It's the underwear, stupid

Several theories have been floated as to why Romney’s campaign failed. Some say that he’s too perfect—good looks, rich, smart, successful at everything—and this turned people off because they resent him. Some say that he has a robotic “Stepford Wives” vibe about him, and this turned people off. I think that both factors have some merit, but clearly the main reason he failed to win the party nomination is his Mormonism.

You have to be pretty stupid to believe that an angel really talked to Joseph Smith and told him about some gold plates written in “reformed Egyptian.” The gold plates were conveniently returned to the angel, leaving behind no physical evidence. Neither was the actual “reformed Egyptian” text copied, all that Joseph Smith gave us was the translation, so there’s no way for anyone to even verify that it was a real language. (With the exception of one page of gibberish that real Egyptian scholars don’t recognize as anything they’ve ever seen before.)

In addition to making up his own religion, Joseph Smith abused his power by taking over thirty wives, many of them teenagers. So while the Mormons see this guy as a “prophet,” the rest of the world sees him as a creep, no more worthy of worship than various other religious weirdoes such as David Koresh (who also claimed to be a prophet and who also had sex with underaged girls).

Can someone who believes in this nonsense be fit to be President?

Well, when one looks at it neutrally, the nonsense that Mormons believe in isn’t any weirder than the nonsense that regular Christians believe in. One has to be equally stupid to believe that a virgin living in the Middle East gave birth to God, based on the say-so of twelve long-dead “apostles.” Yet belief in the Jesus story is a requirement in order to be President. Half of the voters won’t vote for a candidate with a rational view of the world.

As a rational voter who has to hold my nose and vote for a candidate who publicly proclaims his belief in nonsense, I figured that there’s not much difference between believing in gold plates and believing in virginal births, so I supported Mitt Romney for the reasons mentioned in my endorsement post.

But the average voter isn’t rational like me, and this especially applies to the average evangelical Republican voter in the south. Such a voter truly believes that the Jesus story is the truth, so all he sees in Romney is a guy who believes in an obviously bogus religion, while every other candidate worth voting for believes in the truth.

Evidence of the above view of events can be seen in the election results. In southern states, where there are lots of evangelical Christian voters, Huckabee, one of their own, was chosen as the alternative to McCain and not Romney. Romney only did well in caucuses, where perhaps Mormons packed the vote (that’s Steve Sailer’s theory). Winning 90% of the vote in Utah demonstrates the strength of his Mormon support; Obama doesn't even win such a large share of the black vote. Romney did pretty well in other Western states where there are lots of Mormons. If you work with Mormons, and see that they are nice and normal-seeming people, you are more likely to not have a problem voting for Romney. And it’s true about Mormons being nice, I knew a lot of them when I lived in Arizona, and they are very nice people.

However, I have to admit a certain relief that Romney lost, because Mormonism really is creepier than mainstream Christianity. The LDS church makes no secret of its goal of converting the whole world to Mormonism. No church is more active in proselytizing. There are over 50,000 full-time Mormon missionaries at work trying to convert people. Young male Mormons are expected to devote two whole years of their lives to a Mormon mission. Each of Romney’s five sons served on a Mormon mission, demonstrating that Romney is not just some secular guy who had the misfortune of being born Mormon, but rather he is an active participant in the Mormon goal of converting the world. As a non-religious voter, I’d rather vote for a guy whose sons served two years in the military serving our country, rather than two years serving their religion.

The LDS church is an un-American totalitarian church. Mainstream Christianity, even if it’s based on nonsense, is a very democratic religion. As far as I know, anyone can show up at a Christian church, say they believe in Christ, and are welcomed as full members. That’s not true of the LDS church which is a secretive cult-like organization. One only gets into the inner-circle of Mormonism by demonstrating their commitment to the cause, such as by devoting two years one’s life to a mission. The paradox of the Mormon missionary is that he’s a young kid who doesn’t even know what his religion is about, because he’s not allowed to know about the true secrets of his religion until after he completes his mission, at which time he’s first allowed into the inner Temple and allowed to wear the underwear.

I found the following passage, written by an ex-Mormon, to offer some insight into the religion:

After many years of studying the Mormon church, attending some of its services, knowing its people and rejecting the entire concept I think I know the problem with it: it’s too much of a paradox. If you take the Methodists or Baptists or Catholics you have a mishmash of ideas and behaviors and they're not that exciting. In those churches, can you imagine being called into an office for a discussion of your CONDUCT?? To be told what might happen to you if it continues?? Of course not. But with the Mormons you have incredible discrepancies that keep them talked about.

