More on Bias and Mitt Romney

Read the article

Just More Proof

As members of the Church, why should we be offended because of the bias directed towards us due to Mitt's run for the White House? I'm certainly not offended by it. In fact, we should actually rejoice because of it. I'm sure the Lord and his early followers were treated the same way by the people of their day. It's just more proof that the Church is true!

L. Jay Hamblin, MSgt, USAFR

--

Mormon Persecution

Thank you for your article about Mitt Romney.  It all painfully rings so very true.  Religious tolerance is for all Christians and in recent years the “Non-Christian” Muslims around the world — all except those that attend and believe fervently in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

This brings me to the thought that first provoked me to write you a quick note.  When did it become acceptable to address ourselves as “Mormons” instead of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? Or even LDS?  I truly believe it was a wrong and disastrous turn when we ourselves took upon Mormon as our acceptable name as opposed to our church name.  It certainly hasn't helped us.

Leslie Montgomery

--

South Pacific Fan Responds

Your article on Romney's problem with Mormon bias was right on.  It was well documented and researched.

Here is one slight correction, from one who has seen South Pacific many times. Although Nellie Forbush was appalled by her would-be lover, Emile de Becque, having Polynesian children, the heroine actually overcomes that prejudice in the end. The song you refer to is actually sung by Lt. Cable, who also is running into bias as he falls in love with Bloody Mary's daughter Liat. 

Andre Mostert
Champaign, Illinois

--

Note from Alabama

I am from Alabama.  I was born here but lived away from Alabama for 25 years before my husband retired and we moved back to Alabama in 2003.  For once in my life, I am almost ashamed to be from here and live here because of this religious bias.  But, it is not news to me. 

Yes, people will be tolerant to your face, especially if they are Baptists, but don't mention the fact that you are Mormon in the conversation.  The subject will be changed very quickly even if they love you as a friend, but I know that they are secretly saying to themselves that we, as Mormons, are all going to Hell.

I forwarded an email talking about the good things about Mitt Romney to a Baptist friend of mine, who has been one of my best friends since high school.  She said that she was definitely getting out to vote for the primary here.  There were no comments about the email other than that.  A few days before that, I told her about our Prophet dying and what a great man he was.  There was no mention whatsoever in her reply about that.  I had a very bad feeling about it, as if I had lost my best friend.

So, yes, there is definitely religious bias in the South.  And, yes, Baptists probably email each other a lot about Mormons and the things that are said aren't good either.  Another friend of mine, who now lives in Utah, went to Relief Society with me years and years ago in Alabama, and even after I moved away would still attend.  A few years ago, she joined the church in Utah.  But, before that, she went to a Baptist church in Utah. 

During one of their meetings, probably a Sunday school class, there was a film shown about how to make sure you weren't converted by the Mormons.  There were also bad things said.  My friend stood up and said that her two best friends are Mormons and they aren't strange or bad as was said in that video.  She said that if they didn't stop showing the video, she would not come back to that church.  I don't remember if they stopped showing it, but it was probably only shown if she wasn't there.  But, she is one of the people who really did recognize that we are not bad and that we are Christians.

Thank you for the article that you put in Meridian.  It needed to be said.  We need to have our armor strong so that in these last days we can stand up for our religion even to the point of death if we have to.  I feel almost as if I was shot down already by the people in my state and also by my friends who still have bias against us as a church, as a people, and to me as an individual.

Kathy Williams   

--

Prejudice Affects Us All

Great observation, Maurine. Sad but true, the prejudice does affect us all. I voted for Mitt in the 90's when he ran against Kennedy. They basically agreed that if Ted didn't talk about Mitt's religion, Mitt wouldn't talk about Ted's ability (or lack thereof) in driving over bridges on the Vineyard. Ted won anyway, but it was a good campaign as I recall.

Even here in Mesa, Arizona, there are churches that actually teach classes against our Church. I am amazed at this. With the Easter pageant and the Christmas lights at the Temple you'd think these folks would get a clue as to what we are about. Satan really does a number on them. Oh, well, their loss.

I am sure that Mitt is setting the groundwork for himself or another Latter-day Saint to run another time and perhaps be successful at it. Time will tell.

