Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Faith in the individual candidates
With former Utah governor Jon Huntsman and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney both believed to be gearing up for a run for the presidency, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has again found itself answering questions about what these two prominent members believe.
Post reporter Sandhya Somashekhar wrote in a story published Tuesday that Mormon leaders see the ascendancy of these and other Mormons (such as convert Glenn Beck) as a sign "that the community has finally 'arrived,'" but added "researchers say there remains a deep mistrust of Mormons and that little has changed in public opinion to suggest that voters will be more open this year than they were in 2007."
If conservative Christian and Mormons share a political agenda, why do suspicions still plague Mormon politicians? Do media personalities such as Glenn Beck help or hurt the cause?
During the presidential campaign that led to the election of John F. Kennedy in 1960, my Sunday School teacher taught us as fact that:
1. If JFK were elected, he'd call up the Vatican every day to get "marching orders."
2. All Catholics stored weapons in their homes for the eventual uprising that would overthrow "Protestant America." Latin was still used by Catholics so they would have a means of secret communication during that war.
3. Convents had secret rooms where the dead babies resulting from illicit trysts with priests were kept. There were secret tunnels between priests' quarters and those convents.
4. Catholics were not Christians, as they worshiped "idols" and discouraged the study of the Bible.
Only later did I learn that much of this "fact" was taken from potboiler novels of the 1800s and intense Nativist prejudice. JFK went on to win the presidency, and the world did not come to an end, the Vatican was kept in the dark about much of US policy, and the Catholic uprising never took place. Kennedy was elected on the basis of youthful charisma, progressive ideas, and other factors that overshadowed his Catholicism (not to mention the "Five o'clock shadow" that helped do in Quaker Richard Nixon!). One of my relatives, virulently anti-Catholic, even developed a grudging admiration for JFK and bought a "Kennedy on a rocking chair" salt & pepper set!
I have a sneaking suspicion that the same would be true with a Mormon presidential candidate. Some would call attention to so-called "Salamander Letter" (see an LDS explaination of that controversy), others to the secrecy of some of the church's ceremonies. There would be scrutiny of the hierarchy in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the fact that Mormons view the church's president as a modern-day prophet.
At the same time, there would be people who would point to Mormonism's emphasis on family life, abstinence from alcohol and other drugs, commitment to service, patriotism, and entrepreneurial spirit. The claims hurled against Mormons would be found to be a mixture of fact and overstatement. We'd discover that Mormons are human - just like the rest of us!
It will then boil down to the qualifications of the individual candidates - and the ability of those candidates to avoid Nixon's mistakes in the debates! At that point, the excesses and overblown rhetoric and theatrics of a Glenn Beck will certainly harm Beck's chances for political office - but I doubt the more measured tones of a Romney will be called into question by those antics.
I think there are serious theological matters within Mormonism that should bear scrutiny; there certainly are within Quakerism! Imagine: Quakerism, a religion in which absolute integrity and honesty is expected? All people are treated as equals? War and the preparation for war are to be avoided? Sworn oaths are eschewed? Simplicity and plainness are lifted up as important principles? Outward forms are by-passed in favor of inward substance? Primary authority is seen as residing in the Holy Spirit and not written text and tradition? Goodness! Any one of those principles would appear to disqualify a candidate who is a member of the Religious Society of Friends! Yet we had two Quaker presidents in the 20th century - Herbert Hoover and Richard Nixon!
I know, I know --I've heard it before. With Friends like these.... But my point is that they were elected on criteria other than the peculiarities of their little sectarian religion. They also proved to be very effective and fine presidents in certain areas - although they, too, proved to be all-too-human.
If a candidate with religious ties to Salt Lake City emerges with the qualities the electorate sees as needed in a president at this time: an answer to our economic woes; a sensible foreign policy; a viable domestic policy, then s/he may well be the next president.
