Bronwen Maddox’s article in the Times (£) about Romney’s Mormonism strikes me as both curious and unfair. She focuses on three problem areas: 1) ‘sheer weirdness’, 2) race and women, 3) the Middle East.
There is a case to be made for finding ‘sheer weirdness’ in several religions. The first reason Maddox puts forward for identifying a special problem with Mormonism is its supposed apartness:
… its defining culture is still that of “a peculiar people”, in the Biblical sense of having a separate covenant with God, with a separate set of practices from the culture around it.
But the same objection could in that case (I assume) be made of a Jewish candidate. Maddox then notes the wealth of the church, and the striking size of its churches. But – again – many religions favour large, imposing religious buildings. It’s hardly a symptom of depravity.
She then turns to the Book of Mormon, and scoffs at its America-specific theology. But, from my atheist perspective at least, it seems no sillier to believe that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri than in some more traditional location. Similarly, the way the Book of Mormon was supposedly conveyed to Joseph Smith seems no more unlikely than similar stories concerning Moses or Muhammad.
Of course there is an extra, or more obvious, incongruity in the foundation myths of more modern religions. But – at least if you are an atheist – it seems irrational to use that as a stick to beat Mormonism with.
Maddox’s second objection relates to Mormon teachings on race and religion. Mormonism’s record on race is certainly a poor one, as, until 1978, black men could not become priests or qualify for the highest level of salvation. This was because of Mormon teaching that God turned a tribe’s skin black as a punishment. But such teachings are not absolutely unique within Christianity – the story of Noah’s sons has also been used to explain racial difference and justify racism and slavery. And should we quiz Hindu candidates about the Caste system?
It seems particularly weak to argue, as Maddox does, that women are still not allowed to take the most senior positions in the church. That argument could be used to scupper the presidential chances of all Catholics and Muslims, as well as a good many Jews and Protestants.
Maddox then argues that Mormonism is associated with an ethos of hard work, small government and individualism. This does not seem especially shocking.
Her final points relate to the Middle East, and she begins by arguing that, because Mormonism claims a connection with Israel, Romney would be more likely to go to great lengths to defend that country. She could have made the same point about a Jewish candidate of course – would she have done? In fact a member of any Abrahamic faith might (potentially, theoretically) be swayed by that faith when dealing with the Middle East. Plenty of mainstream Christians have theologically inflected positions on Israel (on both sides).
Maddox then describes the Mormon belief in a kind of Messiah figure, and wonders whether Romney considers himself a candidate for that role. Now – this seems a really peculiar argument – and yet one difficult to counter. Is it normal to wonder whether candidates suspect they have a leading role to play in their religion’s end times? (Well, it might be in the case of Ahmadinejad.)
She concludes:
It is entirely appropriate to ask him, until he answers: “You believe exactly what?”
But mightn’t we ask other religious candidates that question with equal justification?
