Containing 5,418 Articles Spanning 370 Topics
Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery
Online Since January 1, 2005
|
|
PLEASE NOTE:
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"MITT ROMNEY - SECTION 3".
This website,
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
read
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
⇒
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
|
| |
MITT ROMNEY - SECTION 3
Total Articles:
18
Mitt Romney, Mormon Politician.
|
|
| Constitution Will Hang By A Thread A Little Longer - Romney Out Of The Race Friday, Feb 8, 2008, at 07:40 AM Original Author(s): Infymus Topic: MITT ROMNEY - SECTION 3 -Guid- | ↑ | From CNN:
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney dropped out of the GOP race Thursday after a disappointing showing on Super Tuesday, surprising many conservatives and his own supporters.
Looks like the constitution will have to hang by a thread a little longer.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/0...
| | Are Anti-Mormons To Blame For Romney's Failure? Monday, Feb 11, 2008, at 06:44 AM Original Author(s): Dartagnan Topic: MITT ROMNEY - SECTION 3 -Guid- | ↑ | Over at Mormon Apologetics & Discussion Board the Mormons are going nuts, trying to blame anyone except Romney for his own failure.
David Bokovoy suggested that tornados struck the Huckabee states the morning after Super Tuesday, as a sign from God. But then when pressed to clarify his position, he calmed down and retracted it. Dan Peterson ran to his defense while crying persecution and posting web articles written by non-Mormon Republicans who speculate the Baptists had some part in Romney's loss.
While I can understand why persecution ridden Mormons would see sympathy from outside journalists as something appealing, they keep ignoring the elephant in the room that undermines the point they're trying to make. If Evangelicals are bigots for not voting for a Mormon, then Mormons are also bigots for refusing to vote for an Evangelical minister. The results from Utah and its border states show a tremendous distate for Huckabee. Romney creamed Huckabee in Utah by an 89% margin. Huckabee only got 1% of the vote, his worst performance anywhere. In other border states that margin of victory for Romney was anywhere between 30 and 50%. Yet, Huckabee beats Romney slightly by a measly 3% margin in a few Bible Belt states (even losing one -Florida- to Romney), and all hell breaks loose as the Mormons are crying foul play. Bokovoy and others are becoming emotionally unhinged over this tragic event, calling Huckabee and his crowd, "evil" and "sick."
Mormons can only be grateful that no polls were given in those regions, asking the Mormon groups if they were willing to vote for an Evangelical minister. From what I can surmise online, Mormons aren't happy with Evangelical ministers. If they even make an appearance at a location where some book critical of the LDS faith happened to have been "passed out," then there is the guilt by association game. Nevermind the fact that it is automatically taken for granted that any book that criticizes the LDS faith is considered proof of bigotry.
I haven't met a single Mormon who would vote for an Evangelical minister, and nobody here seems to know of any other Mormon who voted for Huckabee. The "Mormons are conservatives and Huckabee isn't conservative" isn't a valid excuse, because you see Mormons voting for Hillary, Obama and even the whacko Ron Paul, but never Huckabee. That's bigotry folks.
While it has been expressed many times online by Mormons that they see priestcrafts and the works of satan in Evangelical ministers, nobody seems to consider it bigotry. Just look at the numbers folks. The real reason they're upset is because Mormons do not account for 1/4 of the US population (and they never will) so they are not in a position to throw around their weight the way Evangelicals are. Mormonism isn't big enough to start with the tough talk as it did back in the days of Brigham Young, when he was running a society comprised mainly of Mormons and had theocratic tendencies. It has little choice but to lay low and claim victim status in an effort to garner support and consolidate expressed sympathies from others. This is just a sly technique the same as would be used by any no-name politician.
Now the article linked by Dan Peterson brings up the Baptist missionary effort in Utah as an example of bigotry. So 3,000 volunteers marched through Utah for a month and that's bigotry? What about the tens of thousands of Mormons who have marched through the Bible Belt over the past century while trying to convince Evangelicals that theirs is an apostate or (as it has been recently described on this forum) a "man made" faith?
The Southern States meant nothing in the broad scheme of things. This is what nobody here seems to comprehend. This is about simple mathematics. Give all the southern states to Romney, and he is still hundreds of delegates behind McCain. He has no chance, which is why he called it quits.
The connections they are trying to make between Romney's failure as a politician, and the Evangelical influence, simply will not stand up to scrutiny. Let's begin with the obvious.
Huckabee gave a speech at First Baptist Church of Woodstock last sunday. I attended. This is the largest Baptist Church on the planet. The pastor there (Johnny Hunt) is anti-Mormon. My parents occassionally attend because it is only two miles down the road, but most everyone within a 10 mile radius attends that church. The place is like Disneyland it is so huge, and it sits on the border of Cobb and Cherokee counties.
Anyway, my parents live in Cobb county so I found it interesting that Huckabee didn't beat Romney in this county. In fact, Romney beat Huckabee by a 10% margin, winning 33,000 votes to Huckabee's 22,000. In the smaller Cherokee county that borders Cobb, Huckabee won, but only by 1,500 votes. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/prim...)
Now they're telling me that the greater Atlanta area and the entire state of Georgia area was influenced by this, when it couldn't even influence its immediate residential areas? Let's take a couple more examples of prominent anti-Mormon areas.
In Orange county California, which is home to notorious anti-Mormons like Hank Hannegraff (who runs the Bible answer Man radio show),and ministries run by Ed Decker (Ex-Mormons for Jesus) and the late Walter Martin, just how did the anti-Mormons influence the voters? Well, it was a slaughter, but in favor of Romney, who won 115,000 votes to Huckabee's measlel 33,000. (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/prim...) In Maricopa county Arizona, home to Concerned Christians, Romney managed to beat Huckabee by winning four times the votes (100,000 to 25,000).
