Are anti-Mormons to blame for Romney's failure?

[_ludwigm]

During reading this type of threads, I am happy to be an european. Here the people don't care the religion of their leaders.
Even in Poland, Italy, and Spain, which are the most religious nations in Europe.

Additionally, more than the half of the membership are not of US. What have to do they - who are as members as the americans are - with Romney, or for example, the constitution of US? (D&C 98, 101, 109)

Please don't misunderstand me! I don't say these are not important enough. We, in Hungary, have enough trouble with our leaders. Every nation has, I think. Many time, religous leaders want to became political factors, but we don't let them. (Up to now ...)

I say that one "onlytrue" church should be more general, less american, more less utahn.
( According to Richard Packham nonofficial statistic here, there are even more exmo outside of US. )

[_Mister Scratch]

Let me ask you some questions: what do you think? I mean really. Do you imagine I am so unfamiliar with Mormonism that I don't know? Do you think that you need to enlighten me on this? Do you suppose that if you simply repeat the fact of its (the persecution idea) existence, that means you have won the argument? Is it that the existence of a theme of persecution in Mormon thought justifies the kind of sweeping generalizations that dartagnan made? Do you imagine that the qualified version of the picture you have offered above is exactly the same thing that dartagnan said?

No... I don't believe that's what I said.

Let's look more closely. You say that LDS "*often* see themselved in a "victim" role, in a national-historical scale." Dartagnan said of Mormons: "they (referring to all Mormons, not some, many, or most) play the victim at *every* (not sometimes or often) opportunity." Then he continues, "they (all Mormons, again) know *no* (no qualifications there either) other role."

If you are out to defend Dartagnan's statement, defend what he said instead of your soft-peddling version.

No thanks! I'd much prefer to defend my "soft-peddling" version.

Then ask yourself this: since when is it that people do not consider such negative, sweeping generalizations of a group one stands outside of bigoted?

This is problematic since, as you pointed out above, pretty much all of us on this thread cannot really be considered "outside" of this group. All of us have a stake in Mormonism somehow.

or example, if one of you white folks were to say that "all African Americans play the victim at every opportunity; they know no other role," chances are that some bright person would call you out for making a bigoted remark and you would deserve it.

Fair enough, except, of course, that all of us either are or were LDS. Would your hackles be raised in the same way if it was Bill Cosby, or Al Sharpton issuing this criticism?

Did you attempt to "prove" that it was an important factor?

Admittedly, I have not. Nor do I think that dartagnan has proven his case. I would venture to say that the complexities of this primary season are probably beyond the range of either of our abilities to prove definitively one way or the other. That is why we generally engage in reasonable speculation, and then withhold from claiming that we have proven something from 'thorough research' that involves math learned in grade school. In my opinion, that does not come close to covering it.

I stand by the basic argument that Mormons have been viewed as on the fringe of American society for much of the LDS Church's existence, and that specific anti-Mormon attacks during Romney's campaign aggravated that perception both among evangelicals and others.

Which specific attacks?

The net result for Romney was, in my opinion, a much more significant hurdle for him to overcome than George W. Bush's evangelical faith ever was for him. Did Romney's Mormonism and anti-Mormon sentiment play an important role in the primaries? I would say most definitely. If you can come up with the math to prove me right or wrong on that one, then go for it.

Whew! On the one hand, you say:

"I would venture to say that the complexities of this primary season are probably beyond the range of either of our abilities to prove definitively one way or the other."

On the other, you say:

"Did Romney's Mormonism and anti-Mormon sentiment play an important role in the primaries? I would say most definitely. If you can come up with the math to prove me right or wrong on that one, then go for it."

So, what should I do? Or rather, what do you actually think? It seems like you are giving yourself a free pass by stating that this issue is "beyond the range" of proof while simultaneously throwing down the gauntlet and defying anyone to prove you wrong....

I'm sorry, Trevor, but I just have not seen any clear, concrete evidence that "anti-Mormon bigotry" played any real, appreciable role in Romney's failure. Is it reasonable to say that many Americans were uncomfortable with him on account of his religion? Well, yes, possibly. I'm not so sure that this really crosses the line over into "anti-Mormon bigotry," though.

I will also say that in my memory I cannot remember a time when more public figures said disparaging things about Mormonism in major media outlets. I would call this soft anti-Mormonism, as in, "gee we can't believe someone would be dumb enough to believe X" (with the implication being "how could you vote for someone who would believe X?"). In principle, I have no problem with that as long as one calls all irrational faith systems out for being equally ludicrous, whether that be the adoration of the ossified body parts of early Christian superheroes, or the belief that a dead Jewish rabble rouser is God and is coming to slay his wicked opponents any day now. Instead, we were treated to the rantings of an inebriated British journalist with a chip on his shoulder, an intellectual lightweight comedian who takes himself far too seriously, the wife of one major politician, the mother of another, an actual candidate for the presidency, and many, many more, taking pot shots at one faith especially and in particular: Mormonism.

I don't know, Trevor. I think one of the main factors here is Mormonism's secrecy, or its "milk before meat" method of handling difficult questions. I think this lack of openness alters the terms of the debate pretty significantly, and renders the comparison to Judaism and Christianity problematic.

