Pick a Faith; Any Faith?

The view that only a "person of faith" is qualified to serve in high political office that I don't know if there's any point in criticizing Mitt Romey for expressing it. I recall when Joe Lieberman was running on the ticket with Al Gore and said all atheists are immoral . It seems pretty clear that political consultants think the smart play for non-Christian candidates is to try and whip up anti-atheist sentiment to bridge the gap. This is why Romney's going to wind up getting a lot of odd questions about the details of his approach to Mormonism.

Christian candidates usually just let the whole issue go unsaid, trusting in the occassional "God Bless America" to express solidarity with Christian sentiment in the electorate. The Romney/Lieberman approach, however, requires the non-Christian candidate to explicitly cite the fact of his deep religious faith as a qualification for office. In Lieberman's case, he had the advantage of his deep faith being more obviously sincere than in Romney's case and the fact that though Judaism denies the truth of Christianity it doesn't try to replace it in the way that Mormonism does.

Comments

Matt, I would personally agree that Mormonism is, on its merits, not theologically compatible with mainstream Christianity. However, this is not because it tries to replace the truth of Christianity so much as it tries to create a DVD Director's Cut of Christianity with all sorts of weird new shit added in that distracts from the main narrative.

More importantly, though, Mormons do consider themselves to be Christians, and you should prepare to receive some angry e-mails from them today.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | February 18, 2007 12:40 PM

More importantly, though, Mormons do consider themselves to be Christians, and you should prepare to receive some angry e-mails from them today.

Right. Mormons consider themselves Christians. Out of the (admittedly not very large) set of regular churchgoers I know, however, the opinion that Mormons aren't Christians is universal. This is mostly a group of liberal Protestants we're talking about, and conservative Protestants aren't going to be more generous about this. Catholics also say Mormons aren't Christians. And that's the relevant fact politically -- non-Mormon Christians will perceive Romney as a non-Christian candidate. Which, really, is what you would expect since Mormons deny the authority of the Christian Bible and the Christian conception of Jesus.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | February 18, 2007 12:43 PM

Re: Out of the (admittedly not very large) set of regular churchgoers I know, however, the opinion that Mormons aren't Christians is universal.

Mormons are Christians (they believe in the divinity and salvific mission of Jesus Christ). If I may use a somewhat unfavorable word with a bad history, Mormonism is Christian heresy.
Christians who argue that the LDS is not Christian probably say the same thing about any Christian church that is significantly different from their own. Among the more Fundamentalist Protestants one also hears the the Catholic Church is not Christian.

Posted by JonF | February 18, 2007 12:54 PM

Most Mormons are Christians by the standard definition: one who lets his/her life be guided by the Bible, except for the parts about dietary laws and the teachings of Jesus.

Posted by calling all toasters | February 18, 2007 1:03 PM

Among the more Fundamentalist Protestants one also hears the the Catholic Church is not Christian.

Less and less, though, as the Vatican has been consistently observing the Law of IOKIYAR.

Posted by calling all toasters | February 18, 2007 1:07 PM

Christians who argue that the LDS is not Christian probably say the same thing about any Christian church that is significantly different from their own. Among the more Fundamentalist Protestants one also hears the the Catholic Church is not Christian.

I'll second that. I have several times heard my born-again brother-in-law say that both Mormons and Catholics may be technically Christian, but that they aren't "REAL Christians".

Posted by Samba00 | February 18, 2007 1:17 PM

I doubt you'd get the same response from Christians about whether Mormons are of their number if you asked in a place where there is a strong historical Mormon presence, in my case Northern California. I distinctly recall a well-connected Catholic priest giving a sermon welcoming Mormons and Mennonites as ecumenical Christian partners while wishing good riddance to (at least some of) the evangelicals.

Also, as a sometime RCIA sponsor and instructor, the question of whether baptism has to be repeated for full communion with the Catholic church is quite separate from the question of whether the individual is a Christian.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | February 18, 2007 1:24 PM

Matt, I don't think this view is nearly as universal among American Christians as you suggest. The mainline protestant churches tend to view faith in the divinity of Christ as the acid test of Christianity, and Mormons pass that test. Mormons have devoted tremendous energy toward getting other denominations to treat them as equals, and they've made some inroads. You should also never underestimate the ability of rank-and-file Catholics to disregard official Church doctrine.

I think you're right about the relative ability of Jewish and Mormon politicians to overcome their relative stigmas with Christian voters, but I don't expect this will have much of an impact in the general election if Romney gets that far. The sort of doctrinal purists who really care about this stuff aren't swing voters, and they would probably prefer a Mormon President to, say, Hillary Clinton.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | February 18, 2007 1:27 PM

"Mormons deny the authority of the Christian Bible and the Christian conception of Jesus."

