Satan and Jesus Christ are ‘bros’ when Romney ran for president

 

(I wrote this piece more than 11 years ago. I like it, so I rescued it from Wayback purgatory. The photo above is of Romney in 2012 after he defeated Newt Gingrich in the Florida Republican presidential primary.)

I love this lead from an Idaho newspaper (Rexburg Standard Journal) covering an LDS fireside: “A top LDS religious leader gave a rare unscripted fireside to Brigham Young University-Idaho students Saturday.”

“Unscripted fireside?” With apologies to Orwell, that’s a delightful phrase. Why was it unscripted?

According to the article, it’s because M. Russell Ballard, a member of the church’s 12 Apostles, admitted that the LDS Church believes that Jesus Christ and Satan, Old Scratch himself, were brothers.

The following is from reporter Nate Sunderland’s article: “You remember Mr. (Mike) Huckabee (who was also vying to be the Republican candidate for president), who among other things said that Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil were brothers?” Ballard asked students. “Remember that? It went all over the media. “Well they are!” Ballard exclaimed to a laughing student body. “But they (the media and nonmembers) don’t understand that, because they don’t have the (LDS gospel) restoration. They don’t understand the spiritual relationship that … we are all sons and daughters of God, and that Lucifer was one of those and (that) he chose to use his agency in an unrighteous way.”

Back to this column: One of the ironies about being a Mormon is that a religion that is so progressive, eccentric and so different — and more interesting — than conventional, mainstream Christian religions is staffed by a conservative, button-down public relations-conscious, every-word-approved bureaucracy.

I concede that may be a smart move to manage a church of more than 10 million — discipline does have its advantages — but isn’t it interesting that the deepest journeys into LDS church doctrine are found in high priest group meetings, and not the semiannual general conferences? Trust me, we talk a lot about Christ and Satan being highly favored sons of Heavenly Father in the preexistence. But just so it’s clear, we think Old Scratch has fallen out of favor!

During the 2008 presidential campaign, it was easy to know when candidate Mitt Romney was being asked a question about LDS doctrine, such as where the Garden of Eden was. He had that deer in the headlights look, paired with a nervous, dismissive comment such as, “who told you we believe that!?” Of course Romney was partially derailed by the GOP’s own semi-fundamentalist pharisee, Mike Huckabee, blabbing that Mitt thinks Christ and Satan were brothers.

Since Mitt’s probably going to run again, maybe Elder Ballard is trying to pave the way for a smoother theological trail through Bible Belt Iowa. Are we far off from a brand new media campaign pitching Jesus Christ, the Great I Am, and Satan, the Son of the Morning Star, as onetime comrades in arms who went their separate ways?

Naah, not going to happen. But it’d make a heck of a movie.

-- Doug Gibson

Traditional Mormon ‘Last Days’ theology similar to Bible Belt beliefs

Originally published in 2013 at StandardBlogs (I was prompted to re-post this, today, Sept. 7, 2020, after a Labor Day spirited discussion with a very pious and very old fellow member of the Church.)

There’s a 2007 clip video of Mitt Romney stumbling over the question, “Do the Mormons believe the Garden of Eden is in Jackson County, Missouri?” Romney was clearly annoyed by the question, alternating between incredulity and telling the interviewer that it was a question better directed to LDS Church leaders. Romney knows the answer is, “yes,” but he didn’t want to say so, fearing that it would make him look odd.

But really, how is believing that the Garden of Eden is in Jackson County, Missouri, any more incredulous than believing Noah stuck every animal in an ark and floated around with a few others while every person in the world drowned. Or even that Jesus Christ was resurrected? We are taught to believe things by faith, to suspend belief and trust a prophet or unseen-to-us deity. In fact, we’re also taught that to demand or need proof of the divine can be considered a liability. In the Book of Mormon, seeing an angel did little for Laman and Lemuel.

When I’m visiting a longtime family of church members, I head for “grandpa’s bookcase.” They contain mostly forgotten books filled with assumptions that we no longer hear and, as important, doctrine that we still may mostly believe but also don’t hear much about. One old book I spent the weekend reading was “Prophecy and Modern Times,” by W. Cleon Skousen. My copy, published by Deseret Book, appears to be from about 1950 but was first published in 1939. The edition I read also contains an approving foreward from LDS Apostle Ezra Taft Benson.

