Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
As President, Would Mitt Romney Obey his Prophet or the Constitution?
more from Hrafnkell Haraldsson
The Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City, Utah: If Romney is elected, will this be the “true” Oval Office?
Americans have a right to be confused about what exactly a Mitt Romney presidency would mean. After all, this is a man who, politically, at least, has held every position on every issue. But religiously; well, that’s another issue.
Never having had a Mormon president before, most Americans are in the dark about Mormon theology, and if you say anything about it, you get the Church of Scientology treatment – perhaps you don’t get sued, but you do get shouted down on public forums and if you’re a Mormon, you get a visit from the bully boys: you get silenced.
I’ll never forget being told the most important thing (to me, at any rate) about Mormon belief, and that only in the moments after baptism: that when I died, I’d become a God like the God of this world. I ran for the hills.
But first I demanded why I wasn’t told this before agreeing to be baptized. I had trusted the missionary who brought me to the church. I felt betrayed. He lamely told me that would have been like giving me desert before the meat. Now, with all I’ve read about secret Mormon teachings available only to some, I worry about getting another big surprise – on the day after Romney takes office.
Earlier this month, David Twede, the managing editor The Mormon Thinker, posted a series of articles on LDS history. He asked this question: “If he were elected, would the LDS church influence President Mitt Romney to administer its agenda?”
Now, David Twede is a Mormon himself. He isn’t some Evangelical sowing fear. He is asking what he sees as a legitimate question, a question no different really than those asked of John F. Kennedy, America’s first Catholic president.
Given Romney has served as a clergyman, still holding the office of High Priest in the LDS church to date, he just may find that he answers to a higher power (i.e., the LDS prophet) more than to the US voters. Romney, as a faithful LDS member, has solemnly covenanted in the Mormon temple that he wholly-devotes himself, his time and his talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed him to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (see the words of the “Law of Consecration” and “Law of Sacrifice” given in the temple).
David talked about a great many things the Mormon church might like to forget, including, presciently as it turned out, a list of people excommunicated for “political and/or contrary speech.”
I say presciently because no sooner had David published his third article than he was hauled into the offices of the Mormon Church in Orlando and “interrogated”, according to Mormon scholar Jean Bodie, by his “LDS Bishop, LDS Stake President and two Church executives .” According to Bodie, they said, ”Cease and desist, Brother Twede.” and “In a letter hastily typed, they scheduled an excommunication ‘for apostasy’ on September 30 at 7:30am, to remove David from the LDS church.”
Writing on his personal blog, here is what David had to say about the meeting:
I followed him to the stake offices and there waited until the stake presidency and my bishop filed in, sitting in mostly an arc before me (bishop to my left). They chatted about who I am and my membership history and then confronted me about my writings–the (formerly) prozac-ville blog and my editorial role at MormonThink.com.
Before I admitted to writing any of it, I asked them how they had gotten my name and learned that I was writing any kind of blog. They would only say that they were perhaps “inspired” to know my identity. Then they told me they were scheduling a disciplinary council for my role as managing editor at Mormonthink.com, and particularly over my recent articles and writings, while attending the Hunters Creek Ward in Orlando, Florida.My writings, of recent last week, (from September 11 -15) which were posted to this blog and MormonThink include “The God of Mitt Romney” and one on the political history of the LDS church, as it relates to Mitt Romney’s campaign.
They gave me a letter stating a disciplinary council for “apostasy” is scheduled on September 30 at 7:30am. During our chat, the leaders persistently asked me about other contributors, why we kept secret our identities and implied that that I am an anti-christ. This was the first time I had ever met each of these leaders, and none of them knew mebefore by name or face, from what I know.
They denied that they are on—in their words—”a witch hunt” but they continued asking me to answer questions such as, “If people are truly interested in truth, as you say they are, then why would they hide their name or who they are?”
Many of us have seen the harm openly raising doubts can cause with family, friends and community in the Mormon culture. Most of my family is true-believing Mormon, and they will be hurt by my probable excommunication for apostasy.
HuffPo, without mentioning David’s problems, publishing a piece a few days later called “Mormons and Mitt: the Myth about Separation of Church and State.” The author is Derrick Shore, who grew up a Mormon. Shore told his readers: here’s why Mr. Romney’s religion is relevant: For Mormons, there really is no such thing as separation of church and state.”
It seems as if the First Amendment does not really apply. David’s experience was very inquisatorial. One can easily imagine several fellows from the Gestapo’s stopping by to ask about something you wrote with regards to the Fuhrer or the Party. That isn’t how things are supposed to work in America. But is that how things would be in Romney’s America? Americans have the right to ask – at least those of us who aren’t Mormons.
