Daily Archives: October 31, 2023

(Leah Hogsten | The Salt Lake Tribune) The Angel Moroni atop The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' Bountiful Temple, Dec. 10, 2022.

By Maria van Lent | The Public Forum

| Oct. 25, 2023, 12:00 p.m.

As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I also, like James Huntsman, do not agree with the doctrine of polygamy. In 1828 in Doctrine and Covenants in a revelation by Joseph Smith it says that Gods paths are straight and not crooked and that He never does vary from that which He hath said.

In 1830, and still today, in the Book of Mormon God says that the many wives and concubines of David and Solomon were an abomination before Him, and that one man should have only one wife, to not repeat the sins of old times.

In 1843 after Joseph Smiths secret polygamous lifestyle of the last 12 years was exposed in the newspaper The Expositor with an advice for him to repent, he ordered the new press to be completely destroyed and then he explained that he once had a revelation where God said that having many wives was now a requirement for the eternities.

So this abomination had now become an eternal law.

It became an everlasting covenant that all who did not abide by this law would be damned saith the Lord God, and all women who would not abide by this law including Josephs wife, Emma would be destroyed by God himself. On top of this, God contradicts himself by saying that He had given all those many wives and concubines to David and Solomon and others! (Doctrine and Covenants 132)

Sorry, I cannot accept this, and I dont feel at all the love of Jesus Christ in this. He who died for the sins of all people.

Maria van Lent, Woods Cross

Submit a letter to the editor

See the rest here:

Letter: Like James Huntsman, I cannot accept the doctrine of polygamy - Salt Lake Tribune

A small vacant lot at 1600 North and State Street in Orem, Utah, has garnered attention due to its historical significance. Eva Carlotta Andersson, a pioneer woman from Sweden who lived in the area roughly 130 years ago, lost two infants and buried them on this property.

Eva Carlotta Andersson was born in Sweden in 1851 and immigrated to Utah after meeting missionaries from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. She kept a detailed journal of her journey from Sweden to Utah and eventually settled in Orem as a second wife, facing legal persecution against polygamy. Due to the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882, she had to live secretly to avoid persecution.

Andersson gave birth to two children in Orem, both of whom died shortly after birth and were buried on the property. Her story came to light when Becca Driggs, a BYU student, discovered it while researching Scandinavian women who helped settle Utah.

The Orem City Council is working on a resolution to support this initiative, which has gained the support of community members. The project aims to celebrate the strength of women, connect individuals through shared experiences, and validate the importance of womens stories.

Council member LaNae Millett told KSL, The minute I heard it, I knew it was a good thing and we are all in championing this cause for this women and childrens memorial, Millett said. Our city council is working on a resolution to put forth to show our support for this.

As a woman, Ive experienced some of these hardships that this Swedish woman did, Millett said. To me, I think it connects us as women, it shows our strength as women, and it gives women a place to really vocalize how they feel and how theyve come through some of these hardships to really hear and connect with other women in that arena.

Read the original here:

Orem's Pioneer History Comes to Life City of Orem - City of Orem

The report issued at the end of the synod on synodalitys first session evolved considerably from the day a draft was presented to delegates to its Oct. 28 release.

An initial draft of the synthesis report prompted more than 1,000 amendments after it was shared with participants Oct. 25.

The 42-page final report, published Saturday (only in Italian), differed in many respects from the 40-page draft text, previously reported by The Pillar.

Heres a guide to 10 notable changes.

Share

Before: It is proposed to establish a permanent synod of bishops elected by Episcopal Conferences to support the Petrine ministry (chapter 13, section j).

After: It is proposed to enhance and strengthen the experience of the Council of Cardinals (C-9) as a synodal council at the service of the Petrine ministry (13, j, approved 319-27).

What changed: When Pope Paul VI established the synod of bishops as a permanent institution with the 1965 apostolic letter Apostolica sollicitudo, he said it would enable bishops to offer more effective assistance to the supreme Shepherd. He also decreed that members would include bishops elected by individual national episcopal conferences.

But as it exists in canon law, while the secretariat of the synod of bishops is a permanent institution, the synod itself is a body reconstituted for every new synodal session, with representatives from episcopal conferences and special papal invitees chosen for each new assembly according to the popes wishes.

In the end, participants called instead for an already established body, the Council of Cardinal Advisers, to be re-envisaged as a synodal council at the service of the Petrine ministry, without specifying how.

Before: In different ways, people who feel marginalized or excluded from the Church because of their status or sexuality, such as divorced people in a second union, people who identify as LGBTQ+, etc., also ask to be heard and accompanied (16, g).

After: In different ways, people who feel marginalized or excluded from the Church because of their marriage status, identity or sexuality also ask to be heard and accompanied (16, h, approved 326-20).

