Romney Defends His Religious Beliefs

Remove all ads!

How does this NOT violate D&C 134:9? That was the question I asked which you chose to avoid. Is it even remotely reasonable to assume he would not have used his 'divine revelations' to make decisions? My God Gnarff, Smith used revelation to support his extra-marital affairs. Joseph Smith's main platform was for a strong central government which could guaranty individual rights (in particular the right to worship without persecution). He was not at all concerned about state's rights and wanted to limit state legal authority -- all this stems from the treatment of the Mormons in Missouri. A very self-serving platform.

Actually, Young was appointed by Millard Fillmore in 1850 as a compromise when the US government turned down his request to make the State of Deseret (which ranged from Idaho to San Diego). Young should have turned down the position citing D&C 134:9, but instead chose to run the entire territory himself. In 1857 James Buchanan decided the territory should not be governed by Young when word of his autocratic leadership style and interferance with federal judges came to light (the Mount Meadows massacre also occurred at this this time). Instead of stepping down peacefully, Brigham Young chose to raise the militia and wage war against the United States -- how is this not a violation of D&C 134:9?

I think those two examples set a precedent. If the first two leaders could totally ignore D&C 134:9, any future leader would be able to as well. You say the Mormon president will not intentionally influence Romney if in office and I disagree. You cited a reference that I have shown to be ignored by the church in the past. In this case I think religious beliefs are certainly viable areas of discussion. And until Romney can make reasonable assurances the President of the Mormon church will not influence Romney's decisions, I think anyone is right to assume he is the Mormon church's puppet.

I say all this understanding the Mormon church and mostly agreeing with their view of right and wrong. I can certainly see how this would be a huge issue to those who know very little about the Mormon church, what they believe, what charitable work they do, and how the church promotes basic values and ethics.

 

Hmmm... I had not considered that point. Evangelicals don't like what they think they know of Mormonism now. But even if they became better informed on Mormonism, it would only change the reason WHY they don't like Mormonism - but they still would not like it.

 

Agreed, totally.

Today, it's misinformed evangelical voters saying "I'll never vote for a Mormon because the whole plural-marriage / funky underpants / un-christian cult thing just freaks me out and I'll never accept it."

Tomorrow, better informed, it'll be "I'll never vote for a Mormon because the whole Lucifer is Jesus' brother / I get to be a God myself / Israelites once lived in North America thing just freaks me out and I'll never accept it. And the funky underpants certainly don't help."

The anti-Mormon prejudice among evangelical Protestants will merely change forms...but it'll never go away.

 

So what if they like his beliefs or not? It's his behaviour that SHOULD be the deciding factor. I was always under the impression that separation of church and state means that ALL religions are allowed to participate in the affairs of the society, and that no one religion should dominate the others. There is no credible evidence that Romney or other Mormon politicians have a secret agenda to misuse the authority they would achieve from election to public office to take away rights from other religious sects or from those who do not profess a particular creed. If he votes based on his personal beliefs, that makes him THE SAME as just about every other politician out there, both the religious ones and the non-religious ones.

Of course, I know I'm dreaming. Bigotry is often a determining factor for voters of all stripes, and it's a fact of life. It's for this reason I think Romney should not bother wasting his time trying to get elected.

 

You answered your own question. Whether they like his beliefs matters when it comes to his electibility. Or, as a conservative acquaintance put it, if Romney becomes the Republican nominee, we'll see just how intolerant liberals can be. Expect the Dems to hit his religion, and hit it hard.

 

About as reasonable to expect that any other candidate wouldn't put the interests of the wealthy supporters over the good of the nation? But then again, that's my skepticism of more traditional candidtates. But if Smith did waht you accuse him of doing, wouldn't that collapse the church? If it is based on spiritual doctrine, and the Prophet grossly violated that doctrine, what's there to keep the membership loyal and faithful?

You call it self serving, I thought in the 1840's, it was called Federalist. And with all the BS they were put through, maybe enforcing the second ammendment might not be a bad thing...

But Doctrine and Covenents 134:9 does NOT forbid members from seeking political office. Brigham Young violated no spiritual prohibition in serving as Governor of Utah, providing that he did so honourably.

Brigham Young did not authorize that event. It was perpetrated by renegades, who directly violated an order from Young (uncertain whether this was spiritual or political, these may not be mutually exclusive in this instance) to allow the people to pass through the settlement unharmed. One of the leaders of the massacre was infact executed for the murders (I'm assuming that he would not be the only one facing sanctions in that incidence).

Why do I think there's something you're omitting here? Did Buchanan overstep his authority in any way in this regards? I didn't think the President could relieve a Governor of his duties...

That passage simply prohibits state religions or the state's hinderance of other religions. In fact, is it possible that the Government could have made attempts to curtail the church in direct violation of the Bill of Rights!

