Posted on 06/06/2006 10:11:12 PM PDT by Panerai
Gov. Mitt Romney says he would be willing to talk about his Mormon religion in broad terms should he run for president but would shy away from debating specific beliefs.
"I think initially some people would say, `Gosh, I don't know much about your faith. Tell me about it.' And I'd probably outline the fundamentals: I'm a religious person, I believe that Jesus Christ is my savior," Romney said during an appearance on PBS's "The Charlie Rose Show." "But then as you get into the details of doctrines, I'd probably say, 'Look, time out.'"
Among other things, Mormons believed in polygamy until 1890 and banned blacks from the priesthood until 1978. They also maintain temples open only to members where rites such as vicarious baptisms for the dead are performed.
Romney also reiterated on the show, which aired Monday, that he believes the question of whether to outlaw abortion should be left up to individual states. It was a nuanced view that allows him to maintain his anti-abortion views while leaving intact Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling allowing abortion.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
I didn't know one had to have "credentials" to make religious statements. Sounds to me that you believe you have to be a Mormon or an ex-Mormon to make statements about their belief. How wrong you are. As an ex-Mormon I can attest to the fact that all Mormons believe that "Jesus Christ" is their savior. Doctrinal differences lie in the definitions, but the statement by Romney is an honest one.
I see you use "savior" with a small "s". Says a whole lot about your and their definition of their "savior. They may use the term but what do they mean by it? Savior from what?
You're about half right here. My knowledge of all these these things is a little hazy, though I have some Mormon ancestors, as I am two generations removed from any belief in the Mormon faith. However, I do know that Temple marriage is not quite so elitist as you make it out to be.
Temple marriages for "time and eternity" are performed not just at the main temple in SLC, but at any of the dozens of others that have been built elsewhere around the world.
These ceremonies are closed to non-Mormons, and even to Mormons whose faith is suspect or tithes insufficient, as all who enter must have a "temple recommend" from their Bishop.
Non-Temple marriages are valid for life and not eternity, as you say. I seem to recall that the treatment of wives is unequal in the afterlife, as they can be called to the husband's side or rejected at his choosing, unless it is a Temple marriage.
Non-Temple marriages can be "sealed" in a Temple once both parties qualify. Children of non-Temple marriages also have to be "sealed" to their parents for eternity, unlike those born "under the covenant" to a husband and wife with a Temple or sealed marriage.
This is the main reason my grandma left the Mormon church; my great-grandfather was a jack-mormon who had a fondness for tobacco and alcohol, thus could not get a Temple marriage or sealing, and thus my grandma and her brothers and sisters were looked upon as being just a small step above bastards by the more churchy folks in their small Mormon town.
There is also baptism and sealing by proxy for the dead, which is why they are so obsessed with genealogy. This stuff is even more complicated and I know little about it, though it has certainly been a boon to me for tracing my own family history. Thanks, Saints!
While I have no belief whatsoever in Mormon doctrines and never will, it is indubitably true that they are among the most family-oriented, hard-working, decent, caring, conservative, and ambitious people in the country. I've got family, friends, neighbors and partners who are members of the Church, and I love and esteem them most whole-heartedly.
There is a pretty thorough and seemingly non-biased article about the Latter-Day Saints at Wikipedia.
-ccm
"There's a reason behind their fascination with genealogy and its not just for curiosity."
A lot of non-Mormons (me included) are fascinated by genealogy.
Is there something wrong with an interest in genealogy?
You are right that Mormons' interest involved their religious beliefs and practices. I think it is their vicarious baptism that you mean goes beyond curiosity.
That practice is what gives rise to their interest in genealogy.
Nothing is inherently strange to be interested in genealogy, however.
That's it! In historic Christianity, Catholic and Protestant--there are no secrets. Everyone has access to the same knowledge. There are truths that only the mature are ready for, but it is not withheld or limited only to the elite. There is no reason to be elusive about what we believe like Romney or the young gentlemen who come to our doors. There is nothing shameful about the founders of Christianity that compels us to cover up their deeds, unlike Josheph Smith, whose followers to this day defend his questionable practices--or deny them altogether. When we use terms like Savior, Christ, Trinity, salvation, etc--we reference the historical meaning (Creeds, historic confessionals, catechisms), we do not poor unique meaning into them--when we do, we are corrected (hopefully!). Mormons have hijacked important Christian doctrines and poored their own meaning into them--under the guise of restoring "true religion." When called on this, the usual response is not a defense of their religion, but an immediate retreat into the martyre's complex.