What do I mean? Well, you take any small town with a high Mormon population (like Mesa, AZ and Loveland, CO) and what do you see? Spotless cars, immaculate yards, well mannered children, clean cut teenagers, non drinkers.

But, what puzzles people and gets their attention is the Huge Business Conglomerate of the leadership. The Arrogance of the “Twelve Apostles” on television. The popularity of Prozac amongst the women. The exhaustion of the home teachers. The guilt of the teens. The end of year check you write them based on your income for the past year!!! The constant pressure to have huge families.

The behaviors of the founders that are debated ad nauseum like Joseph Smith's fondness for alcohol, the church's denial that Brigham Young had That Many wives, the ever changing explanation for how the so called Golden Plates came into existence and translation, the "courts" you must attend if you're found to have done something against the church (like talk too much about it in a negative manner), the Mountain Meadows Massacre—I could go on and on.

I had treated the missionaries like Gods in my home for weeks. But the last time they came over they brought their Bishop with them and threatened me with, “I’m warning you: you're playing WITH FIRE.” And here I had given them my birthday money from my mother, knowing their awful living conditions. I thought we were friends. And yes, if you have casual friends who are members and think you MIGHT become a member they’re very friendly. But when they find out you are Not being baptized you get this big chill. Do Methodists and Catholics act like that? Do they come to your home with lessons? Send you letters?

Mormons admit freely, “we don’t tell you everything at once; it's milk before meat only.” Boy, is That the truth. I bet you thousands of prospects don't know some of the stuff that goes on with their weird weddings that disallow the bride's parents to attend (they have to have a second wedding for that), the weird derived from Masonry services in the temple that "changes" over the years where the performers wear dunce caps and naked girls are touched on different body areas with water by attendants, the pages in library books that are ripped out by Mormons so you can’t read them—this church takes over your life. And if you try to leave? And move away? THEY FIND YOU. IT’S LIKE STALKING.

So, just enjoy the clean cars and lovely lawns and smiling faces and stay away. Or you won’t have a life; at least, not one that I’d want. That's my two cents.

As we recall from the first paragraph of this post, one of the reasons why Romney may have lost votes is because of his robotic “Stepford Wives” vibe. That is also a Mormon thing. The religious Mormons in Arizona all had that exact same vibe about them. My friend, Johnny Wraith, used to be able to point out Mormon people based on their Mormon demeanor as well as the tell-tale hints of their Mormon underwear. Johnny Wraith was the first Mormon I ever knew, but he didn’t really believe in the religion, and what he told me about it is pretty similar to the contents of the passage quoted above.

Despite all the bad stuff I wrote above about Mormonism, Romney might have still won the election if he did things differently. “Bigotry” of any kind is considered distasteful, and it would be politically incorrect for the mainstream media to say bad things about Mormonism. Romney compiled a socially liberal record as governor of Massachusetts. He even said he supports a woman’s right to choose! If he had just stayed with that economically conservative but socially mainstream persona, if he had given a speech about his belief in separation of church and state instead of his belief that religious belief is necessary for democracy, if he had gone after the moderate wing of the party instead of the evangelicals, the result might have been different. Romney, despite being smart enough to graduate in the top 5% of his class at Harvard Business School, was pretty stupid to think that, as a Mormon who flip-flopped on abortion, he could somehow base his campaign on winning the Christian-right vote.

Comments

[SFG]

I don't think he was dumb. He probably made a strategic calculation that going after moderates wasn't going to work because McCain had that sewn up, so he might as well try for the conservatives.

You can't assume every strategic decision people make that doesn't work was ipso facto stupid. As someone fond of free enterprise, you should understand that businesspeople make decisions based on incomplete knowledge and risk assessment and are sometimes wrong. ;)

[Peter]

I haven't been around enough Mormons to really know about the creepiness factor, but it bothers me that the religion seems to control believers' lives to an excessive extent - a so-called "totalizing religion." Religion's ideal role is to complement one's life, not dominate it. You don't normally think of people you know as being "Methodists" or "Catholics" when thinking of them in contexts other than explicitly religious ones. That is not true with respect to Mormonism. It's like the religion becomes one's whole identity. And I don't like that.