How can this be if what they're saying is true?
You see the facts outweigh whatever fantasies a poorly developed persecution complex might create. At this website the article argues that the 43% of the Americans who said they wouldn't vote for a Mormon, are most likely democrats: http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/2...
It also argues that proper understanding of the figures suggest that 83% of Evangelicals would vote for a Mormon.
That 53% figure Mormon apologists love to pull out comes from a 2006 poll, which was before Romney really started making his case before the American people. The idea of a Mormon President seems less realistic at that time. Since then the situation has changed, the same way it changed for John F. Kennedy after he explained how his Catholicism wouldn't interfere with his job. In 1960 a poll said 35% of America wouldn't vote for a Catholic, yet he won. To prove the political landscape has changed, in this recent online poll involving more than 200,000 respondents, 94% of Americans said they would vote for a Mormon: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15936002/
I also presume the rasmussen poll which said 50% of Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a Mormon, was dealing with Evangelicals who were attending Church at the time the survey was taken. Most Evangelicals aren't even active, so it would be dealing with a relatively narrow and insignificant strand within the Evangelical crowd. Not to mention the peer pressure that would be involved if this took place at Church.
And don't forget. If 50% said they'd never vote for a Mormon, that means 50% of them would.
Using whatever hyperbole and rhetoric one may, it is simply not plausible that 50% of the Mormons would ever vote for an Evangelical minister.
| | Playing With Fire: Romney Campaign Exposed Anti-Mormonism Wednesday, Feb 13, 2008, at 09:13 AM Original Author(s): Elder George Carlin Topic: MITT ROMNEY - SECTION 3 -Guid- | ↑ | Today a Salt Lake Tribune Editorial really pounced on "anti-Mormon" sentiment exposed in Romney's bid for the Presidency. The article: http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_8242...
One particularly asinine and blatently incorrect statement was:
"Confronted by these assaults, the LDS Church and its members have mostly played vigorous defense, standing up for their beliefs but not stooping to attacks in kind."
So, I guess the Salt Lake Tribune is o.k. when TBMs call people "Anti-Mormon Bigots" when they take into account a candidate's beliefs (no matter how odd they seem to the person) or express their distaste with Mormonism being a driving force in their government. Mormons lambasted people who felt Romney's statement of "Freedom requires religion" was blatently incorrect and discriminatory.
Then when Romney announces he is withdrawing from the race, his claims he is doing so because
"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.”
Democrats "aid in a surrender to terror"? Fuck you Romney and your insulting, divisive statement. What an insult to Democrats around this great country!
I guess it's o.k. with the Salt Lake Tribune for the Mormon Church to play "Anti" with:
- Liberals
- Secularists
- Intellectuals
- Feminists
- Supporters of the ERA
- Supporters of Proposition 22 in California
- Gays
- Atheists
- Working mothers
- Coffee, tea, and/or alcohol drinking
...and the list goes on and on
| | Romney Has Business Buy Up His Book So It Would Become Best Seller Tuesday, Oct 19, 2010, at 08:15 AM Original Author(s): Helemon Topic: MITT ROMNEY - SECTION 3 -Guid- | ↑ | http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmit...
"Mitt Romney boosted sales of his book this spring by asking institutions to buy thousands of copies in exchange for his speeches, according to a document obtained by POLITICO."
Are you honest in all your dealings?
| | Are Romney's Temple Loyalty Oaths Legitimate Questions? Thursday, Jun 9, 2011, at 09:48 AM Original Author(s): Rollo Tomasi Topic: MITT ROMNEY - SECTION 3 -Guid- | ↑ | Just as in 2008, Mitt Romney's LDS faith is a big part of his campaign (particularly since he is considered the current frontrunner for the Republican Party nomination). And, as before, Romney seems to be downplaying his religion and flatly denying that his beliefs or the institutional LDS Church would influence his decisions as president. It all sounds very 'Kennedyesque,' but is it true?
Without divulging any specific words, I am referring in particular to the very stringent loyalty oaths made by temple patrons in connection with the Laws of Sacrifice and Consecration as presented in the endowment ceremony. Clearly Romney has made these oaths on his own behalf and, probably hundreds of times, on behalf of the dead.
I've always felt that these severe loyalty oaths have the potential to come into conflict with Romney's oath as U.S. President, which oath is as follows: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Imo, a conflict could arise if the LDS Church institution (or leader thereof, such as the Church president) either espouses an unconstitutional position, or directs President Romney to act in a certain way, or otherwise influences a decision President Romney makes. I know, I know, this is an extremely unlikely scenario (particularly in today's PR-driven LDS Church), but it is possible and there is precedent (i.e., the Church's defying anti-polygamy laws, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional). Therefore, are not Romney's temple loyalty oaths relevant in connection with his campaign to become U.S. president?
Such loyalty oaths are generally not discussed outside the temple (the whole "sacred, not secret" thing), but I feel there should be an exception here (and I would include Jon Hunstman in this). I think it is absolutely a legitimate line of questioning for any Mormon seeking the American presidency (as well as for any other non-Mormon candidate, if his/her church has such religious loyalty oaths). It's fine for Mitt to say that neither the Church institution nor his faith would dictate or influence decisions he makes as president, but he (as well as Huntsman) needs to explain how that will always be the case in light of the temple loyalty oaths he has taken. Perhaps he needs to renounce those oaths during the time he is president (but to do that would risk excommunication) or simply embrace them (which may affect his presidential aspirations); either way, I think he needs to address them with the American people.