Huh? The Mormon conception of Jesus is certainly different, but the King James Bible (with mostly very minor emendations) is most assuredly one of the Mormon scriptures.

Posted by David | February 18, 2007 1:30 PM

Well, to poke a hole in your theory, it was Bush 41 who said that athiests can not be proper Americans, or some such bullcr*p.

Posted by Adam | February 18, 2007 1:31 PM

Who gets to chime in on if Mormons are Christian or not?

I've been interested in the academic study of Daoism for a while, and you get people talking about what is or is not authentic Daoism a lot. My opinion is that the only people who can make that call are Daoists. If you do not claim to have a first hand understanding of the "true" interpretation of a given text, tradition, or whatever how can you decide that someone's interpretation is false?

I think that is the same here - if you say that Mormons aren't Christian, do you mean that they don't approach the truth of Christ's teachings? If you are saying that as someone who dosn't claim to be all that familiar with that Truth, how would you know?

Perhaps you mean that Mormons are not considered Christians by other groups of Christians. That is an observation about the ways in which Mormon's are percieved by various Christians - not a statement of the Truth or lack thereof of Mormonism in Christian terms.

Posted by vermin jones | February 18, 2007 1:34 PM

There is a clear sense in which Mormons are not traditional christians, at least, in that they don't accept the Nicene Creed. Now, huge numbers of people who follow main-stream christian churches also, as a matter of personal belief, don't accept all of the Nicene creed either, and it's not obviously true that only those who do accept it are christian. But, this is a pretty important difference. But, Mormons do accept the divinity of Jesus (in a way clearly different from non-christian religions such as Islam) and do take the Bible to be the word of God and so on. I'd agree with the poster above that thinking Mormons are non-christians tends to be pretty heavily limited to those who don't much live around moromons or know very many of them. It's not that common of a view in the west.

But more interestingly, do you think we'll see many of those who railed against "anti-catholic bigotry" lining up to defend Rommny? I'd rather guess not.

Posted by Matt | February 18, 2007 1:48 PM

On a different topic, I clicked through to the Lieberman link, and at least in that particular article, he by no means suggests that all atheists are immoral. In fact, he explicitly says the opposite.

Posted by Adam | February 18, 2007 2:02 PM

In response to someone's point earlier that some Christians do not think Catholics are "christian." As a non-believing Catholic myself, I have noticed this too (this being said not about me but about believing Catholics), but the way it happens is that these people are often born again and require "born again-ness," or accepting Jesus Christ as your personal saviour, to mean that you are christian.

In other words Catholics can be Christians, as long as they accept this Jesus of the heart of evangelicals. This is stupid of course, but it is entirely different than the fairly widespread belief that Mormons aren't Christians. Matt's link to the Vatican site is an excellent, serious example. Catholics accept baptisms from Lutherans, Baptists, Anglicans, the Orthodox churchs, etc. But not from Mormons. Why not? Well, beyond the reasons Matt mentions take a look at this exchange from the New Yorker (in an interview with Mormon President Gordon B. Hinckley):

"In the Mormon scheme, every person is a potential divinity. The adage "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be" expresses the Mormon belief that God was once a human being, with a wife and children. But Hinckley did not seem interested in discussing matters of theology. When I asked him to characterize God's connubial relationship, he replied, "We don't speculate on that a lot. Brigham Young said if you went to Heaven and saw God it would be Adam and Eve. I don't know what he meant by that." Pointing to a grim-faced portrait of the Lion of the Lord, as Young was called, he said, "There he is, right there. I'm not going to worry about what he said about those things."

I asked whether Mormon theology was a form of polytheism.

"I don't have the remotest idea what you mean," he said impatiently.

"More than one god."

"Yes, but that's a very loose term," he replied. "We believe in eternal progression." By that he meant that human beings can evolve toward godhood by following the Mormon path. "You want to be a reporter always?" he said. "You want to be a scrub forever, through all eternity? We believe that life, eternal life, is real, that it's purposeful, that it has meaning, that it can be realized. I wouldn't describe us as polytheistic.""

Posted by Castorp | February 18, 2007 2:03 PM

Re: Out of the (admittedly not very large) set of regular churchgoers I know, however, the opinion that Mormons aren't Christians is universal.

Mormons are Christians (they believe in the divinity and salvific mission of Jesus Christ). If I may use a somewhat unfavorable word with a bad history, Mormonism is Christian heresy.
Christians who argue that the LDS is not Christian probably say the same thing about any Christian church that is significantly different from their own. Among the more Fundamentalist Protestants one also hears the the Catholic Church is not Christian.

