Jump to content


Doctrinal Questions About Romney'S Religion...


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
14 replies to this topic

#1 LDSGuy

LDSGuy

    Member: Moves Upon the Waters

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 137 posts

Posted 02 April 2012 - 11:43 AM

Everybody in the church knows that questions about our faith will be coming from every direction when Mitt Romney wins the nomination for the Republican party.  So far this election cycle his religion has not been brought up very much, and he has not had to defend it or give speeches about it.  Most people seem less concerned about his religion this time around, and more concerned about the economy. I found this article just a few moments ago about Romney's campaigning in Wisconsin and being questioned about his religion by a Ron Paul supporter (of all people).  Here is the link:

http://www.washingto...saErS_blog.html

Mitt Romney cannot spend his time at speeches discussing doctrinal issues within the church.  He has to focus on the issues of the country.  We as members, however, have the opportunity to do this, and I believe that many of us are engaged in defending the church against misrepresentations, lies, and myths.  

However, I do think that focusing on his role as a bishop and stake president can help him.  These are callings that offer an opportunity to help the less fortunate, the sick and afflicted, and to help people with emotional and spiritual concerns.  I have found other articles about Romney's time as a Bishop and Stake Pres. that show a different side of the man running for President of the United States.  

I think, for the most part, the church welcomes honest questions from non-members and the media.  We should be able and given the courtesy to define ourselves and not be defined by others.

Edited by LDSGuy, 02 April 2012 - 11:57 AM.


#2 thesometimesaint

thesometimesaint

    Rules Universe

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,199 posts

Posted 02 April 2012 - 01:04 PM

Religion has always been the redheaded stepchild of US politics. If it is a fair question for Romney it should be a fair question for Ron Paul. Personally I don't want to go down that well traveled road of religious intolerance.

#3 Zakuska

Zakuska

    Captain Zinger to the Rescue

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,236 posts

Posted 02 April 2012 - 01:10 PM

If one were to follow the OT law. Race mixing was a sin punishable by death.

Number 25
6 ¶And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the atabernacle of the congregation.
7 And when aPhinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand;
8 And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.


Of course we are no longer under that law.

Edited by Zakuska, 02 April 2012 - 01:16 PM.

"Works are necessary for salvation but they do not cause salvation; for faith alone gives life.” -- Martin Luther
"Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!" -- Martin Luther

#4 LDSGuy

LDSGuy

    Member: Moves Upon the Waters

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 137 posts

Posted 02 April 2012 - 03:31 PM

I never would have thought that a Ron Paul supporter, who would be an advocate of the constitution, would suggest a question that would imply a religious test for office.

#5 frankenstein

frankenstein

    Brings Forth Plants

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,990 posts

Posted 02 April 2012 - 04:20 PM

I voted for Obama in 08, I will likely exercise my right not vote in the upcoming election. With that, I have no horse in the present race.

I would say that a Ron Paul supporter would likely not hide behind half-truths about the Constitution. That a Ron Paul supporter would likely know and understand that an Individual is free to use religion as test for Office.
I would say that a Ron Paul supporter would likely know that Constitution was first written to distinguish the actions/powers of the fed from that of the several states.
I would say that a Ron Paul supporter would also likely know that via case law and the 14th Amendment that the Constitution also covers the actions/powers of the several states.

I say, that Romney would be loathe to say that an individual in the privacy of their own conscience exercising the freedom to vote is free to use religion as a test for who to vote for.

#6 Log

Log

    Everyone loves Log!

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,286 posts

Posted 02 April 2012 - 04:23 PM

View Postfrankenstein, on 02 April 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

That a Ron Paul supporter would likely know and understand that an Individual is free to use religion as test for Office.

That is one statement I can agree with in your post.
Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme. - Karl Popper

If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane

#7 Zakuska

Zakuska

    Captain Zinger to the Rescue

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,236 posts

Posted 02 April 2012 - 06:35 PM

Here is the incident on video:

http://www.huffingto...ion&ir=Religion

Apparently the young man was also recording Mitts answer on an hd device, presumably to some how catch him at odds with past LDS teachings on the subject.
"Works are necessary for salvation but they do not cause salvation; for faith alone gives life.” -- Martin Luther
"Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!" -- Martin Luther

#8 KevinG

KevinG

    Outspoken zealot of moderation

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,386 posts

Posted 02 April 2012 - 06:53 PM

Ugh!  Once more I made the mistake of reading the comments.  Quick tell me why Anti-Mormons is an unhelpful label again.
Please ask me what I believe before telling me what I believe.  Hint- start here: http://lds.org/scriptures/

#9 thesometimesaint

thesometimesaint

    Rules Universe

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,199 posts

Posted 02 April 2012 - 08:00 PM

Frankenstein:

"I would say that a Ron Paul supporter would likely know that Constitution was first written to distinguish the actions/powers of the fed from that of the several states".

