As the campaign heats up, many of the same elements have re-emerged which characterized the 1960 Kennedy campaign such as questions regarding the candidate’s beliefs as well as the former governor’s response to these concerns – namely his claim that “people are more interested in a man’s position on the issues than where he goes to church.”[xii] And also in JFK-manner, Romney has recently claimed that rather than a non-believing leader, the “…American people want a president who has values and some kind of faith”[xiii] - despite the fact that non-belief is growing so rapidly in the United States that now one in four of the younger generation is an atheist.[xiv] However, despite similarities to the Kennedy campaign, Romney’s bid for the oval office deviates from Kennedy’s when it comes to disclosure; Romney has repeatedly managed to avoid discussing his Mormon religion in any detail. And while he has indicated on numerous occasions that he may decide to deliver a speech similar to JFK’s in Houston in 1960, his response to questions regarding his faith so far is that “[he doesn’t] think that a person who’s running for a secular position as [he is] should talk about or engage in discussions of what they in their personal faith or their personal beliefs thinks is immoral or moral.”[xv]
But while the two campaigns diverge when it comes to the candidates’ willingness to publicly explore the religious question, voters have nonetheless made the clear connection between Romney’s candidacy and that of JFK almost fifty years ago. A recent blogger wrote: “Romney himself would probably be the first to insist that he’s no Jack Kennedy. But that won’t stop him from planning a Kennedy-style speech to assuage concerns over his Mormonism.”[xvi] Campaign reporters are not willing to wait for a JFK-style speech even though the Massachusetts politician has thus far successfully dodged their insistent requests for such. Recently one journalist asked Romney about his views on a presidential appointment of a “God-fearing Mormon” to the Supreme Court. And in “Romneyspeak,” the candidate answered, “I’d go after the people who will follow the law and I wouldn’t apply a religious test either.”[xvii] It is just this sort of repeated religious inquiry and interest in Romney’s spirituality that have made the candidate acknowledge that he is indeed “pondering dealing with [religion] in a comprehensive manner.”[xviii]
While the American public awaits just such a religious “disclosure” speech, support for Romney wanes. A March, 2007 Gallup poll indicated that 46% of those Americans polled not only had a negative opinion of the LDS religion but were ultimately concerned about the introduction of Romney’s religious beliefs into an office of secular leadership.[xix] A summer of hard campaigning by the candidate made only a slight dent in this voter bias: about 35% of Americans still say that they cannot vote for a Mormon for President.[xx]
If Americans are queasy about the former Massachusetts governor’s faith, what seem to be the specific LDS religious beliefs which have raised questions about his fitness for the oval office? To begin with voters express a concern regarding Romney’s loyalty to the Mormon “Prophet” Gordon B. Hinckley over the U.S. Constitution - reminiscent of the debate over John F. Kennedy’s loyalties to the Pope over four decades ago.[xxi] In like manner, Americans are also challenged by Romney’s Mormon membership requirement to uphold and sustain Mormon doctrine - which has led some to be concerned about potential bigotry in the White House. [xxii] But what specifically about Mormonism and its just over 13 million adherents has voters putting Romney and bigotry in the same sentence? First and foremost of concern is the Latter Day Saint doctrine of polygamy.