Thanks for a great magazine; I am surprised at the number of my member friends who are not aware of it — I encourage them to read Meridian.

Also enjoy your photo stories on President Hinckley and other subjects. Thanks!

Wade Beaudreau
Mesa, Arizona

--

Taking the Sacred out of Context

Your point that religious prejudice is alive and well is right on the mark.  All through the 50's I recall being aware of prejudice against Jews.  This wasn't really spoken about, but we all knew it was there.  Jews weren't voted into many country clubs, and we knew why. In high school, they had their own group and we had ours.   We knew they drove Cadillacs as a protest against General Motors selling to the Germans during WWII.   

This subtle prejudice extended to Mormons.  I remember a time during a history lesson in the sixth grade, when the text had a bit about Joseph Smith.  The teacher explained, with an undisguised mocking tone, how Joseph Smith claimed to see God and Jesus and how they told him to take many wives.  The way she told it sounded so absolutely foolish that I was embarrassed.  After all, how could any reasonable person be expected to believe such an idiotic thing?   Then she said, “By the way, are there any Mormons in our class?  Raise your hands.”  I will never forget how absolutely heavy my hand was that day as I raised it along with one other girl. 

Thankfully as Mormons rose to prominence and as our missionary efforts increased, we eventually got a hiatus from that stigma.  We have enjoyed a period of mainstream acceptance.  However, I have sadly watched, as Mitt Romney has had to endure derision for his religious beliefs and values.  I've been stressed to see how quickly some have been to take the sacred out of context and turn it into absurdity.  I'm sad to say the religious intolerance is alive and well with its newfound target.

Liz Dayton
Santa Clara, Utah

--

Time ly Response

Just want to concur with your article on religious bias. See the "I Hate Romney Club" article from Time Magazine, and my response below (which, of course, won't get published):

My response to Anna Marie Cox 2-3-08:

Your headline should have read "Most Republican Candidates Act Like They're Back in Junior High."

Yes, Romney's the Washington outsider candidate, and a new voice, so of course they don't like him.

In addition, they might see more of him if they mingled over something other than alcohol (“mingled easily over drinks”) They'd like to shoot him down for:

The other campaigns demonstrate the pettiest of attitudes, and I wouldn't say this “goes beyond policy disagreements” — I'd say it stops short of policy completely.

Your article does disservice to reason and promotes the schoolyard logic. Try a new viewpoint and you may actually see what's really going on.

Romney is honest, authentic, self-disciplined and governs his life to match his principles: he keeps his body and his family relationships healthy, as demonstrated in your article (though not highlighted). He performs equally well when he governs, and is the kind of leader America should seek.

--

Welcome to Earth

Good article, but to anyone who is surprised by the prejudice I can only say, "Welcome to the rest of the world"— especially the South, where we have to deal with our moderately polite (wink and nod) suspicious neighbors every day.  The "mission field" is a tough place to be, huh?

B Voyles
Chattanooga Tennessee

--

Individual Ballots

I am and have been a Romney supporter.  But let us not fool ourselves.  What beyond religious bias can account for Romney's 80%+ victory in Utah?  We, as a people, are just like many Evangelicals who voted for Gov. Huckabee.  This is exactly what happened years ago with Senator Reid in Nevada.  The LDS population saw someone who professed to be their own, but he was not the person he seemed to be.  All people should learn to vote for the individuals and not members of their group!

J. Ryerson Smith

--

Thank you for this article. Thank you for voicing what we've all been experiencing.

I live in Canada, and the only candidate I am really interested in is Gov. Mitt Romney, because of his outstanding business and personal qualifications, and his willingness to spend millions of dollars of his own money on the presidential race because he loves his country enough to put his money where his mouth is. But it became immediately and painfully obvious that as far as CNN was concerned, Governor Romney was the Invisible Candidate. For weeks, they avoided mentioning his name, only showing a photograph of him or a quick clip if the situation was negative — this from the so-called “best political team on television.”

I'm extremely disappointed by the selective coverage of the news media. Also, that in our “enlightened, politically correct” times, there exists such an obvious and widespread prejudice against Mormons.

A Canadian Reader

—

How Super was Tuesday?