Here is what the Constitution actually says on the subject Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Edited by thesometimesaint, 02 April 2012 - 08:01 PM.


#10 Stargazer

Stargazer

    Observing the heavens since 1951.

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,516 posts

Posted 02 April 2012 - 11:26 PM

View Postthesometimesaint, on 02 April 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:

Frankenstein:

"I would say that a Ron Paul supporter would likely know that Constitution was first written to distinguish the actions/powers of the fed from that of the several states".

Here is what the Constitution actually says on the subject Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

Yes.  The Federal Elections Commission cannot use religion as a test for whether or not a candidate is qualified to appear on the ballot.

The individual voters are free to use any test they desire in distinguishing whom they will vote for, or not vote for.

Not sure if you were disputing this or not.
do {} while (true)
My personal blog | My YouTube Channel | Linked-In Profile | My LDS Profile
Twitter: @IWasAboutToSay

#11 thesometimesaint

thesometimesaint

    Rules Universe

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,199 posts

Posted 03 April 2012 - 05:53 AM

Stargazer:

No State, County(Parish), local government can use one either. Of course there is no way to enforce it on the individual voter. Personally I find it kinda silly to even put religion into the mix for the individual voter. I can't speak for anyone but myself. However it does seem to me to be a violation of the intent of the law, and the intent of the Church when it asks us to choose wise and good representatives.

#12 kolipoki09

kolipoki09

    Gadianton Rhetor

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,516 posts

Posted 04 April 2012 - 12:22 AM

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell made a big deal out of Romney's response to the Paul supporter Monday night.

Among other things, O'Donnell stressed Brigham Young's past statements about interracial marriage and mostly speculated about their alleged influence on Romney's views about race. I have, for those interested, offered my own analysis of O'Donnell's comments which can be viewed here.

It was also recently brought to my attention that DCP has weighed in on Romney's reaction, at least as it applies to interracial marriage:  Why I Remained Loyal to a "Racist Church"
Academia.edu
"Morman [scholars] is just a bunch of white men trying to figure out how to better hide all there wives. and make it legal for you ppl to be able to vote legally without being jailed." - Ernie Tschikof

#13 LDSGuy

LDSGuy

    Member: Moves Upon the Waters

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 137 posts

Posted 04 April 2012 - 04:30 PM

FAIR actually did a good of answering these many criticisms by O'Donnell about Brigham Young's statements.

I wish the church would come out with better responses to these charges and accusations.

#14 The Nehor

The Nehor

    Death, Destroyer of Worlds

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,302 posts

Posted 05 April 2012 - 11:18 AM

View PostKevinG, on 02 April 2012 - 06:53 PM, said:

Ugh!  Once more I made the mistake of reading the comments.  Quick tell me why Anti-Mormons is an unhelpful label again.

Cause you hurt their widdle feelings.
Twisting God's work into my own hellish, slithering, mutatious...thing.

I support NCMO.

We enter this world naked, screaming, and covered in blood...the fun doesn't have to end there...

#15 BCSpace

BCSpace

    Right Divider of Systematic LDS Theology

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,053 posts

Posted 11 April 2012 - 12:54 AM

Quote

One final note: I’d argue that our view of salvation — whether Arminian or Reformed — is of enormous consequence, going directly not only to the nature of God but also how we understand each moment of our lives, yet I rarely hear anyone seriously ask, “Are Methodists Christian?”  Perhaps that’s not so much because the theological differences aren’t real and profound but because we’ve made our historical peace through shared understanding of our faith in Christ.  Perhaps its time that we make that same peace with Mormons.


http://www.patheos.c...the-lds-church/

BYU Combined Choirs perform "Come Thou Fount Of Every Blessing"
LDS doctrine defined.  The first bullet point is the key.
Capitalism from the Lord: Law of Consecration.
Evolution Primer Evolution does not conflict with LDS doctrine in any way.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users