Posted by JonF | February 18, 2007 2:10 PM

Re: Matt's link to the Vatican site is an excellent, serious example. Catholics accept baptisms from Lutherans, Baptists, Anglicans, the Orthodox churchs, etc. But not from Mormons.

This is not a judgment on whether the baptizing church is or is not Christian; it is a judgment on whether or not the church in question practices sacramental baptism, conferring real and effective grace, or just treats baptism as an initiation ritual.

Posted by JonF | February 18, 2007 2:15 PM

though Judaism denies the truth of Christianity it doesn't try to replace it in the way that Mormonism does

Mormons are quite clear that they do not "replace the truth of Christianity". You're making an expressly theological argument here, in opposition to the practice and belief of those involved. I don't understand why you're doing it. It doesn't matter, at all, to your argument whether Mormonism is a non-Christian faith, a Christian heresy, or a Christian sect. All that matters here is that lots of people perceive Mormonism as a peculiar threat to "real" Christianity, and thus Romney's claims about his faith are particularly problematic, politically.

The propositional theological claims are beside the point. Why do you keep making them? You certainly aren't backing them up with anything approaching legitimate evidence.

Posted by DivGuy | February 18, 2007 2:19 PM

Among the more Fundamentalist Protestants one also hears the the Catholic Church is not Christian.

That's true, but I don't know any extremely fundamentalist Protestants personally -- I'm talking about the sort of liberal Protestants someone like me is likely to actually know. It's also, as I say, the position of the Catholic Church that Protestant and Eastern Orthodox people are Christians, whereas Mormons do not.

From where I sit, the key thing seems to be the status of scripture. Mormons, like Muslims, believe the Old and New Testaments are in some sense sacred texts, but flawed ones in need of correction by newer books (The Book of Mormon, the Koran) that correct the flawed revelation of the Christian Bible. It's one thing, in short, to have a disagreemnt about how to understand a common text and another thing to have a disagreement about which the key texts are.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | February 18, 2007 2:20 PM

Look here and you'll see that the United Methodist Church -- mainline Protestants -- agree with the Pope that a Mormon baptism doesn't count as a "Christian" baptism.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | February 18, 2007 2:24 PM

Any discussion of another prominent Mormon politician, Harry Ried?

Posted by M. Peachbush | February 18, 2007 2:24 PM

Any discussion of another prominent Mormon politician, Harry Ried?

Reid, like Romney before his presidential run, tends to avoid talking about his religion in political contexts so I don't have much to say about it. Obviously, though, I think Reid would have a serious problem running a presidential primary campaign. This would have less to do with him being a Mormon per se than with his (Mormonism-based, I think) pro-life political views.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | February 18, 2007 2:26 PM

Which, really, is what you would expect since Mormons deny the authority of the Christian Bible and the Christian conception of Jesus.

This is a terrible argument. Your argument already depends on the rejection of Mormon theological beliefs. They think their conception of Jesus is perfectly Christian. In order to argue that the Mormons "deny the Christian conception of Jesus" you need to already assume that the "Christian conception of Jesus" doesn't include Mormon conceptions of such. In other words, you've based your theological rejection of the Mormon understanding of Jesus on an already-made, unargued definitional claim that the Christian conception of Jesus categorically excludes Mormon conceptions.

To claim that the Mormon conception of Jesus is non-Christian requires, like, evidence and argument. It requires a theological definition of normative Christology, a description of Mormon Christology, and an explanation of how that difference makes a difference. you've done none of that. You've simply assumed the consequent.

Posted by DivGuy | February 18, 2007 2:27 PM

JonF: you make a relevant point. But it seems there is a little more to it than that.

See here:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_22_118/ai_77434990

Posted by Castprp | February 18, 2007 2:28 PM

Matt- Mormons don't believe that the Bible is "flawed". (they think, like all Christians do, that the old testiment is modified by the new, but since all christians think this this isn't special.) Mormons accept all the new testitment. They think it's _suplemented_ but their relationship to it is nothing at all like that of Islam. You're just completely wrong about this here.

Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | February 18, 2007 2:31 PM

It's one thing, in short, to have a disagreemnt about how to understand a common text and another thing to have a disagreement about which the key texts are.

The Greek Orthodox church includes in its canon 1 Esdras, Psalm 151, the Prayer of Manassah, and 3 and 4 Maccabees. The Catholic Church rejects these, as do most mainline Protestant churches. The Catholic Church includes Tobit, Ecclesiastes, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Judith and several others which most mainline Protestant churches reject.

The Ethiopic New Testament includes a Didaskalia and a Letter of Clement not found in most other Christian canons. Many Syriac churches reject Revelation, as well as some letters of John.

Canonization is not completely standard. You cannot make the empirical claim that differences in canon mean categorical differences in religion. You need to make a theological argument as to why some differences makes a difference and some don't.

