I know I’m a late-comer in reviewing Blogfather Hugh’s most recent book “A Mormon in the White House?: 10 Things Every American Should Know about Mitt Romney”. With the way my life works, or doesn’t work, I don’t really have time to read much. Most of the books I consume are recorded – they make commuting much less dull.

But before I get to my book review, let me present for you some of my “Street Cred” so you’ll understand from which vantage point I’m coming from. First off, I’ve been listening to Blogfather Hugh for a long time. I’m not one of his KFI Eagles, but I caught his show shortly after he launched his KRLA morning program. He was my main source of information on the morning of September 11, 2001 and I’ve been with him ever since. My one claim to fame on the Hugh Hewitt Show is being the author of The Jimmy Malone Theory of International Relations. If you know what that is, congratulations. The Hewitt Radio Juggernaut has yet to penetrate my home market, so I’m part of his podcast audience – thus his “Evening Grace” is always my “Morning Glory”. I don’t mind because I can listen to his three-hour broadcast in about an hour and a half. Shhh. Don’t tell his advertisers.

Now to the Mormon question. Yes, I’m a Mormon – have been my entire life. I served a mission in Brazil a long time ago. Since then I’ve held multiple church callings (sometimes several at once) and am currently married with children. I know my doctrine well enough to tell if someone is making a valid argument or whether they’re just parroting what they read from the latest anti-Mormon tract or heard at the latest barn-burning.

Enough about me, on to the book.

Blogfather Hugh writes a tightly woven, well documented description of Mitt Romney that focuses on the entire package and not just the religious aspect of his candidacy. Hugh knows his stuff because he does his research. He carefully chronicles Mitt’s formative years in Michigan, his college experiences at Stanford, BYU, and finally Harvard, and details his personal, professional, and political life in the years leading up to his run for the Oval Office. In all of his details, I found few flaws – none of them very important. Hugh miscounted the number of Romney grandchildren, exaggerating the total by one. Knowing the prolific nature of Mormons, I’m pretty sure Hugh’s arithmetic error will be a self-correcting one. The other error, again not important, was Hugh’s description of Mormon missionaries as wearing white shirts and black ties. For the record, I do not now, nor have I ever owned a black tie. Missionaries are permitted to make their own choice in neckwear – within reason. Some make good tie choices. Some wear ties that look like they shot a 50 year old couch and stripped off the fabric. Again, an unimportant error.

Where the Mormon religion is discussed – and the subject does take a good portion of the book – Blogfather Hugh does something few other authors do when confronted with daunting task of writing about a religion of which they are not part. Needing a source for the fundamental beliefs unique to Mormonism, Hugh went to a man he considered to be a reliable, well reasoned, and well spoken Mormon. Rex E. Lee, former Solicitor General of the United States and former President of Brigham Young University, wrote a book entitled “What Do Mormons Believe?” Lee’s work gives the basics in an easy to understand manner and the quotes chosen by Hugh did a great job of explaining the historical details of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Hugh did not attack the Mormon belief structure, nor does he show any signs of joining the LDS Church. He simply laid out the facts as he saw them. This is a far cry from what most journalists and erstwhile reporters do because conventional wisdom dictates that Mormons talking about Mormonism won’t sell books, magazines, or newspapers because there are no fireworks. As documented here at B4M, Article VI, and other similar blogs, most people writing about Mitt and his Mormon roots will waste little time before jumping off the proverbial cliff into polygamist ancestors and the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Sensationalistic subjects of centuries past matter far more to the average journalist than does a lifetime of success in the private and public sectors. Mitt has to answer about the events of September 11, 1857, but his views on the dangers of the spread of radical Islam aren’t newsworthy. Why that kind of logic makes sense to anyone is beyond me.

Mitt Romney is an exceptionally smart and phenomenally successful businessman with a proven political track record on every issue which really matters to conservatives, republicans, and every American. He also just happens to be Mormon. To some people the Mormon question overshadows every other aspect about Mitt. That is a truly sad state of affairs in a country whose founding document both guarantees Freedom of Religion and specifically forbids a “religious test” for public office.

When the Prophet Joseph Smith was questioned as to what members of his faith believed, he penned what came to be known as the Thirteen Articles of Faith. These basic tenets of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints make up the foundations of the Church. The eleventh of the thirteen articles reads:

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. (Emphasis Added)

Wouldn’t it be nice if everybody involved in this debate could abide by that admonition? Yes, Mr. Pastore, I’m talking to you.

This election cycle is full of candidates from the left, right and fringes on both sides. The winnowing process will refine the field rather quickly and the fringe kooks on both ends of the spectrum won’t last long. At the time of this writing, Mitt has a better than average shot at running the table in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. If the stars align properly and Mitt ends up with the nomination to run against Hillary, America will have a real choice before her.