What changed: The acronym LGBTQ+, which also appeared in the synod on synodalitys working document, vanished. Synod organizers have not offered an explanation for the terms disappearance.

Papal synod appointee Cardinal Blase Cupich has suggested that the decision not to use the term LGBTQ was informed by some synod members from the global south, who spoke about having negative experiences in dealing with conditions on foreign aid from western countries that use that terminology.

Another synodal attendee, Fr. James Martin, S.J., claimed that The document, as it turns out, does not reflect the fact that the topic of LGBTQ people came up repeatedly in both many table discussions and the plenary sessions, and provoked widely diverging views.

Before: No reference to priests who have left the ministry.

After: On a case-by-case basis, and in accordance with the context, the possibility should be considered of re-inserting priests who have left the ministry in pastoral services that recognize their formation and experience (11, l, approved by 293-53).

What changed: A new paragraph was added concerning priests who have left the ministry but no specificity was offered about under what circumstances they left. Presumably, the text meant the thousands of priests who asked to be laicized in the wake of Vatican II so they would be free to marry, rather than those who have requested laicization (or had it imposed) following canonical criminal offenses or other scandal.

The new paragraph received more no votes than many others.

Before: It is proposed to establish a committee of theologians to be entrusted with the task of proceeding with the work of terminological clarification (1, p).

After: The assembly proposes to promote theological deepening of the terminological and conceptual understanding of the notion and practice of synodality before the second session of the assembly, drawing on the rich heritage of theological research since the Second Vatican Council and in particular the documents of the International Theological Commission on Synodality in the life and mission of the Church (2018) and The sensus fidei in the life of the Church (2014) (1, p, approved by 339-5).

What changed: The final text changed from calling for the creation of a new committee to endorsing the promotion of work that sheds light on synodality. It recognized that substantial efforts have already been made to do this, including in texts by the International Theological Commission, an advisory body of theologians appointed by the pope.

Subscribe now

Before: A second step refers to the widely reported need to make liturgical language more accessible to the faithful and more embodied in the diversity of cultures. Without questioning continuity with ritual tradition and the need for liturgical formation, reflection on this issue and the attribution of greater responsibility to the episcopal conferences in this area is urged (3, l).

After: A second step refers to the widely reported need to make liturgical language more accessible to the faithful and more embodied in the diversity of cultures. Without calling continuity with tradition and the need for better liturgical formation into question, deeper reflection is needed. Episcopal conferences should be entrusted with a wider responsibility in this regard, according to the motu proprio Magnum Principium (3, l, approved 322-22).

What changed: The phrase ritual tradition was slimmed down to tradition, and a reference was added to Pope Francis 2017 motu proprio, which modified canon law to give bishops conferences greater authority over translations of liturgical texts.

Before: First and foremost, the proposal emerged for the establishment, on the basis of existing norms in canon law, of a permanent assembly of the heads of the Eastern Catholic Churches with the pope, as an expression of synodality and an instrument to promote communion and the sharing of liturgical, theological, pastoral and spiritual heritage (5, h).

After: First and foremost, the request emerged to establish a permanent Council of the Patriarchs and Major Archbishops of the Eastern Catholic Churches to the Holy Father (6, h, approved by 322-22).

What changed: A section on the poor was moved to an earlier place in the text, so the section on the Eastern Catholic Churches came in sixth rather than fifth place. The request for a body bringing together the heads of the autonomous Churches together with the pope remained intact, but the institution was defined as a council rather than a permanent assembly.

Before: We need to recognize that certain issues, such as those relating to gender identity and sexual orientation, the end of life, difficult marital situations, ethical problems connected to artificial intelligence, are controversial not only in society, but also in the Church, because they raise new questions. Sometimes the anthropological categories we have developed are not able to grasp the complexity of the elements emerging from experience or knowledge in the sciences and require greater precision and further study. It is important to take the time required for this reflection and to invest our best energies in it, without giving in to simplistic judgments that hurt individuals and the Body of the Church. Church teaching already provides a sense of direction on many of these matters that still waits to be translated into pastoral initiatives. Even where further clarification is required, Jesus actions, assimilated in prayer and conversion of heart, show us the way forward (15, g).

After: Some issues, such as those relating to gender identity and sexual orientation, the end of life, difficult marital situations, ethical problems connected to artificial intelligence, are controversial not only in society, but also in the Church, because they raise new questions. Sometimes the anthropological categories that we have developed are not sufficient to capture the complexity of the elements that emerge from experience or scientific knowledge and require refinement and further study. It is important to take the time required for this reflection and to invest our best energies in it, without giving in to simplistic judgments that hurt individuals and the Body of the Church. Many indications are already offered by the magisterium and await to be translated into appropriate pastoral initiatives. Even where further clarification is required, Jesus actions, assimilated in prayer and conversion of heart, show us the way forward (15, g, approved by 307-39).