Posted by DivGuy | February 18, 2007 2:35 PM

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html

Posted by Freddie | February 18, 2007 2:36 PM

As I meant to add to that comment-- I think that the thing that depresses me about this is the notion that there has to be a conflict between the religious and atheists, and more, that the religious or atheists are unified groups that hold identical beliefs. What I find troubling about what Joe Lieberman does say, and what a man like Dawkins says, is that there is a failure to recognize the enormous amount of nuance and individuality among religious people and among atheists. Once again, the real problem is ascribing individual beliefs to people based on vague group identification.

Posted by Freddie | February 18, 2007 2:42 PM

Off of the Mormon's are/are not heretics argument for a second.

What Romney is trying to do here is pick a fight with some "secular humanist" types to show the Religious right he's on their side. As Governor, btw, he rarely, if ever, brought up religion. There has to be some contradictory quote from his moderate past on this.

Posted by AJ | February 18, 2007 2:48 PM

Yeah, Matt is wildly off base comparing Mormonism to Islam. It's far, far more like the difference between Shia and Sunni forms of Islam— the latter form is radically incompatible with, but clearly twinned to, the precedent form.

I happen to think Mormons are not Christians, as their conception of the nature of God and man's relation to God is wildly inconsistent with the Nicene Creed in a way that's too involved to get into in a comments field.

Of course many Sunnis don't believe Shiites are Muslims at all, either.

Posted by guy | February 18, 2007 2:58 PM

I happen to think Mormons are not Christians, as their conception of the nature of God and man's relation to God is wildly inconsistent with the Nicene Creed in a way that's too involved to get into in a comments field.

Are Unitarians Christians? The reject Nicaea, too, though from a different angle. Not accepting the trinity seems like a pretty major thing.

Jehovah's Witnesses do, too.

I mean, we're all welcome to our theologies, but I think that when we start playing the orthodoxy/heresy game, we don't end up in good places.

Posted by DivGuy | February 18, 2007 3:02 PM

I don't consider Unitarians or Jehovah's Witnesses Christians, no. But that's my point, basically— unless you have some particular reason to care about this, pondering whether or not Romney is a Christian is about as silly as pondering whether the Supreme Leader is a Muslim. For all sociological and political purposes Romney is a Christian. There are very few people who wouldn't vote for him based on his take on the Nicene Creed, and those people wouldn't vote for him based on his past views on abortion and gay people anyway.

Posted by guy | February 18, 2007 3:07 PM

Yeah, Matt is wildly off base comparing Mormonism to Islam.

I got the analogy from Richard John Neuhaus:

closer parallel might be with Islam. Islam is a derivative of Judaism and Christianity. Like Joseph Smith, Muhammad in the seventh century claimed new revelations and produced in the Qur’an a "corrected" version of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, presumably by divine dictation. Few dispute that Islam is a new and another religion, and Muslims do not claim to be Christian, although they profess a deep devotion to Jesus. Like Joseph Smith and his followers, they do claim to be the true children of Abraham. Christians in dialogue with Islam understand it to be an interreligious, not an ecumenical, dialogue. Ecumenical dialogue is dialogue between Christians. Dialogue with Mormons who represent official LDS teaching is interreligious dialogue.

Admittedly, this comes from a theologically and politically conservative point of view. Maybe on a more liberal construal it doesn't hold up. I'm not a Christian myself, obviously, so perhaps I'm not the best to judge. I did take "world religions" at my Episcopal grade school where they taught Mormonism as a non-Christian (but related) faith.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | February 18, 2007 3:08 PM

Look here and you'll see that the United Methodist Church -- mainline Protestants -- agree with the Pope that a Mormon baptism doesn't count as a "Christian" baptism.

Hmmm. I was raised in the UMC, and back in the 1980s we were specifically taught in Sunday School that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians, albeit somewhat nutty ones. But I'm a lapsed member of the church, and it does seem that the official position may have changed.

As Gene O'Grady points out above, though, the question of whether any given denomination accepts baptisms performed by another is distinct from whether they consider the members of that church to be hellbound idolators.

Methodists generally place an emphasis on faith in Christ, rather than on dogmatic readings of scriptures and creeds. They tend to be ecumenically-minded and are far less likely than evangelicals or Catholics to get hung up on doctrinal disputes.

You may be right, though. I might be underestimating anti-Mormon sentiment.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | February 18, 2007 3:09 PM

I mean, we're all welcome to our theologies, but I think that when we start playing the orthodoxy/heresy game, we don't end up in good places.

