Saints Alive Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 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?
rongo Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 The thing is that a Mormon would have no problem at all being sworn in on a Bible. It's not like Mitt Romney (or anyone else) would even ask to be sworn in on a Book of Mormon.
Saints Alive Posted March 30, 2012 Author Posted March 30, 2012 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.
frankenstein Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 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.
rongo Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 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.
Kenngo1969 Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 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?
Cobalt-70 Posted March 30, 2012 Posted March 30, 2012 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.
Freedom Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 To me this tradition is ridiculous, as if some book, sacred or otherwise, will make you be more truthful or honorable. It makes a mockery of the book really, when the inductee places their hand upon it in vane.
Bond...James Bond Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 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.
Bond...James Bond Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 I don't think elected officials should swear in on any religion's scripture (since I object to the connection of govt and religion in all forms). It should be a simple oath to uphold the Constitution.
rpn Posted March 31, 2012 Posted March 31, 2012 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.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.