It has been objected that David is in trouble not because of his views on Romney but because he challenged church doctrine. But a Mormon president who, for instance, supported marriage equality, would be challenging church doctrine. Let’s not split hairs. The question is how much freedom of thought and action would a President Romney have? The answer is, apparently, not much.
David talks about the secrecy. The secrecy is part of what troubles Americans about Romney. He’s cagey. he doesn’t give any details about his policy plans. He doesn’t talk about his time at Bain even though he claims to be running on his strength as a CEO. He doesn’t talk about his bullying days at school or dodging the Vietnam War draft. He doesn’t talk about his taxes. And he doesn’t talk about his religion. From his vague comments you’d think he was your typical Evangelical, which no doubt suits him just fine.
But if your religion is going to inform your politics, then voters have a right to know. Kennedy told us his religion would not inform his politics, that his religion was a private thing. And he was true to his word. Americans were distrustful of Kennedy and given the record of the Roman Catholic Church, perhaps they had a right to be. We have seen several Catholic candidates we had good reason to be nervous of. And now we have a Mormon candidate we should be nervous of. For once, we are untroubled by a Protestant, but don’t feel bad for them. They had quite a run from 1964 to present (and we should fear them particularly, since many of them claim to talk directly to God without need of a pope or a prophet).
Our concern right now must be Mitt Romney. We are unlikely to ever know (from his lips at least) if he will obey the prophet, who is said to be in direct communion with the Mormon God (I say Mormon God because even as a Mormon, I recognized that their God was not the God I had grown up knowing as a Lutheran). And the Lutheran Church (LCA in those days) did not have a leader who was in direct communion with God. I could think, talk, write, without worrying about being excommunicated. When I had doubts, my pastors talked to me about it. They didn’t threaten me.
David’s situation is troubling. If Mitt Romney is elected president and he acts as John F. Kennedy did – as a president should – by keeping his religious views out of his policy-making, will he run afoul of his church elders? Will Mitt Romney be brought to task and interrogated by his religious leaders and threatened with excommunication for apostasy if he does not do or say what he is told?
Right now, both Romney and the Mormon Church are acting like they have something to hide, and the reason is that they do have something to hide. Romney is constrained by his beliefs in a way most Protestants and Catholics (a noticable exception being nuns) are not. And in a country founded on the principle of Separation of Church and State, and on the rejection of state-sponsored religion, that is a very worriesome thing indeed.
Romney is apparently utterly tone deaf, because yet another of his supporters has taken to the media to ...
A new Gallup poll released today found that 22% of Americans say that they would not vote for a presiden ...
While the lower tiers of the Republican field jockey for second and third place in the polls, and as med ...
In most civilized countries, a leader’s religion is not germane to their fitness or ability to serve in ...
In the United States Constitution, Article Six says, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qual ...
Reynardine
Sep. 22nd, 2012 at 8:19 am
That is far from the only thing one has to worry about with Mitt Romney, but it’s one *more* thing.
Shiva (Moderator)
Sep. 22nd, 2012 at 8:48 am
I had no idea you are / were a mormon.
In any case, Kolob is calling to St Romney.
I have no idea how anyone could buy into the mormon beliefs being as wacky as they are. Even more hard to understand is how the baby jebus crowd supports romney when their idea of fundamentalism would be trumped by the hardliners in Salt Lake City
CocomoeAWC
Sep. 23rd, 2012 at 2:07 am
No matter how much they VOW to vote for Romney just to get that black President out of office, it’s my belief about 20% of the hardcore Christian Fundamentalist right, once inside the voting booth and faced with an official ballot, simply won’t be able to pull that lever or check that box or punch that chad or press that button that casts their vote for a Mormon. Some just won’t show up to vote, some will write in someone they wish had won in the primaries, some will vote in every race except the Presidential race.
Hrafnkell
Sep. 22nd, 2012 at 10:05 am
Which is why I went screaming into the night, Shiva.
Shiva (Moderator)
Sep. 22nd, 2012 at 11:39 am
Understood
Churchlady
Sep. 22nd, 2012 at 10:17 am
We have NOT had a run of Protestants – we have had a run of Dominionists. The latter think the former are going to hell and all too willing to help them get there. Reagan started it. Presbyterian for a time, he became enamoured of Rushdooney to the point that Reagan’s own Presbyterian pastor became deeply wary of him. Bush I was probably a nominal Episcopalian – not that he believes much of anything – but his deeply wacked out son was a ‘born again’ convert of Franklin Graham. Franklin is so extreme his own father, the famous Evanglical Billy Graham, has his doubts about his son’s calling, beliefs, and actions.
Bill? Who knows what he thinks. Hillary has ties to the Coe family, they of C Street. Whether, after the publication of Jeff Sharlet’s expose about “The Family”, she retained that relationship is unclear. But it’s part of what worried a lot of us about her candidacy in 2008.