Well, sort of, but nobody's talking about burning Mormons as heretics. There are lots of non-Christians -- Jews, Muslims, atheists -- in America and nobody burns us. Certainly I, as a non-Christian, don't mean it as an insult to say that somebody's religion is a non-Christian religion. It was my understanding that the majority of practicing Americans Christians don't consider Mormons to be Christians and that he therefore faced a Lieberman-like political situation.

Maybe someone will do an "are Mormons Christians?" poll.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | February 18, 2007 3:11 PM

Neuhaus is slightly to the right of God thelogically. I'll bet if you got him drunk enough he'd admit to not thinking Anglicans are Christians.

Posted by guy | February 18, 2007 3:12 PM

Yeah, Matt is wildly off base comparing Mormonism to Islam.

I think it's possible that we're missing the bigger picture: perhaps Romney, rather than Obama, is the Antichrist (or is it "anti-Christ"?).

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 18, 2007 3:12 PM

Certainly I, as a non-Christian, don't mean it as an insult to say that somebody's religion is a non-Christian religion.

Come on. Mormons see themselves as Christians. They are obviously going to take it as an insult if you claim that they are not Christians. Christianity is one of the major foundations of Mormon identity.

The argument that someone who claims Christianity is not "really" a Christian is absolutely an argument of orthodoxy and heresy. "Those who claim to be Christian but are not" can only be understood as heretics. You are arguing that Mormons are heretics, and you're obviously making an insulting claim.

It was my understanding that the majority of practicing Americans Christians don't consider Mormons to be Christians and that he therefore faced a Lieberman-like political situation.

This seems fair. I don't think the majority of practicing Christians hold particularly complex theological beliefs, and I don't think it'll be as big a deal as you think, but I could be wrong. Either way, sure, there are lots of Christians who deny that Mormons are Christians.

That is evidence that Mitt Romney may face difficulty in speaking about his religiosityi n the 2008 presidential race. This is not evidence that Mormons aren't Christians.

Posted by DivGuy | February 18, 2007 3:21 PM

Hopefully, Romney's candidacy and the recent blogging on religion
will help the public realize what a bunch of bunk this whole "Christian" nation is. Back in the day, Catholics were Catholics, Protestants were Protestants, and so on. Sure there is a shared history and beliefs but when you are using different bibles and have different views on salvation (not to mention think the other guy is going to burn in hell) the gap between "Christian" faiths is fairly large. These differences are partly why we have freedom of religion and separation of church and state.

Posted by deist | February 18, 2007 3:37 PM

The argument that Mormons are not Christians seems to have exactly as much validity as the argument -- generally made by radical fundamentalist protestants -- that Roman Catholics are not Christians.

Neither of these claims is baseless, as both religions certainly incorporate a lot of material that isn't found in the Bible, but they certainly aren't absolute. The fairest way to judge whether or not a person is Christian, I think, is to ask him.

Posted by PMC | February 18, 2007 3:37 PM

I should also add that I grew up in a conservative, heavily protestant Christian region of the country that also happened to have a large Mormon population. With the exception of borderline extremist protestant sects, virtually the entire religious community regarded Mormons as fellow Christians.

Posted by PMC | February 18, 2007 3:39 PM

While there are some extreme fundies who will want to reject anyone not talking the "born again Jesus is my personal Savior" talk most Christains I think are only going to care that Romney believes in God and Jesus and the Revealed Scripture. And are grown up enough to know that their own church has its oddities and tenets that they may not agree with.
Americans do not focus much on theologic niceties. We are going to hear a lot about how Mormons are Christians and the MSM is certainly not going to say that they aren't. That alone will really whittle down the "won't vote for a Mormon" number.
As Usual South Park has it down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6PBZIHjWb8
When I ask people about Mormons they seem to think first of big families and clean living and those missionaries and polygamy. More knowing chuckles than horror over the polygamy because they know its outlawed. The sacred underwear and golden plates thing, if they know about it, doesn't seem to much matter. And the Mormon backstory is too complicated for a 30 second attack ad.
My family is all hard core Southern Baptist rednecks from way back and they will vote Romney over Guilliani or McCain in a heartbeat. Divorce and serial marriage and a picture in drag are the real deal breakers. Brownback is just a big cypher so far and no way they are gonna stay home and give it to that devil woman... Lordy!

Posted by tiptap | February 18, 2007 3:46 PM

One last point. No more, I promise!

Every Mormon I've discussed the issue with takes the suggestion that Mormons are not Christians as a very, very serious insult. They don't like it a bit more than Catholics like being told that they belong to a pagan religion that worships Mary.

Posted by PMC | February 18, 2007 3:50 PM

most Christains I think are only going to care that Romney believes in God and Jesus and the Revealed Scripture..

