At least we're now on the “real” topic, Romney.
Next we need to discuss what logical errors and fallacies are, why inductive reasoning creates all sorts or errors and then we might eventually get to the point where we understand that guilt by association by trying to link Romney (A free human with his own decisions and mind) in 2011 to Smith's errors in 1830 isn't a good argument at all. I'm part German, I hope I'm not a NAZI? After that we can go into those heavy idea's like the constraints and context in which Romney operated as governor etc... Of course that might require something that is very difficult to many of us Americans, thinking.
Look it's very simple- The economy sucks. Romney is a business man, a statesman with a powerful resume may that be his education, experience, success record (Olympics) etc. The competitors to Romney do NOT want to battle him in exactly that topic that is on most Americans mind, the economy. His “perceived weakness” by the competition is his religion. That's the center of gravity on which they will try to take him out politically. The will try to avoid the open attack because this would besmirch one self, so through proxy as with McCain/Palin or many other elections you will have these third parties do the dirty work of dismantling Romney in the court of public opinion.
You may want to be properly warned.
Our gracious host, Jim Robinson, has said that he will not tolerate pro-Romney Romneybots touting a socialist-minded, govt healthcare, abortion-waffling candidate like him on these threads...and has threatened zots for those who do.
And frankly, for you to limit Romney's weaknesses to only his religion either shows how naive you are on social issues, or worse, you're a Romneybot itself.
Which is it?
Does the following sound like either...
(a) that a Mormon POTUS would be entirely "Free" from being told what to do by a Mormon "prophet?" [see chart below]
or (b) That "good" Mormons haven't been properly "coached/indoctrinated" on properly submitting to a dictator-"prophet?"
(a) Chart Shows Potential Intrusiveness of a Mormon 'Prophet'
| Lds Leader | Chronological 'Prophet' or Fundamental # (or Other Title) | Overlap Areas: Could the President of the U.S. become a 'puppet' to an Lds 'Prophet?' (The Lds Prophets -- in their own words) | |
| John Taylor | Lds 'Prophet' #3 | “The Almighty has established this kingdom with order and laws and every thing pertaining thereto…[so] that when the nations shall be convulsed, we may stand forth as saviours…and finally redeem a ruined world, not only in a religious but in a political point of view.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p. 342, April 13, 1862) | |
| Orson Hyde | President of the Lds Quorum of the 12 Apostles for 28 years (1847-1875) | “What the world calls ‘Mormonism’ will rule every nation...God has decreed it, and his own right arm will accomplish it. This will make the heathen rage.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 53) | |
| Heber J. Grant | Lds 'Prophet' #7 | "Elder Marion G. Romney recalled the counsel of President Heber J. Grant: 'My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.' Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, 'But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray'" (in Conference Report, Oct. 1960, p. 78)." Cited in Official Lds publication Search the Commandments: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, p. 209 (1984) | |
| Harold B. Lee | Lds 'Prophet' #11 | ...President Harold B. Lee said: 'We must learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through his prophet, '...as if from mine own mouth...(D&C 21:4-5)...You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself..." Cited in official Lds publication Remember Me: Relief Society Personal Study Guide I, p. 27 (1989) | |
| Spencer Kimball | Lds 'Prophet' #12 | "President Spencer W. Kimball said: '...We deal with many things which are thought to be not so spiritual; but all things are spiritual with the Lord, and he expects us to listen, and to obey..." (In Conference Report, Apr. 1977, p. 8; or Ensign, May 1977, p. 7) Cited in official Lds publication Come, Follow Me: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide 1983, p.12 (1983) | |
| What about Marion G. Romney, cousin to Mitt's father? | Who was he in Lds hierarchy? (Title: 'President' - Top 3 of church as 2nd counselor to both #11 & #12 Lds 'prophets') | "Elder Neal A. Maxwell has said: 'Following the living prophets is something that must be done in all seasons and circumstances. We must be like President Marion G. Romney, who humbly said, '..I have never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional, and political life' (Conference Report, April 1941, p. 123). There are, or will be moments when prophetic declarations collide with our pride or our seeming personal interests...Do I believe in the living prophet even when he speaks on matters affecting me and my specialty directly? Or do I stop sustaining the prophet when his words fall in my territory? if the latter, the prophet is without honor in our country! (Things As They Really Are, p. 73). Cited in official Lds publication, Search the Commandments: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, pp. 275-276 (1984) | |
| Ezra Taft Benson | Lds 'Prophet' #13 | Benson speech given 2/26/80 @BYU. Summary: “…remember, if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet…” (See excerpts re: 3 of 14 'fundamentals' below) Source: Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet | |
| Benson (cont'd) | Fundamental #5 | 5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time. (My Q: Ya hear that Mitt Romney? Ya hear that Jon Huntsman?) | |
| Benson (cont'd) | Fundamental #9 | 9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual. (My Q: Still listening, Mitt? Still listening, Jon?) | |
| Benson (cont'd) | Fundamental #10 | 10. The prophet may advise on civic matters. (My Q: What say ye Mitt? What say ye Jon?) | |
| Mitt Romney as POTUS??? | Aside from above prophetic impositions, why would Mitt not only honor what these 'prophets' have spoken, but what a future Lds 'prophet' may tell him to do? | The Law of Consecration Oath Mitt Romney has sworn in the Mormon temple (done before marriage/sealing in temple): "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, the book of Doctrine and Covenants [he displays the book], 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." Source: What is an LDS Church/Mormon temple marriage/sealing? [Q: Please define 'Zion': The LDS PR Web site (lds.org) defines its primary meaning: "membership in the [LDS] church."] |
(b) Lds 'Forced feeding' by its leaders upon grassroots
Here, I'll even start off citing "your" side of this -- quoting Lds scholar Richard Bushman how a Mormon POTUS would supposedly "follow his own conscience" vs. "church dictates."
