The full text of this article can be found at Deseret News online.

Brother Ash is author of the book Shaken Faith Syndrome: Strengthening One’s Testimony in the Face of Criticism and Doubt, as well as the book, of Faith and Reason: 80 Evidences Supporting the Prophet Joseph Smith. Both books are available for purchase online through the FAIR Bookstore.

Tell your friends about the Mormon FAIR-Cast. Share a link on your Facebook page and help increase the popularity of the Mormon FAIR-Cast by subscribing to this podcast in iTunes, and by rating it and writing a review.

Unfortunately, Ms. Erickson has been given yet more air time on CNN to prattle away on the nefarious machinations of the “Mormon Church” and Mitt Romney, the prominent Mormon candidate for the presidency. Fortunately, a voice of reason, in the embodiment of CNN Belief-Blog co-editor Eric Marrapodi, was allowed to participate in the discussion between Erickson and Tim Foreman, who challenged Erickson to show a single example of a Mormon making a negative political policy choice on the basis of his commitment to Mormonism. (Not surprisingly, Erickson failed to provide any such example.)

One of the arguments Ms. Erickson used in her assault on the faith of the Saints and Governor Romney was the claim that Mormons are on a campaign to dominate the world (why else are there any Mormons who hold political offices?) and that according to Mormon doctrine the second coming of Jesus will include the establishing of a Mormon totalitarian regime based out of Jackson County, Missouri. And if that isn’t enough to disqualify Romney or any other Mormon from being president, also remember that Mormons, including Romney, believe they will become gods and have their own planet! I was especially offended at this misrepresentation of my faith. Only one planet? Egoistical/self-aggrandizeing Mormon that I am, I am not shooting low for only one planet but a universe of endless worlds to populate through endless Celestial sex with my many goddess wives. Or at least that is what Ed Decker has repeated told me through his sensationalistic video The God Makers. Considering that Ed Decker is one of Ms. Erickson’s primary sources on Mormonism, I am surprised that she conservatively restricted Mormon aspirations of godly dominion to only one planet in the hereafter. Get your facts straight, Ms. Erickson!

This is the second time that CNN, a respected news agency, has provided precious air time for a crank to spout off nonsense against the Church of Jesus Christ. Hopefully Ms. Erickson has finally exhausted her time with CNN. We need less sensationalism and more serious journalism on the relationship between religion and modern politics. And we need it now especially with this upcoming election, wherein we have not one, but two potential Mormon candidates for the presidency. If ever there was a time when we as a people should look at the interplay between religious values and political policy that time is now. Ms. Erickson has now demonstrated twice that she cannot provide that nuanced and informed investigation. As such, we are compelled to look to others to answer this pertinent question.

informal having or showing qualities associated with Christians, esp. those of decency, kindness, and fairness.

noun a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.[1]

A few weeks ago CNN published an interview with Tricia Erickson, a dedicated Evangelical critic of Mormonism, wherein it was repeatedly affirmed that neither Mitt Romney nor the Church he belongs to is authentically Christian. On Sunday, July 17, 2011 the Deseret News printed an article that reported how “‘Fox & Friends’ co-host Ainsley Earhardt said Mitt Romney was not a Christian during her program this morning.” The pertinent statement by Ms. Earhardt, as reported by the Deseret News, is as follows:

“Can (Gov. Rick Perry) get in and raise money with Mitt Romney? That I don’t know,” said host Dave Briggs.

“There are a lot of Republicans who think he can’t,” replied co-host Clayton Morris.

“Well the Christian coalition — I think (Perry) can get a lot of money from that base because (of) Romney obviously not being a Christian,” said co-host Earhardt. “Rick Perry, he’s always on talk shows — on Christian talk shows — he has days of prayer in Texas.”

I am puzzled by this statement. What is it that is so “obvious” that proves Mitt Romney is not a Christian? Presumably Ms. Earhardt has in mind the fact that Romney is a Latter-day Saint and because Latter-day Saints are not Christians ergo Mitt Romney is not a Christian.

This of course brings up the question as to whether or not Mormons are Christians. As Professor Stephen E. Robinson has written[2], there are typically six categories that the arguments of excluding Mormons from being Christian fall under, viz.,

1. The Exclusion by Definition (Mormons are excluded from being Christian because of ad hoc idiosyncratic definitions of “Christian” and “Christianity” offered by sectarians who deviate from the standard English lexical definition.)

2. The Exclusion by Misrepresentation (“Latter-day Saints… [are] judged to be non-Christian for things they do not believe, whether these things are fabrications, distortions, or anomalies.”[3])

3. The Exclusion by Name-Calling (Hurling unsavory epithets such as “cult” at the Church in an attempt to alienate or estrange outsiders and shock members. As with the “Exclusion by Definition”, in most cases the epithets are idiosyncratic definitions that go beyond the accepted standard English definition.)

4. The Historical or Traditional Exclusion (Mormons do not accept certain “historical” or “traditional” Christian beliefs or practices, and thus are not Christian.)

5. The Canonical or Biblical Exclusion (Mormons have an open canon of scripture, and accept additional books as canonical which are not accepted by other Christian denominations. Thus, Mormons are not Christian.)

6. The Doctrinal Exclusion (Mormons do not accept “orthodox” Christian doctrines, and hold to “heretical” views of the nature of God and scripture, to name only two. Therefore, Mormons are not Christian.)

The question as to whether or not Mormons are Christians is a horse that has been beaten mercilessly in recent years, and so I do not wish to launch into a full exploration at this point. Suffice it to say that the Latter-day Saints are positively appalled at this accusation, and have responded vigorously to critical arguments[4]. However, I do wish to ask a few questions for discussion that I feel are pertinent to this debate.

1. First and foremost, what is “Christianity” and who therefore can rightly be called “Christian”?  On what basis/criteria does one define these terms?

