Religious Moments

Religious Moments November 15, 2012

Churches and their leaders  generally don’t take kindly to outside scrutiny, but that scrutiny is something that all institutions sorely need.

The “Mormon moment” brought forth a deluge (see this compilation) of articles, op-eds, and blog posts about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ranging from the scholarly to the uninformed and from the curious to the mean-spirited.

Many members of the LDS Church have expressed a sense of relief that the moment has ended. Their reasons are various: that Mitt Romney will no longer be the most visible member of the church, that the academic field of Mormon Studies can progress without the pressure of contemporary relevance, and that outsiders will no longer have a public outlet for their anti-Mormon disdain.

[On a personal level, I’m very grateful to Mitt Romney for helping generate the Mormon moment. It was undoubtedly helpful to me professionally. Greedily, I was hoping that Romney could help turn it into a Mormon decade. If only he had been able to come up with the right gifts to offer the 53% of Americans who were his electoral ceiling.]

It occurs to me that LDS church leaders must find various aspects of the recent media scrutiny intensely annoying. Church members submit the names of Holocaust survivors, and a torrent of public criticism ensues. Outsiders (and a good number of insiders) call on the church to repudiate the priesthood ban, encourage church members to treat gays and lesbians with greater respect, and more fully reckon with the less pleasant aspects of its history. Bloggers post videos of the church’s endowment ceremony, trampling on something that church members regard as sacred.

Even post-Mitt, the LDS Church will continue to attract more than its share of public fascination and investigation. After all, the Mormon moment has really been — with peaks and valleys — going on since around 1830. Exposés of Mormonism (from John C. Bennett to Fanny Stenhouse to Ann Eliza Young) sold very well in the nineteenth century, and anti-Mormon novels (from  Maria Ward to Sherlock Holmes) took their place alongside Catholic literature. Still, things will subside from the past five years. There won’t usually be Broadway hits and presidential candidates.

Most religious groups and leaders like to be left alone. And why not? All institutions have their messy histories, their internal conflicts, and their shortcomings, and it seems unfair when journalists, scholars, and bloggers begin complaining about the specks in the eyes of others instead of troubling themselves with the planks in their own.

Public light, however, has great potential to promote positive change. In the Mormon case, public pressure has played some role in the church’s tightening of procedures with regard to proxy baptism, seems to have discouraged the church from further overt political opposition to same-sex marriage, and has led to vigorous denunciations of racism. By no means does the LDS Church quickly buckle to outside pressure (it’s not a church that tends to change anything quickly), but church leaders have become much more savvy in the realms of public relations and in their responses to public criticism.

While often unpleasant, I contend that this dynamic is usually good for churches. Catholic leaders surely did not appreciate the public outcry over sexual abuse cases, and that outcry led to a very real cost in terms of money and morale. Nevertheless, thank goodness for the hope that those scandals will lead to fewer instances of sexual abuse going forward. If only all American institutions — religious and otherwise — would learn to be vigilant against that evil.

Evangelicals have been rather out of the spotlight in recent years. In a more general sense, the entrepreneurial structure of American evangelicalism (in particular nondenominational churches and parachurch ministries) creates a situation in which many individual churches and leaders face relatively little oversight.  In the 1980s, the string of financial and sexual scandals involving televangelists caused many ministries to take precautionary measures. My sense is that the freewheeling aspect of the evangelical world creates a glaring lack of oversight and accountability. Perhaps we can begin a new “evangelical moment” in a few years.


"Who says we are a secular nation? You and atheists? Where did you get that? ..."

Evangelical Silence and Trump: A Reformation ..."
"Personal attack. Once you run out of reason fuel and facts, you engage in personal ..."

Evangelical Silence and Trump: A Reformation ..."
">>>"Read your responses to my comment and see whom is truly the one making 'personal ..."

Evangelical Silence and Trump: A Reformation ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Where is the outrage over the original reason that the Southern Baptist Convention exists?

  • Craig

    If only he had been able to come up with the right gifts to offer the 53% of Americans who were his electoral ceiling.

    He certainly tried.

    Evangelicals have been rather out of the spotlight in recent years.

    You are joking again? Their share of publicity and political influence has far outstripped the share of decent ideas that evangelicals have brought to the table.

  • Craig

    Sorry, I’m not sure what’s up with the formatting.

  • johnturner

    I simply meant that interest in Mormonism in some ways has swamped media interest in evangelicalism over the past few years. Back during the GWB administration, fears of a theocratic takeover (rather unhinged fears) stoked journalists’ interest in evangelicals. Those periods of intense scrutiny, I argue, encourage religious groups to be more responsible in their rhetoric and actions.

  • Craig

    I think you are perhaps missing a more dominent incentive that gets generated by publicity in the political realm. The public spotlight both follows and provides political power. And, generally speaking, when evangelicals start to sense that they have real political clout they become more greedier for it, and more belligerent, single-minded, and underhanded in its use. I suspect that this is a fairly common response to political power, or its enticing prospect. We’d see more moderation and decency among evangelicals if they were altogether out of the media spotlight and had no chances in the political game.

  • Phillip C. Smith

    As were most Mormons I was overjoyed when, in June 1978, the Church announced that it had received a revelation affirming that all, including African Americans, could enjoy the benefits of the priesthood and temple blessings. Those still demanding some sort of repudiation of the past policy have in front of them the best repudiation of all, the revelation itself. When Christ affirmed that a change is to be made, he indicated that we are in a new, wonderful day. Just as Christ instructed his apostles during his mortal ministry to not preach to the Samaritans and Gentiles, but only to the House of Israel, and later Peter did not take the Gospel early to the gentiles, both these policies were eventually changed but neither Christ, the God and Savior of this world nor Peter, his chief apostle, publicly apologized for or repudiated the earlier policies.
    Our good black members and the rest of us know that the revelation itself is by far the best indicator that the old policy is no longer valid. If anyone wants to use this revelation as a personal repudiation of the old policy, let him or her do so.

    Phillip C. Smith

  • Keith Johnston

    While I am glad that Mormonism is being given due respect and honest inquiry by evangelical Christians, I am a little mystified as to why there is not more attention being given to Islam. Certainly it is good that dialogue and respect are happening in regard to all religious groups, but wouldn’t the best course be to interact first with those that are the largest in size and the most in the news (e.g., the book “God Is Not One” lists Islam first in its survey of world religions). I hope that the relative neglect of Islam is not due to the fact that in the United States many Muslims do not have white skin. We saw in the most recent Presidential election that the label ‘Muslim’ was being used in the way the label ‘Communist’ was used in the past to denigrate and demonize persons with whom one had great disagreement.

  • Craig

    Those still demanding some sort of repudiation of the past policy have in front of them the best repudiation of all, the revelation itself.

    This kind of repudiation passes the buck of moral responsibility. As such, the Mormon Church will tend to lag behind moral progress. As the rest of the world learns to discern moral improprieties and injustices, too many Mormons will depend on top-down religious pronouncements, too stunted in their own moral development to respond to anything but a primitive moral rulebook. And these, the morally illiterate, will continue to hold back moral progress until their religious authorities come around to realizing that their own doctrines are publicly untenable.