In any event, most of my direct dealings with Mormons have not been particularly good. Contrast that fact with my dealings with Muslims, almost all of which have been fine. I'd sooner have a Muslim president than a Mormon.

[steve]

I'm a Latter-Day Saint and the religion doesn't control my life to an "excessive extent". I choose to believe what I believe...I wasn't brainwashed or hypnotized. My belief was based on something we call revelation from God. I wouldn't expect those who haven't had a similar experience to understand why I believe what I believe. I choose to go to church on Sundays and worship. It doesn't make me weird or creepy...if anything it makes me a better citizen and more well-adjusted to life. As far as my identity goes...I don't go around advertising I'm "Mormon" (except on message boards). I've usually been asked because I don't drink,smoke, or swear. I tell people about my beliefs if they ask...I certainly don't hide it, but it doesn't define who I am as a person...unless others somehow can't get over the fact I'm "Mormon" once they know. I certainly don't expect others around me to comply with my beliefs, but respecting them would be nice. I wonder how many "direct dealings" with "Mormons" you've had. If you really befriended a few practicing Latter-Say Saints, you'd realize they are decent, good-natured people.

[Spungen]

If you really befriended a few practicing Latter-Say Saints, you'd realize they are decent, good-natured people

In my experience, they are very pleasant. However, they are also very insular. For the devout, friendship is not an option for non-Mormons.

My friend, Johnny Wraith, used to be able to point out Mormon people based on their Mormon demeanor as well as the tell-tale hints of their Mormon underwear.

So that is why you link to a fiction site. The authors appear to have strong distaste for wealthy men. Kind of a Hustler-esque flavor, very macho-populist. Peter would probably enjoy it.

Kind of a Hustler-esque flavor, very macho-populist. Peter would probably enjoy it.

For a minute I though you were talking about Tom's of Finland!

[bbartlog]

Religion's ideal role is to complement one's life, not dominate it

Is that so? From a pragmatist's perspective, maybe. But the thing is, if you *really believe* what most religions tell you, then it follows logically that there really isn't anything nearly as important as being a proper believer. If you actually believe in eternal salvation and damnation, it makes sense to subordinate all other aspects of your life to your belief. Of course what this really shows is that indeed, very few people have genuine faith; their religion is just some sort of social activity.

[Peter]

bbartlog -
Well that's the point. I am very pragmatic when it comes to things like religion, or perhaps skeptical is a better term.

[Jody]

Don't sell the Fair Tax short. I'm fairly certain that's why GA went Huckabee. Unfortunately the Fair Tax wasn't part of the exit polling package, so I can't back that up.

[Half Sigma]

Steve: I wonder how many "direct dealings" with "Mormons" you've had. If you really befriended a few practicing Latter-Say Saints, you'd realize they are decent, good-natured people.

I lived in Arizona, so I've had dealings with plenty of Mormons. I never said that they weren't "decent, good-natured people." In fact, more so than the typical non-Mormon.

That doesn't mean that they aren't brainwashed. That's what religion is about: brainwashing people into believing the nonsense.

Several Mormons have been very nice to me and have done me favors which I am thankful for, which is why I feel sort of bad about writing the post, but the goal here is to write the truth. If you want to read politically correct, you can read the New York Times.

If you want to read politically correct, you can read the New York Times.

Not about Mormons (or Christianity for that matter) you won't.

[Half Sigma]

The spin from the mainstream media is that Republican voters demonstrated "ugly bigotry" by not voting for Romney.

The NY Times is in that camp.

[SFG]

And I forgot to say, kudos to HS for a great post title.

I disagree.

If you look at the exit polls here:

Florida

South Carolina

Romney has equal Evangelical vote in Florida with Huck who is a Baptist minister. His vote percentage is higher among the "Attend weekly" and "Monthly" verses "Never". He does lose the "More than Weekly" though.

On the other hand McCain does win the most liberal categories- never attending Church, "Angry" at Bush admin, and Economic Conditions "Poor".

Looking at the chart on page 4 of Florida,
Romney wins the category "Vote by Religion and Race" commandingly.

Supporting the 'alpha' thesis:
As income goes up Romney's % of the vote goes up and McCain's goes down. Except for those over $200K who are always queer birds. The same goes for education- support for Romney usual goes up, and support for McCain goes down.