Why not? I do!
uglybiker
Keeper of the Masonic PING List.
Savior from what? Come on. If you want to debate what the meaning of Saviour in relation to Mormons and Christians, I'll begin. Jesus Christ was born of the Vigin Mary, suffered and died on the cross for all sins and rose again from the dead and ascended into heaven. All one needs to do is ask a Mormon if they believe Jesus died for their sins. When I do, they leave the porch.
This (polygamy) was central to their faith so why did they give it up?
You asked a valid question and deserve a valid answer. The church did give up the doctrine of polygamous marriage when it applied for statehood. It gave it up because of a conflict between two practices or principles of the church. First was polygamy and second was an earlier principle that the church believes in being subject to the rulers of whatever land in which it exists. One or the other principle had to give and polygamy had almost run its course by that time.
Polygamy was a temporary principle, primarily used to help female members who could not otherwise survive in the harsh early climate of the church as it was hounded from place to place and as it left the civilized East for the frontier out west. Biblically polygamy was accepted when the Lord approved of it, and He seemed to approve of it when it fulfilled some other purpose, such as increasing the descendants of Abraham or Jacob and others. Later it was abused. In the LDs church, polygamy was temporary, not widely used, and always subject to close control by the church leadership. By the way, the persecution didn't start with polygamy. It was a response to the fact that Mormons were anti-slavery in slavery states or those closely divided on slavery. Since the Mormons were largely a cohesive voting block, proponents of slavery wanted them out.
By the time statehood became a desirable condition for the territory of Utah, given the Mexican pressure from the south and west, polygamy was no longer needed that much. A lot of the area had been civilized enough that single women could safely set up homesteads on their own. So that principle was subrogated to the principle of obeying civil authority. There was some difficulty with those polygamous families who already existed but the church did not authorize anyone to enter into a polygamous marriage after statehood and now excommunicates anyone who tries to do so now.
Incidentally, polygamy wasn't the only right given up for statehood. Utah also had to take away the vote from women before the United States would allow it to join. Before statehood, Utah women had full voting rights.
I hope this answers your question. There's nothing sinister about the decision to give up polygamy. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.
Maybe you would like to respond to Post# 46.
so it wasn't the desire to have a new 13 yro young virgin every year or so in your bedroom that made the early Mormons take on all these little girls?.....If we only understood that it was for their OWN good that they were forced to "marry" 40 and 50 yro old men ...
So is boston.com calling for religious discrimination
Say What? whoever wrote this is an idiot..
So your theory is that the MSM is running shows on polygamy to put Mormons in a bad light, so if Romney runs it will hurt him?
That's a little rich.
Actually, I think the left would LOVE to have him be the GOP candidate, because they know there is NO WAY he will get the vote of all Christian conservatives. Many will simply refuse to vote for a Mormon.
As another poster mentioned, you didn't address the issue of marrying teenagers. Joseph Smith's first "extra" wife was a young teen. Emma sure wasn't too happy about it.
You also didn't address Mormon leaders taking the wives of other men because they were higher in the priesthood.
You also didn't address Brigham Young, while prophet of the LDS Church, declaring that the church would NEVER give up polygamy. He also said that polygamy was ESSENTIAL for salvation and the only form of marriage practiced in heaven.
It was called the new and EVERLASTING covenant, which shreds your "temporary" practice argument.
Mormon leaders, under sworn testimony, admitted to continuing the practice of plural wives, even after they issued their "Manifesto" declaring the practice would be stopped.
Mormon polygamy had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what you claimed. That excuse was dreamed up years later. You should really know better.
Which brings the discussion back to Romney. Why should he discuss his faith in detail when many are simply wanting to entrap him. Why cast pearls before swine?
"Nothing is inherently strange to be interested in genealogy, however. "
Sorry if I implied otherwise. I was referring to the motivations behind it for the LDS.
I always took it at face value. Now you are telling me it was middle aged men wanting to bed young virgins. Probably was a mix of the two
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.