Now, I know there are other high U.S. officials (i.e., Harry Reid) who have the same problem (i.e., temple loyalty oaths vs. consititutional oath), but I consider Romney's situtation much more serious due to the greater power wielded by a U.S. president than that by a member of Congress. Nevertheless, I'd be fine with high U.S. officials like Reid addressing the same issue publicly.
Frankly, I'd also like to hear Romney address whether he has received the "second annointing" (aka "calling and election made sure"), which he and other high-profile Mormons are rumored to have received.
In sum, I have no problem with a Mormon running for and winning the American presidency, but I also think ALL loyalty oaths (and "king-like" annointings) should be disclosed and addressed.
| From Newser:
Mitt Romney has long had a reputation as a flip-flopper, and now Salon reveals the full story behind his well-known change of heart on abortion. In 1994, Romney declared in a Senate debate with Ted Kennedy that though he was personally against abortion, he believed it should be "safe and legal" because a relative had died years prior after a botched back-alley abortion. By the time he ran for president in 2008, of course, he had done a 180 to become completely pro-life, both personally and politically. Until now, the story behind his relative's death had never been revealed.
http://www.newser.com/story/125337/an...
| | Mitt Romney Gives Millions To Charity, Most To Mormon Church Friday, Aug 12, 2011, at 07:28 AM Original Author(s): Huff Post Topic: MITT ROMNEY - SECTION 3 -Guid- | ↑ | From the Huff Post:
According to IRS documents reviewed by The Huffington Post, Mitt and Ann Romney's charitable foundation gave $4,325,000 to the Mormon Church in three hefty installments in 2003, 2008 and 2009. That was 74 percent of their foundation's donations from 2002 to 2009, during which time the couple gave a total of $5,854,916 to charity.
Including another $300,000 that the couple gave to Brigham Young University, the church-run college in Provo, Utah, where Romney earned his undergraduate degree, the proportion of their giving that went to support Mormon missionary work, the upkeep of church buildings and other religious activities rises to 79 percent.
The Romney foundation did not make religious contributions each year. In 2003, for instance, it handed over a whopping $1,925,000 to the church. In 2005, however, it gave nothing. In 2008, the Romneys gave the LDS Church $1.8 million. The following year, they donated $600,000.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08...
| | If Romney Wins The Nomination, Is It Good Or Bad For Opponents Of Mormonism? Friday, Oct 21, 2011, at 08:57 AM Original Author(s): Nocoolnametom Topic: MITT ROMNEY - SECTION 3 -Guid- | ↑ | This has all happened before. In 1903, Apostle Reed Smoot ran for, and won, the office of Utah State Senator. Unlike the previous political General Authority, BH Roberts, who was elected to the House, Smoot was allowed to take his seat, but like Roberts before him his election started a large inquiry into the "Americanness" of the LDS Church. The Reed Smoot Hearings dragged on for years; President Joseph F. Smith was called in the early months to testify under oath (and did just about as well as you might expect Thomas S. Monson to do in the same situation: poorly). Uncomfortable history was brought up (Mountain Meadows), current secret practices were revealed (plural marriages were still being promoted, practiced, and enacted by all of Church leadership), the depth of LDS involvement in the economics of Utah was staggering (Smith couldn't even keep track of how many boards of directors he was on), and Mormonism was the number one topic of popular discussion among Americans, usually negatively. Did the LDS Church wither and die? No, it did not; but it did force dramatic changes to both culture and doctrine.
While it can be argued that information is even more free today than it was then, even in the early 1900's the Church had to deal with new technology and its impact on information. When Smith testified in front of Congress he thought of himself as clever and sly, but his "careful" statements were quickly picked apart and he was often backed into corners because of duplicitous testimony. Gordon B. Hinckley he wasn't. But the problems didn't end within the Senate Chambers: when Joseph F. Smith intimated to Federal prosecutors that the only revelation he had ever received in his life was his conversion experience, his comments were published in Salt Lake City before he even arrived home. His statements caused massive angst and a loss of trust among Church members, which forced him to attempt to explain himself in the next General Conference where he explained that he was trying to not cast pearls before swine and that he certainly was a prophet who received revelation often! Again, though, he underestimated thepower of information technology of his day and his Conference remarks caused problems for Smoot's ongoing hearings and public perceptions of Mormons as liars when they were quickly published back in Washington.
Other changes that were forced on the Church ran even deeper than mere damage control for poorly-chosen statements. Post-Manifesto polygamy was publicly revealed and the Church enacted dramatic changes to try and fix what was rapidly becoming a poisonous PR image. Two members of the Quorum of the Twelve were forced first to step down from their callings and one was eventually excommunicated (Smith's reticence about this action can be seen in his conscious decision to not replace these two for over a year after they stepped down and the Quorum was sustained and operated as a body of ten for a while; they were eventually replaced by monogamists as a sign of good faith for Americans, one of which was David O. McKay). The Church's ideals of what made the LDS Church unique and important in the world was purposefully shifted from polygamy, which had defined them as a people for a half-century, to the importance of prophets and prophecy. Joseph Smith resumed his role as the identifying ideal of what it meant to be Mormon after having played second and even third-fiddle to polygamy and Young for most of the Utah period. The Church also began a process of "normalization" around this time that destroyed many of the more-unique aspects of the frontier Church: the Temple vow of vengeance was removed, the Temple garments were eventually redesigned, female healing rituals were suppressed, public support of modern medicine was promoted as a valid supplement to faith and Priesthood healing, military service was promoted, and public civic participation was encouraged. The process began that would eventually result in the loss of autonomy and self-authority for the Relief Societies, the Primary and Youth organizations, and even personal and private interpretation of the Word of Wisdom became discouraged and would eventually result in the "no alcohol, who cares about meat" approach in use today.
