This Boston Phoenix article makes some interesting points, but in the end the author shows he doesn’t have much hands-on knowledge about how our church works. Yes, we can organize pretty well when, for example, a hurricane or flood hits and we need to help people recover. And, yes, we’re mostly Republican. But I can’t see us being as effective politically as he claims.
I have discussed Mormon politics extensively below in this thread. There’s no reason to re-hash those arguments. I am mostly interested in his claim that Mitt Romney will have an army of 1 million Latter-day Saints ready to hit the streets to help “their” candidate. The author uses the example of the Church’s role in defeating the ERA and helping turn the tide against same-sex marriage. His argument is that the Saints are more affluent than other religions, more unified and more politically active. He paints a picture of wards organizing on the precinct level and going door to door to help Romney.
Personally, I think Romney is the best Republican candidate in 2008. I sincerely hope he wins. I will probably campaign actively for him if he runs. But the author doesn’t have a clue how the church really works on the ward level. The Church will be extremely careful not to mix politics and spiritual affairs and will be even more concerned about this issue if Romney is running. I predict that if Mitt becomes a serious candidate by 2007, there will be many, many warnings sent from the Brethren not to discuss politics from the pulpit. And most stake presidents and bishops will support this policy and enforce it rigorously. We will be less officially political than ever.
The Church is mostly effective when its excellent (and perfect) hierarchical structure is used to mobilize people for volunteer work. Without this organizing effect, Mitt will get very little of the special sendoff this author claims.
Having said that, I think many Church members will, like myself, support Mitt. But it won’t be an official Church project and will have to be successful on its own like any political campaign.
Two words refute the gentleman from Boston: “President Hatch.”
Why exactly would Romney desire this “help” from Mormons (at least in an organized way)? It seems like its existence would be an invitation for journalists to write about his Mormonism–hardly a recipe for success in many key primary states.
Frankly, even a lot of vocal “unorganized” help could open similar doors. Ultimately I suspect articles like this one will be the kiss of death for Romney: investors are going to hate being associated with this.
Not only Hatch. But also “hatchet job”. The Boston Globe already started down that road, and you can imagine what the mainstream media will do with a religious candidate; one who would arouse some antipathy among some evangelical Protestants.
Sorry, Mitt won’t make it.
We tend to be affluent? Why didn’t I get the memo?
Your butler probably lost it.
Nathan and NFlanders make an interesting point. The Boston Phoenix author makes a claim that Mormons are more affluent than Baptists, Catholics, etc. Is this true? Is it borne out by any actual data? Is it based on average or mean income? Do a few Romneys and Marriotts make up for the vast majority of Church members who are stunningly middle class?
Could that be the first time a Newspaper has published the “constitution hanging by a thread” line? Where does that line come from anyway? I’m amused at the prospect of non-LDS Americans being aware of our “messianic role in US History.”
I got the following e-mail from the Boston Phoenix writer Adam Reilly. His article is indeed much better if you read the third page, which makes some more cogent points about Mormon political capabilities. The writer gets extra points for finding and reading M*.
—–Original Message—–
From: Adam Reilly [mailto:reillyaf@yahoo.com]
Sent: Sat 3/19/2005 7:16 PM
To: geoffrey@millennialstar.org
Subject: Hello from the Boston Phoenix
Hey Geoffrey–Just found your post on Millennial Star,
and I wanted to make sure you’d seen the third page of
my article, which was (frustratingly) missing from our
web site Thursday. It’s at
http://bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/multi-page/documents/04538491.asp.
If you’ve already read Page 3, never mind. If you
didn’t, it probably won’t be enough to convince you
I’m right, but it’s still worth checking out–and I’d
be grateful if you could draw your readers’ attention
to it as well. For what it’s worth, my intent in this
piece was to raise the question of how whether and how
Romney might benefit from the Mormon aptitude for
politics if he runs, not to make an airtight case.
Thanks for reading, and take care–
Best,
Adam
Adam Reilly
Staff Writer
The Boston Phoenix
617-859-3361
areilly@phx.com
Regarding Mormon affluence: Utah is #1 in family bankruptcies, a national scandal and disgrace. Meanwhile the Mormon Church keeps building temples that go unused and convention centers on the backs of its financially vulnerable younger generation. Oh, and don’t forget the lessons about not putting off your family until you have a means to support them!
Regarding Mitt’s chances: One transcript of the Mormon endowment ceremony, and a discussion of his underwear, and he’s toast.
The temples go unused?
Heck, the one in Alaska was so unused they had to shut it down for a few months!
(oh – wait, that was because the use was triple what was expected and they had to expand the temple’s size).
De Vere, I’m dying to know: Did you write Shakespeare’s plays?