In the book, readers are reminded that not only was the Garden of Eden in North America, but that it was also where Noah built his ark, before it floated to Mesopotamia. Furthermore, places such as Euphrates, Canaan, Ethiopia, “were all names which originally belonged to geographical locations in America,” writes Skousen.

(What’s very interesting about these old books is that they serve as the sources for things I was taught as a young Latter-day Saint in the late 60s and 70s, either in family home evening or church classes. Today, about the only place you hear many of these beliefs is during a ward High Priest lesson that strays a  bit from the manual. I want to stress that I’m not making fun of these bits of doctrine. Indeed, I find them fascinating and my belief in some, by faith, is what makes being a Latter-day Saint so interesting.)

The last days, as described in “Prophecy and Modern Times,” is as dramatic in many parts as fundamentalist evangelicals describe the last days in books such as the “Left Behind” series. The Bible Belt really hasn’t got much on Skousen. The book teaches that the Mormon faithful (and this is a doctrine I’ve been told of countless times) will return to Jackson County, Missouri, which is where the headquarters of the Mormons will be. In fact, Skousen quotes early LDS leader Heber C. Kimball as providing prophecy that “Salt Lake City will be classed among the wicked cities of the world. A spirit of speculation and extravagance will take possession of the Saints, and the results will be financial bondage. Persecution comes next and all true Latter-day Saints will be tested to the limit. Many will apostasize and others will be still not knowing what to do. Darkness will cover the earth … The judgments of God will be poured out on the wicked ...” Skousen’s source for this is The Deseret News of May 23, 1931.

In fact, the book claims that a migration to Jackson County, Missouri, would not occur until much of the earth has already become desolate. “The Constitution will hang by a thread” argument for the last days is also part of the book, but it will be saved by LDS elders, the author adds.

The last-days scenario that Skousen creates contains many elements of evangelical beliefs. At times, one can be forgiven for thinking he has picked up the pop evangelical kitsch series “Left Behind.” He writes, “Lucifer’s church will cast its shadow over most of the earth so that outside of Zion all men, small and great, rich and poor, bond and free, will have the identifying mark of that church in their right hand or in their foreheads. No man will be able to buy and sell among them in that day unless he bears that mark in his body.”

Besides the mark of the beast, Skousen cites wars and pestilences, false prophets performing “miracles,” Satan raining down fire to destroy the faithful, plagues, starvation, thirst for water, stormy seas, Israel threatened, and being defended by two prophets, and America being a land that cannot be accessed by other nations until God allows it. From the book, citing the Doctrine and Covenants 61:15-16 as its source: “In that day the land of America will be cut off from the rest of the earth by violent seas. … No doubt millions would flee to America during these trying times if the Lord did not make it inaccessible to all except the righteous. This will be the most stringent immigration restriction ever imposed upon this land, and it will be enforced by the violent elements of the sea.”

Eventually, in “Prophecy and Modern Times,” remnants of the lost tribes of Israel will brave the elements and start migrating toward Jackson County, Missouri, to regroup. As they approach, colonies of the wicked will try to stop them. As Skousen writes, citing as a source, Doctrine and Covenants 133:28, “The scriptures plainly speak of the Ten Tribes being confronted by ‘enemies’ who will become their ‘prey’ as they march over them on the way to the capital city of New Jerusalem.”

In “Prophecy and Modern Times,” Skousen — as popular then as today’s Deseret Book favorites are today — preaches in a tone and style that seems to have mostly disappeared from LDS theology. It’s pessimistic, predicting most of the Latter-day Saints as falling into apostasy. It sets the LDS Church, as well as early Old Testament history, firmly in the United States, and echoes the “White Horse prophecy” of LDS priesthood holders gathering to save the Constitution. The Last Days, according to the book, are clearly inspired by the Bible’s Revelations’ chapters — and other Mormon scripture — and share many similarities to traditional evangelicalism.

The Mormon Church was established with the intention of preparing for the Second Coming of Christ. A casual reading of 19th Century patriarchal blessings includes many that promise the receiver will see Christ’s return to the Earth. It’s clear that through most of the 20th century this point of view was shared, and often preached by church leaders. I recall my father telling me that while he may not see Christ return, he expected that I would. (Ironically, I feel the same when I look at my children.)