Obama is and was United Church of Christ- first “Protestant” I can think of in decades. UCC leads the way on progressive faith values, but it appears Obama has not kept up those ties while in office. But his value set is informed by that denomination – and it is devoted to social justice.
So no – Protestants have not been present in anything like meaningful ways in decades until now. You and we and the world would have been a LOT better off if they had.
A Walkaway
Sep. 22nd, 2012 at 10:39 am
I think that the UCC became a political liability for President Obama because of Rev. Wright (who was 100% correct, by the way) and because of the liberal stance of that church. The Republicans were so hateful towards a church that goes against their belief systems (greed, hate towards the sick, the poor and the powerless, war at any cost) that he probably felt he had to distance himself and reduce the religious aspect of his life to keep them from being more motivated.
Never mind that they were already motivated by racist bigotry.
Despair
Sep. 22nd, 2012 at 11:04 am
I’m still trying to figure out why this cult is tax-exempt and why contributions to it are tax deductible.
AverageJoe
Sep. 22nd, 2012 at 12:27 pm
Mormonism is an incorporated group of people with the same beliefs (religious, social, political and business). It’s like the corporations are people twist to logic. They should not be tax exempt.
Christopher
Sep. 22nd, 2012 at 4:39 pm
They are tax-exempt for the same reason other non-profits, religious or otherwise, are tax exempt. I think the logic is that these organizations provide community services that may otherwise fall to the taxpayers at large, so they get a break.
Personally, I think while a candidate can and should be asked which public policy views conform with his religion’s teaching, I do not think that belonging to a certain church should make one automatically suspect. There is a reason that the Constitution expressly prohibits religious tests for office and in my view we should embrace that prohibition in our own attitudes as well.
Mitt Romney was my Governor a few years back and Massachusetts is hardly a hotbed of Mormonism. I have never supported Mr. Romney politically, but I will say in his defense that his religion was never a concern when he ran for Senate in 1994, for Governor in 2002, or while serving as Governor. There are plenty of reasons not to vote for Mitt Romney, but Mormonism is not one of them.
Sam
Sep. 23rd, 2012 at 7:36 pm
I think you have to admit that a governorship of a relatively small state like Massachusetts is not quite the same as POTUS, and the temptation from the Mormon “prophet” to interfere is simply not equatable in any way shape or form.
Saying that having a Mormon governor was no problem so we shouldn’t worry about Mormon interference if we have a Mormon president is like comparing ants to elephants. Sure they are both animals but having an ant in your kitchen sure isn’t going to damage your China.
Steve Davis
Sep. 22nd, 2012 at 4:47 pm
I was living in Mountain-View, Arkansas in the Fall, 2001 when my 12 year old adopted son (ex-wife raising) called me seeking immediate assistance to take him to the University of Utah Football stadium because he had been chosen as one of the lanterns in Light to perform in the Opening and Closing of the 2002 Winter Olympics. Me and my wife rent a condo at Sugarhouse (near UofU) and each day I take my son to the practices. On February 3, 2002 I get a call to meet the FBI at the Salt Lake Library. They read me my Miranda Rights and after I waived them (I’d been a licensed/bonded PI since 1992) they informed that Mitt Romney and others had told the FBI/CIA/Interpol that I was a terrorist, associated with Osama bin Laden and going to bomb 7 buildings during the 2002 Winter Olympics.
Mitt and others did this, blindly obeying the President of the Mormon Church (Hinckley) because my father (Dr. H. Clyde Davis PhD, geologist of the LDS/nation) and I sued Zions First National Bank in March, 1993 because the bank had embezzled $40,000 from our Orange Julius account (University Mall). In December, 1993, a member of the Board came to our home in Provo, confessed and gave all the information (double books at Zions bank). That person was Mormon Apostle Neal A. Maxwell (former CIA Agent). We settle the lawsuit, victoriously.
In 1999 because Hinckley and others (Packer, Perry, Nelson) had not repented, we stopped the merger of Zions Bancorporation and 1st Security Bank, because the SEC required Zions to redo all their accounting. We cost the merger $3 Billion. Because of these two lawsuits, Mitt Romney and others were under special assignment to character assassinate me and others == blindly obedient, especially leaders (bishops, Stake Presidents, General authorities.
www.mormornstruth.org
Robert Chapman
Sep. 22nd, 2012 at 6:41 pm
Articles like this, questioning Romney’s Americanism and willingness to honor his oath of office are both below the dignity of Politicus and likely to ignite a backlash that could well benefit Romney.
Just as JFK was not the Catholic candidate of the Democratic Party, but the Candidate of the Democratic Party who happened to be Catholic.
Romney is not the Mormon candidate of the Republican Party, but the Candidate of the Republican Party who happens to be a Mormon.