What changed: Instead of saying that Church teaching already provides a sense of direction on matters that require further study, the approved text refers to indications already offered by the magisterium.

The final text places more stress on the magisterium, or teaching authority of the Church, in other places too. According to Jonathan Liedl of the National Catholic Register, the word magisterium was mentioned four times in the draft, but 10 times in the final version.

Before:No mention of polygamy, the practice of having more than one spouse at the same time.

After: SECAM (Symposium of the Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar) is encouraged to promote a theological and pastoral discernment on question of polygamy and the accompaniment of people in polygamous unions who are coming to faith (16, q, approved by 303-43).

What changed: Polygamy is a challenge confronted especially by the Catholic Church in Africa. The texts editors decided to include a paragraph about the issue, directing a continental body of bishops to promote theological and pastoral discernment on the matter, as well as pastoral care for people who are in polygamous unions but drawn to the Catholic faith.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines polygamy as contrary to the moral law, but says that the Christian who has previously lived in polygamy has a grave duty in justice to honor the obligations contracted in regard to his former wives and his children.

Before:The doctrinal and juridical nature of episcopal conferences needs further study. This implies the need to clarify their status and the possibility of collegial agency, reopening the discussion on the motu proprio Apostolos suos (19, g).

After: The doctrinal and juridical nature of episcopal conferences needs further study, recognising the possibility of collegial action, including questions of doctrine that arise locally, thus reopening reflection on the motu proprio Apostolos suos. Apostolos suos (19, g, approved by 312-34).

What changed: The section has a significant addition: The reference to the possibility of collegial action, including questions of doctrine that arise locally. The question of delegating doctrinal authority which has swirled around Pope Francis since his election in 2013 is extremely controversial. Proponents, who include supporters of Germanys synodal way, argue that it is a necessary step toward decentralization. Critics say it would lead to the disintegration of Church teaching.

Before: More effort is needed to ensure that, wherever possible, women can participate in decision-making processes and assume roles of responsibility in pastoral care and ministry (9, m).

After: It is urgent to ensure that women can participate in decision-making processes and assume roles of responsibility in pastoral care and ministry. (9, m, approved by 319-27).

What changed: The language of this paragraph has been firmed up, stressing that this change is urgent, rather than something that simply requires more effort. The qualifier wherever possible has been removed, strengthening it further.

Editors note: This article was updated Oct. 31, 2023, with quotations from the official English translation of the synthesis report.

Subscribe now

Read the original post:

From draft to final text: 10 ways the synod report changed - The Pillar

Last month, Mitt Romney announced he will retire from the Senate after one term. Romney, who is 76, cited his age. That was undoubtedly a major consideration for a guy with a platoon of grandchildren.

Its also true that Romney is unpopular with Utah voters and had no real chance of reelection after becoming the most prominent elected Republican antagonist of Donald Trump. With Romneys 30-year political career ending with a whimper, there would naturally be a forceful attempt to shape his legacy as something other than a failure.

Fortunately, Romney already made plans for this. The Atlantics McKay Coppins, also a practicing Mormon, was already beavering away on a Romney biography that was sure to be sympathetic. Sure enough, very soon after Romneys retirement announcement, The Atlantic ran a juicy excerpt adapted from the prologue of the forthcoming book. While the excerpt was sympathetic to Romney, in some ways it defied expectations.

The tableau it paints of Romney is something of a caricature. A luxury condo in the Watergate was too painful a commute to the Capitol, and Ann Romney doesnt like spending time in D.C., so hes living alone in a $2.4 million townhouse on Capitol Hill. He passes the time by watching Ted Lasso reruns on his 98-inch television while eating salmon sandwiches slathered in ketchup because he doesnt like salmon. (When it comes to food, the septuagenarian Romney, who has declared his favorite meat is hot dog, seems to have the maturity of a 7-year-old.)

When that doesnt stave off the boredom, he invites over a reporter who will keep him company late into the evenings while he nurse[s] a morbid fascination with his own death, suspecting that it might assert itself one day suddenly and violently, brags about how his compulsive exercise habits are superior to those of his colleagues in the Senate, and breathlessly recites a litany of petty grievances about his fellow Republicans.

It had always seemed hard to reconcile Romneys obsessive political drive with his charmed life and impossibly handsome faade without suspecting something slightly sinister lurking underneath. Now this Atlantic article reads like American Pyscho: The Golden Years. I half expected the excerpt to end with Coppins nervously edging toward the door as Romney casually starts to fondle an axe and lay down plastic sheeting in the living room while cheerfully monologuing about what a tool Josh Hawley is.

Of course, there were other layers to this portrait of Romney. Coppins is a skilled writer, and Id venture hes one of the best at what he does, provided were clear that he works at The Atlantic, a media outlet with enough baggage that it is widely distrusted by anyone on the right.