1. Who is allowed to define who is Christian and who isn’t? By what authority or on what grounds does this individual/group/Church, etc., claim the right to be the final arbiters in deciding who and who isn’t Christian?

2. Mormons are accused of not being Christian because they do not accept “orthodox” beliefs. What is “orthodoxy” and who is allowed to define “orthodoxy”? On what basis was this definition of “orthodoxy” established?

3. Mormon doctrine is often alleged to be contrary to “biblical teaching”. Who has the right to establish what “biblical doctrine” is? By what authority is such established? What methodological and/or exegetical tools were employed to establish this standard?

4. Is doctrinal difference enough to exclude Mormons from being Christians? What about Jesus’ teaching that his true disciples [i.e. Christians] are those who keep his commandments and love their neighbors (John 13:34-35)? In other words, is any weight to be given to Jesus’ criteria for true and false prophets (or, in this case, disciples) as found in Matthew 7:15-20 when it comes to evaluating who is a Christian and who isn’t?

5. If Mormons are to be excluded from being Christian because they do not conform to “traditional” or “historic” Christianity, then what of those disciples of Christ who antedate the arrival of these “traditional” doctrines (eg. Nicene Trinitarianism, creatio ex nihilo, etc.)? Are they likewise not Christian? [Hint: This is a question about maintaining consistent standards in evaluating who is and who isn't a Christian]

These are some questions that I put forth for discussion. Those who wish to exclude the Latter-day Saints as being Christian must, I contend, first adequately answer these questions.

Notes:

[1]: Oxford American Dictionary, s.v. Christian.

[2] Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christian? (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1991).

[3]: Robinson, Are Mormons Christians?, 21, emphasis in original.

[4]: See especially Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Words Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1992). This wonderful text is available online at the website of the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. See here.

I intended to publish some remarks on the comments section of the CNN webpage, but my verbosity got the better of me and my reply was too long. Thankfully I have another avenues in which I can express my thoughts. What follows are my thoughts as they were intended on being published on the CNN webpage, with minor changes in formatting.

–

I usually don’t comment on blogs or websites such as this, but I feel compelled to relate some of my thoughts regarding Ms. Erickson’s unfortunate remarks directed against Mormonism.

For full disclosure I am a faithful Latter-day Saint. I was born and raised in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and made a conscious commitment to my religion as a young teenager when I began to seriously investigate not only my faith but other religions. I recently returned from my LDS mission in New England, where happily most people are not as unpleasant towards my faith as Ms. Erickson is. I have participated in the ordinances of the temple repeatedly. I attend my Church services weekly. And I have extensively studied not only the history and doctrine of my faith from both Mormon and non-Mormon perspectives but also other religious traditions such as Judaism and Islam. I am a student at Brigham Young University and am majoring in Ancient Near Eastern Studies, with an emphasis in Hebrew and the Old Testament. I thought I would get all of this out of the way so that nobody wonders about my background.

First, despite her denial to the contrary, Ms. Erickson’s attitude towards Mormonism is thoroughly anti-Mormon. She is egregiously twisting many tenets of Mormon doctrine, most noticeably the Mormon doctrine of deification (which, incidentally, finds remarkable harmony with the early Christian doctrine of theosis) to suit her polemical agenda. Her description of the ordinances of the temple is not only disrespectful towards Mormons, who hold these ordinances in the highest sanctity, but also is saturated with lurid sensationalism that is only appropriate for yellow journalism or a trashy tabloid. As Professor Bushman noted in his response, Ms. Erickson has stripped the Mormon temple ceremony out of its sacred context and warped it into a frightful, but inaccurate, caricature.

Second, her citing of Ed Decker as an authority on Mormonism is quite astonishing. It is not an exaggeration to say that her citing Decker to explain Mormonism is just as misguided as going to a neo-Nazi to seek out reliable information on Judaism or a member of the KKK to get an objective portrayal of blacks. In fact, Ed Decker’s outrageous distortion of Mormonism is so repellent that nobody less than career anti-Mormons Jerald and Sandra Tanner of Utah Lighthouse Ministry (certainly no friends of the Mormon Church) condemned Decker for his irresponsibility and unfounded, repugnant, and salacious attacks against the LDS Church. Decker has zero credibility, and his pseudo-scholarly miasmal book “The God Makers” has been debunked by Mormon apologists. For Ms. Erickson to rely on Decker as an authority on Mormonism is shocking, not to mention unfortunate, and betrays her anti-Mormon tendencies.

Third, Ms. Erickson’s disdain for other American religious minorities, particularly Muslims, is rank with bigotry.

Fourth, her continual spewing of words such as “cult”, “indoctrinate”, “dogma”, and characterizing Mormonism as “a complete lie” compromises her objectivity and her qualification to be a commentator on religious matters.

Someone else here has drawn attention to Dr. Hugh Nibley’s wonderful essay “How to Write an Anti-Mormon Book (A Handbook for Beginners)”. Those curious to see whether Ms. Erickson’s denial of being an anti-Mormon is legitimate should compare her remarks here with what Dr. Nibley has written. You can read it online for free here:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=77&chapid=973

Finally, may I express a word to the editors of CNN? Please be more selective with whom you decide to give airtime on your otherwise wonderful and informative website. Ms. Erickson, I am afraid, has no real contribution to the discussion of the relationship between religion and politics in our modern society. Her polemical ranting is below CNN’s standards of journalism.

“The bedrock moral issue for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is how we treat each other as children of God.”

