Jump to content

Being Sworn In On The Bom


Saints Alive

Recommended Posts

Haven't heard a lot of talk about it this election cycle but in the past some non LDS have objected to LDS being sworn in on the BOM or even Muslims being sworn into office on the Koran. I have never understood the objections beyond simple bigotry. Why would you want someone to swear an oath on something that they don't hold as sacred. That holds true for Muslims but less so for Mormons since they already hold the Bible sacred. But why would it matter if they included another book they held sacred, wouldnt that make their oath more binding?

Link to comment

I think that anyone who claims to follow Christ would not "swear in" especially on a Bible. Didn't Christ teach not to swear by the gold of the Temple or by other items? Did Christ teach, "Let your answer be Yea, Yea, or Nay, Nay"

A follower of Christ should object on religious grounds to "swearing in" on any item.

Link to comment

That's the Quaker and Jehovah's Witnesses' stance (and Seventh-day Adventist, if I'm not mistaken), but Mormons don't generally have issues with this. Or with saying the Pledge of Allegiance and things like that.

These religious objections led to the addition of " . . . or affirm" after "swear" in government oaths.

Link to comment

Some LDS congressmen have been sworn in on both the Bible and BOM. My point is that it shouldn't be an issue but to some it is.

How do you know that the reason for that is because they specifically object to being sworn in on a Bible alone, rather than simply because a quadruple-combination is what was readily available?

Link to comment

Haven't heard a lot of talk about it this election cycle but in the past some non LDS have objected to LDS being sworn in on the BOM or even Muslims being sworn into office on the Koran. I have never understood the objections beyond simple bigotry. Why would you want someone to swear an oath on something that they don't hold as sacred. That holds true for Muslims but less so for Mormons since they already hold the Bible sacred. But why would it matter if they included another book they held sacred, wouldnt that make their oath more binding?

If Romney were to win, I'm sure people (especially the more "ideologically challenged" within his own party) would be looking very closely at not just which book he uses, but the version and publisher. He'd probably want to use a historic KJV bible used by some other president. Using a BOM, Triple, or Quad would be a very bad idea. It would be even worse if he didn't use any book at all, like Teddy Roosevelt (or Barack Obama the second time around, after Justice Roberts flubbed it the first time). Richard Nixon solved the issue of his being a Quaker (who typically don't take oaths) by being sworn on two bibles.

Link to comment

Haven't heard a lot of talk about it this election cycle but in the past some non LDS have objected to LDS being sworn in on the BOM or even Muslims being sworn into office on the Koran. I have never understood the objections beyond simple bigotry. Why would you want someone to swear an oath on something that they don't hold as sacred. That holds true for Muslims but less so for Mormons since they already hold the Bible sacred. But why would it matter if they included another book they held sacred, wouldnt that make their oath more binding?

You're right it's basically the mainstream Christian majority's bigotry.

Link to comment

The bible is universally a symbol of christian faith. Mitt Romney and any other Mormom elected president would choose to hold a bible (perhaps even a family one) over a book of mormon. A bible is more inclusive for our nation, after all, and we don't prioritize BofM over the Bible anyway.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...