For some it wasn't such a super day — losses at the polls, decisions about whether to continue spending volumes of money, losing sleep, eating a lot of bad food at fundraisers and to court voters at dinners and luncheons and BBQs, wondering why it is worth all the angst and the toll on friends and family, but then a picture of the White House pops into the brain and the desire to be a resident there, rent-free for at least four years takes over.

What also apparently has taken over the media and a sizable portion of the voters and general citizenry is prejudice, and not a subtle, hard-to-detect kind of prejudice, but one that has stepped out into the spotlight, proud and loud. It declares that a man who is well-qualified to be a president of these United States, a man who has led an exemplary life, who is devoted to his family, to his country, to good causes, who is successful as a political figure in an important and influential state, who, as a businessman, has founded businesses that are Harvard textbook successful, and who has turned companies and the Olympics around when everyone else was pulling out hairs and pointing fingers of blame, cannot be considered because of his religion.

This man is studied and methodical and thoughtful. He is not without flaws or political quirks — what politician is? — but he has been a front-runner throughout the campaign, declared his candidacy early on. This is unlike several candidates who, like the marathon wannabe who waits at the final leg of the run to join the pack, waited until the waters and been tested and found "safe," and who is currently in second place as the Republican Party's presidential nominee.

But to hear the media consultants both Republican and Democratic last night, Mitt Romney wasn't even being considered for VP. He was being summarily dismissed. Instead Mike Huckabee's name was touted as a definite best choice for that position. Based on what? Huckabee's winning record? His government or business triumphs? His decision to play the religion card when he had nothing else of merit with which he could criticize Romney and wanted to join other candidates and the media in the last licks campaign against Mr. Romney?

Although I am not a Republican, if I were, I don't think I would be thrilled at the prospect of having any candidate in office who had such obvious prejudice against an individual because of his religion.

Freedom of religion is a cornerstone of this country's philosophy of how we conduct business — or at least it is touted as such when convenient for those who need their religious beliefs or non-beliefs honored. The wave of prejudice against Mitt Romney and, in essence, all members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been overwhelming, public and tolerated and even accepted as humorous and clever.

It is none of those. It is homely. It should have no place in our conventions or our country. But, because Mr. Romney's church doesn't believe in getting into a fistfight over this issue, the media and political pundits have taken that stance as a signal for a free-for-all attack both personal and general against the Church and its members.

And Mitt Romney, who should be included on the short list for VP, isn't even in the realm of possibilities. All this because he has chosen to exercise a constitutional right — freedom of religion. For this choice, he will probably lose any opportunity to become the VP in 2008 and possibly a presidential candidate at any future time. But the loss isn't just Mr. Romney's. It is the whole country's. America may never know what it is to have a solid citizen, a loving and caring husband and father, a successful businessman, a thoughtful leader, and a deeply religious man, who practices what he preaches, as the leader of this nation.

Our nation has come so far in the past 232 years, is so powerful, possesses so many resources and has great influence throughout the world, and yet it is diminished by this treatment of one of its citizens. There should be an outcry among the population over this blatant prejudice, regardless of whether ordinary men and women agree with Mitt Romney's political platform or want him as president. The treatment of Romney and his church should be labeled outrageous by anyone who considers liberty and freedom of conscience essential to a democratic nation, and, if we elect any candidate who supports, engenders, or rallies prejudicial thinking at this or any level, then everyone is at risk of being a target.

I believe that the media, the candidates who have postured against Mr. Romney's religion, and others who have jumped on the anti-Mormon bandwagon, have done so because they felt free to do so, because they felt no one would oppose them, or at least no one of any importance, because they felt that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were a minor sector of the American population, because they thought that no one would stand up for the church members or call those fomenting this religious prejudice to act responsibly, that they had a ticket to ride and no one would stop the train. And they were right.

That is what is so wrong about this situation and why it should be a grave concern to all of us. And grave is the appropriate term to use, because prejudice in any form is deadly, and it appears that our country has developed serious symptoms of this condition over the past few decades that will slowly destroy the body politic.

Elana Jan Bodine
Yuba City, California

--

On Our Toes

As usual, you have portrayed the issue both truthfully and with great insight. I, too, feel that Mitt was subjected to mean-spirited prejudice and blatant hatemongering. But I come away from this situation with a slightly different attitude from that which I sensed in your article.

