The question that needs to be asked of Mitt Romney or any other Mormon who wants to hold public office is this: "Suppose someone had taken the following oath and had sworn on pain of death to keep the oath secret: 'I promise that I will sacrifice my time, talents, and all I may now or hereafter possess of to the upbuilding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints.'" Does such a secret oath disqualify one from the oath of office of the Presidency? Would the Presidency of the United States be included in something "possessed" by a Mormon and covered by this oath?

Like every other adult male Mormon, Mitt Romney secretly swore this oath. But he cannot admit that he did so on pain of death. Most Mormons of Mitt Romney's generation also secretly swore to pray for god to take vengiance on this nation (the United States) for the death of Joseph Smith and to teach his children and children's children to do the same. But this latter "oath of vengiance" is no longer required of newly initiated Mormons, so I assume it is no longer in force.

So, the problem with a Mormon President is not his system of beliefs, which are his own business as far as I am concerned. It is that he has secretly sworn to put the Mormon Church above everything else, including the country.

The is not analogous to a Catholic's holding office. Catholic lay people like John F. Kennedy do not take a personal oath of loyalty to the Catholic Church or to any priest, bishop or the Pope. Furthermore, if they did, it would be a public, not secret matter. Cardinals publicly take an oath of personal loyalty to the Pope. Bishops and Priests publicly take oaths of obedience as well. It is because of this that Catholic clergy are forbidden by the Pope to hold elected offices.

I could not support a Mormon for President unless the Mormon Church itself were to reveal and publicly relieve the candidate of the secret oaths he has taken and the candidate were to agree that the oaths were of no effect.

Frankly, as someone who has participated in the temple ceremonies fryde67 addresses, the answer is quite simple.

1) The Presidency - or any other job or civic / professional responsibility - is not considered to be something a member "possesses." Of course, the personal morals a Mormon takes into a job or responsibility should affect the way s/he approaches and acts in that role (just like any other candidate's personal morals), but - as evidenced by Orrin Hatch and Harry Reid - the specifics of any member's actions will vary as widely as the political and religious opinions of multiple members. Many people don't realize this, but there are innumerable variations of beliefs within Mormonism (both political and spiritual) - much more so, for example, than in any evangelical congregation I observed when I lived in the Deep South.

2) I am of the same generation as Mitt Romney, and I have never - not once in my life - heard any Mormon pray for vengeance on America for the death of Joseph Smith, nor have I once heard anyone teach it - anywhere, inside the temple or in a regular church building or in a private home. It might happen somewhere in someone's home, but not one of the multiple thousands of members I have met in my decades as a member would approve.

3) The charge that I couldn't admit it even if I had been taught it is ludicrous - obviously coming from someone who doesn't understand the very limited restriction on what can and can't be shared from the temple ceremonies. There is a small booklet written by current Apostle, Boyd K. Packer (entitled "Temples") that can be read by anyone and describes almost everything that happens inside the temple. There is no quoting from the ceremony, but the essential elements are detailed quite extensively. Just so, I don't quote from the ceremonies, but there is almost nothing I won't discuss openly and fully.

On a personal note: My personal life is very conservative, but I am a political moderate. I was educated at a very prominent, very liberal college. Mormon theology actually is extremely liberal, but very few people understand that, since the stereotypical charges drone out reality. My congregation is as diverse politically as probably any religious congregation in this country. Congregations in Utah tends to be more predominantly Republican than those in Eastern states, and mine is quite representative of those outside of Utah. Most of the members I see weekly will not vote for Romney just because he is Mormon. This is an educated guess only, but I think he probably will get about 60% of the votes of those who vote in the Republican Primary - and about 40% of the members will not vote in that primary.

I would be happy to answer any specific questions from anyone, but I will not get involved in mud slinging and name calling and bickering. I can't check in constantly, but I will do so at least a couple of times daily.

fryde67:

So, the problem with a Mormon President is not his system of beliefs, which are his own business as far as I am concerned. It is that he has secretly sworn to put the Mormon Church above everything else, including the country.

The is not analogous to a Catholic's holding office. Catholic lay people like John F. Kennedy do not take a personal oath of loyalty to the Catholic Church or to any priest, bishop or the Pope. Furthermore, if they did, it would be a public, not secret matter. Cardinals publicly take an oath of personal loyalty to the Pope. Bishops and Priests publicly take oaths of obedience as well. It is because of this that Catholic clergy are forbidden by the Pope to hold elected offices.

Even if the first paragraph were true -- and a Mormon has already answered that matter -- is not a commitment to put one's religion above everything else, including one's country, an inseparable part of one's belief system should that belief system demand such a commitment? It sure is in my neck of the theological woods; and probably you could line up over 1 billion Muslims who'd agree with that position. It's the only position on such a commitment that is logically defensible. So like it or not, you do have a problem with a presidential candidate's belief system if that system demands he put his religion above his politics and his country. But despite the First Amendment (and paradoxically perhaps because of it), the U.S. Constitution (one way or another) would have a problem with such a commitment too, so the point is moot to begin with.

The basic problem is that we Americans have tried to have it both ways right from the Founding Generation -- those who tried to build a Christian nation on Christian ethics apart from Christian government and Christian theology. It never seemed to dawn on the Founders that (for example) the Ten Commandments are the legal foundation not of a republic, but of a theocracy or at least a theocratic monarchy -- which is precisely what they were trying to avoid. What you're talking about here is only one of the many conundrums their self-contradictory agenda has led to. (I will not even speak here of what is more pertinent to what you raise, how worshipping according to the arbitrary dictates of one's own conscience is no better than worshipping under someone else's arbitrary dictates -- something else the Founders didn't see.)