Notoriously Mormons were polygamists in the 19th century however the practice yet remains part of the Mormon belief system and scripture they yet refer to as sacred, posing concerns about the election of a potentially sexist president. Indeed, Latter Day Saints still doctrinally maintain the practice of multiple women married to one man and have never disavowed its sanctity. While Mormons were forced to leave off the practice in 1890 due to intense pressure by the federal government, they nevertheless still believe in polygamy as a requirement in the afterlife to attain the highest level of Mormon heaven – they call the “Celestial Kingdom,” according to the Mormon Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132. Furthermore, LDS men would still be marrying multiple women today as fundamentalist Mormons yet do in many parts of the United States, Canada, and Mexico if the U.S. government had not intervened and heavily prosecuted polygamists thus forcing its official cessation by the mainstream Mormon Church over a century ago. Notably, the FLDS (the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints) only accept Mormon doctrine to 1890 – when the Church officially revoked polygamy; FLDS members therefore maintain the tenets of early Mormonism – including the practice of one man married to multiple women. And while fundamentalist Mormons still practice polygamy and mainstream Mormons are waiting until the after-life, both Mormon groups doctrinally maintain that the first wife should first agree to the husband taking multiple wives, if she does not, Mormon scripture says she will be destroyed.[xxiii] Indeed, Orson Pratt, a prominent early Mormon Church leader claimed that wives not willing to accept additional women for their husbands would be condemned.[xxiv]
But while the current mainstream Mormon leader, Gordon B. Hinckley – referred to as their “prophet,” consistently argues that the LDS Church “…has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy”[xxv] - a response he regularly gives in response to questions regarding Mormonism’s association with the polygamy-practicing FLDS (such as the current group in Colorado City, Arizona led by the recently convicted Warren Jeffs) – current Mormon scripture and the Church’s sustaining of the anticipated practice in their Mormon heaven – casts doubts on the LDS leader’s statements. Making matters worse for the presidential candidate, Romney’s family continued to engage in polygamy even after the Mormon “Manifesto” in 1890, which was supposed to silence religious and political critics across the United States and allow Utah to become a state. Indeed, some mainstream Mormons like Romney’s family continued to marry multiple wives in secret after the 1890 “Manifesto” defying U.S. law.[xxvi]
Mainstream Christians have long argued against Mormons being identified as Christians even though Latter Day Saints vehemently claim recognition in this religious category. One of the key differences between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity is that Mormons contend that even Jesus Christ was a polygamist. As early as 1854, Mormon leaders claimed that not only was Christ born into the world through a polygamous relationship, “…but …He [also] adopted and practiced it himself in a marriage with Mary, Martha and Mary Magdalene…”[xxvii] The LDS belief in Christ’s polygamous unions was used as partial justification for the Church’s founder Joseph Smith in his wedding 33 wives, only to be topped by his successor Brigham Young who espoused 52 women.[xxviii] While mainstream Christians accept the polygamy practiced by Old Testament prophets such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, they see the New Testament and the life of Christ as a breaking with ancient Jewish law – allowing for a more hallowed view of monogamy. Indeed, 19th century critics of Mormon “plural marriage” linked the practice of polygamy with slavery - calling the pair the two remaining forms of barbarism.[xxix]
Romney’s membership in a church where some contend women are cast as second class citizens has not been the only liability for Romney; eyebrows have also been raised at his church’s official position on people of color. These challenges for the former governor are rooted in the Church’s Book Of Mormon as well as their official volume, The Pearl of Great Price, of which both maintain that dark skin is the result of a curse by God on evil and unrighteous human beings and gets passed on through generations as a punishment for sin. The current Mormon belief is that as people become more righteous their skins lighten.[xxx] The perfect color of skin for Mormons is therefore white patterned after the Mormon God who is allegedly white and exceeds “the brightness of the sun.”[xxxi] It doesn’t help matters that Romney’s church did not allow blacks to participate in full fellowship until 1978 – several years after the U.S. Civil Rights Movement. Underscoring voters concerns regarding Romney’s possible sexist and racist beliefs as a Mormon, Chandra Niles Folsom’s article “The Mormons are Coming” explores the controversial Mormon belief that “black people were less valiant in a spiritual pre-existent life and so are cursed on Earth and women were created only to produce children and serve their husbands…”[xxxii]
Finally, the notion of exclusivity in Mormon doctrine has also plagued the candidate’s campaign. This concern lies in the fact that Mormon scripture states that their founder, Joseph Smith, was told by God in 1820 that all other churches of the day were “an abomination” and that as a result he should join none of them.[xxxiii] Some voters see this as touting Latter Day Saints as “special” and chosen by God; that all other Americans are somehow misled and therefore not as spiritually inspired as the Mormons.