But, ALL, as always, read both sides of the mouths that Mormon leaders speak out of!
From the 2007 debate: Mitt Romney's insistence that he will follow his own conscience rather than church dictates is not only a personal view; it is church policy. (Richard Bushman, Jan. 3, 2007)
One of the criteria of a cult is thought control -- placing sharp limits on doctrinal questioning. Bushman insists that a Mormon POTUS' conscience would not be overriden. Well, here's a sampling from Mormon automaton thought from 1899-->2010!
Circa October 2010:
It's Oct. 24, 2010. Just weeks earlier, the Lds faithful had gathered for one of their two key 'y'all" come meetings in Salt Lake City, which are fed via satellite around the world to Mormons who can't make the trek to SLC. You would have thought that if an earth-shaking announcement needed to be made, it would have been made there. It wasn't. Perhaps too much media glare was on the conference. Therefore, more quietly, Lds leadership sent a world-wide circular letter to all church members. Here's two sources for that:
Source 1: Quit pestering us, church leaders tell membership in letter
Source 2 -- from a Mormon columnist, Robert Kirby: Wrestling with doctrine no match for me
From the first source:
On October 24th, the LDS First Presidency (led by Prophet Thomas S. Monson) wrote several letters that were to be read in Mormon Sunday services around the world. According to examiner.com, the first letter was “likely spurred by Boyd K. Packer’s most recent General Conference talk entitled ‘Cleansing the Inner Vessel.’ Church Headquarters has been receiving an increased amount of correspondence from its members about doctrinal issues. Because of this influx of correspondence, the First Presidency reminded and encouraged LDS church members to utilize their local church authorities – bishops, branch presidents, stake presidents, etc — before resorting to contacting Church Headquarters.” In other words, the Mormon laity was told to quit bothering their church leadership on issues related to doctrine. We can only wonder why the church is apparently receiving so many inquiries.
From the second source (Kirby): With only partial tongue in cheek, Kirby said: "According to the First Presidency’s letter, members with real doctrinal concerns were to seek the counsel of our local leaders — stake president, bishop, Scoutmaster, building custodian, etc."
Why? Well, per Kirby: "The letter...told/counseled rank-and-file Mormons to stop pestering church headquarters for clarification of church doctrine. Apparently some members get so stressed about the finer points of doctrine that they’ll fire off a letter asking for the final word. Church HQ can’t handle the demand...
There ya go. Just as the Wall Street Journal writer said: "placing sharp limits on doctrinal questioning" [Many an Lds historian has commented on this as well...do your own Google search with the words "faith promoting" in quotations...add the words "historian" and "Lds" to the search for better specific results]
Circa 2004:
”We discourage using sources that have not been approved by Church Correlation or the Brethren” (David B. Marsh, Church Curriculum Department, “Approved resources aid Book of Mormon study,” Church News Jan. 3 2004, p. 14)
Ah, that Lds hierarchical automaton bottleneck!
Circa 2000:
Mormon writer Orson Scott Card pens an article entitled Hey, Who are You Calling a Cult?
Ah, such irony! Card writes in the piece: What do they [cults] have in common?...AUTOMATONSs. The members are discouraged from thinking for themselves, and, insofar as possible, are turned into unquestioning "obedience machines."...Far from being robots, most of us Mormons are, by inclination and by doctrine, determined to make up our own minds about everything.
How funny! Keep reading the following comments, and then tell us if "Mormons are...by doctrine, determined to make up our minds about everything?"