I was reminded when I read this statement of a passage in the New Testament. In Luke 10, we read the parable of the Good Samaritan. Personally, I don’t believe it is a parable at all. It follows a pattern that I recognize elsewhere as a legal debate in which a question is asked, and then various examples are raised in which the question might occur – and those examples move from the most difficult and unusual to the most common and immediate [2]. Our narrative starts with this introduction:

And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? (vss. 25-26)

What is the purpose of this exchange? In such a setting the lawyer would approach Jesus and ask a question. The lawyer is challenging Jesus. He already has an answer to the question (it says he was there to tempt Jesus and not to learn), and the underlying supposition is that he will try to embarrass Jesus or show him up by getting a response and then giving a better one. So Jesus responds to the question with a question of his own (part of the normal tactics for these discussions) – Jesus asks, how do you understand the law? And so the lawyer responds:

And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor? (vss. 27-29)

So the lawyer provides a very good answer (one in fact that Jesus himself uses in response to the priests and elders – Matt. 22:36-40). But, the lawyer wants further the discussion (he still has a trap in mind), so he asks Jesus who that neighbor is. Why is this question important? Much of the Law of Moses is dedicated to distinguishing between Israel and everyone else. Different rules applied when dealing with an Israelite than with strangers or foreigners. Again, we assume that the lawyer has some idea of how he would answer this question, but the question he is asking is where do we draw the line? This is a question about exclusion. Who does the Law of Moses apply to?

How does Jesus respond? He provides a test case for the lawyer to consider:

And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and who wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. (vss. 30-31)

So, what is the nature of the question? A man traveling from Jerusalem could be just about anybody. The venue itself doesn’t suggest whether or not that man was an Israelite. He has no clothes (which presumably could function to help identify the man). But more than this, the one indicator that would indicate that he could be an Israelite is now in plain sight. Is he circumcised? If he wasn’t, the priest could leave him there and the stipulation in Leviticus 19:18 (to love your neighbor as yourself) wouldn’t apply. Even if he were circumcised, there wouldn’t necessarily be resolution. After all, the Samaritans were circumcised as well, and they certainly traveled the road between Jericho and Jerusalem. The man is half dead, (unconscious) so he cannot simply be asked if he is an Israelite.

As a priest, he might consider the implications of Leviticus 21:1-4 which makes it sinful for the priest to touch a corpse. There were other legal considerations, and of all the Israelites, the question in the case of the Priest would be the most difficult, since he would have the most rules to work his way through when weighing the different outcomes. Jesus has then posed his lawyer challenger with a difficult legal question to be figured out – is the priest justified in moving to the other side of the road and ignoring the man in the ditch? And the lawyer, who has, himself, come to challenge Jesus will see this as an appropriate challenge.

Jesus follows this up then with the next case to be considered. It is the same situation, but with a Levite, the cultic responsibilities are a bit less than that of the priest (and so a little less difficult to determine a resolution):

And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. (vs. 32)

The Levite has similar concerns to the priest (although the issues with Leviticus 21:1-4 could be removed from the equation although other similar restrictions like Numbers 19 would still apply). In fact, from the perspective of the lawyer, this is the distinction that Jesus seems to want to introduce, going from most complex to less complex, to simplest situation. So the implied question too here is, was the Levite also justified in ignoring the man (in not applying Lev. 19:18).

Finally, we get to a third test case. At this point, the lawyer is expecting the introduction of the Israelite with the least restriction – the common Israelite. After all, he still understands that we are asking the question – is the man in the ditch the neighbor to the priest, to the Levite and now, potentially to the common Israelite. And here, Jesus pulls the rug out from under the lawyer’s feet:

But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. (vss. 33-34)

Jesus has completely altered the discussion. Of course, it is completely natural that a Samaritan would walk down that road (we have already determined that it is this issue which in part forms the basis for discussion – was the half dead man at the side of the road an Israelite or a Samaritan?) And the Samaritan acts out of compassion (and not just a little compassion – the details lead us to understand that what he did was neither quick or cheap). Now we could suppose for a moment that Jesus could return to the original discussion that the lawyer has envisioned. He could ask, “If the Samaritan acts with compassion on the man, are the Priest and the Levite still justified in not treating the man as a neighbor?”, but instead he asks the lawyer:

Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise. (vss. 36-37)

So we start by asking who a neighbor is, and we end up by illustrating what a neighbor does. And in the process, Jesus has challenged the whole legalistic process of identifying a neighbor. And rather than contributing to a legalistic identification, he has made a neighbor into someone who helps those in need. In a sense, Jesus hasn’t embarrassed the lawyer by his questions, he has embarrassed the Law of Moses.

And this brings me back to the official position of the Church as presented in the statement released by the Public Affairs Office. I think that too many people in our society today are interested in being the lawyer. They want to have lines drawn. They want to know exactly where their obligation to love our neighbors as ourselves ends. They want to do this in the abstract – to walk by on the other side of the road so to speak so that they aren’t faced with the reality that their decisions are creating. As the statement notes:

“The history of mass expulsion or mistreatment of individuals or families is cause for concern especially where race, culture, or religion are involved.  This should give pause to any policy that contemplates targeting any one group, particularly if that group comes mostly from one heritage.”

We can focus on what might or might not be legal (and on occasion we may even find ourselves in positions to change or affect what might or might not be legal). We can engage in sophistry – we might suggest that because this statement hasn’t come from the First Presidency in General Conference that it isn’t something we need to thoughtfully consider when we become engaged in issues of immigration. In doing this, we, like the lawyer in Luke 10, are simply looking for ways to exclude. Rather than seeing a need for compassion and acting on it, we first wish to determine if our immigrants are worthy of our help. Like the followers of Mosaic Law, we wish to interpret and reinterpret in an ever more detailed fashion so that we can constantly narrow that which requires us to act.

No matter what side of the political spectrum we sit on, our responses to the issues of immigration that challenge us today should be dominated foremost by the issues that the leaders of the Church have raised and presented to us for our consideration: a respect for every member of the human family as children of God, compassion, a respect for family, and a commitment to law.

[1] http://newsroom.lds.org/article/immigration-church-issues-new-statement

[2] This interpretation is adapted from Philip F. Esler, “Jesus and the Reduction of Intergroup. Conflict: the Parable of the Good Samaritan in the light of. Social Identity Theory,” Biblical Interpretation 4 (2000)

Runtime:

41:56

Download:

To download, right click this link and select “Save link as…” or download in iTunes here.