But Coppins was also given a level of access to Willard Mitt Romney that was rarely granted to a biographer. The results would no doubt be revelatory. The only question is to what extent those revelations would be intentional, and to what extent Romneys character would be revealed by how oblivious he is to how critics and ordinary voters might perceive him.

Well, Romney: A Reckoning has finally arrived on bookstore shelves everywhere. On the surface, its a model political biography: a short recap of his early life, followed by a mostly chronological recap of his career. Its a dream to read. The prose is concise and the story well-structured, and that is not a small compliment directed at Coppins.

On a deeper level, however, Im still not sure to what extent Coppins is aware of the contradictions exposed and how they will be interpreted by anyone not already convinced Romney is a righteous crusader. The book is full of quotes and characterizations that, divorced from the calculating context, reveal Mitt to be haughty, weird, and willing to sell out even as he insists he hasnt.

To have Mitt tell it, hes always been dogged by irrational criticism: Throughout my life theres always been one person who just cant stand me. Heres him trying to explain away why hes off-putting to some people: I was accused of being inauthentic. But in reality, thats just who I am. Im the authentic person who seems inauthentic. Heres him summing up his opposition to estate taxes in his failed 2008 GOP primary bid: It was one of those things you say because you dont know what youre talking about.

None of this is especially damning for politicians, of course. People with ambition are often polarizing, normal well-adjusted people almost never run for office, and every politician finds himself uttering expedient rhetoric. Whats remarkable about Romney: A Reckoning is its exhaustive examination, and ultimate absolution, of Mitts behavior and motives while extending comparatively no grace to a cavalcade of politicians Romney singles out.

And it is an overly generous assumption that Romney deserves to be excused for a great many things. For instance, when Romney ran for president in 2008, he gave a defiant speech addressed to critics of his Mormon faith: Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.

Believers of convenience, you say? Heres Coppins describing how Romney arrived at his pro-abortion position as a Senate candidate and later as governor of Massachusetts:

Now he wondered if there was any wiggle room in the Churchs teachings. As he studied the question, the incentive for rationalization was strong: He found quotes from church leaders who said abortion was like unto murder but they didnt say it was murder. And while the Church didnt take an official position on when the spirit enters the body, he discovered that a close reading of certain verses could lead one to conclude that it took place sometime after conception. He also seized on the Churchs twelfth Article of Faith, which declares a belief in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. He began to think abortion was a bit like polygamy, he told me later. Before Utah joined the United States, the Church acknowledged the illegality of polygamy and renounced the practice out of respect for the law. Abortion, he reasoned, had been legalized through Roe v. Wade perhaps he had a similar responsibility to honor that?

Romney would later renounce his pro-abortion stance when he ran for president, but I dont know where to begin with this, except to say its hard to respect this horrifyingly facile reasoning that makes a mockery of life and death, never mind that it shows Romney twisting the beliefs of his church.

(Also, as an historical matter, the polygamy analogy is grossly misguided. In 1858, the Mormon Church engaged in armed conflict with federal troops over polygamy and proceeded to ignore multiple anti-bigamy acts Congress passed until the church renounced the practice as a condition of Utah statehood in 1896. As mentioned in the book, Romneys own father, former Michigan Gov. George Romney, was born in 1907 into a Mormon polygamist community in Mexico where the residents had fled to dodge U.S. laws. Subordinating church teachings out of strict respect for the law is not exactly a Mormon distinctive.)

Yet its remarkable how much of a vehicle this book is for Romneys score-settling. Its hard to blame Coppins for going along with this. The fact the book is Romneys anti-Republican emetic was always going to be catnip for the wider press, and the marketing is practically on autopilot: Mitt Romneys Sickest Burns: Book Reveals Harsh Views of Fellow Republicans, reads The New York Times headline.

While its fairly legitimate to bemoan that post-Trump Republican politics are defined by personal insults, as the book demonstrates, Romney isnt just some guy caught in the middle of all this name-calling and trying to fight his way out with his honor intact. In fact, many of the beefs described herein predate or stand outside issues related to Trump.

Throughout the book, Romney is relentlessly contrasted as the one serious and sober Republican in a party defined by self-interested clowns. Even though Romney dominated the 2012 GOP primary, he still bemoans how his inability to consolidate the support of his party especially in the face of such unimpressive opponents was humiliating. Romney was, of course, up against the likes of Rick a dimwit Perry and Newt Gingrich, who is in Romneys telling a smug know-it-all.

Never mind that Perry was a three-term governor of Texas, and the public impression of him as a dimwit largely rests on a debate gaffe that was far less damning than the gaffe that felled the presidential ambitions of Mitt Romneys father, an episode that haunted Romney. Despite the moral failings in his personal life, Gingrich was a former speaker of the House and architect of one of the biggest congressional victories in American history.