I think this is exactly right. The fact is most people don't even know what their own theology is. You can't boil down "Mormons aren't Christians because they believe that man is become God through the power of Jesus and that God is not indivisible blah blah blah" into a neat talking point. The fact that even most religious people see Mormonism as a particularly quirky type of Protestantism (as I posted above those who really care about such things wouldn't have voted for him anyway) will save Romney, and is probably a good thing in its own right to boot. America: Too indifferent to be intolerant!

Posted by guy | February 18, 2007 3:54 PM

With the exception of borderline extremist protestant sects, virtually the entire religious community regarded Mormons as fellow Christians

You grew up in a much more tolerant place than I did, and I thought my childhood city was relatively tolerant. I never knew any (other?) Christians who thought Mormons were Christians; they were always thought of as polite and decent Scientologists.

I don't see why we debate this. He has to go through a Republican primary. If the evangelical base thinks he's a Christian, then he's a Christian in the only sense that matters to us.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 18, 2007 4:00 PM

Every Mormon I've discussed the issue with takes the suggestion that Mormons are not Christians as a very, very serious insult. They don't like it a bit more than Catholics like being told that they belong to a pagan religion that worships Mary.

This gets it exactly right. I'm not a believer any longer (as my handle indicates), but I still get pissed off when people suggest that Mormons aren't Christians. And when journalists and politicians start to debate theological purity as part of a run-up to a Presidential campaign, well, it strikes me as a little unseemly. Not that I'm going to vote for Romney anyway.

Posted by Jackmormon | February 18, 2007 4:07 PM

This gets it exactly right. I'm not a believer any longer (as my handle indicates), but I still get pissed off when people suggest that Mormons aren't Christians. And when journalists and politicians start to debate theological purity as part of a run-up to a Presidential campaign, well, it strikes me as a little unseemly. Not that I'm going to vote for Romney anyway.

Okay, fair enough. Not being a Christian, I don't really see "Mormons aren't Christians" as an insulting claims since I'm hardly going to take offense if someone says "Jews aren't Christians."

I suppose I'm primarily interested in the question of whether or not Evangelicals and conservative Catholics will see Romney as a Christian. People see to disagree about that, with some saying obviously yes and others saying obviously no.

As for debating Romney's theology being unseemly, I would just note that Mitt started it by saying religious faith should be a prerequisite for national office.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | February 18, 2007 4:19 PM

I doubt you'd get the same response from Christians about whether Mormons are of their number if you asked in a place where there is a strong historical Mormon presence,

Well, in rural and semirural Arizona, at least outside of the regions where the LDS is dominant, the view that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a cult was widespread twenty years ago, and my father has indicated that it's not yet let up. The beliefs in a hierarchy of deities and multiple segregated heavens were considered deal-breakers, even without getting into the secret sealing ceremonies. And Southern Baptists? Those that have come to dominate the Convention in recent years don't think "liberal" churches are Christian, let alone the Mormons and the Jehovah's Witnesses.

If the evangelical base thinks he's a Christian, then he's a Christian in the only sense that matters to us.

Certainly, if we realize that the converse holds true, as well:

"With the exception of borderline extremist protestant sects"

which defines the strongest footsoldier contingent of the modern Republican party. Governor Huckabee is an ordained Southern Baptist minister; someone should ask him if he thinks Mormons are Christians. The directness of his answer will speak volumes. And since an ordained Southern Baptist minister is in the race, fundamentalist Protestants have a ready-made alternative, one who talks all folksy while having a sincere hard-right agenda.

Posted by mds | February 18, 2007 4:26 PM

I'm always amused at X is not a member of Y discussions.

People trot out the most convoluted explanations (on either side), when in reality, it is simple. A statement from club Y, that X is not a member, is sufficient. This goes for old boy's clubs, the KKK, my household, and religions. That some who call themselves Christians include Mormons, and others don't, merely indicates that people use that word in different ways, so one has to parse what the speaker means when they say that word.

This may sound like parsing, but it really isn't. There is a firm foundation (with, say, a couple of thousand years of history) on which to base an awful lot of disagreement. As an athiest, I don't have a lot of stake in which mythology a candidate subscribes to, other than to be a little sad that subscribing to one or another seems to be required for office. I'd personally say, sure, let Mormon's call themselves Christians. Who cares? But then, a lot of people do seem to care, and I'm not in a member of their club, so if they want to exclude people, who am I to complain?

Posted by fishbane | February 18, 2007 4:44 PM

As for debating Romney's theology being unseemly, I would just note that Mitt started it by saying religious faith should be a prerequisite for national office.

Fair enough; Romney *is* a prat of the first order, after all.

Not being a Christian, I don't really see "Mormons aren't Christians" as an insulting claims since I'm hardly going to take offense if someone says "Jews aren't Christians."