In all, the 19th Century Church of Brigham Young did not survive the Reed Smoot Hearings, but the Church did what it had to in their attempts to modernize. A Romney presidency would almost certainly produce similar changes: Packer would finally be put on a leash as nobody wants people like him to be the public face of the "President's Church"; the Church would have to at least give the appearance in international countries of promoting local cultural interpretations of Mormonism to minimize their associations with the American President; and the Church's binary approach of "all other Churches are an abomination" would be enough of a PR problem that it would need to be publicly softened and avoided. We would probably expect Humanitarian Services to give more real help and dollars for disaster relief, and in all the Church would try its damnedest to present a friendly face. Promotion of some non-gay and non-abortion ideals of non-Republican parties would probably be subtly promoted by Church leaders in an attempt to break lockstep with a Republican president. Above all, they will have lost control of their public perception and image for good; no longer would an Elder Ballard be able to get up one a year to try and define what "Mormon" should mean. No longer would the excuse of "I don't think we don't teach that anymore" fly for non-Mormons about what doctrines are actually part of Mormon theology.
In short, a Romney Presidency would absolutely destroy the status quo, and the response it would produce in the LDS Church would be immense. Of course, if Romney only attains the nomination we'd see a very cautious Oct 2012 General Conference followed by an almost audible sigh of relief from the Church Office Building after he loses the election and things can go back to normal in Salt Lake until 2016 rolls around and we see if Romney and/or Huntsman appears as a viable candidate.
There's a number of good sources about this time period. Three of the best (and they're written by active LDS historians in case you have people accusing you of biased sources) are, in order of easiest to read:
The Politics of American Religious Identity: The Seating of Senator Reed Smoot, Mormon Apostle by Kathleen Flake
http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Americ...
Mormonism in Transition: A History of the Latter-day Saints, 1890-1930, by Thomas Aelxander
http://www.amazon.com/Mormonism-Trans...
The Mormon Church on Trial: Transcript of the Reed Smoot Hearings, edited by Michael Paulos (though you can read the transcripts online pretty easily)
http://www.amazon.com/Mormon-Church-T...
http://books.google.com/books?id=b0Tu...
| | Harold Bloom On Mormonism, Romney, JS And The American Religion Monday, Nov 14, 2011, at 07:53 AM Original Author(s): Phantom Shadow Topic: MITT ROMNEY - SECTION 3 -Guid- | ↑ | Bloom, the author of "The American Religion," which occupies a place somewhere in my bookcase, has written a biting (ouch) piece on Romney and the current situation of the Mormon Religion in America. Lots of great quotes. (Ouch, ouch, ouch.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/opi...
Bonus is a lovely portrait of some prophets. Enjoy.
| Mormonism and Race: Romney's New Issue:
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/9...
Wish I could comment but I don't subscribe to the New Republic...
Readers need to know that despite the 1978 change the Book of Mormon, the most correct of any book on earth still contains verses about dark skin being the visual representation of God cursing his disobedient children.
Wonder how far down the rabbit hole will the press go with Romney's Mo-ism?
| | Has the Mormon Church Truly Left Its Race Problems Behind? Wednesday, Nov 16, 2011, at 08:11 AM Original Author(s): Max Perry Mueller Topic: MITT ROMNEY - SECTION 3 -Guid- | ↑ | From The New Republic:
It’s looking more and more likely that Barack Obama will be facing Mitt Romney next November. According to recent polls, Romney’s much-debated “Mormon Problem”–considered by some to be a main roadblock to the Republican nomination in 2008–has decreased in salience among the white evangelicals on whom he’ll probably depend in both the primary and general elections. But one element of the Mormon problem that’s yet to be vetted will come into stark relief should this match-up take place: the Mormon Church’s troubling history of racial exclusion.
This history is a long one, stretching back to the inception of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) in the 1830s. Joseph Smith Jr., the founder of Mormonism, ran for president in 1844 as a moderate abolitionist; ordained a black man, Elijah Abel; and offered to adopt one young black convert, Jane Manning James, as his spiritual daughter. Yet earlier in his life, Smith wrote anti-abolitionist screeds replete with racist sentiment typical of Christian pro-slavery apologists of antebellum America. In one 1836 letter to missionaries in the South, Smith excoriated northern abolitionists as the instigators of discord among southern slaves who, he argued, were generally happy.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/9...
| NYT agrees with me: the pro-Mormon ad campaigns are designed to make Romney more palatable to voters.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/us/...
Of the many lies from LDS, Inc., the "we don't get involved in politics" is one of its most insidious.