Support FAIR:

FAIR relies on contributions from readers and listeners. To help support FAIR, make a donation today.

William Schryver’s presentation on the Kirtland Egyptian Papers received some press before the conference, and did not disappoint. You can view it here. (A browser plug-in may be required.)

There have been articles about many of the presentations published in Mormon Times, Deseret News, and LDS Church News:

• FAIR conference: Same-sex marriage and the role of religion
• FAIR conference: Secret Mormon codes and Egyptian papers
• FAIR conference: LDS doctrine clear on divinity of one God
• FAIR conference: ‘Gender equality is the brick of Zion,’ speaker says
• FAIR conference: What if the U.S. president were a Mormon?
• FAIR conference: Joseph Smith’s discovery of ancient patterns
• FAIR Conference: Roper’s take on Book of Mormon geography
• Mormons need to work to increase favor
• FAIR conference: Defend the Book of Mormon by studying names, origins
• Nibley editor says scholar was bolstered by research
• ‘Be Ready’ to Defend Faith

Transcripts will be posted at http://www.fairlds.org when they are ready. MP3s and DVDs will be made available for purchase at the FAIR bookstore.

1. Marriage is society’s mechanism to regulate and ameliorate the consequences of passion (that is, children). Even in our contraceptive culture there are many unintended births. Marriage law isn’t to make all sex procreative, but only seeks to encourage that man-woman sex occur within marriage as a protection when it is procreative.
2. There is no procreation requirement of marriage because government has not felt that it was their place to ask.
3. During centuries marriage has encompassed the central facts of child-bearing and child-rearing and laws have been designed to regulate entry into and continuation of the child-centered institution. This has continued without a specific request that parents declare any intentions about children.

Regardless of the claims that no harm would be done with same-sex marriages, there would be significant harm to the understanding and nature of marriage and to the usefulness of that institution for society’s goals.

During the election, there was even an anti-Mormon commercial that shows Mormon Missionaries invading a home and pawing through women’s underwear to find a marriage certificate to tear up.

Some have commented that the ex-Mormon community has used the cover of the election to strike some blows against the Church.

On the positive side, Church Leaders in other faiths have come out in our defense.

I thought one of the more interesting ant-Mormon rants came from actress-comedian Rosanne Barr.

I thought I would post a portion of it here as some of you might have thoughts on this, as well as thoughts on where this all might lead.

They have crossed the line between church and state and it will be the issue of gay marriage which they so fiercely oppose (as they oppose women’s rights and the rights of child sex abuse victims with their fake pro-family bullcrap legislations) that will reclassify this “church” as the political action committee that it is, and therefore make it ineligible for tax exempt status! they intend the complete overthrow of the us government. they intend to destroy civil liberties and institute taliban like polygamy and child marriage. They hate our country, and want to destroy it’s constitution. This they do while paying not one cent for the firemen the police the teachers the roads the parks, the hospitals. they build their own infrastructure with your tax money.
The old women are encouraged to be self righteous haters of young women, and to demand forced pregnancies as a tactic of control for young girls who are traded like cattle and increasingly these days, not even given birth certificates! Listen up liars thieves whores and satan worshipping anti-christ- you are going to burn in hellfire and damnation unless you repent of your evil sins and choose ye this day to harken unto TRUTH!!! the truth is the truth and there is no higher truth than truth! this is the truth…

On one hand, I had to laugh about what was written. On the other hand, I had to wonder if the ignorance was real or contrived. Anytime that such bigoted language is used, it gives me pause and makes me wonder where we are going in our society.

The Church issued the following statement today:

It is disturbing that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is being singled out for speaking up as part of its democratic right in a free election.

Members of the Church in California and millions of others from every faith, ethnicity and political affiliation who voted for Proposition 8 exercised the most sacrosanct and individual rights in the United States — that of free expression and voting.

While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process.

Once again, we call on those involved in the debate over same-sex marriage to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility towards each other. No one on either side of the question should be vilified, harassed or subject to erroneous information.

The Church has taken quite a bit of heat in some quarters regarding its stance relative to Proposition 8 in California. I know and support the call from the Church for members to help pass the proposition. I also know several faithful members who take exception to the Church making such a call. (Of course, a few other faithful members may take exception to characterizing those exception-taking members as “faithful.” So be it; that’s a nit I am not willing or worthy to pick.)

What I take exception with is the troublesome efforts of one Nadine Hansen, an attorney from Cedar City, Utah, who created the website Mormonsfor8.com. The domain registration for Mormonsfor8 is “private,” meaning that Hansen has sought to protect her identity through the registration. She has, however, allowed her responsibility for the website to be spotlighted in dozens of newspaper articles, such as this one.

Even though the website and Hansen profess “neutrality” in the struggles for and against Proposition 8, it is somewhat telling that the she operates no balancing website called “Catholicsfor8″ or “Mormonsagainst8.” The only demographic and position targeted by the site is Mormons, and only if they have donated to the campaign for a proposition with which she disagrees.

Hardly seems neutral to me.

Hansen is no stranger to this topic, however. She long ago took a position in this area. She recounts some of her efforts in her 2008 Sunstone Symposium presentation.

So what do I find troubling about the Mormonsfor8 website? Simply that it targets individuals and invites others to identify individuals’ religious affiliation. What does such an affiliation have to do with the efforts around Proposition 8? Should it matter of a proponent of the proposition was Baptist? Should it matter if an opponent was tall? Or a lawyer? Or a journalist? Would there be an outcry if someone created a website called “Blacksfor8″ or “Gaysagainst8″? If there would be, why is there no outcry over a site designed to identify all the donors in favor of Proposition 8 who are Mormon?

