Mormons are so nice, maybe they’re deities-in-training after all

A contributor at NRO says that while the members of various religions he has met over the years show the same proportion of nice people and jerks, he’s never met a Mormon who was a jerk.

How is that possible? What quality does Mormonism instill into its followers that removes the natural human tendency to be a jerk?

- end of initial entry -

Sebastian writes:

You ask “What quality does Mormonism instill into its followers that removes the natural human tendency to be a jerk?” The answer is duplicity.

I experienced modern Zion while skiing in Utah each Winter for six years. A religion that prohibits alcohol and coffee and takes an extreme view of pre-marital sex but allows polygamy is too close to Islam in its fundamentalism. [LA replies: Mormonism banned polygamy in the late 19th century (albeit under pressure from the United States which had outlawed both polygamy and dissemination of belief in polygamy); I don’t think it’s fair to blame the Mormon church for occasional renegades who violate present Mormon law.] I was raised with Jesuits and Anglicans and support a public place for Christianity; I am not like John Derbyshire. Still, I was never able to develop any kind of real friendship or relationship with the many Mormons I met. They were always “nice” in that creepy Stepford Wives manner. I’m sorry to sound shallow, but there is something of a horror film underneath that puritanism, in part obvious inbreeding. In Utah, entire dinners look all alike: tables with identical blond children and two or three mothers and one wholesome-looking dad, always polite but never real. Polygamy does go on. Theology is not everything, but would you vote for a Scientologist? One can know a Mormon but something always prevents real friendship or intimacy unless one is also a Mormon. This is unlike other religions. Given my exposure to them, I should have a number of Mormon friends. Instead, I have Jewish, Hindu and Baptist ones. That robotic quality is everywhere in Utah. I completely understand the fear that as a member of a renegade sect, Romney has a soft heart for “marginalized” religions, especially tea-tootling polygamous ones.

He strikes me, as do most Mormons, as a liar at a witch trial.

I’m a Thompson man. I think he has the most primal understanding of America of any candidate. He has always spoke of this country as our home, long before McCain and Giuliani discovered immigration. He belongs to a mainstream, majority religion with no troubled past without being a guilt-ridden Connecticut type. I am annoyed but not too bothered by his appearance at Univision. He is not setting the rules in this election; he is trying to get elected. Paul participated: politics is politics. Such debates may be a thing of the past already, like German-language political meetings in Wisconsin or Pennsylvania. I think Hispanic chauvinism will crash and burn if (once) the border is closed.

That’s my sense of this Romney issue. The leader of the free world should know what a beer taste like and the company of more than one woman. This may sound like a flippant, sixties-like comment, but as a Catholic who attends Episcopal mass once a month, I’m sticking to it. Mormonism is just too damn puritanical and hypocritical and nice. I do not trust it or Governor Romney, no matter how much he is worth and how successful his private equity firm has been. There is something very dark behind that smile.

LA replies:

You have described a Stepford Wives-like quality. You have not demonstrated the Mormons’ “duplicity” nor have you demonstrated their supposed inner darkness, their “horror film”-like quality or anything like that.

You also weaken your case by insisting that the president of the United States should have been with more than one woman in his life. This makes you sound like someone who is prejudiced against traditional morality in whatever form.

Sebastian replies:

True, I have not. No one can, without descending into outright bigotry. I was speaking of a certain sensibility, something one can formulate in a novel or work of art. Perhaps I really am prejudiced and nothing else. But somehow I doubt it. I’ll leave it at that for now.

“Albert Nock” writes:

I agree with the NRO comment. Every single Mormon I’ve met I think is a nicer person than every non-Mormon. Perhaps I’ve met an unrepresentative sample, but they’ve certainly hit on something. I honestly wish everyone other than me was Mormon, and I’d be willing to fake it to get along with them.

Stewart W. writes:

In response to Sebastian’s comments regarding Mormons, let me just start out by stating that I am a lifelong resident of Utah, born of Mormon stock, although I am not Mormon, nor indeed particularly religious (and in point of fact, I find much of the doctrine of the Mormon faith to be absurd). My family has always been mixed Mormon and non-Mormon. Having grown up here, I recognize the words of Sebastian, having heard them in some form or another all my life. As a child, I often felt the same way, since I thought the people saying such things were much more aware, much more “real,” much more hip. Even within my own family, such things were said by an element of the non-Mormons about the Mormon members of my family, and I tended to concur.