Howsabout if Mormons around you started referring to you as a Gentile? Because we've been known to do that sometimes. I'd bet it would be funny the first couple of times you heard it, but then after a while---and particularly if you lived in Utah or somewhere with a similar high LDS density--it would get really creepy. It's about the power to name, really.

Posted by Jackmormon | February 18, 2007 4:50 PM

Question above: "Are Unitarians Christian?"
Here's the official answer: "Yes and no." http://www.uua.org/aboutuu/uufaq.html

Posted by KRadek | February 18, 2007 5:57 PM

A lot of what determines naming is the common understanding. And to most people, the word 'Christian' mean orthodox theology, not mormons or any other offshoots.

I think the Islam analogy is the most accurate.

Posted by yoyo | February 18, 2007 6:34 PM

It's not accurate at all. The reason Islam isn't a variant or strain of Christianity is that Muslims don't believe Jesus was the son of God, sent to redeem man from sin, etc. Mormons do, in fact, believe this (which most Christians accept as the core belief of their faith), it's just that they mean radically different things by "redeem man from sin," "God," etc., than mainline Christians do. I would argue this belief is so radically different that they are not exactly Christians, but much more so in the way Shiite Muslims would be said to be exactly Muslims, rather than in the way Scientologists are not Muslims. This is why the comparison to Islam is deeply misleading.

Posted by guy | February 18, 2007 6:45 PM

To pick up on a different comment in Matt's post, am I the only one who suspects that Lieberman's religion is insincere as well? I mean, if he really tried to live his life according to the teachings of his religion, he wouldn't be so callous about the value of human life in Iraq, would he?

My suspicion is that very few politicians are particularly religious. Why would they be? They just learn how to dupe people who care about a politician's religion into believing otherwise.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 18, 2007 7:11 PM

"To pick up on a different comment in Matt's post, am I the only one who suspects that Lieberman's religion is insincere as well? I mean, if he really tried to live his life according to the teachings of his religion, he wouldn't be so callous about the value of human life in Iraq, would he?"

Plenty of people sincerely believe that their religion dictates that other folks of other religions should die. That isn't an issue of sincerity of faith, but the content of that faith. Sure, you can come up with any number of Jewish, Christian or Muslim ideals that say you shouldn't go around killing people - but people can get pretty creative about reading around those passages of their holy books.

I, for example, don't at all doubt the sincerity of Bush's fiath. I do think that it is a strain that is sociopathic. As Bill Burroughs once advised, "If you're doing business with a religious son-of-a-bitch, get it in writing. His word isn't worth shit. Not with the good lord telling him how to fuck you on the deal"

Posted by vermin jones | February 18, 2007 10:10 PM

Mormons deny the authority of the Christian Bible and the Christian conception of Jesus.

Wrong and wrong. Mormons believe in the Christian Bible and the conception of Jesus described in the Bible.

Mormons, like Muslims, believe the Old and New Testaments are in some sense sacred texts, but flawed ones in need of correction by newer books (The Book of Mormon, the Koran) that correct the flawed revelation of the Christian Bible.

Wrong. The Bible is one of the four standard works, i.e. the sacred texts, of the Mormon faith. The others are the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants. The Book of Mormon doesn’t correct the flawed revelation of the Bible, it tells a complementary story set in a different hemisphere. You might be thinking of Joseph Smith’s minor amendments to the Bible, which Mormons themselves treat as footnotes to the King James version, footnotes that nobody reads.

As far as the Muslim/Mormon comparison, the key distinction between Mormons and Muslims in their relation to Christianity is that Muslims don’t claim to be Christians and Mormons do.

Posted by yave begnet | February 18, 2007 11:11 PM

Certainly I, as a non-Christian, don't mean it as an insult to say that somebody's religion is a non-Christian religion.

You may not mean it that way, but it will certainly be taken that way by Mormons. It’s like Democrat vs. Democratic party. As you said in another context, “To call someone by something other than the name he wishes to be called by is rude.” http://www.matthewyglesias.com/archives/2007/01/democrat_party/ The official name of the Mormon church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They put it in the title so people would understand that Mormons consider themselves to be Christians. Jackmormon and maybe others on this thread who’ve taken exception to your assertions about Mormons are probably lapsed Mormons like me who can’t stand Mitt Romney and don’t personally have much invested in the theology or the institution but still find something deeply irritating about casual assertions about the religion that turn out to be factually incorrect.

On the definitional question, it’s like white journalists speculating that Obama isn’t really black because his father was from Kenya, his mother was white, and he was raised by his white grandparents. Who gets to decide something like that? Most people would give Obama's opinion on the issue more weight than that of the white journalist.