By contrast, in 2012 Romney was a one-term governor whod lost two of the three races hed run in, and his major legislative accomplishment taxing people who didnt have health insurance was cited as a template by the very incumbent Democrat president Romney hoped to unseat when he passed Obamacare, the most hated piece of legislation in a generation. Certainly, Romneys opponents arent above criticism, but the idea that Romney was self-evidently superior to his opponents all along is pure arrogance.

Elsewhere in the book, it does not spare any contempt for the evangelical leaders who often play a role in Republican politics. Romney tried to play nice with them and obviously never felt welcomed.

Perhaps heres where I should lay my cards on the table. I was a fifth-generation Mormon and, having grown up in the church, I can tell you anti-Mormon bias is a very real phenomenon. (In fact, my grandmothers family genealogy website is so gloriously detailed that I can tell you Mitt and I are distant relatives.)

Further, as an adult convert to Lutheranism, my churchs belief in Two Kingdoms theology is somewhat accurately summed up by the apocryphal Martin Luther quote, It is better to be ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian. I have zero problem voting for Mormons, and Im certain I share Mitts wary approach to evangelical leaders who actively court political influence.

But that doesnt mean you can brush off questions of religious differences as unfair, either. Mormons, for instance, do not believe in original sin, and whether men are inherently self-interested and sinful is not exactly an issue incidental to basic conservative political philosophy.

Instead, the approach to handling these issues in the book often comes off as hubris; Romney is again portrayed as more devout and sincere than so many of his critics. This is typified by an anecdote: Jerry Falwell questions Mitt about why Mormons dont believe in the Christian conception of the Trinity, and instead believe there are three distinct entities. Romney allegedly gets Falwell to admit most people would agree with you.

Although I dont have too much regard for Falwells religious bent, I have a hard time imagining that exchange went down quite the way it is presented. Even if it did, its hard to imagine a heretical belief would be excused simply because a large number of Christians mistakenly believe it.

Indeed, the tenets of his faith, Romneys devout adherence in the form of prayers and blessings, and his interactions with the prophets, seers, and revelators Mormons believe lead their church are brought up so often in this book the cumulative impression is that Mitts faith is the reason he can be anointed the Lone Righteous Republican. I dont think that was intentional. Its just that as two high-profile Mormons in politics, Coppins and Romney are so used to doing PR for the church they didnt know when they crossed the line between helpful and harmful.

Lest you think Im being uncharitable in my interpretation, I would note that the review of this book in The New Yorker a periodical not exactly known for respecting conservatives or traditional religious expression is insultingly headlined, Did Mitt Romney Save His Soul? Its also not exactly subtle in its conclusion that Romneys salvific fate is tied to his willingness to become one of the few in his party willing to criticize Trumps excesses. And boy, is it laid on thick:

His church teaches him that, one day, he will stand before God and face an accounting, for his thoughts, words, and works. He will have to explain his time in politics the positions he took, the compromises he made, where he chose to stand firm. If Romney is at a loss, he might bring along Coppinss record of his reckoning.

In any event, the idea of this book as a testament to Romneys works-righteousness is somewhat amusing, because it also details feuds with prominent co-religionists. Theres a detailed recounting of more than two decades worth of petty swipes between Romney and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and his billionaire father, neither of whom are hardcore Trumpy conservatives.

Then theres Utahs senior senator, Mike Lee. Romney doesnt like Lee for the obvious reasons like most in his party, Lee came around to supporting Trump, and Lee once called a bill Romney supported an orgiastic convulsion of federal spending. But then theres this:

Though Lee was technically Utahs senior senator, few in the state or the Senate thought of him that way. As a former presidential nominee, Romney had all the name recognition and the gravitas. He was Mitch McConnells first call on any Utah-related issue, and everything he said seemed to attract national media coverage. At six foot two, he even physically towered over his colleague.Maybe, Romney mused to one confidant, he just cant stand being in my shadow.

I dont feel compelled to litigate Lees political career, except to say that I can confidently say his deep knowledge of the Constitution and American history commands respect among peers in the Senate. The suggestion Lee doesnt agree with Romney because he literally doesnt see eye to eye with him is so juvenile it can hardly be defended as an offhand comment.

I dont know what purpose it serves to be recorded for posterity in a book that some are grandiosely suggesting Romney might bring along to stand before God and face an accounting. In the meantime, I would suggest the rest of us bring along an airsickness bag.

There are still more slights to catalog against Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Hawley, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, J.D. Vance, Ron DeSantis, Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie, et al., but they are for the most part drearily predictable criticisms. In any event, you can read a more exhaustive accounting of Romneys sickest burns in The New York Times. At this point, its far more interesting and insightful to take a look at who Romney respects, rather than who he doesnt:

At a moment of rising authoritarianism at home and abroad, when the countrys founding ideas of democracy and self-governance were suddenly up for debate, Romney and Biden seemed to recognize in each other a shared set of values that transcended normal politics.