Apparently the effort is appreciated for exactly what it is by some people, however. In a recent post on The Daily Kos one correspondent provided a link to Mormonsfor8 and suggested that people “gather dirt” on all the Mormon donors so that it could be used against those people and against the Proposition 8 proponents. There is at least anecdotal evidence that has been coming in to FAIR that some people are doing just that—using the information on Mormonsfor8 to identify the donors, contact them, and intimidate or threaten them. Even some death threats have been proffered.

If Hansen had any real concern for individuals, she should take down her site, and do it right away, before the election and before some idiot uses her information to actually harm those who don’t agree with Hansen’s moral stance.

I should also note that I find it interesting that an attorney—an officer of the court—would initiate and operate a website which can only have, as its implicit purpose, the targeting of a specific religious group and the suppression of donations by potential future donors from that group. I’m not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that religious affiliation is a private matter and “outting” that affiliation may have legal consequences.

Anyway, the next 8 days should be interesting, to say the least.

-Allen

Even more recently, a voter petition to amend the California constitution was approved in California and will be on the ballot this fall. If approved, the constitution will be amended to state that marriage in California is between a man and woman. It would effectively override the ruling of the California Supreme Court.

The LDS Church has issued a letter to the Saints in California, seeking their active participation in getting the amendment approved by the voters. The letter represents a real threat to supporters of same sex marriage in California because, as was the case a few years back when a similar voter initiative was on the ballot, LDS members in California are numerous, organized, and have to the potential to swing the vote in favor of the amendment.

Enter Mr. Jeffrey S. Nielsen. I do not know Mr. Nielson except that he was a professor of some sort at BYU a year or two ago. I know that he published some remarks in the local paper which essentially took LDS leadership to task for their stance on the issue of gay marriage. He then feigned shock and surprise when his superiors at BYU informed him that his services were no longer needed or desired.

Now, Mr. Nielsen has returned, issuing an “Open Letter to California Mormons” which he hopes will be published in California papers on the same Sunday the letter from the First Presidency is scheduled to be read. Quite frankly, the sum of his letter doesn’t really interest me. It represents nothing more than familiar, emotion-based arguments that I’ve seen many times before. Long on feelings, short on facts. However, as I read the letter, one sentence caught my eye. Mr. Nielsen states: “If anyone could give me a single reasonable argument against marriage equality in our civil society, which doesn’t make fallacious appeals to tradition, misplaced appeals to religious authority, or make some ridiculous claim about nonhuman animals, then I would like to hear it. So far, no one has been able to present me with even a single justifiable reason.”

I find this assertion highly interesting on several levels. First, it seems to me to exhibit an exceptional arrogance, as if the arguments which he espouses are unassailable. I am lawyer by profession, and I learned early on that few, if any, positions are unassailable. Second, I am concerned at the way Mr. Nielsen simply rejects certain argumentative foundations out of hand. “Fallacious appeals to tradition?” I’m not sure what that means. Certainly, an argument cannot be won on the basis of an appeal to tradition. However, it should be recognized that traditions usually become ensconced as “traditions” because they have passed the test of time and we humans, by trial and error, have learned that certain traditions serve a valuable protective role for society.

Be that as it may, I will indulge Mr. Nielsen and refrain from such appeals.

Before I begin, it is probably best that I state my personal stance on the issue of same sex marriage. I am a “TBM,” and as such I obviously have several deeply held moral objections to homosexual conduct. That being said, I do not believe that homosexuality represents a “choice,” rather, I believe that homosexuality is caused by a complex interaction of genes and environment which we, at this point, do not understand. I do not favor same sex marriage. However, it is my stated belief that if the citizens of a certain state feel that they wish to extend the benefits and privileges to same sex partners, that is their legal right, and while I think it makes for poor public policy, the right to enact bad public policy rests with us all. I do, however, vehemently object to imposition of same sex marriage on a populace via judicial fiat.

On to the argument then. The fundamental question, as I see it, is this: Does a state have the right to favor one type of relationship over another? I believe the answer is unequivocally “yes” and I shall explain why. I believe that there does exist a valid and legally defensible argument that refusing to grant public/governmental sanction to same-sex marriages is in the public interest. My argument is based on principles of law and sound public policy and makes no reference to “morals,” “tradition” or “religious authority.”

The argument essentially goes like this:

There is no question that the state (meaning a democratically elected government) has the right to try to encourage behaviors that are beneficial to the state while simultaneously trying to discourage behaviors that are not. This fact is so ingrained into our governmental fabric that no one even notices it any longer. However, some concrete examples are called for.

It is an established fact that home ownership is good for the community. It has been shown that home ownership (versus renting) provides benefits to the family, children and the community, such as increased education for children, lower teen pregnancy rates, a higher lifetime annual income for children, lower crime rates, etc. [See several studies located at http://www.realtor.org/library/library/fg302. Also see William M. Rohe, Shannon Van Zandt and George McCarthy, The Social Benefits and Costs of Homeownership: A Critical Assessment of the Research, Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, October 2001 (stating that "Strong and consistent evidence indicates that homeowners are more likely to: a) be satisfied with their homes and neighborhoods; participate in voluntary and political activities; and c) stay in their homes longer, contributing to neighborhood stability).]

However, the state cannot force people to buy homes rather than rent. Therefore, in order to encourage this type of behavior, the state has granted to home owners a whole series of financial “benefits” designed to encourage people to buy and own homes. For example, there is the mortgage write-off on your taxes and there is also the fact that the sale of your first home is exempt from capital gains taxes up to half a million dollars.

Of course, this raises the question: is this fair? I did not own a home for the first 13 years of my marriage. I was unable to claim to the same tax and financial benefits as others who owned homes. This was due mostly to my financial situation: I was simply unable to claim those benefits. Nevertheless, there is no question that the state had every right to encourage home ownership in the form that they did, despite the fact that it appears to discriminate against large section of the society.