1voice1vote
Sep. 22nd, 2012 at 8:34 pm
“below the dignity” = Frank Luntz 2012 Teapublican speak – everybody drink
Mitt’s extremism is undignified IMO, Mr. Chapman:“Romney’s Role as Mormon Bishop Shows His Extremist Religious Beliefs”
“Romney has consistently avoided having his Mormon beliefs put under scrutiny. There are some good reasons for that.”
www.alternet.org/belief/m...
Cameron Davis
Sep. 24th, 2012 at 8:55 pm
It saddens me people like you do not understand how dangerous it is to have a Mormon in the White House. Do some research on Joseph Smith, the founder of their religion. Study Brigham Young. Go to a stake meeting and try to ask questions. Attempt to witness baptism of the dead. Mormons swear their lives to the church, and the Prophet can speak for God at any time. Scripture is not their final authority, the Prophet is the final authority.
Paul
Sep. 22nd, 2012 at 10:40 pm
Aren’t you forgetting to include the incident where he already said he wasn’t disclosing his financial information because they “don’t do that in my church?” or some such wildly inappropriate response that will, I feel sure, be carried into the white house by this spineless worm.
Paul
Sep. 22nd, 2012 at 10:44 pm
here: www.sltrib.com/sltrib/pol...
Thayne Andersen
Sep. 23rd, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Romney probably won’t take “God” off of US coins, but he MIGHT replace God with Elohim, so that we know who is who.
Romney might also initiate the practice of “Worthiness Interviews” for the Secret Service whenever they return from Columbia or other places where prostitution is legal (including Nevada).
Another change might be to try to require counseling with local Bishops whenever a woman is considering abortion — even in the case of rape or incest. If a woman does not claim LDS membership, she can see the nearest LDS Bishop or Stake President.
Thayne
(See my blog about my struggles with LDS teachings at: www.skepticalthayne.com )
Rev. Gregory Lowrey
Sep. 23rd, 2012 at 2:47 pm
In Mormonism, church politics and political ambition is an obsession for practically all members and is much more important than national politics, but success in national politics gives a great advantage to advancement in church hierarchy. Once a position is gained, it is for life. so Mitt will always be acknowledged as and enjoy the authority of Bishop, Stake President, etc. Win or lose in the national election, if he fights a good PR fight for the church, he advances in church leadership and enjoys the numerous social and financial perks that brings in the relatively closed circle Mormons choose to operate in.
Excommunication, with a public warning to general membership to avoid your influence, often coupled with character assassination is the official Mormon way of dealing with members who stray from the narrow path of the party line.
Mitt has much to gain or lose in relation to his posture in the church and it is much more important to him and his family and finances than the national election. Read the link above about his time as a bishop. It is quite common and very illuminating. Mormonism’s recent switch from “a peculiar people” to “we’re just like you” was part of a well planned PR campaign to dominate government. It’s been going quite well so far. Mitt’s silence on his religion assuredly comes from orders from the church who want to very tightly control how the church is perceived and maintain the social powers they have worked so hard for. Just the opposite of Kennedy. Mitt is just the puppet he appears.
Marlowe53
Sep. 23rd, 2012 at 6:09 pm
Jackie Kennedy laughed when it was brought to her attention that people were concerned that JFK might make decisions based on what was good for the Catholic Church rather than what was good for America. Her reasoning was that JFK was not a good Catholic. She suggested that it might be a legitimate concern if RFK were the canidate.
I think that’s the situation we have here. Mitt Romney is not a nominal Mormon. He’s a true believer and he made it clear that his beliefs will inform his public policies in a speech he gave in Texas when he ran in 2008.
The American reluctance to question others’ faith is a great hindrance in this circumstance, particularly because so little is known about Mormonism.
In response to the prior poster, Hillary is not a Dominionist. She belonged to a women’s prayer group some of whom were married to men who were connected to Coe (whom I agree she should have avoided). However, Hillary is a lifelong Methodist and Methodists are not Dominionists. It’s contrary to our doctrine. I’ve prayed with people with whom I disagree politically and theologically. To do so does not mean that I was a Democrtic Jew one day and a Republican Catholic the next. It’s tragic if that actually caused you to choose to support the clearly less prepared and experienced candidate.
Inez
Sep. 24th, 2012 at 11:01 am
If Romney is elected it will be aloss to the Nation, but a victory for the church. Imagine the investmentsand the strings they will pull to enhance their monetary worth. Will the edicts come from the church alone? After all, though non profit their investments and holding in various companies are indicative of their business acumen. They are really,,,,,,,NOT non profit despite their religious designation.
Dakota
Sep. 24th, 2012 at 6:52 pm
This article is right on the money. This is why I will not vote for Romney. His first priority is to the Mormon church and not this country.