Posted by yave begnet | February 18, 2007 11:17 PM

What is this - someone named JackMormon, who is no longer a member of the LDS, is upset by some blogger's inaccurate depiction of his former faith. That is ridiculous. He must be a Romney plant.

Posted by funny | February 19, 2007 3:43 AM

Who is to say who is a true follower of Christ except Christ Himself. Until that point, NO ONE should judge another's belief in Christ, no matter how different he is from you or I, or we keep the bigotry and discrimination going on and on and on and on, and then wonder why we're such a divided nation and religious group.

Posted by Dan | February 19, 2007 9:31 AM

funny -- I assure you, Jackmormon is not a Romney plant. Outsiders trying to define your faith or former faith is just irritating and rude.

Posted by Matt Weiner | February 19, 2007 12:14 PM

"Outsiders trying to define your faith or former faith is just irritating and rude."

Thats how christians feel about mormons trying to horn in on their name.

Posted by yoyo | February 19, 2007 1:11 PM

Matt Weiner - your sincerity while misdirected is appreciated
I was snidely alluding to the recent unpleasantries in regards to another religion.

Posted by funny (apparently not) | February 19, 2007 1:27 PM

Ah, probably didn't read that thread. Sorry.

yoyo, if that's so that's so, but it seems like none-of-the-aboves like Matt and myself should stay out of it. And surely the Christians who feel that way mean to be rude to the LDS.

Posted by Matt Weiner | February 19, 2007 1:35 PM

Only if it is inherently rude to be of a different religion from someone else...

Posted by yoyo | February 19, 2007 1:48 PM

Matt, you said it better than anyone could, including myself, with your last sentence "it doesn't try to replace it in the way that Mormonism does" regarding Christianity. Sure, they do consider themselves to be Christians, and they try to prove it with their pictures of Jesus on their walls. (See, I'm a Christian, can't you tell by my picture of Jesus?) I just do so love it when people (mostly who do not live among the majority Mormon theocracy as I do) try to explain Mormonism with cute little euphemisms. Aw, shucks, ma'am, Mormonism is just a little twisty different, so what's the big deal?

Try a sledghammer. Mormonism is a deeply authoritarian, male dominated religion that true Mormons do NOT dissent against if they want to keep their temple recommend and stay in the good graces of their neighbors. Can you spell ostracize? If the Church says ye shall hang a picture of Jesus, you damned well better because your neighbors are going to rat you out if you don't. And you'll be sitting in front of the authorities explaining yourself in no time flat.

There is a lot about the church history that remains hidden and there has been quite a lot of revisionist Mormon history lately. Mormons do everything at the behest of their leaders when asked, they know no other way (brainwashing, anyone?) So if you think Mitt's not going to be beholden to his church, better guess again. I see it playing out right now every day in Utah's state legislature. Good Mormons do what they're told.

The current Mormon President has made it his mission to mainstream Mormonism to make it more palatable to outsiders. Nobody hung a picture of Jesus in their homes until he came along. Before that it was always some Mormon prophet or Joseph Smith. Jesus and the cross were anathemas when I was a child. No ten commandments, but plenty of Mormon Word of Wisdom. No Palm Sundays, no Lent, no Christmas Eve services, no Christmas morning services (unless it's on Sunday), no Jesus on the cross who died for our sins, nothing that remotely resembles Christianity except for the passing of cubes of bread and itty bitty cups of water once a month. Oh, and those ubiquitis pictures of Jesus!

Posted by Mary M. Thompson | February 19, 2007 2:11 PM

Re; Mormonism is a deeply authoritarian, male dominated religion that true Mormons do NOT dissent against if they want to keep their temple recommend and stay in the good graces of their neighbors.

Hmm. Sounds like the Roman Catholic Church. And quite a few others as well (Southern Baptists,etc.) However things may have gotten a bit more liberal. My older step-sister is a Mormon. She is also a single mother (divorced) and a career woman. No one ostracizes her for not being barefoot and pregnant.

Re: No Palm Sundays, no Lent, no Christmas Eve services, no Christmas morning services

There are some Protestant churches which reject the traditional Christian holidays as manmade folllies too.

Posted by JonF | February 19, 2007 2:36 PM

They put it in the title so people would understand that Mormons consider themselves to be Christians.

Um, we could use the analogy of 'Concerned Women for America' here.

Let's just say that at this point in time, LDS members self-identify as Christian while being regarded, in essence, as heretical by other denominations. There's a similar spectrum in the Middle East that encompasses Ismailis, Alawites and Druze, and it's ultimately time that cements the distinction as much as theology. I'd locate the LDS somewhere around the same place on the spectrum as the Alawites, although this doesn't mean that Utah is just like Syria.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 19, 2007 6:41 PM