Another example: Military service. The state long ago learned that conscripted military service is simply not very efficient and the soldiers it creates are not nearly as reliable or dedicated as those whose service is gained via voluntary sign ups. So, in order to encourage voluntary enlistment, the state began to offer a whole series of benefits to those willing to join. Thus, veterans get free life-time health care at VA hospitals, access to low-rate loans for college, subsidized housing, vehicles, etc.

None of this is available to the public at large. In fact, in my case, even if I wanted to access it, I could not since my poor eyesight alone would disqualify me from military service. Thus, the government is again granting benefits to a certain segment of the population which are not available to the vast majority.

So, the question is, does the government have a vested interest in “promoting” heterosexual marriage over “same sex” marriage. The answer is, clearly, yes.

Why? What does heterosexual marriage provide the state that same-sex marriage does not? Well, that question is easy to answer. In fact, heterosexual marriage provides a full range of primary and secondary benefits to the state that same sex marriage does not.

The most obvious benefit is that heterosexual marriages provide the state with a steady supply of new citizens. This may sound odd, but it is not. In fact, recently commentators have noted that several European countries are now facing severe societal problems due to the fact that their citizens simply aren’t reproducing at sustainable rates. (See Robert Samuelson, “The End of Europe,” The Washington Post, Wednesday, June 15, 2005; Page A25.)

This fact alone would justify the state in favoring heterosexual marriages over same-sex marriages. Not because same sex marriages are inherently “bad” or “evil” but simply because same sex marriages do not provide the same benefit to society and the community that heterosexual marriages do.

The obvious objection is that some heterosexuals who cannot reproduce are still allowed to marry (young couples who chose not to have children, infertile couples, post-menopausal women, etc). My response is that in the case of a couple who simply choose not to have children, they can (and almost invariably do) change their minds. In the case of infertility, science is advancing so rapidly in this area that women who only 5 or 10 years ago couldn’t dream of bearing children now have a very realistic hope of doing so. Science is also pushing back the age of menopause, making it possible for women to bear children well into their 40′s, and in some cases even into their fifties and sixties. (See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13801920/).

Furthermore, the “exceptions” to the general procreational rule cited above represent what in legal parlance is termed an “argument from the margins.” Such an argument occurs when a general rule is stated (the state sanctions marriage because it wants people to procreate). Those who oppose this view then seek to find any “exceptions” to this general rule (infertile couples, post-menopausal women, etc.) and then claim that since such people are also allowed to “marry” the general rule is invalid. However, this “argument from the margins” assumes a sort of argumentational purity and consistency which are simply foreign to public policy arguments and which are not required by Equal Protection jurisprudence. In short, the “exceptions” do not swallow the rule.

Second, this objection doesn’t recognize that heterosexual marriage itself, apart from its procreational aspects, offers other benefits to the state which same-sex marriages, especially male/male marriages, do not. It has long been recognized that “marriage” has a domesticating effect on heterosexual men that makes them less “wild” (for lack of a better word, perhaps “undisciplined” would be better) and more responsible. Men are, by nature, programmed toward promiscuity. Heterosexual marriage tends to greatly lessen the tendency (and it is only a tendency) for promiscuity in heterosexual men, a great benefit to the state. However, same-sex marriage (especially male/male relationships) do not receive this same benefit. As has already been noted, male homosexuals are known, as a general rule, to be highly promiscuous. [See, for example, H. Meyer-Balburg et. al., "Sexual Risk Behavior, Sexual Functioning and HIV-Disease Progression in Gay Men," Journal of Sex Research 28, 1 (1991): 3-27; G. Rotello, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men (New York: Dutton, 1997).]

Moreover, the data from countries where gay marriage has been sanctioned for some time shows that marriage has no appreciable effect on this. A recent study from the Netherlands (where gay-marriage has been the norm for several years now) showed that in the first year of “marriage” alone, both partners had, as an average, eight extramarital “affairs.” Indeed, many gay-activists groups have freely admitted that promiscuity is simply part and parcel of the “gay” lifestyle. [See Maria Xiridou, et. al. "The Contribution of Steady
and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection Among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam," AIDS 17, 7 (2003): 1029-1038; David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984).]

Of course, part of the argument in favor of same sex marriage is constitutional, i.e., that the state is required to give gays access to marriage under both the “Equal Protection” clause and also under the “Due Process” clause. These arguments are highly flawed, however. Legally, the state is under no obligation whatsoever to offer sanctioned marriages to anyone. In other words, if the state decided tomorrow that state-sanctioned marriage had simply become too much of a burden and was draining too many resources, it could, theoretically, discontinue ALL civil marriages and simply state that, “The state will no longer sanction marriages of any sort. Period.”

The state could do this, and some states (notably Wyoming) have even toyed with the idea of doing so.

What prior federal court cases (notably the Loving decision) have stated is that If the State is going to offer sanctioned marriages, it cannot deny that privilege on the basis of color since such a demarcation is irrational.

This is exactly analogous to current welfare programs. The state is not required in any way to offer such “safety net” programs as food stamps, WIC, and Welfare, and, if they wished, they could completely dismantle the whole system tomorrow. However, the courts have held that, if the state is going to offer such programs, then they cannot discriminate on who benefits from them on the basis of irrational criteria (such as race). This does not mean, however, that the state is not allowed to “discriminate” in other ways. For example, in order to receive food stamps there is usually a requirement that the person be working at least 20 hours a week. Thus, someone working 15 hours a week, or someone not working at all, are discriminated against. Nevertheless, it is allowed because the line drawn is rationally related to the goals of the program.

The rationale for discriminating between a same-sex couple and heterosexual couple is based on the potential for procreation, which is not irrational in any sense. Thus, the limiting of the “program” to only heterosexual couples is a rational distinction that the state is allowed to draw. The lynch pin of equal protection jurisprudence is the notion that the two parties must be “similarly situated.” In the case of same sex couples vs. heterosexual couples, they are not similarly situated because one can procreate and the other cannot. In Loving, the mixed race couple was indeed “similarly situated” to the same-race couples because they could still procreate just as the others could, thus the limiting of marriage on a racial distinciton was irrational. That is not the case here, therefore drawing the line on marriage at that point is “rational” and thus not a violation of Equal Protection.