They run Utah as a theocracy, they spend millions to fight gay rights, and they act like a PAC for Romney.
| | In all the extensive media coverage of Mitt Romney, much of it discussing his religion, not a word have I seen about the secrets of Mormonism, the secrets of Romney's life-long beliefs and practices. The reason, of course, is obvious: nobody can talk about a secret unless they are in on the secret. And few journalists or Christian ministers or anti-Mitt politicians are in on the secret. Only Mormons know the secrets, and they're not going to tell. And former Mormons, like myself, who were initiated into those same secrets, and afterwards left Mormonism - we know the secrets. Should we tell? Journalist Frank Rich, in his January 29 article "Who in God's Name Is Mitt Romney?" in New York Magazine, subtitled it: "His greatest passion is something he's determined to keep secret." And that secret is the details of his beliefs and practices as a faithful, life-long Mormon, the same secrets that all good Mormons have vowed to keep secret, even though their life depended on it. And why does Romney (and his church) want to keep people from knowing those secrets? Most Mormons will claim that they are not "secret," but merely so "sacred" that they cannot be discussed. That is a quibble, since Mormons hold any number of other aspects of their religion to be "sacred," and yet they don't hesitate to discuss them (for example: baptism, conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost, ordination to the priesthood, etc.). In my day, when Mitt and I were initiated into the secrets, we were specifically instructed that we were under "the greatest obligations of secrecy." Nowadays, the Mormons simply take a solemn oath that they will "never reveal" anything about the rituals. That sounds like a secret to any ordinary person, doesn't it? All right. I am going reveal those secrets, since nobody else seems willing and able to do so. The biggest secrets involve the special lengthy rituals (the Mormons call them "ordinances") that take place outside of public view in the Mormon temples. The most important of these rituals is called the "endowment" - lasting several hours and taking the Mormon through symbolic washings and anointings (in my day they were actual washings and anointings on the entire naked body), then clothing the Mormon in special clothing and robes (including the notorious "magic underwear," which Mormons call "the garment"). The Mormon then watches and participates in long dramatizations of key events in the coming of the gospel, beginning with the creation of the world, showing Adam's fall, the coming of the Christian gospel (but not the crucifixion and resurrection), and ultimately the Mormon's being admitted into heaven, represented by "passing through the veil (of the temple)." When Romney and I first went through this ceremony, it was a ritualized dramatization with live temple personnel. Nowadays it's a movie.
Yes, the most sacred worship service in Mormonism involves watching a movie. Why is that so secret? you may ask. What aren't the Mormons supposed to reveal? What do they hold so sacred that it's secret? Quite a lot. Part of the endowment ritual instructs the Mormons in the four "signs" and "tokens" of the Mormon priesthood. Each also has a "name" (or password). The Mormon must make an oath that he (or she) will never reveal these, outside the temple. The purpose of the signs and tokens, according to Mormon Prophet Brigham Young, is that they will be needed to pass the angels guarding the gates of heaven. The tokens are various handshakes, copied largely from the Masonic initiation rites of the 1830s, when church founder Joseph Smith was initiated into Freemasonry. The signs are various positions of the arms and hands (right arm to the square, for example, is the "first sign of the Aaronic priesthood"). Before 1990, when Romney and I first went through this ceremony, we were taught that each of the first three signs and tokens also had a "penalty" associated with each one, and we had to mime various ways of taking life to represent the penalty to us if we were to reveal the secret signs and tokens: slitting one's own throat, ripping open one's chest, disemboweling oneself. Yes, folks, this was part of the most sacred ritual in Mormonism: pantomiming your own bloody death. So Mitt Romney, and all other righteous Mormons, can be confident that they know the secret passwords and secret handshakes to get into heaven. Do you see why Romney and his church are reluctant for "unworthy" people (the rest of us, including Mrs. Romney's parents) to know about this? As Deborah Laake put it in her autobiographical book Secret Ceremonies , (New York 1993): The actions that were going to guarantee my entrance at the gates [of heaven] would have nothing to do with love or charity or the other teachings of Christ that I'd been raised to believe God valued. In fact, I hadn't heard a single one of those words spoken today, the most primary day of religious instruction in my entire life. No, I was going to burst into heaven on the basis of mumbo-jumbo. ... The mysteries of life were fraternity rituals. ... Did all the white-suited glorifiers in the room unquestioningly accept a ritual of nutty gestures from the pseudo-occult as a sacrament? Those were the first moments when I viewed Mormonism with suspicion. Or as summarized by a young Mormon missionary:"If we told investigators [prospective converts] about that, they wouldn't join, because it's too weird!" But wait! you are saying. You haven't revealed anything. You've just told us that there is stuff to reveal. So reveal it! Right. The four secret passwords that will get you into heaven: The first one is the "new name" that you get with your garment. Mine is "Enoch" and you can borrow it when the time comes. The angel won't know. If you're female, you can use my ex-wife's new name: "Mary." (She would kill me if she knew I gave her sacred new name away!) The second password is easy: your own given first name. The third password: "The Son," meaning "the Son of God." The fourth one is so sacred that you don't get it until the very last moment in the ceremony, at the veil, from God Himself (or an old guy standing behind the curtain who is pretending to be God). And it's very long, but you have to memorize it or you don't get in: Health in the navel, marrow in the bones, strength in the loins and in the sinews. Power in the priesthood be upon me and upon my posterity through all generations of time and throughout all eternity. (If you watched "Big Love" faithfully, one episode showed this part of the ceremony.) And what about the secret (oops! that should be "sacred") handshakes? Rather than describe them, I will suggest you simply do an Internet search for "mormon handshake" images. They'll be right at the top. Anything else? Yes, there are more secrets. During the endowment, Mormons are required to take secret oaths that they will obey various "laws." The "law of obedience" requires them to obey "the law of God and keep his commandments." They don't specify what the "law of God" is, but Mormons understand that the Mormon church is the only true source of God's law and commandments. So they are taking an oath to obey their