – probably Barack Obama – in November 2012.
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is currently regarded as a front-runner for the Republican nomination. The other Mormon is former Utah governor Jon Huntsman Jr.
If Mr Romney maintains his momentum, his religion will come under intense scrutiny. Many people in an America which sees religious allegiance as extremely significant regard Mormons as weird. Lots of conservative evangelicals denounce Mormonism as a heresy.
To provide some context, I want to go back in time to my late teenage years. As a young evangelical, I was given a chart outlining different forms of faith. Groups like Christian Scientists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons featured. A final column on the chart, headed “The Truth”, consisted of selected biblical quotations. Easy, eh?
Mormons aren’t people from Planet Morm. So who are they, and what are they all about? They are Christians, believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. With more than 12 million adherents, they represent one of the fastest-growing religions in the world. There are more Mormons outside than within the US.
Here’s the story. Mormonism began in 1823, when 18-year-old Joseph Smith from New York claimed to have been visited by an angel called Moroni – yes – who revealed to him plans for a revived and reformed Christian church. Mr Smith translated gold plates handily left by the angel, and this material, as well as other angelic revelations, became the Book of Mormon. In 1830, Mr Smith founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Believing in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, Mormons were in many ways conventional, conservative Christians. They maintained an all-male priesthood. Yet in the feverish atmosphere of revivalist America, some practices – particularly polygamy – proved to be explosive. Mr Smith argued – correctly – that the biblical patriarchs practiced plural marriage. Mormons also practised proxy baptism of the dead.
Because of these deviations from the norm, Mormons were persecuted by other more mainstream Christians who portrayed them as a danger to social stability. Mr Smith declared himself a candidate for the presidency of the United States in 1844, but was killed by a mob. He is viewed as the LDS church’s founding prophet and martyr.
After the exodus to the Great Salt Lake valley under the leadership of Mr Smith’s successor, Brigham Young, the Mormon community settled to a more stable existence. Gradually abandoning its wilder elements, Mormonism adapted to mainstream American life. In 1890, the LDS Church declared that God had authorised the ending of the practice of polygamy. In 1978, a ban on the ordination of Mormons of African descent was removed.
The big problem which Mr Romney and Mr Huntsman face in their bids for the White House is the conservative evangelicals’ historic distrust of Mormonism. Despite the fact that Mormons are conservative Christians who are noted for their work ethic, emphasis on family life, strict sexual ethics, opposition to homosexuality, abstemious lifestyles and reverence for the American Constitution, old enmities die hard. If the influential evangelicals mobilise against the Mormon candidates, Mr Romney and Mr Huntsman will be dead in the political water. Remember you read it first in The Herald.
I have long since consigned my teenage black-and-white religious chart to the flames. The biggest charge I would make against the Mormons today is not that they are wild and dangerous, but that they tend to be tedious to the point of vacuity. The thought of Mr Mitt in the Mansion doesn’t make me fear, but it does make me yawn.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article