The due process (substantive due process) argument is even weaker. There are essentially two tests which the Supreme Court has laid out to determine if a newly claimed “right” is actually a right protected under the constitution. The first, is the newly claimed right “implicit to the concept of ordered liberty?” The second, is the newly claimed right “deeply embedded in our nation’s history and traditions?”

Is same-sex marriage “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty?” The answer is an obvious no. We’ve had ordered liberty for well over two hundred years now and same-sex unions have played absolutely no role in it. Heterosexual marriages, on the other hand, have played a pivotal role, providing new citizens to the republic and providing a stable environment for the rearing of those children. It has also played a significant factor in stabilizing and creating responsible men to govern that republic. Same-sex marriage has not and, indeed, cannot provide any of these.

Next, is same-sex marriage deeply embedded in our history and traditions? No, it is not. In fact, its rejection is deeply embedded in our history and traditions. On the other hand, heterosexual marriage has been a part of our history and tradition since the dawn of civilization.

Thus, a brief due process analysis to determine whether or not same-sex marriage is a “right” shows that it obviously is not. For a much longer treatment of this subject see the decision in Standhardt v. Arizona here: http://www.cofad1.state.az.us/opinionfiles/SA/SA030150.pdf.

Mr. Nielsen’s premise is plainly false. Whether you agree or not, the fact remains that rational reasons exist for limiting marriage to men and women. If the state chooses to ignore those reasons and extend marriage to same sex couples, the state has that right, but it is simply wrong to assert that same sex marriage is a “right” and to have it foisted upon us by judicial fiat as occurred in California.

In a front-page article the Asia Times, a fairly significant voice in Far East news, their reporter reviews the history and doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The primary source material appears to be an article on the Catholic.com apologetic web site entitled “The Wacky World of Joseph Smith,” and the infamous South Park episode “All About Mormons.”

Yes, someone has clearly done their homework.

Here are some of the more amusing examples of what the reporter has discovered about us:

Voters may reject a candidate whose religious views are crazy, for example, someone who thinks he talks to God. [MP: Has the reporter ever heard of "prayer"?] Does Romney believe that he himself will become God, as Mormon doctrine teaches?

* * *

Just what is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, commonly called the Mormons? Joseph Smith Jr, the forger, treasure-hunter, magician, polygamist and self-styled priest-king of the American continent, invented an American version of Europe’s ethnically-founded idolatry. Each European tribe that rebelled against Christianity styled itself the Chosen People. Smith concocted a tale in which Americans actually were the Chosen People, and America was the Promised Land of the ancient Hebrews and Jesus Christ. In short, Smith took to the extremes of fantasy and forgery an impulse towards national self-worship that always lurks somewhere in American Christianity.

* * *

Belief in the Book of Mormon is one of the strangest collective delusions in history. The circumstances of its forgery are transparent and exhaustively documented. After supposedly finding golden tablets composed by the aptly-named Angel Moroni, Smith “translated” 16 pages of them using his treasure-hunting stones. A friend showed the manuscript to his suspicious wife, who hid or destroyed it. Smith could not exactly reproduce the “translation” which he had dictated free-style, and stood in danger of exposure were he to produce a different version. Instead he received a new revelation to translate not those golden tablets, but yet another set of tablets that no one else could see. [MP: Note that the reporter hopeless garbles the details of the early translation attempts. One would hope that getting the basic facts right would be the first step to writing a major article.]

Historians have demonstrated that a sizable chunk of the supposed Book of Mormon was copied from a novel by a certain Reverend Solomon Spalding, who concocted the notion of an ancient Hebrew migration to North America as an entertainment. [MP: For crying out loud, even Fawn Brodie and the Tanners reject the Spaulding theory!]

* * *

If the Austro-Hungarian Empire was a tyranny tempered by incompetence, as the old joke goes, the Mormon Church is a megalomania atrophied by age. Although the Latter Day Saints claim 13 million members, less than one-third are active. Unlike American Christian denominations, the Mormons have had small success in Africa and Asia, the centers of Christian evangelization. As punishment for their sins, the Mormons must live in their promised land in the Rockies. [MP: The reporter pulled the "one-third" figure out of nowhere. He ignores the success we've seen in Latin and South America, and in Asian countries like Mongolia. And he fails to note that more Mormons live outside the United States than inside it.]

And so forth.

For all the unintended humor that one can find in this article, it unfortunately gives us a glimpse of what the Latter-day Saint movement is up against in Asia and the world at large. Despite what we think of ourselves, there is still a great deal of misunderstanding driven by misinformation from the popular press.

We have a lot of work ahead of us.

http://votingforsatan.com/

Last May Keller made headlines claiming, “If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for Satan!” The web site is his follow-up to that statement. (It even lists a “Judas Gallery” of Christians who have sold out to endorse Romney.)

Rarely is anti-Mormonism this much fun, outside of the likes of Ed Decker and Loftes Tryk.

I have been a liberal, labor Democrat my entire life. I come from a long line of Democrats, and before that socialists (my grandfathers and grandmothers). I will attempt to answer your question, which has been posed to me quite often.

I am a Democrat because I believe that we have a common responsibility for each other’s welfare. When Christ commanded us to care for the widow and the orphan he did not exclude civil government from that charge.

I am a Democrat because I believe it is society’s requirement to care for those most vulnerable with in it: The old, the sick and yes, the unborn. I believe that one can be a Democrat and still be pro-life. The unborn are some of the most vulnerable.

Abortion however is a symptom of a much more troubling issue. How is it that we have come to value motherhood with so little regard that women who find themselves with an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy feel compelled to take such a step as abortion? Where is the support they so need in their darkest hour? Being opposed to abortion is only the start. We need to have the programs and actions in place to support women, married or not, so that no woman will ever feel that there is no other option open to her. I support the moderate position of the Church on this personal matter.