One Sunday morning, Romney was sitting in church when the number for the White House appeared on his phone. He climbed over the grandkids who were sitting next to him in the pew and took the call in the foyer. It was the president.

I just wanted to call and tell you that I admire your character and your personal honor, Biden said. We disagree on a lot of things, but I think highly of you as a person.

Romney, taken aback by the out-of-nowhere compliment, responded in kind. I feel the same way.

Im sorry, but what exactly about Joe Biden does Mitt Romney think highly of? I hope its not his current performance as president. This is a man who got busted for plagiarism in law school and as a senator. A politician who once made up the fact he got an award from segregationist George Wallace and tried to win over a crowd in Alabama by telling them Delawareans were on the Souths side in the Civil War, but later had the temerity to tell a black audience that Romney was trying to put yall back in chains.

Romney apparently feels Biden is simpatico in his concern about rising authoritarianism. Meanwhile, Bidens DOJ is arresting people for protesting against abortion, labeling parents terrorists for objecting to lesson plans that look like they were authored by Mao Tse-Tung and Larry Flynt, and investigating Catholics for the crime of going to Latin Mass.

Biden has repeatedly lied about the death of his own son and his wife in order to get political sympathy, and even The Washington Post stripped the bark off him for how selfishly he handled the families of the soldiers who died in his disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal. Romney thinks highly of Biden, but wants it known he disdains a squared-away fellow Mormon such as Lee?

Of course, one reason Romney might think highly of Biden is that hes dangerously out-of-touch, to the point hes unaware of the most basic facts pertaining to Bidens corruption. Romney was the sole Republican to vote for Trumps first impeachment, and this section of the book is replete with examples of Romney acting aghast that his Republican colleagues responded to the impeachment case against Trump in a political fashion, rather than examining the evidence against Trump and acting as an impartial jury, as Romney insists that he did. But Im not sure Romney had a grasp of the most basic facts of the impeachment, based on this exchange with Sean Hannity:

Next, Hannity demanded to know why Romney wasnt more outraged by the Burisma scandal. Romney who didnt spend enough time in the conservative media bubble to know the shorthand for Hunter Bidens allegedly corrupt dealings with a Ukrainian energy company responded by asking, Whats Burisma? Hannity exploded: How do you not know what Burisma is?

Conservative media bubble? Huh? Hunter Bidens corrupt payoffs from the Ukrainian gas company were not a small story, even in the legacy media. In fact, I count 22 mentions of Burisma on The Atlantics website all in the months leading up to Romneys impeachment vote. (Additionally, former CIA official Cofer Black the national security adviser to Romneys 2012 campaign served on Burismas board alongside Hunter Biden.)

Burisma was not an incidental matter, because one potential defense of Trump asking Ukrainian president Zelensky to look into Hunter Bidens shady million-dollar-a-year deal with the Ukrainian gas company was that Biden might, in fact, be implicated in actual foreign corruption. And whether the optics of a president investigating his partisan opposition are bad or not, that was exactly the precedent set in 2016.

The results of that investigation are pretty well-established: Obama and Biden were both aware of the bogus collusion investigation into Trump, while the FBI went around manufacturing evidence to get FISA warrants to spy on Trump and running down leads compiled in an outrageously inaccurate dossier bought and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign.

In the first impeachment that Romney endorsed, House Democrats took the unprecedented and suspicious step of interviewing all the witnesses in Trumps first impeachment trial, save the first one, behind closed doors. Procedural rules put in place meant House members were under threat of ethics charges if they discussed what was said. That was almost certainly to keep Republicans from publicly asking questions about Bidens corruption.

Biden then skated through the election brazenly lying about having no contact with Hunter Bidens business dealings. We now have photos of Biden dining in Georgetown with Hunters business partners from that obscure company Burisma, all while the vice president was the White House point man on Ukraine policy. Then theres the personal testimony from Hunters business partner that Joe Biden was being cut in on deals being struck with China. For his sake, Im just going to assume that if Romney understood a fraction of this, he wouldnt think highly of Biden as a person or consider his impeachment vote the result of a man who studiously examined the evidence.

But ignorance still doesnt explain how Romney would treat so many Republicans unsparingly and then turn around and approach Democrats with the naivete God gave trout. Heres how Romney responded to McConnells assertion that the House Democrats acted politically when they voted to impeach Trump:

We have good arguments to oppose [Trumps] removal, he told his aides. But it was disingenuous to assert that the entire Democratic Party had been plotting impeachment from the moment Trump took office. Mitch knows better.

Disingenuous? The Washington Post ran an article headlined, The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun the day Trump was inaugurated. House Democrats first introduced articles of impeachment against Trump in 2017 and two more times before Trumps first impeachment, all for trivial reasons.