Then I grew up. I recognized that, for whatever reason, Utah tends to produce three kinds of people: Mormons, non-Mormons, and anti-Mormons. Mormons are what they are; they are a close-knit community that values conformity, high moral character, good behavior, hard work and thrift, and who are constantly aware of the presence of the transcendent higher power of God. Non-Mormons are good people, whether native or imported, who get along fine with Mormons, like having them as neighbors, and generally lead their own lives as they see fit and without excessive concern about the opinions of others. In other words, adults.

The anti-Mormons, however, are a different lot entirely. As I watched my “hip, cool” relatives and friends growing up, contrasted to my Mormon relatives, I noticed that the “hip” ones got divorced, used drugs, raised worthless children, and generally lead unhappy lives. They also tend to blame the Mormons for their own unhappiness, and spend a great deal of energy running away from their problems. The Mormon families raised large, happy, successful families, who went on to do the same. Their children are happy, accomplished, talented, and generally a pleasure to be around. The difference is very stark, even between the lower-class Mormon families compared to upper-class anti-Mormons.

About 15 years ago, I realized that when the anti-Mormons look at these “Stepford Wives” families, the darkness and unreality they see is only a reflection of their own inner demons. Their own inadequacies, their own sin, their own anger only stand out further in contrast to the good, decent families they see around them, and it makes them jealous and resentful.

Oh, and they are almost invariably liberal.

John Hagan writes:

I suspect much of the anti-Mormon sentiment is based on envy. I remember when Mitt Romney first ran against Senator Kennedy for his U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts in 1994 and the Boston Globe picked up a quip Mitt made about never having a fight with his wife, or so much as raising his voice to her in their marriage. The Globe basically called him a liar, and Mitt and his wife were just flabbergasted.

If our nation looked more like Utah than California I would suggest we would be in a lot less trouble than we are now.

Jack S. writes:

It has been two years since I read NRO daily and I remember through KJ Lopez’s posting pro-Romney comments on a near daily basis starting soon after the 2004 election going through 2005. Her admiration of Romney seemed to be based on his Ken-doll/movie star good looks more than anything of substance. As the den-mother of the NRO ratpack she probably influenced this worthless endorsement.

As regards to Mormonism. I agree with much of what your commenter Sebastien says. I have known Mormons and his assessment of them is spot on. In a nutshell, their attitude is that they regard non-Mormons as prey, a charge that has been leveled against Jews and Gypsies (famously by Hemingway in “For Whom the Bell Tolls”).

I watched the Wednesday Republican debate. It’s good to see Thompson showing some fire, he’s got some baggage but he looks most presidential of the bunch. Huckabee was a slippery as ever. I disliked Huckabee before it was fashionable, just for being from Arkansas, the “Man from Hope 2.0.” Giuliani, Romney and McCain recited the same boilerplate as always.

Richard B. writes:

Good grief! Some of your readers think the Republican choice between a Mormon President or a Baptist President is worse than the Democrat’s choice between a woman President or a black President.

I’ll bet it may come down to a Woman or a Mormon. What will they do about that choice? Personally, I’d like to see the choice be black or white, to make things interesting.

Hannon writes:

Stewart W. said: “About 15 years ago, I realized that when the anti-Mormons look at these “Stepford Wives” families, the darkness and unreality they see is only a reflection of their own inner demons. Their own inadequacies, their own sin, their own anger only stand out further in contrast to the good, decent families they see around them, and it makes them jealous and resentful.”

I thought this was a very thoughtful comment. Most people who are honest with themselves would, or should, at least see the powerful “transference” potential Stewart is talking about here. It made me think about my own judgmentalism and its underlying origins. Ugh.

Clark Coleman writes:

In response to Stewart W.’s comments about Mormons having nice families and the hip anti-Mormons getting divorced: The Mormon divorce rate is at or slightly above the national average. Three of my 4 Mormon cousins have accounted for 5 of those divorces. The subject has caused quite a bit of concern in the LDS church in recent years.

James P. writes:

Sebastian says, “I’m sorry to sound shallow, but there is something of a horror film underneath that puritanism, in part obvious inbreeding. In Utah, entire dinners look all alike: tables with identical blond children and two or three mothers and one wholesome-looking dad, always polite but never real.”