By
Max Carter
|
February 8, 2011; 11:48 AM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Tony Blair: Religion will play key role in how Egypt's turmoil is resolved |
Next: We should judge their politics, not their religion
Posted by: Vanka | February 19, 2011 1:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Despite political diatribe by the uneducated…
Romney has successfully and profitably managed large businesses, created more private sector jobs and saved more private sector businesses (Domino’s Pizza & Staples, a few of many) than any other candidate. He knows and understands world economics.
He has succeeded at every job he has had. Yes, that’s right, he is not a “Career” Politician.
Funny. Half of MA loves what Romney did, the other half hate him, maybe because he left after completing only one term. Again, he has not been a “Career” Politician.
Yes, he worked as the MA governor for his entire term for FREE!!! Who would do that!?
MA had a huge deficit when he started, and he left MA with a surplus and balanced budget without raising taxes at the end of his term. Who has done that? He can't help it if they screwed up after he left.
Since states have their own rights as to how they operate, “Romneycare” never has been the same as “Obamacare”! MA’s super Democrat controlled legislature wanted desperately some kind of Universal Health care program. Romney, a republican, worked with them to create one that would work, similar to mandated auto insurance (what state allows you to legally drive without insurance?). It is estimated that 98% of the residents are now covered. Romney wanted the requirement that everyone should pay something towards it with no exceptions, and it was within projected budget, until Romney left and the state super Democrat controlled government made changes to the program and now it is costing them.
He compromised on some things in order to keep the state government working together and moving forward.
He turned around a struggling 2002 Winter Olympics and made it into one of the most profitable Olympics in history. And only took a $1 dollar salary. Who would do that!?
He is against federalization & big government. Believes in state’s rights.
He lives the example and believes in the importance of family.
He is for a strong military and believes the borders should be better protected.
The list of real positives is far greater than the supposed list of negatives.
Posted by: dcdinnell | February 9, 2011 4:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment
As DCDinnell demonstrates, the biggest problem with Mormons is their intolerance of any who think differently then them.
This comes from the Cultish nature of their Church. A person's beliefs are relevant to their candidacy as they reveal how they may act.
Romney (and other Mormon candidates) have made secret oaths and covenants in their Mormon Temples. These take priority above the oath of office of the POTUS, and puts all Mormon members under the strict authority of the Mormon church leaders.
Mormons' history demonstrates the following:
1) Mormon leaders will "lie for the Lord" (as demonstrated by their false report to congress that the practice of polygamy had ceased, whereas the reality was top LDS officials continued polygamous marriages for 10 years after)
2) Mormon leaders will violate their own sacred scriptures (D&C 134) to "mix religious influence with civil government" in a way that denies other citizens of their equal rights under the law (Proposition 8). It is well-documented that the LDS Church was the deciding factor in Prop 8.
3) Mormon leaders have such cultish power over the members of their Church that they can (and did for Prop8) "command" their followers (including a Mormon POTUS) to deprive others of civil rights
4) It is written clearly in their Temple oaths and covenants that members are expected to give all their possessions and use all their positions and opportunities ("everything with which the Lord has blessed you or may bless you") for the building up of the LDS Church.
This includes oaths to give one's life for the building up of the LDS Church. That is an explicit oath regarding a willingness to "give one's life" (suicide) for the Church.
The LDS Temple ceremonies at the time Mitt Romney was "endowed" included graphic depictions of cutting one's throat, disemboweling oneself, and other acts of suicide as a penalty for revealing the secret oaths and failing to be faithful to them.
These are not lies. These are facts. These are not taken out of context. They are true, accurate, and reliable.
They not only give valid reason to wonder about Romney's or Huntsman's loyalties, but also about their rationality. Do we want someone with their finger on "the button" who believes it is their religious duty to "hasten the coming of the day of the Lord?" Who believes their Church is "the one and only true and living Church on the face of the earth", and that Church is chosen by God to "put an end to all nations" and usher in a thousand years wherein THEIR "Jesus" will reign over a one-world government (or Mormons), and "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that [the Mormon] Jesus" is in charge? [a Mormon theocracy]
A Mormon in office is a dangerous thing. We do NOT need a religious fanatic from a CULT in the Whitehouse.