Notwithstanding widespread controversy surrounding the candidate’s religion, unsurprisingly Romney maintains strong support from Mormons in Utah. Since more than 70% of Utah’s residents are members of the LDS Church they “feel a kinship with [the candidate].”[xxxiv] Many Mormons see the candidate as a fulfillment of “The White Horse prophecy” which was a prophetic revelation in 1843 to Joseph Smith - that someday U.S. citizens would be denied basic rights and that the American Constitution would “hang like a thread as fine as a silk fiber.”[xxxv] A cataclysmic revolution was predicted to ensue since the country would cease to be led by a Supreme Government. Smith’s prophecy then went on to claim that Mormons would emerge to save the country from peril and destruction represented symbolically by a “white horse” riding in to save the Constitution from utter collapse. Indeed, the majority of Romney’s contributions come from Mormons who are anxious to get behind the former Massachusetts governor in his claim for the oval office and very possibly the fulfillment of Mormon lore.
And the controversy over Romney’s spiritual beliefs as a presidential candidate has not gone unnoticed by his competition. Notably, candidates have used the current scrutiny on the Massachusetts Republican’s faith to highlight their own spiritual beliefs which they hope will be perceived as less radical in comparison. In early June, 2007, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards all addressed liberal evangelicals at a forum on “faith, values, and poverty” with the goal of reassuring more mainstream religious voters of their faith in God and the Bible. Previously, Edwards told the web site Beliefnet.com “that Jesus would be appalled at how the nation has ignored the plight of the suffering.”[xxxvi] Not to be outdone by his rivals, the Illinois Senator Obama “chastised fellow Democrats for failing to ‘acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people,’ and said the party must compete for the support of evangelicals and other churchgoers.”[xxxvii]
Ironically, with the notable exception of Mitt Romney, the run for the 2008 presidency seems to manifest a political strategy to openly talk about God on the campaign trail. However, candidates are nevertheless making certain that they use these opportunities to display their mainstream spiritual beliefs which in contrast to Romney’s Mormon faith seem less extreme.
All this leaves Mitt Romney in a precarious position. As those like E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post have recently opined, “[t]he one thing Romney cannot do to put the Mormon issue aside is to say that religion shouldn’t matter in politics, since so many of those whose votes he seeks believe otherwise.”[xxxviii] So Romney faces a dilemma: the right-wing conservative Christians he is courting are the very voters who are the most opposed to the Mormon religion. As a result, the candidate has thus far chosen to speak in vague terms when asked about his spiritual beliefs. Romney statements such as “…the values of my faith are much like, or are identical to, the values of other faiths that have a Judeo-Christian philosophical background”[xxxix] are part of the candidate’s political strategy to steer much-needed mainstream Christian voters to his side.
All the talk of God on the campaign trail has acted to expose the intricate and ever-controversial relationship between religion and politics in American political culture. Notwithstanding the racial and gender debates which have prominently emerged in this campaign as a direct result of black and female candidates, expressing one’s religious beliefs has allowed the contenders a way to bridge gaps with voters. Non-transgressive elements such as race and gender do not easily permit a connection, whereas one’s religious beliefs can be used as a way to develop allegiance.
While Romney faces challenges defending his Mormon religion to the press, voters, and his ever-watchful competitors, the 2008 presidential campaign not only reintroduces the issue of whether religion and politics should coincide, but also acts to intensify the debate over whether religion can ever be entirely removed from the political spectrum at all. Indeed, voters want to know what candidates stand for and seemingly a politician’s religion conveniently allows for a peek into one’s core beliefs. Arguably for many Americans the two cannot be separated.
America’s historic and capricious relationship with religion in politics makes the former Massachusetts governor’s campaign for president all the more intriguing to the American public. It should come as no surprise that the candidate’s spiritual beliefs continue to be a pivotal topic in recent Republican presidential debates. This tension seems curiously reminiscent of an early American landscape where while leaders vigorously argued for a state that could not be manipulated by religion, they nevertheless kept Judeo-Christian beliefs as a mainstay in the political culture of the United States. Americans just can’t seem to take religion out of politics. Religion is not dead as some would lament, in fact in the political realm it is very much alive and well.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