Anyone who questions whether Mitt’s Mormonism should be a factor in his White House run should read Blogfather Hugh’s book. He has no axe to grind other than he wants a Center-Right Republican in the White House. As for myself, I’m a charter member of the Al Davis Republican Caucus. In other words, “Just Win, Baby”.

There are rumored reports of a host of evangelical Christians who are said to be unwilling to vote for a Mormon in any circumstance. I, for one, believe any Republican candidate would be vastly superior to another Clinton presidency. I just happen to think that of the current crop of Republicans, Mitt has the best background, intellect, and skill set for the Big Chair. That he sings from the same hymnbook that I do, while allowing for easy harmonization, is fundamentally unimportant to me. That’s how the Founders set it up, and I think they had principally sound judgment in doing so.

Well done, Blogfather.

Labels: hewitt, hugh hewitt, LDS Mormon Romney, missionaries, Mormon

Erik Erikson, Hugh Hewitt and the Great Unwashed Mormon Missionaries

Hugh Hewitt’s Book, “A Mormon in the White House” hits the NY Times Best Sellers list this weekend. I’ve reviewed the book from several angles. This post however is a correction for both Hugh and Erik.

Hugh is rightly upset with Erik over his recent review (as am I) mostly for this paragraph:

In another contradiction, Hewitt writes, in the chapter titled “Mitt Romney’s Advantages”: “Start with the Mormons. The basic unit of the LDS church is the ward, comparable to a Catholic parish. Wards are collected into ‘stakes,’ again, comparable to a Catholic diocese. There are eight stakes in Iowa, which include 85 wards. . . . And in those 85 wards will be an incredible not-so-secret weapon--a core of young people . . . not to mention experienced missionaries.” So “the Romney campaign will certainly attract hundreds of thousands of Mormons. . . . This is a standard feature of American politics, and much to be celebrated.” But this begs the question: If we can expect heavy participation by Mormon missionaries as grassroots activists for an American presidential campaign, why can we not ask questions about Romney’s Mormon beliefs and why can Americans not be concerned? After all, contrary to the popular perception of the left and media, there were no organized platoons of Presbyterian missionaries knocking on doors for Reagan, brigades of Baptists for Bill Clinton, nor marauding packs of Methodists for George W. Bush. This is something relatively unseen and new to most Americans --including many deeply evangelical Americans who believe Mormonism to be a cult, or at best a religion that has some shared roots, but is fundamentally grounded in heresies.

Hugh’s reaction was the same as mine: “The Increased Participation Of A Minority In Political Activism Does Not Excuse Bigotry Directed At Them”. Hugh’s point is absolutely valid. I have enough experience with Mormon / con-Mormon dialogues to know what is really at play. I would ask the following question to Erik: “Does the increased participation of co-religionists give you a right to BASH the Mormon Church?” I’ll leave that discussion to another post… here’s the correction for Hugh and Erik.

When you read the above post you envision the white-shirted pair of Elders suddenly taking off their badges and picking up a poster for Mitt. This is a false impression. Let me explain.

In most every “Ward” building there is a map of the world showing the location of Missionaries who are serving from local families. On our board (in the highly populous Ashburn, VA area) there are all of 6 pictures on the board. When you get back from a mission you are sometimes referred to as an “RM”, a “Returned Missionary”. Currently, we have perhaps 3 recent “RMs” who actually live in my ward. “But wait… you say…” you ask, “where do the 60,000 missionaries go?” Where do all the recent “RMs” go? Why, to school.

BYU is the largest private institute in the United States with almost 38,000 students. Then, there’s BYU-Idaho, and BYU-Hawaii. Beyond that a lot of Mormons will attend the University of Utah, Dixie College in St. George, or UVSC (a community college next to BYU). Most missionaries, when they return home, will head back to school within weeks. Hence the local ward unit (with the exception of the BYU campus) will have a minority of fresh “RMs” on hand. During the summer months their numbers swell in the local ward units… but if you recall, the elections in February and November.

So who’s left? Let me answer that this way. As an official unpaid fundraiser for the campaign let me give you the sampling of friends (who are Mormon) who have contributed from my local Stake through me.

• A local 40+ year old business executive for a large manufacturing company (served a mission 20 years ago to Korea)
• A mother of 3 in her 30s (who never went on a mission)
• A 40-year old father of 5 competitive intelligence guru for a telecom company
• 60-year old PhD. Running for local office
• 50-year old father of 4 (with just 2 kids left at home)
• Couple in their late 50s, own their own software business, he’s a ER doctor

Across all of the local Mormon donors there are probably a dozen “RMs” under 22. None of them reside in the area.

In short, who are the co-religionists who will be vying for Mitt and stomping the pavement? The majority will probably be adults, ages 26-60, who are politically savvy, most likely with kids who have settled into an area of the country.

Labels: campaign, missionaries, mitt romney