Mitt Romney has been getting mentioned quite a bit of late, especially when the topic is the Republican nomination in 2012. This seems to have less to do with anything he’s accomplished than with the embarrassing behavior of other Republican contenders who won’t be named here. While the chattering classes focus mainly on his shifting stances on health care and such, his lifelong adherence to Mormonism seems to have vanished from the stage. I don’t think it should have.
Let me be clear about why I say so. I don’t think anyone should harass the man because of mistakes that the LDS religion made long ago, such as polygamy. On that topic, I agree with what G. K. Chesterton said: it’s such a shame that people only associate polygamy with Mormonism rather than appreciating the much broader array of nutty beliefs that this religion has to offer. Mitt Romney is not responsible for what Mormon leaders did in the nineteenth century. I also don’t think we should pester Romney with questions about obscure Mormon teachings such as the notion that Earth orbited the star Kobol until Adam and Eve at the apple, at which point the planet ‘fell’ into its current solar system. Romney is not responsible for that stuff either.
I do believe that Mitt Romney is responsible for the things that he has chosen to say and do in his lifetime. Therefore I believe that journalists can and should ask him questions such as:
Mr. Romeny, you are no doubt aware that for most of its history, your church’s position has been that black people are inferior due to being descended from Cain, as clearly stated by early church leaders. Your are also no doubt aware that blacks were banned from entering the priesthood until 1978, and that although blacks are allowed in the priesthood now, the church has never officially repudiated the racist statements made by its early leaders. Prior to 1978, did you believe the position that blacks were morally inferior and did you support banning them from the priesthood? If not, then why did you choose to remain a member of the LDS church?
Our second question concerns the Great Endowment Ceremony performed in Mormon Temples. You are no doubt aware that until a few years ago, the ceremony required all initiates, some of whom were teenagers, to stand naked in front of adults, to have their entire bodies washed by adults, and to be touched on their breasts. Did you until 2005 approve of this procedure? If not, why did you choose to remain a member of the LDS church?
The third question also concerns the Great Endowment Ceremony. You are no doubt aware that until 1990, the portion of the ceremony where a dramatization (later replaced by a movie) of God’s plan of salvation was acted out included a character representing Christianity who was presented as being in league with the Devil. Did you believe until 1990 that Christians were in league with the Devil? If not, why did you choose to remain a member of the LDS church?
Also, you are no doubt aware that until 1990 the Great Endowment Ceremony included the “Penalties”. This meant that initiates were required to swear that they would never tell the truth about this ceremony to anyone outside the church, and that they deserved to die if they did so. Initiates would then draw their fingers across their throats and lower torso, symbolizing the fact that they deserved to have their throats cut and their intestines ripped out if they ever told the truth. I will remind you again that many initiates were teenagers. Did you believe until 1990 that this portion of the ceremony was acceptable? If not, why did you choose to remain a member of the LDS church?
Lastly, let’s talk about the finances of the LDS church. Alone among major churches, it keeps all of its financial affairs secret from the general public and its own members. Members are generally told that their tithes (10% of their annual income, which is mandatory for membership) go mainly to charity for the poor. Yet some who have left the church leadership in recent years have reported that the truth is quite different. How can you justify giving a large part of your income to an organization that behaves in this way?
The page you linked to says “only adult Mormons in very good standing are allowed to participate”. So by “teenagers” do you mean 18-19 year olds?
This is a bad question. Stupid beliefs are par for the course for religion. Unless you have some reason to believe Romney sees this as a reason to mistreat Christians in some way, it has no relevance to secular matters.
[ol]
[li]You just said that its own members don’t know the financial affairs of the church.[/li][li]A single purchase is not sufficient evidence to suggest that they’re mishandling a significant portion of the tithes received.[/li][li]Even if you’re right, you can’t fault Romney for funding the church if the worst they do with the money is buy property and investments. If he was a Catholic or a Scientologist, then you’d have a point.[/li][/ol]
Christ, you act like he kicked your puppy or something. Have his religious choices hurt you? Have his religious choices impacted his political decisions in a manner that could not be attributed to something else?
He’s not a bad person to the best of my knowledge. As long as that remains the case he can believe in whatever the hell he wants to believe in. It’s none of our business.
ITR champion, I presume that you had no problem with people mocking John Kerry and John Kennedy and have no problem regarding the mocking of every future Catholic candidate regarding Transubstantiation, the creation of Jewish ghettoes, pedophilia among priests, and any number of other issues related to Catholicism. Given the number of threads that you start for the sake of attempting to defend your beliefs, I am a bit surprised that you have decided to attack a candidate for his religious beliefs. It is unseemly.
I am not going to close this thread, yet, but you have really opened yourself to a fair amount of abuse on this one.
Romney is a far superior candidate than most others for President and while I sincerely hope for his conversion but it is a purely spiritual one with no relevance in politics.
Doesn’t sound any different than going to a doctor’s appointment. The nudity and touching are not sexual in nature, and presumably the participants believe it’s in their best interest, so I don’t see how this is an issue.
Scientology and Mormonism have a fatal flaw. They were dreamed up in fairly recent history. Their perfect leaders of the future are our histories religious shysters. When people claim they are adherents of Mormonism of Scientology, many wonder what the hell are they smoking. They were dreamed up by con men of the lowest order.
Large religious organization advocates silly irrational beliefs, engages in secret and possibly suspect financial practices.
In other news: sun rises in east, bears defecate in woods.
Honestly, I’m not usually a PALATR (Point And Laugh At The Religious) type atheist, but this OP is just asking for it. Don’t you have any planks in your own eye to attend to before you start complaining about the mote in your brother’s?
Wait? Isn’t the OP the same guy who has been knocking atheists like Dawkins for so long because they argue against his similar ridiculous beliefs?
Ah, so ITR Champion is an atheist when it comes to religions other than his own, it seems. “Come join us, brother! Take the final step and cast off your shackles!” <snerk>
Politicians’ religious beliefs shouldn’t be anyone’s business unless there’s good reason to believe it’s going to affect the way they govern. The only one that somewhat bothers me with regards to Romney is the mormon church’s stance on black people, but they changed their policy over 30 years ago, so . . .
Mormons ARE Christians, and the ceremony does not say that “Christians are in league with Satan.”
The answer to your OP is that your own Bible endorses polygamy, slavery, rape and genocide, so get the beam out of your own eye, dude. If you really want to play this game, I can dismantle your own beliefs brick by brick. You should really be careful about calling kettles black, especially when you don’t have a clear idea of what you’re even talking about.
Word on this. I couldn’t care less about a politician’s religious beliefs. If I did, I would have virtually no one I could vote for since openly atheist politicians are scarcer than hen’s teeth.
Based on what was written above, I’d say it was the secrecy. And the fact that his own church is getting taken to task for touching incidents done in secret. Plus, secrets done with a symbol of “May I die if I tell” tend to be really bad secrets.
(tom’s post does indicate that he’s Catholic, right?)
I don’t think Bush is really a fundamentalist, but I never cared about his beliefs. I cared to whatever extent he wanted to codify them into law, but that’s not the same thing.