church. The "law of sacrifice" requires them to "covenant to sacrifice all that we possess, even our own lives if necessary, in sustaining and defending the Kingdom of God." Mormons understand "the kingdom of God" to be the Mormon church. The "law of the gospel" is accompanied by a charge to avoid "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed [church leaders]" as well as avoiding "light-mindedness, loud laughter, taking the Lord's name in vain" and every "unholy and impure practice" (not specified). The "law of chastity" is to abstain from sexual relations except with one's lawful spouse. That one does make sense. That's one of the Ten Commandments, after all. The last law is the "law of consecration." It requires the Mormons to ...consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion. A couple of terms need explanation. The "Kingdom of God on the earth" and "Zion" mean, to Mormons, not just their church, but ultimately the theocracy that will replace the non-religious civil government. They believe, of course, that Christ will come to run this government, using faithful Mormons as administrators. The pressing question for Mitt Romney, and for the Mormons who are supporting his candidacy, is: Would Romney consider the Presidency to be something that God had "blessed" him with, and which, pursuant to his secret oath, he should "consecrate" to his church for establishing a theocracy? If he is elected, will he kneel down and thank his God for blessing him with the presidency? And what is he supposed to do, according to his secret oath, with "everything" God has blessed him with? That's right: he is to use it for the benefit of the Mormon church. Now wait a minute, you may be thinking. It doesn't really mean that! The Mormon church doesn't expect that from its members, does it? Oh, yes, it does! Remember California's Proposition 8? The Mormon church pulled out all the stops to pass that proposition, which would forbid same-sex marriage, and it called upon all Mormons to cough up and donate, even those who were not California voters. Those who were hesitant to do so (often the amounts demanded were thousands of dollars per family) were simply and subtly reminded of their "temple covenants." And they all understood that the church was calling in the chits on the oaths to obey, to sacrifice, and to consecrate whatever the church demanded of them. How would a President who was also a good Mormon obey those secret oaths? It wouldn't even take a phone call from church headquarters to the White House. Mitt, being a well-trained Mormon, knows "in his heart" what God would want (which is the same thing that the church wants, of course) and doesn't need to be told. That's the way it works already in the only American theocracy in existence today (Utah). The Mormon politicians who run that state - the judiciary, the legislature, the executive branch - don't have to ask church leaders for direction. They know what they should do, without asking specifically (usually). The question for American voters is: knowing that Romney has taken this secret oath, that he is a faithful Mormon, do you want him to answer the question "Would you feel bound by your sacred oath to obey the law of consecration that you made in the endowment ceremony and use the power of the presidency to benefit the Mormon church?" Should it make a difference to you, the voter?
|
Not trying to be offensive or disrespectful. Not saying that this is a problem, per se, it can be interpreted in many ways. Not claiming to point out anything that not already in the public domain and part of the conversation. When Mitt attends the LDS temple, this is part of the ritual - these are components of the covenants he makes. And was recently pointed out in a ME podcast, this verbiage that promises an oath to a church, not a deity, (and not saying which might be more consequential...). I think this matters and I think this should be transparently known and discussed among voters. The implications may be debated, the probability of a real conflict downplayed, but this should not be dismissed.
"You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the law of consecration as contained in this..., in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion."
"Law of Sacrifice: The posterity of Adam down to Moses, and from Moses to Jesus Christ offered up the first fruits of the field, and the firstlings of the flock, which continued until the death of Jesus Christ, which ended sacrifice by the shedding of blood. And as Jesus Christ has laid down his life for the redemption of mankind, so we should covenant to sacrifice all that we possess, even our own lives if necessary, in sustaining and defending the Kingdom of God. You and each of you solemnly covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this alter that you will observe and keep the Law of Sacrifice, as contained in the Holy Scriptures, as it has been explained to you. "
There has been a pretty good debate regarding this, on some private/closed Facebook groups over the past few days. I won't try to repeat all that has been said but a few points that have earned a lot of time in the discussion include:
- "Kingdom of God" - does that mean the church, the earthy church... the members? Or is this an appeal to a divine authority?
- How is Mountain Meadows Massacre relevant to the discussion of these oaths/promises and what members may do at the request of leadership?
- Can you re-frame this same discussion outside of Mormon contexts and feel differently about it? For example, say this was Obama and he was in a club that met regularly and required a similar oath. Does your opinion of what these oaths mean change?
- I know, (and have already heard from some), that these oaths are secret and sacred and should not be on my blog. Fair argument, I disagree, but since it has been brought up that they perhaps should remain secret, does that not make them even more suspect? Again, reframing, but how do you know Obama or Santorum or Newt or Ron Paul have not made secret oaths of this nature to a group you are utterly unaware of? Worse, no?
| | John Sweeney Investigates The Beliefs Of Mitt Romney, The Man Most Likely To Take On Barack Obama Later This Year, And Asks Whether America Is Ready For A Mormon President Thursday, Mar 29, 2012, at 12:18 PM Original Author(s): Infymus Topic: MITT ROMNEY - SECTION 3 -Guid- | ↑ | | "Never Let Them See You Cry" Daily Beast: Ann Romney Fails To Humanize Mitt Or Herself. Cannot Show Underbelly Even With Presidency At Stake Monday, Sep 17, 2012, at 07:38 AM Original Author(s): Anagrammy Topic: MITT ROMNEY - SECTION 3 -Guid- | ↑ | I continue to be am amazed at the inability of reporters to understand the world view of Mormons and put the behavior of Mitt and Ann Romney in the proper perspective.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles...
You could pull any Mormon out of a pew and they could explain Ann Romney's puzzling refusal to dwell on her struggles, much less expound on those of her husband.
Mormon leaders in the rarified atmosphere of the Romneys, i.e., the stake level, travel to lend their aura and authority to struggling members. They HAVE the answers, they don't HAVE the problems, only problems that have been overcome.