And what might those be? Wouldn't it be equally fair to say that Romney's responses to questions concerning these so-called "old prejudices" did nothing to help his campaign?

The first question doesn't seem to be a real one, so I move to the second. No. It would be fair to say that he could have done a lot better. To say they did nothing to help his campaign is something neither of us can know.

Okay.

Really, the "reasonable" thing to do would be to demand proof.

Let's all sit here and demand. I am up for that. (whistling)

Hey, you're the one offering up assertions for which you've not supplied proof. (And you've even stated, paradoxically, that you cannot prove your own claims!)

Note that DCP said elsewhere that anyone who does not affirm Joseph Smith is "anti-Christ." These things work both ways.

Could you send me that link to DCP's Apologists4Romney website where he represents himself as a longtime supporter of Romney for political office (back to those Massachusetts days) who is exposing Huckabee as an anti-Christ in order to dissuade good Mormons from voting for him?

I'll be looking for that link from you.

Sure. Just as soon as you supply the link that proves that rampant "anti-Mormon" bigotry undermined Romney's campaign.

[_Dr. Shades]

Forgive me--I hate to sound like a broken record, but I truly believe the occasion warrants it--but I think that a large reason for the misunderstanding between dartagnan and Trevor is because they are talking about two different religions.

Trevor is correct, Internet Mormons have expunged all the bigotry out of their systems. But that's not the group dartagnan is talking about.

dartagnan is correct, Chapel Mormons are bigotted against EV ministers. But that's not the group Trevor is talking about.

Does that help?

[_dartagnan]

Forgive me--I hate to sound like a broken record, but I truly believe the occasion warrants it--but I think that a large reason for the misunderstanding between dartagnan and Trevor is because they are talking about two different religions.

Trevor is correct, Internet Mormons have expunged all the bigotry out of their systems. But that's not the group dartagnan is talking about.

dartagnan is correct, Chapel Mormons are bigotted against EV ministers. But that's not the group Trevor is talking about.

Does that help?

I'll buy that, but I suspect Trevor won't. Mainly because he objects to my generalization and insists its bigotry to generalize. But if I am correctly describing "Chapel Mormons," then that makes my generalization true since they represent more than 99% of the Church.

[_Trevor]

OK. I give up. I posted another lengthy reply to dartagnan only to have it evaporate somewhere in cyberspace. I simply do not have the time or the inclination to attempt to recreate it. I will encapsulate as briefly as possible the thrust of my response and then move on. I grant that dartagnan has done real homework that I personally have not seen others do. His preliminary results offer a challenge to those who claim that contemporary anti-Mormon attacks motivated EVs in particular to vote against Romney. Fair enough.

Then there is the idea that this constitutes "thorough research." Simply put, it does not. Thorough research is the kind of thing academics will do in the coming months in their complex analysis of the 2008 primaries. If the subject of Mormonism becomes the focus of some of this work, I will be interested to see whether it confirms dartagnan's brief, preliminary analysis or not. I am open to persuasion on this, but I will wait until the real, detailed academic work has been done.

I stand by my position on the bigoted statements dartagnan has made against Mormons. I also take exception to his accusation that I possess a deeply ingrained hatred of all ministers because of my religious upbringing, and that this is the reason I have said some nasty things about Huckabee. It is true that I have said some nasty stuff about Huckabee, but the basis for my comments was his and his campaign's use of bigotry as a tool to appeal to his base. Huckabee and his campaign employed rhetoric that was either explicit or suggestive in its anti-Catholicism, anti-Mormonism, and racism. I have little patience for bigotry.

Dartagnan's accusation that I have an axe to grind or a bigotry against ministers does not represent who I am or what I have generally argued here and elsewhere. In fact, I think my recent posting shows that I have tried to be careful to separate the decent ministers out there from the few corrupt televangelists that give other ministers a bad name. Go and read it for yourself. It seems to me that with his lack of access to MADB, dartagnan is aiming what he would say there, if they didn't keep kicking him off, erroneously at me.

Indeed, it seems as though, in a rather reflexive, unreflective response, dartagnan has chosen to forget who I am and how I have posted for some time now as either a critic of apologists or an ex-Mormon. Because I dare to believe that anti-Mormonism, both the more general historic prejudice against Mormons and specific campaigns of attack against the Church during the campaign, adversely affected the Romney campaign in significant ways, suddenly I am being treated as though I am someone else. And yet, I have not changed.

As for the theory that I was somehow only imagining Internet Mormons, when I made my positive view of the Church's *attempts* to root out LDS prejudice against other Christians, or the positive results this has had over the past couple of decades, it is incorrect. I am willing to give the Church leadership credit for positive steps to change the tone of Church discussions of other faiths and the membership some credit for real strides forward. I never claimed that prejudice had been completely expunged. Those who argue against me as though I did are misconstruing my words.

Just today I listened to an NPR report on the anti-Mormon response to the Romney campaign. You can access it at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... 99&sc=emaf. Do Mormons have a persecution complex? Sure. Is it unfounded? No. Especially when, as dartagnan points out, Romney started out with so many people (50%) unwilling to vote for him *because* of his Mormonism. It takes more than a persecution complex to get there.