[Joe]

I prefer to refer to the religion of my birth as goofy, not creepy. The temple ceremony is laughably strange--I've long suspected that it's kept secret because it's so dumb, not because it's "sacred".

Mormons tend to confuse feeling right about something as receiving a message from God. They also confuse belief, faith and knowledge, assuming that believing something strong enough is the same as knowing it. (Mormons are taught from the time they are little to not say "I believe the church is true" but "I know the church is true.")

Mitt Romney has all these traits which leads him to come across as a bit of an arrogant pin head.

Incidentally, the entire thing about "reformed Egyptian" is very silly. Besides there being no such thing, even if they were it would still more verbose than Hebrew. Very telling is that at the time of Joseph Smith, the common belief was that a single Egyptian symbol was laden with meaning (this same erroneous belief persists to this day with Chinese and Japanese characters.)

[Peter]

The explosive growth of Mormonism and other "totalizing" religions is part of a bigger trend in American religious belief, one which I find extremely worrisome. Call it the decline of moderation in religion.

As recently as 20 years ago, many people in this country were religious in a moderate, non-life-dominating sense. They belonged to the Catholic church or to mainstream Protestant denominations such as the Episcopal, Methodist, Lutheran or Presbyterian churches. They attended services on a fairly regular basis, and sometimes were involved with church activities, but they didn't center their lives around their churches or let their religiosity define their identities. The churches themselves didn't claim to have all the answers and did not micromanage people's lives. Indeed, the daily life and social/political opinions of an Episcopalian were not greatly different from those of a Methodist which weren't greatly different from those of a Lutheran and so on.

Today? Things have shifted away from the middle and toward the extremes. Mainstream Protestant churches and the Catholic church are all in deep and probably irretrievable decline. Some of the people who would have attended those churches had they been a generation younger have largely drifted away from organized religion, though out-and-out atheists remain uncommon. At the other end of the spectrum, the extreme, life-controlling, totalizing religions keep growing and growing and growing. The Mormom, Southern Baptist, Assemblies of God, Jehovah's Witnesses, other Bible-thumping sects know nothing except nonstop growth. These churches, unlike the dying mainstream and Catholic churches, DO claim to have all the answers and DO micromanage everyone's lives. They also do a far better job at keeping believers from drifting away; born into one of those churches, it's a near-guarantee that you'll be a follower for life. There are millions of lapsed Catholics and virtually no lapsed Mormons. Even more worrisome, they also wield tremendous political power and therefore influence the lives of non-believers. Don't believe me? Well, when was the last time you saw even the most fleeting glimpse of nudity on television?

I have no idea if this trend will ever reverse itself, but it seems very doubtful. We've never seen even the merest blip in the nonstop growth of the totalizing churches. As for the political ramifications, they're great for the most conservative wing of the Republican party, and probably ominous for everyone else.

[Turambar]

Even more worrisome, they also wield tremendous political power and therefore influence the lives of non-believers. Don't believe me? Well, when was the last time you saw even the most fleeting glimpse of nudity on television?

Worst example ever. Have you seen Dancing with the Stars?

[Joe]

... and virtually no lapsed Mormons

Completely untrue. Once baptized in the Mormon church, you are considered a member until you are excommunicated or request that your records are removed. Mormons who don't attend church are called "inactive", even if they are virulently anti-Mormon. The belief is that everyone has a chance to come back--to be reconverted to the faith if you will. However, the net result is massively overinflated membership numbers.

In Utah, it's estimated that only 35% of Mormons are active in the church. Most of the rest, myself included, consider themselves culturally Mormon, even if they don't believe a word of the religion. The percentages drop the further you get from Utah, though the church is VERY coy about this (the Utah numbers were derived from correlating some released records with census records. The church was pissed about its publication.)

In Mexico, it's estimated that the activity rate is 15%. In Japan, it's estimated to be as low as 12%. The activity rate for men is less than half that of women. In some places there are so few active men, the Mormon missionaries have to act as local leaders.

There is evidence that the current birth and conversion rate is lower than the exit rate. (This is amplified by Mormons catching up with everyone else in family size.)

The point of this is that at least 65%, or 7.8 million, Mormons are lapsed. Easily half of those simply don't believe and/or engage in behavior contrary to the teachings of the church and would be kicked out of any other religion. The LDS church will never do this largely because the mystique of 12 million members is too powerful.