The answer to all their problems was faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It got them through everything and made everything easy for them. "My yoke is easy and my burden is light" said Jesus.
The key to success in a hierarchal church and a viciously competitive business environment is to be stainless steel. I suspect that the reason Ann Romney can't go into the "Mitt carried a bedpan" or "carried me up the stairs" is because he didn't. My Mormon husband was just garden variety, and he was never home. I imagine that Mitt's contribution to Ann's MS was to make sure that she had 24 hour professional care, a massage therapist, an acupuncturist, a psychologist, a nanny for taking the kids to and from their lessons, a cook so that they ate well, and every possible physical comfort: a special bed, etc.
You can go into detail about how much you loved having your own nutritionist and how thoughtful Mitt was to provide that for you, but there will not be tears in the crowd.
Those of us who have been inside the hive know that there are real people under the plastic and the Romney's have suffered the crushing disappointment of non-Mormons not seeing their obvious calling as he who would save the country.
In contrast, the Obamas (and other normal people not in a cult) are just representing themselves instead of all Christians, so they can say things like, "She keeps my head from getting too big." and they can talk about how their child is embarrassed by them missing the kiss cam shot at the football game.
When you take on the mantle of greatness before having achieved greatness, the weight of the pretension just sucks the humanity right out of you.
| | The Mormon Church Not Politically Supporting Romney?: Thinly-Veiled Church Power Point Presentation Warns Of "War With Satan" And Urges Nevada Mormons To "Speak With One Voice"... Monday, Sep 24, 2012, at 07:57 AM Original Author(s): Steve Benson Topic: MITT ROMNEY - SECTION 3 -Guid- | ↑ | “In a provocative move within a religious organization that has sought to display strict political neutrality, an official of the Mormon Church has disseminated a presentation across the key swing state of Nevada that urges members to vote and speak 'with one voice' in the coming Presidential election that pits Mormon Mitt Romney against President Barack Obama.
"'Any Mormon would understand exactly what's being said there,' said Randall Balmer, a Dartmouth religion professor who has studied the church's handling of Romney's presidential bids. 'This is very thinly coded language.'
“Mormon officials have permitted church leaders to encourage voting, but have stressed that it not be done in a partisan fashion. A senior church member emailed the presentation to Nevada 'stake presidents' . . . last month. . . .
“The roughly 30-minute PowerPoint presentation appears to have two goals--to motivate Mormons in Nevada to register and vote in November, and to help them prepare for questions they may get as their Church garners attention as a result of Romney's bid. Three of the 20 slides that were shared with ABC News pointedly urge members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to remember the 'importance of speaking with one voice.'
"READ the POWERPOINT: Speaking With One Voice (PDF) [viewable by going to linked site]
"One slide includes voter registration data for Clark County, a jurisdiction that includes Las Vegas, where Democrats outnumber Republicans. Other slides appear to convey the stakes in the upcoming campaign, including one that espouses the need to restore a 'spiritually dead society' and another that quotes a member of the Church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles saying, 'We are at war with the influences of Satan.' ABC News has only seen a portion of the presentation.
“Mormon officials told ABC News that the entreaty to 'speak with one voice' conveys a desire to see Church members provide consistent responses to questions from outsiders about church rituals and doctrine, and is not an entreaty to vote as a block.
"'The Church has always encouraged people to be a part of the political process and to register to vote,' said Dale Jones, a church spokesman. 'However, we do not direct them on how to vote. We are politically neutral and do not support candidates or political platforms.'
“One slide in the presentation titled 'Political Neutrality' explicitly notes this, stating that the Church's mission 'is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to elect politicians.' The slide says the church does not "attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether or not a candidate for office is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
“Church spokesman Scott Trotter, however, declined to respond to questions from ABC News about who prepared the presentation, how many Church groups saw it, why details about it are being kept secret, and why a 'war with Satan' was referenced in the middle of a presentation on the importance of voting.
“Darren Littell, the spokesman for the Romney campaign in Nevada, said the Romney campaign has nothing to do with the 'One Voice' PowerPoint presentation.
“Edwin Firmage, a University of Utah law professor and expert on the separation of church and state, told ABC News the presentation appears to be aimed at helping mobilize support for Romney.
"'I would say this isn't even thinly veiled,' Firmage said. 'Of course it's political.'
“Firmage, an Obama supporter, said he considered the presentation a departure for Church officials whom he believes have shown 'a great deal of discipline' in avoiding overtly political activity during the presidential contest. 'They've been very adroit,' he said.
“The presentation includes several slides focused on religious teachings that encourage civic participation. One of them advises viewers that 'We have a responsibility to vote,' and quotes Mormon scripture as saying: 'We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.'
“The decision to distribute the presentation in Nevada was probably no accident, Balmer said. Among the handful of states that are considered up for grabs in the 2012 election, Nevada has the most vibrant Mormon community. Mormons represented roughly a quarter of the GOP caucus vote in Nevada in 2012, and nearly all of them supported Romney, according to exit polling. . . .
“The slideshow provides advice about how to answer questions from friends and neighbors generated by news coverage on Mormonism in light of Romney's bid. The presentation points members to resources where they can find answers to questions about the role of women in the Church, about the use of special garments, and about the central role of Jesus Christ in the Church.
“Near the end of the presentation, a slide poses the question, 'So… What can I do?' It lists five answers, with step five being: 'Register to vote … and VOTE!' . . .