As the church grew internationally, and correlation replaced distinct church departments as the authors of various church manuals, it appears the emphasis on the last days, and the heavily dramatic tones of last days gospel doctrines, were toned down considerably. Skousen is no longer a Mormon author that would be mentioned by current church leaders, although he has gained a renewed fan base, thanks to Mormon Glenn Beck.

How much of “Prophecy and Modern Times” is still considered acceptable church doctrine is a question that interests me. Some of it is unappealing. In one clearly racist part, Skousen writes that the American Indians, once they receive the Gospel, “will no longer be backward, mischievous and unattractive. They will become white like their brethren of Ephraim.”

However, as mentioned, it’s clear that Latter-day Saints do believe that the Garden of Eden is in the U.S., and that there will be a time when Mormons are called to return there. Yet, its emphasis level seems to have dropped considerably. In fact, in what can be construed as a direct warning to those who rely on the Beck/Skousen view of the last days, LDS Apostle Dallin H. Oaks recently cautioned members from associating with “right-wing groups who mistakenly apply prophecies about the last days to promote efforts to form paramilitary or other organizations.” Oaks suggested that members need to stock up on food, rather than ammo. (Read) I also recall a recent conference talk in which members were told that there is still much to be done on the earth before it ends.

--- Doug Gibson

Utah's first serious presidential candidate — Christensen, not Romney

Utah’s first serious presidential candidate was not Mitt Romney, of course, or even Sen. Orrin Hatch, who ran a weak race in 2000 that ended after he received 1 percent in the Iowa caucus. 

I’ll bet most have no idea that 90 years ago, Utah fielded a presidential candidate that many newspapers — incorrectly — thought might have a shot at winning a few states. His name was Parley Packer Christensen. The Salt Lake City resident was a bachelor, a Unitarian, a former Salt Lake County attorney, and former candidate for U.S. Congress. He was also the Farmer-Labor Party’s 1920 nominee for U.S. president.

A fascinating article by Gaylon L. Caldwell from the October 1960 Utah Historical Quarterly provides loads of great historical information on Christensen’s candidacy. The Salt Lake Tribune mostly criticized and ridiculed Christensen as a defender of labor unions. The Deseret News afforded him more respect. However, according to the article, the Tribune predicted Christensen would carry six states.

Of course, history records that Christensen carried no states. In a days when polls were nonexistent, third parties still under-performed. On election day, Christensen tallied 265,411 votes, finishing fourth behind Republican Party winner Warren Harding, 16,152,200 votes, Democratic Party nominee James M. Cox, 9,147,353 votes, and Socialist Eugene V. Debs, who was in prison, with 919,799 votes. Finishing fifth was Prohibition Party candidate Aaron S. Watkins with 189,408 votes.

As Caldwell points out, “the final tally ... reinforced the old axiom of American politics that new parties begin with a burst of enthusiasm only to fade away.” There is a parallel between the Farmer-Labor Party of 1920 and the post-H. Ross Perot Reform Party. Once a dynamic personality or symbol leaves a third party, the bloom is gone.

How Christensen grabbed the Farmer-Labor nod is really interesting. As Caldwell recounts, it was big news in the summer of 1920 in Chicago at the Farmer-Labor convention, which was populated by a smorgasbord of political movements — left and right — looking for an alternative to the two main parties.

Christensen was a convention leader. There was a “committee of 48” that tried unsuccessfully to recruit a consensus candidate. That’s not surprising since two major contenders were ultra-right-wing automobile maker Henry Ford and the Socialist Debs.

Christensen, a persuasive leader, saw his opportunity and arranged alliances with lesser candidates. He finished second on the first ballot, which eliminated all but the two top finishers. On the second ballot, Christensen easily garnered the nomination. 

Christensen ran an energetic campaign and attracted nationwide press. In the Aug. 1, 1920 New York Times, reporter Charles Welles Thompson wrote, “The Republicans are getting a little uneasy over the unlimited activity of Parley Packer Christensen, the candidate of the Farmer-Labor Party. He seems a most virile and extensive person. ...”

Christensen also criticized the imprisonment of Debs, saying, “Mr. Debs may be utterly wrong in his ideas as how best to conduct the affairs of society, and so may I be and so may you, but my conception of liberty includes the right to think wrong.”