And elsewhere Romney and Coppins simply fail to fact-check. The obligatory mention of Charlottesville is as bad as you would expect: The next week, when Trump was asked at a press conference about the violence, he said there were very fine people on both sides. Romney, appalled, wrote on his list, Presidents equivocation/incitement of race/bigotry.

Of course, Trump never made that equivocation. When he referred to very fine people on both sides, any fair reading of his remarks recognizes that he was talking about those participating in the broader debate over tearing down historical statues.

Elsewhere in those same remarks he specifically condemned the violent neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, so its simply not fair to say he was praising them. Even CNN hosts have admitted as much. At most you can ding Trump for not being as clear in his rhetoric as the moment called for, but then again, Romney is proudly publicly identified with a church that didnt allow black people to hold leadership positions until he was 31 years old. Perhaps before labeling Trump racist, he is owed a modicum of the grace Romneys been extended on that matter.

And then theres this astounding bit, which I simply cant believe made it into the book: On April 23,Trump mused during one of his briefings that perhaps Americans should inject themselves with bleach as a treatment for COVID-19. Trump, of course, never said Americans should inject themselves. The undersecretary for science and technology at the Department of Homeland Security presented a study showing disinfectants would kill the Covid-19 virus, which prompted Trump to unhelpfully spitball about the role disinfectants might play in developing medical treatments for Covid.

It would be interesting to check if there is a way we can do something like that by injection inside, or almost a cleaning before later clarifying it wouldnt be through injections, were talking about almost a cleaning and sterilization of an area. Maybe it works, maybe it doesnt work. Even the usually odious media fact checkers admit the bit about people injecting themselves with disinfectants is false: Despite Trumps dubious, conjectural and inarticulate comments, he did not directly suggest that people inject themselves with disinfectant.

It should have been enough to insist that the lack of clarity and general cluelessness in Trumps remarks that day were a good example of how he mishandled a major public health crisis in a way that is dangerously unacceptable for a president. Yet by the end of the book we learn Romney doesnt just believe Trump told people to inject themselves with bleach, hes heavily invested in self-justification based on a myth:

He nursed a particular fantasy in which he devoted an entire debate to asking Trump to explain why, in the early weeks of the pandemic, hed suggested that Americans inject bleach as a treatment for COVID-19. To Romney, this comment represented the apotheosis of the former presidents idiocy, and it still bothered him that the country had simply laughed at it and moved on. Every time Donald Trump makes a strong argument, Id say, Remind me again about the Clorox, Romney told me. Every now and then, I would cough and go Clorox.

To be clear, defending many of Trumps remarks and much of his conduct is a fools errand, one I dont typically care to engage in. I did not vote for Trump in 2016 and only did so in 2020 because it seemed obvious enough a Biden presidency would be a world-in-flames disaster, an assessment I do not revel in being right about.

But that just makes it further mystifying, given all the legitimate things Trump and Republicans could be criticized for, why is so much of what animates Romney petty at best and untrue at worst?

Its even more bizarre when you consider this is the result of Romney uncritically swallowing establishment media narratives, years after his run for president where the same establishment called him racist, said he gave people cancer, and dubiously accused him of being a gay bully in prep school, as if it was somehow relevant to the presidential race. Its recounted in the book that no less a figure than Bill Clinton tells Romney that The New York Times where columnist Gail Collins insinuated Romney abused the family dog more than 80 times was unfair to him.

Yet that experience somehow imparted no skepticism about how others, let alone the next GOP presidential candidate, might be unfairly treated by the media? Similarly, does Mitt not recognize that the media were rendered powerless to rein in Trump largely because they eviscerated their credibility with Republican voters by libeling him?

Regardless, one thing is very clear. If the portrait of Romney in this book is accurate, no one as credulous and ignorant as Mitt Romney is entitled to this much sanctimony.

If I may say something positive about Romney, he does come off as clear-eyed about the failure of his 2012 campaign and his role in it. In particular, he beats himself up quite a bit for his infamous comment during the campaign that 47 percent of Americans believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.

Its good that he recognizes the bootstrapping condescension of establishment Republicanism was a losing message, even if hes unwilling to recognize that he has that in common with Trump.

But in other key respects his 2012 revisionism is baffling. I vastly overstated how bad [Obama] was for the country and the economy, Romney says. I think what presidents accomplish by virtue of their personal character is at least as great as what they accomplish by virtue of their policies.

However, theres been an exceptionally divisive hard-left cultural lurch Obama enthusiastically endorsed that I cant imagine Romney agrees with. Does Romney really not grasp how incredibly destructive, say, Obamas decision to force schools to allow men into high school womens bathrooms has been?

Further, we can certainly compare economic and foreign policy track records before, during, and after Trump and honestly conclude Americans were safer and prospered more under Trump by many basic metrics. Romney is no doubt underestimating the effect of good policy and, at a minimum, overestimating Obamas character.