While I fully support the notion of the of the traditional marriage I am concerned about a marriage amendment and the unintended consequences it may cause. Consequences which may well harm rather than support traditional marriage. These include having states eliminate marriage rather than submit to a marriage amendment. Such an amendment would take power from the states and grant it to the central government. It would also mark the first time an amendment restricted rather than expanded liberty a slippery slope which could lead to all kinds of troublesome amendments in the future. Today it is homosexuals who are the target who will it me tomorrow? Mormons perhaps?

I wonder why it is we have government involved in a sacrament of the church, marriage. It is the only rite of faith in which the government has a hand and perhaps it ought not be so.

I am a Democrat because I believe that we need to do more than simply pay lip service to protecting and defending the family. We need to take real steps such as stronger family leave, insuring that all of our citizens are protected against financial ruin with proper health security. What good does it do to preach support for the family if we do not match our words with deeds?

I am a Democrat because I believe workers have a right to organize to protect their interests and better their lives. I believe that labor is an important and central part of our economy and we should protect the gains, some paid for with blood, that they have made.

I am a Democrat because I take the Book of Mormon’s warning against preemptive war seriously. While we must take actions to defend our nation we need not place our service men and women into harms way in wars with nations that did not attack us. By engaging in preemptive war we have weakened our stature abroad and our moral authority at home. We have failed to head the warnings of the Book of Mormon and we shall surely pay a bitter price.

I am a Democrat because I believe in the values which made our nation a beacon of liberty to the world. Values which have been eroded of late. I do not believe that America should torture, violate the rights we inherited from the Magna Carta and enshrined in our constitution. Rights for which lives have been given. Those brave men and women did not make the ultimate sacrifice just to have our government spy on our citizens, spirit people away to be held and tortured in repressive states all in the name of security. I am unwilling to trade liberty for security.

I do not vote on a single issue. I vote on many issues and for most of them I find that the Democratic party best reflect the values I hold dear as an American and as a member of the church.

I am a Democrat because of my faith, not in spite of it.

So do Mormons lie about their beliefs?

All practicing Mormons must answer the question, “Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man?” in the affirmative in order to be able to attend an LDS temple, so they are often puzzled by these statements and questions. But Mormon answers aren’t really the problem. The honesty problem has more to do with what Evangelical Christians are taught about Mormons than with Mormon belief itself.

In a survey done by FAIR, over 65% of responding pastors said that they had sponsored classes at their Church on Mormonism. Most people love their church and their pastors. They have seen their pastor spend countless hours in helping people and doing their best to teach their congregations. But in teaching about Mormonism, only 2% of those pastors actually invited Mormons to explain their beliefs. The rest relied on anti-Mormon ministries and publications for their information.

The goal of these professional anti-Mormon ministries is to keep people away from Mormonism. They want to protect the flock from any Mormon “sheep-stealing” missionaries. To accomplish their goal they sensationalize, distort, misunderstand, misread, and misrepresent LDS doctrine and scripture. It is from this group that we learn that Mormonism is a cult. It is this group that provides most of the information on Mormonism on the Internet. So when Evangelicals start conversations with their Mormon acquaintances, they already “know” Mormons belong to a cult, even if they can’t remember why.

On the other side of this equation, we have the Mormons. Mormons have a completely different way of looking at doctrine. They tend to classify doctrine into that which is important and that which is speculation. The important things are mostly reflected in the temple recommend questions and focus on core doctrines such as Jesus is our Savior, God is our Father, keep the commandments, God speaks to us today, and the Bible and The Book of Mormon are the word of God. Other important beliefs are that we lived with God before this life and after this life we will all be resurrected and enter one of the kingdoms of glory. These are all beliefs that define Mormonism.

Mormon speculation deals with doctrinal areas where there are hints in scripture, but no explanations. These areas are less sure, less defined, and frequently completely unknown. Questions in this area would include: what was it like in the pre-existence? Where did God come from? What exactly will it be like in the afterlife? Because these areas are unknown, a good practicing Mormon is free to believe and say anything he or she wants about them. We have a long history of commenting on these areas, yet most everyone understands that these are areas of personal opinion and speculation.

The honesty problem comes up when the Evangelical world and the Mormon world collide. The questions posed to Mormons come from a basis in anti-Mormonism meant to expose how the Mormons are weird and belong to a cult. Is Jesus Satan’s brother? Is there a God before God? Where does God live? Will you be creating your own planet? While you can find something written by a Mormon somewhere on all these items, these questions fall into the speculative area and are not core doctrines of Mormonism. This means if you ask several different Mormons, you will likely get several different answers. And Mormons have no problem with that.

When the religious issue came up for Mitt Romney, Mormon honesty became a factor. The real truth is that most of the discussions on Mormonism haven’t been about Mormonism at all, but a discussion of speculation, anti-Mormon issues, and bigotry. That is where we need a little more honesty.

Before closing, I would like to turn for a short time to another topic–the passing of President Hinckley. We all knew it was coming; we all knew this day would arrive. That doesn’t change the shock and surprise that comes with hearing the news of his passing, however.

President Hinckley was, to put it mildly, an inspiration for many people, LDS and not. His boundless energy and eternal optimism gave voice to the best to which we, as humans, aspire. He attempted to live his life in concert with the will of his Father, and he showed us how to be like Christ in our everyday lives.

President Hinckley will be dearly missed.

In the words of one of the researchers,

We find that of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping, many admit it is Romney’s Mormonism and not his flip-flopping that is the real issue.

According to the research, “26 percent of those who accuse Romney of flip-flopping also indicate that Mormonism, not flip-flopping, is their problem with Romney.” Among those who are Evangelical Christians, the bias is especially strong–57%.

It’s interesting to see hard data concerning religious bias–regardless of how you hide it.

-Allen