After reading Caldwell’s excellent account, I think another reason Christensen under-performed is that he was too moderate for a third party. Although clearly a liberal, he was not socialist enough to take many votes from Debs, but he was too liberal for Ford supporters, who returned to the Republican Party in the general election.

Nevertheless, Parley Parker Christensen is an individual worthy of our respect. I doubt, however, that his name is mentioned in any school rooms below the college level.

-- Doug Gibson

This column was previously published at StandardNet.

Mitt Romney’s dad George was too perfect to be president in 1968

(This post, originally published at StandardNET, was written in 2010, long before Mitt Romney's unsuccessful 2012 bid for the presidency.)

The Spring 1971 BYU Studies journal has an interesting article. Titled, “The 1968 Presidential Decline of George Romney: Mormonism or Politics?,” it’s an interesting look at the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney’s father (seen above). The elder Romney was as an attractive a candidate in 1967 as his son was 40 years later. They were both very handsome and about the same age when they ran. The elder Romney never ran for the presidency again. He served in President Richard Nixon’s cabinet for one term.

It’s popular today to assign Romney’s relatively early demise in the 1968 presidential derby to the bad publicity resulting from his claim that he was “brainwashed” into supporting the Vietnam War by U.S. military, but writer Dennis L. Lythgoe disagrees. Romney’s perfect persona was disconcerting to many voters, Lythgoe asserts. The American electorate may not have bought a used car from a man like Richard Nixon, but they were more apt to vote for Tricky Dick than for auto executive George Romney, who had revolutionized the auto industry by pushing compact cars onto the market.

Mixed in with Romney’s “perfectness” was a piety that disquieted voters. Romney’s campaign took issue with the declining morals of a nation. His stump speech, according to Lythgoe’s reporting, involved the “nation’s six declines: religious conviction, moral character, quality of family life, the principal of individual responsibility, patriotism and respect for law.”

Yet George Romney lacked passion detailing these issues. He also didn’t appear to have a great command of the issues. Voters sensed a vagueness from Romney on the issues. I’ve read “Nixonland,” by Rick Perlstein, which covers the early mid-1960s to early ‘70s and my hunch is that Romney simply wasn’t as Machiavellian as Richard Milhouse Nixon. Romney appears to have been asking Americans to be more decent. However, Nixon was pointing at other Americans and saying, “you are more decent than those people.” Nixon used division, scapegoats and created faux victims to boost his political fortunes. George Romney doesn’t appear to have been capable of that vilification.

It would be impossible today for any Mormon to be a serious contender for the presidency if the church still barred black males from holding the priesthood. Surprisingly, though, it doesn’t seem to have been the biggest barrier to Romney’s campaign. There were lots of news articles about the LDS Church’s blacks and the priesthood policy during that election cycle, and the elder Romney was criticized often for it, but his strong support for civil rights as governor of Michigan diluted much of the bad publicity that might have resulted. However, one must also factor in that 42 years ago we were a less racially tolerant society than we are now.

In the 1960s, George Romney was not shy about claiming that he consulted God about all major decisions. According to Lythgoe, he reportedly prayed to God for guidance prior to his decision to run for governor of Michigan in 1962.

It would be interesting today to track the fortunes of a presidential candidate who made those same statements. President George W. Bush was criticized for his reliance on God’s counsel, but it didn’t stop him from serving eight years in office.

Despite his piety, Romney was considered a moderate, even a liberal Republican. In what would make a Beck 9/12 member gasp, he cited progressive Teddy Roosevelt as a hero. Yet he lost badly, apparently failing to grab the blue collar middle class workers who boosted Nixon. Lythgoe cites three main reasons for Romney’s loss: “his vagueness on the issues; the Negro Doctrine of the Mormon Church; and his piety.”

Reporters came to believe that he did not have deep enough knowledge of the national scene, especially foreign affairs, to handle himself effectively on the political stump,” he writes.
Finally, the “fear that he believed himself to be divine and therefore incapable of error produced new frustrations in the voters,” added Lythgoe.

Was Romney the first perfect politician? Was that “perfection” also a problem with his son Mitt? In my opinion, the younger Romney is an overwhelming favorite to grab the GOP presidential nod in 2012. It will be interesting to see how the son fares in a challenge his father never undertook.

-- Doug Gibson