Dr. J.'s Commentary: Comparative Founding Narratives

As Mitt Romney pursues his Presidential bid, much is being made, sotto voce, of his Mormonism. The whispering campaign goes on: "Mormonism is pretty weird, you know." "Mormonism is a cult, you know." Or, as a Huckabee operative in a Midwestern state said in an e-mail to putative Huckabee supporters, "his Jesus is not your Jesus" (and there I didn't know there were more than one). The critique starts with the Mormon founding narrative, taken from an article by Timothy Garton Ash of the Guardian (UK), December 27, 2007.

Briefly, an angel named Moroni appeared in the 1820s to a young American named Joseph Smith, and led him to some golden plates buried on a hillside near his home in western New York. They were written in an otherwise unknown language called Reformed Egyptian. The plates had been placed there by a group of Jews who had traveled to North America at about the time of Christ. Smith was able to decipher them with the aid of two stones called Urim and Thummim. These texts became the Book of Mormon, regarded by Mormons as divine revelation alongside the Bible. "Mormon," Smith explained in a letter to a newspaper, derives from the Reformed Egyptian word mon, meaning good, "hence with the addition of more, or the contraction mor, we have the word Mormon; which means, literally, more good."

"Huh," or possibly "a ha," you say. "Sounds a bit strange to me." Well, consider the following founding narrative. An angel appears to a married woman who is still a virgin. The angel tells her that she will become pregnant, with "God" as the father of her child. (The means of impregnation is not detailed.) With her husband, she travels to the little town of Bethlehem where she delivers the newborn in an animal barn. To celebrate the birth, somehow knowing that a significant event is going to occur, three kings bearing gifts arrive from distant lands. Shepherds working in the surrounding area too know that something special has happened. The boy, a Jew, grows up to be a rebel against both the leadership of his own people and their then-Roman rulers. The Romans decide that he is a real enemy and execute him by crucifixion, a method of execution that they used for hundreds of years before that particular one and afterwards as well. After this particular crucifixion, the dead body is taken down and buried, and then three days later, the body rises to join his father in heaven.

Another "a ha" from you? Well, how about this founding narrative. A group of nomads are wandering in the desert. At the foot of a particular mountain that is no longer identifiable, they gather for a time. At one point, their leader is instructed by "God" to climb the mountain and spends quite a bit of time up there. During the time, God speaks to him. God tells him that if he will secure from his people a commitment to follow the Rule of Law as summarized in a set of Commandments, he, God, will designate them as the people chosen to do just that, follow the Rule of Law, and spread the word to other peoples to do the same. (The stand-up philosopher, Mel Brooks, tells us that there were originally 15 Commandments, inscribed on three stone tablets, but one broke while they were being carried down the mountain, so we are left with only 10.) On one hand, the Jewish people were consecrated to follow the Rule of Law. On the other, the Rev. Huckabee tells us that since they are The Word of God, the Ten would make a pretty good replacement, or at least co-equal companion to, the U.S. Constitution. Interestingly enough, Mitt Romney, when asked about Rev. Huckabee's suggestion, allowed that he thought the U.S. Constitution was pretty good standing on its own (just as long as liberal judges were not allowed to interpret it).

And so, how do these founding narratives stand in comparison with one another? They are all rather imaginative, one might say. Of course, one is supposed to have taken place within the last 200 years, while the other two took place between 2,000 and 5,000 years ago. Other than that, I can't really see much of a difference among them in their variance from any reality that any of us have experienced. So, hey, why should anyone go after Mitt because of the one he happens to believe in?

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY), a weekly Contributing Author for the Web zine The Political Junkies.net; a Special Contributing Editor for Cyrano's Journal Online; and an invited contributor to the Web log The Daily Scare.

Technorati Tags: Steven Jonas 2008 race Republicans Mormon Mitt Romney Christianity Jewish religion Constitution