I posted the following in a January '11 thread to Zakeet:
Zakeet had mentioned: Temple Mormons such as Romney and Huntsman have prayed for the overthrow of the US Government as punishment for 19th century Mormon Persecution. Although the Temple Ceremony has changed since these gentlemen made their solemn oaths, they have never renounced the promises they made before their Mormon god.
I responded:
Very good post overall -- except I have a question related to this part above.
I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that the temple oaths to which you are referencing here were removed by the Lds "prophet" around 1926 or 1927. Mitt Romney was born in 1948.
So while George Romney may have been alive when these oaths were taken -- and it is true that those who took them were to pass them down 2 or 3 generations (which would thereby include Mitt & Huntsman's generation), I'm not sure we can say these men made such solemn oaths...only that their grandfathers and great grandfathers did...and that their grandfathers & great grandfathers were under solemn obligation to pass them down to the generations of Mitt Romney and Huntsman.
****
Anyway, I'm pointing out that the Mormon 'tude toward the U.S. extended well past the 19th century. Revenge oaths were still part of the Mormon church for over a quarter of the 20th century...about 85 years ago.
And these oaths were sworn by people who swore they would teach them 2-3 generations down the pike.
I guess then it depends upon how well you think Mormon parents alive in the mid-1920s were able to keep their sworn promises made before their god.
Zakeet had mentioned: Temple Mormons such as Romney and Huntsman have prayed for the overthrow of the US Government as punishment for 19th century Mormon Persecution. Although the Temple Ceremony has changed since these gentlemen made their solemn oaths, they have never renounced the promises they made before their Mormon god.
I responded:
Very good post overall -- except I have a question related to this part above.
I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that the temple oaths to which you are referencing here were removed by the Lds "prophet" around 1926 or 1927. Mitt Romney was born in 1948.
I was under the impression the oaths were quietly dropped in the 1970's. Either way, you may recall that Joseph Smith proclaimed the original temple ceremony was directly ordained by Mormonism's god and could therefore never be altered, much like D&C Sec. 132 and the United Order could never be changed.
But, putting the question of whether or not Mitt prayed for the overthrow of the U.S. government in the middle of a celestial marriage sealing approximately four decades ago aside, there are many other issues raised by his blind allegiance to his Mormon faith. Consider the following:
It is not right to say religious doctrine doesn't matter at all. Take Islam, for instance. It would be dangerously naive to assume, as American civil religion does, that all religions are pretty much the same. It's true that most religions share core ethical teachings, but orthodox Islam also teaches unambiguously that there is to be no separation of religion and state, that non-Muslims are to live subservient under law to Muslims, and in some sects that Allah commands a jihad or "holy war" be waged against non-Muslim "infidels". To the extent that a Muslim wishes to preside over our pluralist liberal democracy, he will have had to break radically from his faith's fundamentals.
Liberals who insist that religion has no place at all in American politics have to account for the Christian roots of many social reforms. Consider for example the abolitionism and the civil rights movement. When faced with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and other black clergymen explicitly appealing to Christian scripture against Jim Crow, Southern segregationists groused that religion had no business in politics. You can't praise religion's role in political discourse only when it advances causes of which you approve or is practiced by constituencies blacks, say, that vote Democratic.
If God doesn't exist, then by what standard do we decide right from wrong? If a society recognizes no independent, transcendent guardian of the moral order, will it not, over time, lose its self-discipline and decline into barbarism? The eminent sociologist Philip Rieff, who was not a believer, said that man would either live in fear of God or would be condemned to live in fear of the evil in himself.
Mitt, himself, has placed his Mormon faith under scrutiny. In his famous speech on Mormonism, Mitt said that a person should not be rejected . . . because of his faith. His supporters say it is akin to rejecting a Barack Obama because he is black. But Obama was born black; Romney is a Mormon because he accepts the beliefs of the Mormon faith. This permits us, therefore, to make inferences about his judgment and character, good or bad.
Mitt has promised to fully obey Mormon teachings without hesitation and without question.
In his February 26, 1980 speech at BYU titled Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet, LDS President Ezra Taft Benson maintained the Mormon Church President spoke with inerrant authority on "any matter, temporal or spiritual " and was "not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time."Mitt either intended to honor his promises to follow another man's instructions, or he lied. In the case of the former, we are entitled to know where these directives lead, and in the alternative, we should be concerned about Mitt's honesty.As a Temple Mormon, Mormon Bishop and Stake President, Mitt has sworn among other things, he recognizes the President of the LDS Church as a "prophet, seer and revelator," and will "obey the rules, laws, and commandments of the gospel" as proclaimed by Mormon Prophets.
Mitt made these solemn vows with the understanding they effect "time and all eternity."
For these reasons, among others, I assert Mitt’s beliefs are indeed a legitimate issue for determining his qualifications for elected public office.