But if we do accept that character is supreme, and I do agree it is a very important characteristic in political leaders, its also true that nobodys perfect. This naturally raises the question of what levels of character deficiencies are acceptable to Romney, since Trump is clearly over the line. And this book contains an answer that explains a lot. Hillary Clinton is wrong on every issue, Romney told a crowd at the Aspen Ideas Festival, but shes wrong within the normal parameters.

Indeed, the concerted attempt over decades to redefine the likes of Hillary Clintons political career as falling within the normal parameters is exactly how we got Trump. On issue after issue, voters were told to swallow the establishment spin excusing the toxic behavior of anointed elites who disregarded the needs of ordinary people.

Voters were told to be appalled by the crass fraud of Trump University and accept that the Clinton Global Initiative was something other than a nine-figure shakedown operation. It was intolerable Trump had extramarital affairs and supposedly broke campaign finance laws paying off a porn star, but Hillary Clinton owed her career to claiming that those objecting to her talented husband using state troopers as pimps, defiling the Oval Office, and jetting off to Jeffrey Epsteins pedo island were part of some vast right-wing conspiracy.

We were supposed to be gravely concerned about a ginned-up deep-state investigation into Trump, while FBI Director James Comey goes on television and invents a nonexistent legal rationale for why Hillary wouldnt be charged for intentionally mishandling classified documents, obstructing the investigation, and destroying evidence. The fact that Romney, along with so much of the D.C. establishment, was invested in the idea there was a clear ethical choice in 2016, when voters had lots of good reasons to see it differently, says volumes.

Now maybe all of this ire directed at Trump and just about everyone else would be much more tolerable if it were contrasted with a winsome and compelling vision for American politics that takes into account the rifts Trump exposed between the political establishment and voters. Instead, Romneys post-Trump career is explained away with a farrago of rationalizations for why Romney seriously considered Trumps offer to make him secretary of state in spite of his loathing of the former president, as well as a frequently unconvincing account of his quixotic motives during his time in the Senate.

Its further hard not to notice, as the book winds down, that Romney places himself at the center of a lot of delusional plans to stop Trump that would also have the added benefit of presenting himself as Americas political savior. In 2016, he considered running with Ted Cruz against Trump; Romney considered running as an independent in 2020 on a ticket with Oprah Winfrey (Oprah denies this, for what thats worth); while in the Senate, he pitched Joe Manchin on the idea of starting a new political party; and when he explored a 2024 run for president, Kyrsten Sinema was high on the list of potential running mates. Because embracing a bisexual Democrat who left the Mormon church and refused to be sworn into the Senate by putting her hand on a Bible really speaks to Mitts commitment to showing Republican voters that character reigns supreme.

Im honestly at a loss here. Ive been covering Romney off and on for nearly 25 years, and I know several people who have interacted with him and his family and have nothing but glowing things to say. Given my own Mormon background, I had always felt something of a kinship with the man (literally, it turns out). I have publicly defended him in print dozens of times and dont regret what I said. Im still inclined to like and respect him.

But for a lot of readers, the story of Romney turning on his political party after briefly being their standard bearer is simply confirmation of their long-held belief that the political opposition is wicked. I dont want to believe this book exists merely because Mitt craves barking-seal approval of congratulatory texts from George Clooney and all the other influential people who used to hate him. But theres also nothing in this book that suggests any ideological constancy on his part. The only throughline is bitterness directed at almost everyone who got in his way.

In the epilogue, Coppins claims Romneys rationalizations fascinate me because theyre so common in Washington. However, the line between rationalizations and delusions is mighty thin at times in this book, and Romneys judgments cant always be explained away with Coppins borderline-absurd attempts at providing favorable context for Romneys judgments.

(E.g. Romneys understandable aversion to Trumps immigration rhetoric is undercut by Coppins taking the extra step to wave away the entire issue by informing us right-wing media churned out baseless stories claiming [immigrant caravans are] a Trojan horse for murderous cartels, even though The New York Times agrees illegal immigration is multi-billion-dollar international business controlled by organized crime, including some of Mexicos most violent drug cartels.)

In the end, its impossible to explain away this many recriminations as well-intentioned, and theres a tragic irony in the fact that the man who made Romney this way thrives on uncharitable rhetoric. The difference is that the case for Trump is best expressed as a transactional one based on his broader economic and foreign policy accomplishments as president, and however corrosive Trumps personal traits may be, there are many fewer public justifications being offered for them.

By contrast, until I read Romney: A Reckoning, it had never occurred to me that the most obvious reason Romneys political career petered out in a hail of grievances is that hes turned into and it pains me to say this about an otherwise exemplary man kind of an asshole.

More here:

Mitt Romney, We Hardly Knew Ye - The Federalist