What I want to know is if he thinks he can get past Rudolf Guilianni (I know I spelled that wrong) in the primaries. The guy is practically a national hero from 9-11 and the person tapped by CNN to be the early front runner for the Republican candidate in ’08. And De Vere’s second comment hits a nerve. We all know that those things will come out some time. Plus, if the “mormon masses” get mobilized, won’t some people turn a blind eye when they find out it’s just one mormon campaigning for another? Seems like a long shot to me.
#11 – Absolutely.
De Vere, I hate it when people throw around the statistic that Utah has the highest rate of bankruptcies in the nation. If this is true, for what purpose are you citing it? It seems to me that the only people who cite this statistic are people trying to get a cheap-shot criticism in at the Church, somehow implying that members of the Church are hypocrites because Utah has a high rate of bankruptcies. There could be many reasons for this statistic rather than people living outside their means. And it can’t go as a larger criticism toward the whole Church, which you do by uniting it with the absurd claim that the Church continues building temples even though they go unused. First of all, even if this were true, how does this have anything to do with Utah’s bankruptcies? Are you saying that instead of building temples, the Church should bail any insolvent members out of their financial troubles? Second, from what I understand, this is an inaccurate claim. On what basis do you claim that temples go unused? Just because you don’t go to the temple doesn’t mean that other Latter-day Saints aren’t making good use of our temples. I assume there are some temples that are underused, e.g. perhaps Manti or some of the temples in more rural areas. But Wasatch front tempes are used at or over capacity, as are numerous temples that I know of around the world.
#14 “There could be many reasons for this statistic (Utah as #1 in bankruptcies) rather than people living outside their means.” – I think that’s the definition of bankruptcy.
Financial insolvency is a symptom of a deeper illness. To date, the Church offers NO public accounting of the use of tithes, yet insists on full tithes as a pre-requisite to temple recommends and, hence, receiving the signs and tokens of exaltation.
This contract results in blind loyalty, a recipe for corruption when so many dollars are flowing through the system. The Church owes its members accountability and transparency.
Building more temples, then putting more pressure on members to attend, while families in Zion wallow in insolvency yet scrape together their tithes, has become a dysfunction.
By Common Consent had a fascinating discussion of the bankruptcy statistics a month or two back. It said the main reasons were marrying young, having children soon, and a desire for homes. That leaves one open for bankrupcy if one loses ones job or has a health emergency. Apparently the “living beyond ones means” actually accounts for a small amount of bankruptcy.
But there is a very weird kind of materialism in Utah. In my experience, Utah Mormons tend be (on average) more competitive in the arena of giving the appearance of affluence (over-the-top homes, toys galore) than Mormons raised outside of Utah. (Anecdotal evidence: the wealthy Mormons I know who hail from Utah tend to drive BMWs and live in MacMansions, while the wealthy Mormons I know who hail from the East Coast are much more likely to drive Buicks or Toyotas and own more modest homes).
This is, of course, a generalization—like saying that men are taller then women—and you find all types in all different places. Just the same, it has been my experience for some time, and so I was not at all surprised to find out that Utah leads the nation in personal bankruptcies. It’s mathematically impossible for everyone to have an above average income. And when you have have so many people trying so very hard to appear to have an above average income, something’s gotta’ give. And the people who get squeezed are, of course, those who can least afford it.
So DaVere,
Are you blaming tithing for Utah’s bankruptcy? How do you know the LDS people going bankrupt pay their tithing? I think the way you link your assumptions is a little faulty.
An interesting item that came out in that SL Tribune series on Utah bankruptcies was that only a small fraction of those filing bankruptcies made donations to a church in the year they filed. This suprised me. The faithful would attribute the small numbers of tithe-payers among the bankrupt to the promised abundance to those who will tithe.
The SL Tribune article is still available in the free archive. On tithing it said “Among the LDS population, pressure also exists for active members to tithe a tenth of their incomes to the church. About 13 percent of Utah bankruptcy filers reported tithing in the year prior to going broke, with 12 percent of those reporting tithes to the LDS Church.” It is funny that the Tribune tried to play up the tithing angle, for instance with the headline “Charitable giving, tithes may complicate Utahn’s finances.” Tithing played no part in 88% of Utah bankruptcies, except in that perhaps the bankruptcies would have been reduced if that principle had been lived by more people in bad financial situations.
http://www.sltrib.com/search/ci_2520335
Arturo, what’s weird to me is how many Utahns, having money, simply build houses that are poorly designed large versions of middle income homes. I don’t begrudge the rich their money in the least. I think its about the only way nice things are built and maintained. But in Utah we end up with just more and bigger mediocre things. Although I have noticed that’s change a little of late. But I tend to think that is people from outside of Utah moving to Utah to build big nice houses. (i.e. around Park City or in some of the canyons)
That’s a good point, Clark. There’s an awful lot of stuff in Utah that just screams, “Mike Brady built me!”