I still say that you are wrong. If there was any such concern, then how did he get elected in Massechusettes of all places? As a Republican, he got elected in a state that's traditionally been strong Democrat teritory. Would a "Mormon Puppet" have been able to do that?

It also includes those that are happy with the "inaccurate" information, or those that have a vested interest in the Anti-Mormon movement...

But would the public buy into the Anti-Mormon propaganda or would they see through the hatemongering and send Romney to DC with a Landslide?

 

Any that isnt a mormon think the mormons are really kooky. This only gets worse the more you learn about mormonism. All religions are wacky if you look at them rationally but mormonism is up there with scientology when it comes to outright weirdness and crazyness. I very much doubt that anyone not a mormom or someone that is completely ignorant combined with a very open mind would vote for Romney.

That said I dont think the poor fella is any worse than any other Repulican candidate but the fact that he is a mormon will most likely disqualify him in most minds. I am afraid that the only thing he is going to do is to raise pubic awareness of mormonism and that cannot be a good thing. Mormon should be happy if people view them as odd goofballs with many wives as has been pointed out isnt even true and the truth is even stranger to the average American.

 

I strongly disagree here.

I am no expert on Mormons but have had friendly dealings with a few. I have read the book of Mormon. Please explain to me how Joseph Smith was any more 'Kooky' than someone who talked to burning bushes or someone who spent 40 days and nights in a desert fasting then had visions or sat under a tree (forgotten what the tree was). Oh yes, there was Henry the VIII who told God what to do.

I am not putting down any religion when I say the above. Your 'normal', average person just doesn't go a round talking to God or rather having God to talk to him/her. Takes a rather unusual person to do that.

 

Time Nakia, time, for some reason talking to bushes is seen as quite probably if it happened 3000 years ago and something you shuold be committed for if it happens today. Smith did it during the "modern" days which is enough to put it up there with Scientology, add in those weirdo gold plates no one saw and lost tribes and you end up with something that is one notch weirder than your "mainstream" religion. Not to say that vanilla christianity isnt kooky as hell but all the outrageous stuff is shrouded by time which makes it ok in peoples eyes.

 

Pointing out things that Mormons actually believe isn't hate mongering.

 

joacqin,

Sorry to call you out on this, but since you are from Sweden, I'm skeptical about your qualifications to speak about what an average American would or would not think is strange.

Secondly, if someone really believes that God is eternal, then when a Heavenly visitation occurred should not be a problem. Mainstream Christianity seems to have watered down this idea and many others so that they can be… well—mainstream. If you look at the development of Christianity over the centuries, you can see a lot of stuff that “mainstream” has added in and removed. You have a greater chance of getting people to come to your church if you don’t ask too much of them in their actions or beliefs. It all boils down to the fact that non-religious people (which you seem to be, or at least non-Christian) have a hard time thinking that anything religious makes sense, or as you put it, is not “kooky”. After all, if a given religion made sense to someone, would they be a part of it?

To change the subject slightly and speak to everyone in general, I found a news article that is rather interesting; in light of what some individuals have been posting here about the Mormon church. I’m talking about the comments that Jesus and Satan are brothers. It even sounds as if some of these SP’ers saying these things used to be Mormons but then left. Maybe they would still be going if they knew their faith better:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316548,00.html

Specifically, it states in the article:

The authoritative Encyclopedia of Mormonism, published in 1992, does not refer to Jesus and Satan as brothers. It speaks of Jesus as the son of God and of Satan as a fallen angel, which is a Biblical account.
A spokeswoman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said Huckabee's question is usually raised by those who wish to smear the Mormon faith rather than clarify doctrine.
"We believe, as other Christians believe and as Paul wrote, that God is the father of all," said the spokeswoman, Kim Farah. "That means that all beings were created by God and are his spirit children. Christ, on the other hand, was the only begotten in the flesh and we worship him as the son of God and the savior of mankind. Satan is the exact opposite of who Christ is and what he stands for."

So, I'd like to reiterate what Drew just said: it’s not hatemongering if you point out what they actually believe.

 

Ummm.... Yes, they are. The only practicing Mormon on these boards that I'm aware of is Gnarff, but Death Rabbit, T2Bruno, Kitrax annd I think LKD all have a background with the Mormon Church, and were raised Mormon in their childhoods.

 

All this proves to me is that 3000 or even 1000 years from now Joseph Smith and other modern 'prophets' may be quite acceptable and 'kooky' is in the mind of the thinker. Or do I mean the non-thinker.

 

Yeah, thanks. I didn't want to name names. I'm sure that they mean well and are not intentionally misrepresenting Mormons, but I had to throw that out there. I found the article and it contradicted what some of the "authorities on Mormonism" on the site are saying, so I felt like I needed to bring it up to show that sometimes even those who are or were members of an organization don't have all their facts straight. I mean, geez, if that church were as bad as T2Bruno makes it out to sound, I can't imagine why anyone would be a part of it.