While I feel saddened at the benighted spirits behind the verbal attacks and know that there may be many Latter-day Saints whose faith may be diminished because of them, I am glad they occur. I feel this way for two reasons. One, it proves that we are doing things right. Satan always attacks those who do the most good for God's kingdom. Mitt — his message, his clean-cut aw-shucks demeanor, his religion — are provoking Satan's henchmen to use drastic in-your-face tactics. We should take some comfort in this and continue on in our efforts to build God's kingdom.

Reason number two — to paraphrase Hugh Nibley, the "anti" crowd keep us on our toes. Opposition tests our strength and builds our resolve. It separates the wheat from the chaff and makes sure that the hundreds of thousands who join our church each year do so for the right reasons, and not as in the Book of Mormon, where even the teachers were exceedingly amazed at the number who joined the Church, who then a chapter later fell away, dragging many with them.

It is not an easy thing to wade through tribulation. But if it can produce a better Nephi, maybe it will produce a better Craig, or Maurine or Mitt. I think it already has.

Craig Lofgreen
Sandy, Utah

--

Revealing Behavior

After all is said and done, the rhetoric and actions of media, Evangelicals and others says more about them than it does about Mormons.
 
Barbara Breuer

--

No Mormon Right-Wingers

Maurine Proctor's analysis of Romney's run at the presidency is not very useful because it is so narrow. Of course Romney had other issues besides his religion that made him unpalatable to the majority of Republicans — his wealth, his stiffness, his late shift from moderate to conservative, the negative tone of his campaign, and his decision to defend a very unpopular president, to name a few.

But the primary reason Romney has proven unelectable is that he has positioned himself as a far-right conservative, which means that in order to win he has to appeal to a segment of the Republican Party that does hold a religious bias against Mormons. Romney's run doesn't prove that a Mormon can't be president; all it proves is that a Mormon running as a right-winger can't be president.

What galls me is the naïve belief of most conservative Mormons that all Mormons are conservative Republicans. My own political views, however, cannot be categorized by the inadequate labels "liberal" and "conservative." And some issues don't really have a strictly liberal or conservative split at all (take immigration, for instance).

Using the traditional definitions, my positions range from far right on some issues (abortion and gay marriage) to far left on others (gun control and military intervention), with some squarely in the middle (environment and education). And on some issues, such as economic policy, my views are completely off the traditional chart. I am a lifelong, active Latter-day Saint, but I am certainly not a conservative Republican. In fact, a website that shows how a person's views match up with the various candidates indicates that I should probably vote for Barack Obama.

My point here is that a Mormon can indeed be elected president. But a conservative Republican Mormon probably can't because he or she will be relying on a segment of the electorate that has a religious bias against Mormons. A Mormon who is a moderate Republican or Democrat would have a much better chance of being elected than a conservative.

Which brings up the valid question, what on earth was Mitt thinking, shifting from his historically moderate views to the far right just in time to run for president? Not only has his flip-flopping given his detractors a good deal of ammunition, but it also placed him at the mercy of voters who have a preconceived bias against him. Basically, Romney committed political suicide.

So let's stop blaming the evangelicals. They don't like us. So what? Let's stop trying to appeal to them. All Romney's campaign proved is that he had more dollars than sense.

Roger Terry
Orem, Utah

--

The Norm

I guess we have grown up with different expectations.  I am 68 years old and have always felt that anti-Mormon bias and even bigotry would be the norm forever in a major portion of the population.  The force behind the bias and bigotry remains ever vigilant to opportunity to agitate and stir the pot.  Mitt Romney's candidacy, which I fully support both financially and otherwise, provides the opportunity.

I suspect nothing will change significantly until the good people in the USA finally get sick and fed up with the “nothing changes no matter whom we elect from among the handpicked and connected.”  Only in an emergency, or with a blood priority affixed to our national situation, will a majority of the electorate turn to a white knight in shining armor.

Which situation may be rapidly approaching and could be as soon as the next presidential go-round given the forces at work and the events in progress.