“Balmer said the Mormon Church is well aware that Romney is likely to receive overwhelming support from Mormons, and so simply encouraging them to turn out to vote is akin to assisting his bid.
"'On the face of it, there's nothing unusual in what they're doing,' Balmer said. 'But in reality, the message is not hard to miss.'”
(“Church Official Pushes Mormon Voter Registration in Key Swing State,” by Matthew Mosk, Brian Ross and Lynn Packer, “ABC News,” 20 September 2012 , at: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/romney-...)
| | How Would A Romney Presidency Be Different From The Kennedy Presidency Wednesday, Oct 24, 2012, at 08:21 AM Original Author(s): Dick Berry Topic: MITT ROMNEY - SECTION 3 -Guid- | ↑ | There has been much discussion and speculation both on Rfm and the public media about how a Romney presidency might be influenced by the Mormon church. Often the presidency of John F. Kennedy is used to provide clues and insight. If Kennedy wasn't influenced by his Catholicism then why should Romney be influenced by his Mormonism?
Is there a fundamental difference between the faiths of these two presidents which should make us concerned at the prospect of Romney coming to power? I would like to know your opinion but here are my own thoughts on the matter.
While it's very hard to imagine the possibility of such a scenario taking place: could the American government be hijacked by a cult and used to achieve its own agenda and goals? Surely not you say, yet the idea is not as absurd as it may seem especially when one begins to peel away the layers of secrecy and starts to delve into the history of the cult and its teachings.
As to the difference between Kennedy and Romney let me start by stating the bleeding obvious: Romney is definitely no Kennedy. Kennedy was an incredible figure in American history, his words still stir the heart and fire the passions in a way that Romney never will. Kennedy was so much more than a captain of industry, he was the supreme commander, the charismatic leader who was not afraid to mingle with the troops (something that would cost him, his life). While Romney seems so one dimensional with his mantra of giving financial relief to the poor rich folk who are yearning to be freed from burdensome taxes and to breathe easily as they fly around in their corporate jets. Kennedy on the other hand understood the human need to be freed from every kind of oppression, he understood that the great need of our time was more than simply an economic one. But enough said. How else would a Romney presidency differ, especially with regards to the influence of religion?
To answer that question requires us to quickly highlight a few important differences between Catholicism and Mormonism.
Firstly, whatever one may think of Catholicism and its faults it is not seen as a cult. Mormonism on the other hand has been classified and continues to be seen by many throughout the world as a cult. It displays many of the classic and extreme characteristics of a cult: to question its leadership is to invite excommunication; it uses deception to hide its past, its teachings and practices; it exercises a form of group think and peer pressure to force conformity; it lacks financial transparency and reinforces an "us versus them" view of the world and it also claims that it will play a major part in the apocalyptic end of the world.
Secondly, Kennedy's faith required no more of him or any other good Catholic, Protestant or any other person of faith for that matter than to practice a compassionate and moderate care for the world and its inhabitants. Of course as a Christian he would acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour and await with hope the day when this world would be changed for the better.
On the other hand, Romney's Mormonism has taught throughout its history and continues to hold to the belief that it alone is uniquely placed to accomplish the great winding up scene before the return of Jesus Christ. Think for example of the establishment of the theocracy of Deseret in its early history and the requirement for all converts to come from their own lands to be in "Zion". Think also of the biblical prophecy that two prophets shall stand as witnesses against the world, Mormonism holds that these two will come from its ranks. Consider the great efforts of the Mormon Church to acquire land and the means of production along with financial wealth, these are seen as the prudent measures that will allow Mormonism to flourish when the rest of the world will collapse (think of the old Testament story of Joseph and the dreams of Pharaoh king of Egypt).
Another great difference between Kennedy and Romney is that Kennedy, as far as anyone knows, never had to take solemn oaths and make covenants to give his all for his religion. As any Mormon who has been to the temple before the changes of 1995 will know there were penalties attached to the breaking of such covenants and oaths - the slitting of one's throat or disembowelling. Mormons then and Mormons to this very day still covenant to give everything they have or may have to the kingdom of God on earth, even their very lives if necessary. That kingdom is of course the Mormon church.
Romney took such oaths and covenants. While the penalties are no longer pronounced in the temple (as is the practice of plural marriage or polygamy, considered to be the new and everlasting covenant; or the oath which was in the past taken in the temple to avenge against the United States the blood of the prophet Joseph Smith) they are still very much a part of the unspoken and hidden Mormon belief system.
When one considers the way in which the Mormon church conducts its work it then becomes a more plausible scenario that another agenda may be at work than simply the electing of another American president. By far the overwhelming work of the Mormon church is directed at building up the Mormon church (Consider the tiny proportion of its huge financial wealth which is given as charity, it is staggering to consider). While huge sums are used to build shopping malls and acquire property its members volunteer as janitors to clean its building for free.
| |
|
How to navigate:- Click the subject below to go directly to the article.
- Click the red arrow on the article to return to the top.
- Right-Click and copythe "-Guid-" (the Link Location URL) for a direct link to the page and article.
Archived Blogs:
| |
Articles posted here are © by their respective owners when designated.
Website © 2005-2013
Compiled With: Caligra 1.121
HOSTED BY
| | |
AvoBase is a light-weight robust point of sale software tool.
If you sell Avon, Stampin-Up, Scentsy, Mary-Kay? AvoBase is for you.
AvoBase can sell from any of them - and even sell from ALL of them at the same time.
And not just Avon, AvoBase can sell nearly ANYTHING.
Sell your product, track your customers and your taxes - all in one easy to use application.
Download FREE today at AvoBase.com.
|
|
|