Circa 1999:
”…in the Lord’s Church there is no such thing as a ‘loyal opposition.’ One is either for the kingdom of God and stands in defense of God’s prophets and apostles, or one stands opposed” (Lds “apostle” M. Russell Ballard, “Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers,” Ensign – Conference Ed., Nov. 1999 p 64)
[No disagreement tolerated. You cannot speak vs. a Mormon leader…you must, robot-like, be in 100% conformity!!! Elsewise you are deemed “disloyal”]
Circa 1984:
“No true Latter-day Saint will ever take a stand that is in opposition to what the Lord has revealed to those who direct the affairs of his earthly kingdom. No Latter-day Saint who is true and faithful in all things will ever pursue a course, or espouse a cause, or publish an article or book that weakens or destroys faith.” (Lds "apostle" Bruce R. McConkie, Conference Report, October 1984, p. 104)
Ah, such "fragile faith" -- IF EVERY single article or book content needs to go through a legalistic filter of how it's going to potentially effect the end-user -- the reader -- re: if it might be perceived as "weakening" a challenged faith!!!
Circa 1979:
"I would like to tell you something about the way the Church operates from headquarters. We often hear the Church referred to as a democracy, when in reality, instead of being a church where the body is governed by officers elected by the members, the Church is a THEOCRACY..." (First President Lds N. Eldon Tanner, "The Administration of the Church," Ensign (Conference edition) Nov. 1979 p. 42
Well, that makes ya wonder who would occasionally call ultimate shots if a Mormon was in the White House, doesn't it?
Circa 1978-1979:
“Recently, at the Churchwide fireside meeting held for the women of the Church, Young Women President Elaine Cannon made the following statement: ‘When the Prophet speaks…the debate is over (Ensign, Nov.1978, p. 108). I was impressed by that simple statement, which carries such deep spiritual meaning for all of us. Wherever I go, my message to the people is: Follow the Prophet” {First President N. Eldon Tanner, “The Debate is Over,” Ensign, August 1979 p. 2)
For the true Christian, wherever we go, we say, “Follow the Lord Jesus Christ as a disciple of Him” -- not a mere Salt-Lake City-based man [who MUST reside in the Salt Lake City area!]. Our message is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, how He came to earth as an ever-living God-man – the ONLY SON of God who bodes no pre-existent brother rivals, died for our personal sins, and was raised to the same glory He shared with the Father before all was (John 17:5).
Circa 1963:
"'The holy Priesthood is a system of laws and government that is pure and holy;...' (JD7:202) - 'a perfect law of THEOCRACY.' (Joseph Smith's Teachings, p. 322)" (As cited by William J. Critchlow, Jr. Assistant to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Conference Reports October 1963, p. 28)
Circa 1960, citing an earlier Lds time as well:
"President Heber J. Grant once said, 'Always keep your eye on the President of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it…” (quoted by First President Marion G. Romney, Conference Report, October 1960, p. 78).
Circa 1945: "He [Lucifer] wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against the leaders and do 'their own thinking.' He specializes in suggesting that our leaders are in error while he plays the blinding rays of apostasy in the eyes of those whom he beguiles. What cunning! And to think that some of our members are deceived by this trickery...WHEN OUR LEADERS SPEAK, THE THINKING HAS BEEN DONE. (Spoken @ a convention of Lds teachers: Ward Teachers Message, Improvement Era, June 1945 p. 354)
Circa 1900: "We sustain President Lorenzo Snow as the mouthpiece of God. Therefore, when he has anything to say to us as the mind and will of the Lord, it is just as binding upon us as if God spake personally to us” (Abraham O. Woodruff, Conference Reports, April 1899 p. 7)
[Ah, forced feeding like little children]
I believe that you are overlooking a number of Romney’s “perceived weaknesses” by focusing only on his religion (paranoia again?).
He has a whole list of weaknesses, religion being only one of them.
I Don’t care for elevating Romney’s religion by proxy through these news articles not is my vote dependent upon his beliefs.
His actions, as a governor and now as a candidate disturb me.
He lobbied for and passed Mass. Health Care, the template for ObamaCare.
He openely stated his opposition to Pro-Life for many years and only recently had a revelation that he now supports “Pro-Life”. Not that he is against killing humans in a womb but, he now supposedly supports pro life.
He has been in deep undercover work for the last 3 years and we heard nary a word from him on any subject.
Now all he is does is make pronouncements about how terrible the positions are of the opposition and even then it’s only after a turn of events or he has polled it.
He has not stated his vision and plans for America. Only what he is against.
I will not vote him.
Who lost HOW much of his OWN money, trying to become POTUS, and he couldn't even beat McCain?
(Where's that YouTube of the crazy man laughing when ya need it??)