May God bless Mitt Romney for laying it on the line and may the experience prove to be personally exciting and challenging as President Hinckley told him it would be regardless of whether he won or lost.

And by the way. may God bless you and Scot for your superb work, now, in the recent past and for many years before.  You do a huge service for the rest of us.

Dave Shields

--

Burdened

Your publication does an incredible service for the Latter-day Saints, who can always use more of a voice in today's media! Your coverage of President Hinckley's passing and President Monson's subsequent ordination was outstanding and an inspiration to me. Thank you so much! I love the work you are doing.

Today's article on Romney and religious bias was well-thought out and well-written. I do feel a bit burdened after reading it, however, as I live in the Bible belt (central Arkansas), and must interact daily with these good people — so many of whom are greatly misled about the restored Church of Jesus Christ. I find myself fighting feelings of antagonism now, and I wish that your article had taken a more positive tone.

Yes, we are very disappointed by the lack of support for Romney apparently because of religion. But while we face the reality that there is still so far to go in spreading truth (and we do face it daily here in Arkansas!), more encouragement is needed, more focus on what is going well.

It is amazing that Romney received 4 million votes compared to McCain's 4.7 million! Even though the campaign has been suspended, it helps me to focus on the progress that was indeed made. The full-time elders here mentioned that they have had many more questions from people about the true beliefs of the Church because of Romney's campaign and the visibility it has had in the media.

I am bitterly disappointed that Romney has not won the nomination, for I personally think that he is the only candidate who could have beat Hillary or Obama, and I dread the potential events of the next five years. But it does not help me to feel victimized by "soft bigotry."

I hope your article is seen by the national-level pundits and evangelical leaders, where hopefully it may penetrate some thick skins and increase tolerance of all faiths. Meanwhile, I need some encouragement in my personal efforts to dispel the benighted views of Mormonism here in the South. What can I do now to strengthen the possibility the next time a Mormon candidate has a better chance?

Michelle Baker
Bryant, Arkansas

--

Not the Right Time

This article expressed some of the some frustration I have felt during this campaign, but really didn't know how to express.  Romney's “Faith” speech was excellent, if a little too late in the campaign. 

I was raised in “Mormon country,” having no idea what religious bias was until moving to rural Indiana 11 years ago.  I have never seen such blatant prejudice with regard to race or religion.  However, my testimony has grown leaps and bounds. 

I am pretty much of the Democratic persuasion, but I am really pulling for Romney and hope to have the opportunity to cast at least one Republican vote in November.  

My mother (83 years of age) made an interesting comment yesterday.  “When the Lord determines it is time for the U.S. to have an LDS President, politics will have nothing to do with his being elected.”  I must say I agree.

Sue Repp

--

Mopping the Floor

I just wanted to thank you for your insightful article on the reasons Mitt Romney had a religious bias working against him from the start.  I had hoped, as I'm sure many of us did, that once he showed his true colors and let others know where he stood, that the bias would start to alleviate, but it was not to be. 

It seemed that every discussion about Mitt Romney's run for the Presidency would boil down to his faith, and why it was not a "mainstream" Christian religion.  I wish that we had a new Independent party, which didn't have such a negative connotation when it came to Mormonism. 

Maybe in four years, when the country has fallen deeper into the liberal cesspool of humanistic dogmas, they might see the wisdom in having a man or woman who has the ability to get the country back on track.  With the backlash McCain is getting from his own party, imagine what will happen when he starts to run against the Democrat's candidate, Hillary or Obama.  They will mop the floor with him.

On a side note, why don't you publish this somewhere where it will be more widely read?  I read most of your posts here, but your readership is primarily Mormon, and this article really deserves to get wider attention.

Steve M. Wilson
Tracy, Caifornia

--

Prejudice Precludes

Thank you for sharing the truth about prejudice.   It is absolutely a shame that when the United States really needs a capable and qualified leader for President, prejudice precludes us from electing the most qualified and moral leader.

Although Governor Romney will not be our president in 2009, I am grateful for his sacrifice as well as that of his family.

I appreciate your wonderful coverage of President Hinckley over the years.  Your photo essays would make a wonderful book, and I would be in line with many others to purchase for family and friends.

All the best to you, Scot and your wonderful family!