This strikes me as the knee-jerk response of a typical liberal who has been brainwashed to think that only “multicultural” people are “interesting” and “authentic,” while the old America—of polite, hard-working, law-abiding white folk—was boring, over-regimented, and inauthentic. Part and parcel of the liberal program for destroying this country and its culture is to indoctrinate whites to hate themselves, and, in Sebastian’s case, this program has clearly succeeded.

Dimitri K. writes:

I am Jewish myself, though not observing. I lived in Israel and saw a lot of orthodox Jews. In many respects they are good people, in some matters you can really rely on them. When I had two flat tires in the middle of Hebron back in 1995, I was lucky enough to have religious Jews by my side. When later I was in a Mormon church and made friends with a Mormon family, in some respect they resembled the religious Jews.

There are also liberal Jews everywhere, and they often like the country they live in and often are patriots. But they are patriots in a way they think is good for that country. Which may not coincide with the views of the gentile population. So, if you ask me if I would support a Jew as the president of the United States, I would say no. Because everyone is good in his own place. And because the president is not only a great power, but a symbolic figure. Every nation should have a president who they really trust. Even if it is a prejudice.

LA replies:

Is Dimitri saying that he would not support a Mormon for president, because Mormons are not Christians, and a non-Christian cannot properly serve as a symbolic representative of America?

Dimitri replies:

Actually there are two reasons, which are not unrelated:

1. A Mormon is not a proper symbolic representative.

2. A Mormon’s views may be (possibly) not appropriate for this position.

Sebastian writes:

James P’s comments are a little unfair, though my use of the word blond was perhaps unfortunate. My mother is blond and I married a blond, and I no more hate them or myself than I do this country. What I reject—will always reject—is this notion that pre-1960s America was a trite cultural wasteland of conformist look-alikes. Nineteen-forties Chicago, Boston or Atlanta did not resemble present day Utah. America had glamor and beautiful women who expressed their sexuality in a refined pre-hippie but not puritanical way. Americans drank more alcohol then than today but wore suits while doing it—and that makes all the difference. Churchill and FDR were chain-smoking degenerate drunks destined to Hell by Mormon standards. Men were often outrageous back then and took huge risks in their personal lives. I reject sexual purity as the sine qua non of a good man or politician. A liar and cheat no. But a man should have adult experiences beyond proselytizing on a bicycle.

This projection of conformity onto the past is not only absurd but unproductive, for it paints conservatism as devoid of high culture and the enemy of art and creativity. I will never surrender the cultural “authenticity” argument to the Left. We had better composers, artists, writers and thinkers back then than today. James P misunderstands my critique: I am not a liberal; I am defending a society that is neither impoverished in its conformity, like Mormonism, nor a vulgar reaction to the straw man he actually defends by positing that Utah is an accurate representation of the past. Mormonism was as strange to a high-ball sipping Philadelphia lawyer in 1955 as it is today.

LA replies:

It seems to me there are two aspects of pre-Sixties mainstream America jostling together in this discussion and we need to differentiate them from each other but also to validate both and defend them from leftist attacks. There is the urban and urbane America that Sebastian defends, and there is the more rural, less sophisticated, more religious, predominantly Protestant (but also Mormon) Middle America that James P. is defending.

Emily B. writes:

I recognized the words of Sebastian. I’m not Mormon, but Catholic, though I’ve never heard them in my capacity as a Catholic. It is as a member of the homeschooling community that I’ve heard them. Catholics on average have fallen so far astray from following doctrine that they aren’t capable of provoking envy. An exception is made for “conservative” or “traditionalist” Catholics, though. Hence, I agree that Sebastian is “prejudiced against traditional morality in whatever form.” The praise and adulation that Mormons receive is very similar to what homeschooled children receive.

As an aside, I’m glad you noticed Sebastian’s notion that, as you put it, “the president of the United States should have been with more than one woman in his life.” I’ve read many heinous and stupid comments you’ve criticized on your blog, but this angered me the most. I don’t understand why it does and it will surely strike you as irrational that it strikes me as the worst thing ever said. I only understand that my “feeling” of it as the worst thing must have to do with my being a woman and the rage is automatic and has been there as long as I’ve been an adult.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 12, 2007 10:21 PM | Send