I still don’t see what the big deal is about Romney’s religion or anyone else’s for that matter. I’m still not convinced that “Mitt the Puppet” is a valid concern, either. And sorry, but getting one’s information from a group of disaffected Mormons is about as reliable as well, asking Obama for information about Hilary Clinton. Some of you guys obviously have a bone to pick and are not neutral or dispassionate on this topic, so I remain skeptical.

And for the “but Mormons are REALLY weird!!” arguments— puh-leez. Any religion looks weird if it isn’t the one that fits your particular paradigm.

 

Whoa. A response is ... imminent.

 

Yeah, I know. I didn't say what I said to insult or be rude. I'm sorry if it came out like that. I also did not mean to imply that I thought that everything they have said is incorrect-- just that I had found one instance and that I have good reason to be sceptical of what they say about that church.

I don't take the word of people who are "anti" anything for granted. There are always two sides of an issue plus the truth.

 

Well, the Mormon church has had quite a few "revisions", itself, Giles. This is but one of many. Mormon history goes back quite a bit farther than 1992, and is rather well documented. The bits about Jesus and Lucifer being brothers and blacks being of a cursed race and thus denied the true priesthood -in other words, not allowed in the Mormon church- until the 1970's are based in history no matter how vehemently the modern LDS church fights to deny them.

 

No, blacks were allowed to join the church, just not hold the priesthood. One can be allowed in the church and not have the priesthood.

I rest my case.

 

And here I thought I'd also said a lot of positive things about the Mormon church as well... c'est le vie. I didn't think it necessary to comment on Huckabee's statement, but I guess I can.

From the preface of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

I would hardly call that authoritative. When I was a member, the book Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie (an Apostle in the church) was considered 'authoritative' -- but was still wrong in many places. As far as I know, Mormons only consider there to be one authoritative source for their faith -- the President of the LDS church and the man they call the Prophet.

The Pearl of Great Price is one of the books the LDS church refer to as scripture. In this book, you can find an account of the great struggle in heaven before the world was even formed, a time referred to as the pre-existance. God formed a plan for the earth and his eldest spiritual child (not flesh yet) supported Him. This plan was based on a framework of free agency and faith, it would be these traits that all His spiritual children would prove themselves and return to Him. His second child believed there was a better plan and presented it to the hosts of heaven (all of Gods spiritual children, of which the LDS church believes include all who ever have and ever will inhabit the earth). The younger of the two brothers was able to sway one-third of all the spirits in the pre-existance to rebel against God's plan and against God. A great war was raged and the second child, Satan, and his followers were cast out of heaven. As a punishment, they will never gain a body and can never return to heaven.

After this war, the earth was populated as God's plan was fulfilled. His eldest spiritual child was rewarded for his steadfast support and given full power over the earth -- but at a price. There would come a time when this son would need to come to earth and sacrifice himself for all his brothers and sisters.

In the Mormon view everyone, including the Satan and his followers, are spiritual brothers. However, only Jesus is the begotten son of God, the physical offspring of God and Mary. Huckabee was both right and wrong -- it was also simplistic and an attack. In one moment he lost ~7,000,000 Mormon voters, but then he probably wouldn't have gotten their vote anyway.

The 'curst race' is a bit of a Mormon urban legend. I heard that one many times as a youth. However, Spencer W. Kimball said it best when he stated that for some reason, unknown to us, many of our spiritual brothers chose not bear the responsibility of the priesthood (God's power on earth). In 1978, Spencer W. Kimball (the prophet at the time) stated during General Conference that all those spirits who had made the choice of not holding the priesthood had passed through this mortal realm -- with that statement he lifted the ban on those of african decent holding the priesthood (they have always been able to join the church and be baptized). One item to note here; when the prophet speaks in General Conference it is considered by Mormons as coming directly from God -- a revelation. This is the only time the prophet speaks for God.

You're right, there are times I don't understand why anyone would want to be a part of any religion. Although I tend to like the ethics and values taught by the Mormons better than those taught by other religions. My cynical side comes out when I also realize the Mormon church was going to lose its status as a non-profit organization in 1979 unless it stopped discriminating against blacks. But these types of coincidences occur throughout the history of all religions (I just notice it more with the LDS church).

My contention all along in this thread is that, if Romney believes the President of the LDS church to be a prophet of God, how can he possibly go against a statement made by the prophet during General Conference. In that regard, Romney would be unduly influenced by one church. He can easily go against a request by the LDS church, but not a revelation from God.

 

Nonsense. You're essentially arguing the strawman version of moral relativism.

All religions are not equally valid. All religions are not equally objectionable. All religions are not equally weird.