Ken & Zoe Ann

--

Never Mainstream

I really appreciate the article you wrote today on bias in regards to the Church and Mitt Romney.  It is really very obvious what has gone on out there, even though it is not widely being discussed by the typical anti-discrimination club.

It has even made me wonder if I have been denied employment due to that two-year period of service to the LDS Church in Argentina that shows up on my resume.

Who knows? 

I have finally come to the conclusion that it is a problem, but it would be a disaster for us and  the Church if it ever was accepted as mainstream and normal, because that would mean that we changed, which or course isn't going to happen.  Thank Heavens!

You may recognize the last name.  I am Royce's nephew.  He's a great man.  He actually paid for a third of my mission, and he's a WWII vet as well.  He's one of my heroes.

Thanks and keep up the great work!

Nathan D. Flandro
Fresno, California

--

Consistent Venom

We as members of the Church should not be surprised by this response.   As diligently as President Hinckley tried to “mainstream” the Church, he only made some minor inroads with some press people. 

I've read a number of articles in the Salt Lake and national papers' internet sites concerning our church, leaders and issues, and have also read the comments at the end of those stories.  I've truly been shocked at the consistent venom exhibited by some citizens of this country against our leaders, our stands on various moral and political issues and Mitt Romney.   

It gives me a very odd feeling to note that people not just are suspicious of me because I'm LDS, but they may automatically hate me.  Mitt Romney is routinely attacked because he's “plastic,” “a flip-flopper” and — a Mormon.

I imagine you've read Lawrence O'Donnell's tirade against LDS on the McLaughlin Report and his radio interview with Hugh Hewitt.  Hewitt nailed O'Donnell on the real reason he, and others, so publicly attack us.  It is because they have no fear of us. 

O'Donnell knows that members of our church are kind and giving people.  The vast majority of Latter-day Saints conduct themselves as Christians.  We don't firebomb our enemies' homes and places of business.  We don't sue our attackers in court for millions of dollars and make them publicly apologize for their religiously insensitive comments. 

O'Donnell stated that he would not attack Muslims on the same grounds as he does LDS because he fears Muslims.  He knows that he could be physically attacked for being too outspoken against Muslims.   That is the real reason we are continuously attacked publicly and others are not. 

All of this just reminds me that as a people, we really haven't come that far in the public's perception of us as legitimate Christians.  We've certainly made some progress since 100 years ago.  However, we are still judged as wacky extremists and cultists from Utah with a bunch of wives.  And those are just my family's and neighbors' opinions. 

I vividly remember the reaction of my parents in 1980, when I was baptized as a member of the Church.  They told me that if I had not been 18 years old, they would never have allowed me to be baptized.  I was honestly afraid that I, like others I'd heard about, would be disowned.  Maybe you're surprised by this because the Church is more respected in the D.C. area.  But I am not, here in the Midwest.  The religious bigotry against Mormons here in the Midwest is serious, consistent and not diminishing at all. 

I don't think we'll ever see the day that a faithful, committed Latter-day Saint will ever be elected to the office of the Presidency of the USA.  A liberal, uncommitted, apologetic church member may be, if he's a Democrat.  As a national Republican candidate with the current evangelical influence in the GOP?  As they say in New York, “fuggetaboudit!”

Jeffrey S. Kennedy, P.E.
Mansfield, Ohio

--

Undercurrent is Real

I have lived in Missouri since 1980 (still homesick every day for Alaska). I knew the moment I heard Brother Romney was going to make a run for the Presidency, that this was going to be most unwelcoming part of the nation. Since we first moved here, there have been some gains. But if I am honest, the undercurrent is real, strong and at times quite frightening.

A few years ago I was the stake public affairs person. There was an article in the city paper about some church-related subject. My phone number was accidentally (or not?) put in the paper as the number to call if there were further questions on the subject. When I got home, that night, there were more than a dozen calls from angry, vicious, hateful people who called me everything from Hitler to devil worshiper. The voices were so full of hate that I told my husband and stake president that they were voices like the ones that screamed at the saints when they were driven out many years ago. Those were the voices the saints heard then.

I know it sounds paranoid and even overly sensitive, but I have seen the look and heard the tone a million times that was displayed by Mike Huckabee. Even when his voice was soft and his face smiling, he could not hide his hatred for Brother Romney from me.

There are people just over the border in Arkansas who still rage and incite anger over Mountain Meadows (my great-great-grandfather Jacob Hamblin owned that land at the time) as if it were last week.  My husband is a convert (raised Baptist in this area). He says that all of his life all he ever heard about Mormons, was how evil we were — and he heard that from the pulpit from his preachers, and from ex-members who now made a living going from church to church to "expose" how vile we really are.

Anyway, the whole point of my writing was to thank you for hitting the nail on the head. I have said this over and over again the past few months but even the members here brush it off and not being as serious as I think. But I am not mistaken, and I could give you a thousand examples why.

Marilynn in Missouri

--

Where are Our Advocates?

I enjoyed the article on religious bias and the media. I do believe much work has to be done by Latter-day Saints to bridge to Evangelicals. We can't rely on media, ever (even if they aren't biased) to tell our story or defend us.

And where are all our advocates? Why aren't more people standing up to defend us? The lack of friends rallying to defend may be an indication that we have more advocates to win over. Studies show that when people know Latter-day Saints, they tend to overwhelmingly have a favorable opinion.

Grassroots telling of our story is much more powerful than the media can ever be.  Grassroots efforts like BYU Religion Professor Dr. Robert Millet's pioneering work to bridge with Evangelicals serves as an example. Much like Ammon moving into hostile territory, Millet has won the love, affection and trust of many Evangelical leaders. 

I hope members of the Church will make it a priority to get to know our Evangelical neighbors.  If we hope to strengthen families and advance pro-family initiatives, we must band with others to work towards those ends. We can do more with others than on our own. It is imperative, then, that we reach out to our neighbors.

Dana King,
St. Louis

www.knowyourneighbornet.com

--

I live in Oklahoma City — not exactly the Deep South, but in a state with a large amount of Southern Baptists.    There is certainly an amount of anti-Mormonism here — as you phrase it.  However, this state also elected Ernest Istook, a Mormon, to the U.S. House many times. But Oklahomans didn't trust him with the job of governor.

People here don't consider Mormons as Christians.  To be a Christian, one must accept a Trinitarian view of deity, only believe in the Bible, not accept the concept of continuing revelation and view God as omnipotent instead of a man now perfected.

However, in looking critically at the South, isn't it possible to also look critically at Utah as being “anti-Baptist”?  Nearly every Republican Mormon in Utah voted for Romney because of his religion.  The numbers from Arizona seem to support that nearly every Mormon Republican there voted for Romney based on his religion.  It seems unfair to call people from the South bigots when they, like Utahans and Mormon Arizonans, voted for someone because of his religion. Why is it okay for Mormons in Utah and Arizona to vote for a candidate because of his religion and not okay for Southerners to vote for Huckabee because of a shared religion?

Perhaps the LDS people, instead of seeing persecution, could begin to see the need to understand other faiths and accept others as equals.  The LDS view that it is the only “true” church and all other churches are an abomination is offensive to non-Mormons.  How can you blame them from not accepting a Mormon candidate?

Also, non-Mormons feel a sense of uneasiness when Mormons don't allow others into Mormon temples.  Most religions don't have secret practices in buildings in which others are not allowed. 

So, instead of seeing persecution, perhaps it would be better to view this rejection of Romney, and by extension Mormonism, as an opportunity and need to improve relationships with others.

Odell D. Campbell
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

--

I think the difference is that Mormons do not ever mention Evangelicals negatively at church.  It would be unthinkable for that to happen.  We are taught to love all of our neighbors.  We do not label their religion as a cult.  We do not recoil or shrink when someone says he is an Evangelical. We do not say they are not Christians, even though their view of Christ differs markedly from ours. 

Mitt did not nor never would make any slamming remarks toward Mike Huckabee's religion, but Huckabee used typical anti-Mormon talk to the interviewer at the New York Times .  My article was not about identity politics, which would motivate someone to vote for another whose outlook resonates with his own because of shared group experience, but about the bigotry that teaches people to marginalize, disdain or dislike a certain group of people in this case, the Mormons.

Maurine Proctor