I and my brethren don't get involved in this world's politics at all, and we try to avoid taking politically motivated stances. We are at different stages of spiritual growth as individuals, and so some of us are more aware of how politicized our past experiences have been than others. But obviously, running for President or any other elected office is something we just don't do -- we don't even vote for those who run. We simply don't believe in republicanism; it's not the biblical way of governing. We're ambassadors of another Kingdom. The Mormons and others, if they claim to be biblical, would do well to follow that example.

wr ()()

I forgot to add that I do promise to give all to building the Kingdom of God if required, but anyone who is serious about any religion essentially promises to do the same. There's nothing secret or nefarious about it; it's a very straightforward commitment.

I also want to re-emphasize the political diversity among Mormons. James E. Faust was the 2nd Councilor to the President of the Church when he passed away a few weeks ago. He was a life-long Democrat. Ezra Taft Benson was an extremely conservative Republican Secretary of Agriculture before he later became President of the Church. Marlin K. Jensen is the current Mormon Church Historian, and he is a Democrat.
I personally know quite a few members who are Libertarians.

'I promise that I will sacrifice my time, talents, and all I may now or hereafter possess of to the upbuilding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints.

This kind of oath plus secrecy seem to be elements of a cult. Do they brew Cool-Aid?

Fryde67: There are at least two reasons why I don't think you should be concerned about the fact that Mitt Romney is a committed Mormon.

First, one of the bedrock principles in Mormonism . . . one of its thirteen Articles of Faith is: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law." <link>

If Mitt Romney were elected President, he would take an oath in accordance with Article II, Section I of the US Constitution, to faithfully execute the office of President and protect and defend the Constitution. His religious training would expect that he act honorably in upholding the law, in being faithful to his oath of office and acting in accordance with all the laws of the country.

Second, it should be abundantly clear that Mormons are not controlled by the Mormon church in any way. While the vast majority of Mormons are conservative Republicans, Harry Reid is a devout Mormon but a liberal Democrat and the Senate Majority Leader. I think its a safe bet that his politics are different from every member of the Mormon church's leadership. Yet no Mormon leader would act appropriately by telling another member how to vote or try to influence them. In fact, the Mormon church is full of people of different political leanings.

Ask any Mormon -- world wide -- and you will get the same answer. I've been a Mormon all my life. I've taken the same commitment in the Temple. It would be unthinkable for a Mormon leader to tell a member to violate an oath of office or to act nefariously to further Church purposes in betrayal of his office. Its just silly. Anyone who actually knows the Mormon community or has any real experience with Mormons knows how baseless these "fears" really are.

Spiker: Yes, Mormons are cult-like zombies who sun the light and brew tainted coolaid in rat infested basements, sneaking out at night to howl at the moon and who try to lure innocent victims into their temples for unspoken acts of decadence.

The thousdandes of Mormon families that you see, their emphasis on family values, their commitment to the gospel of Jesus Christ, their incredible missionary effort around the world, their remarkable charitable giving, their huge private welfare assistance efforts, their diversity, the fact that prominent Mormons can be found across every walk of life from politicians of high office (21 Mormons in the House and 5 in the Senate), to professional sports, entertainment, business executives, artists, writers, scientists, olympians, and virtually every other walk of life http://www.famousmormons.net/ is just part of the cleverly frabricated facade to try and make Mormons look mainstream. But you have seen through it all. Congrats.

The whole thread seems to be rather McCarthy like but even so what does happen when contradictory oaths are taken. We have yet to see a President to have to act expressly against the interest of his church, whatever the denomination.

Let say two bombs are flying into the U.S.A. One to hit Las Vegas and the other to hit Salt Lake City and only one anti-missile left to fire. Which would Mitt choose and why. That is really the kind of contrived question that one could ask any would be president to actually see where allegiances lie. Private oaths are no good. Strong polarized communities promote from within unless the talent is outside and really needed, and even then...

Fryde67: Also, a couple points of clarification. The Mormon Temple oaths no longer contain any "pain of death" type language. It was removed quite some time ago because many members found it offensive. In fact, it was antiquated. The religious equivalent of, "cross my heart and hope to die," commitment language.

And for anyone wondering where an oath of fidelity and secrecy upon pain of death comes from . . . from the Masons. Most early Americans -- including Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism -- were Masons. Run some google searches on blood oaths taken by Masons in the Masonic temples. Almost identical. Joseph Smith found great beauty and comradery in the Masonic brotherhood and incorporated alot of its rituals and ceremonies and oaths into the Mormon temple rituals.

Other United States Presidents were were free masons and took those blood oaths?: George Washington, Harry Truman, William Taft, Franklin Roosevelt, James Polk, James Monroe, William McKinley, Andrew Johnson, Andrew Jackson, Warren Harding, James Garfield, Gerald Ford, and James Buchanan.

The idea that oaths and commitments taken in religious ceremonies disqualifies a person to hold high office or suggests something sinister simply blinks credibility. I don't know Mitt Romney personally and don't even know if I think he is the best Republican candidate (I like Huckabee a lot!) but one thing I am absolute sure of . . . his Mormonism will not detract from his ability to carry out political responsibilities.

Spiker: Tough question for any President. Two really big cities (Las Vegas Metropolitan population 1.7 million, Salt Lake City Metropolitan population 1.2 million) both have important resources for the country. Salt Lake City had oil refineries and Geneva Steel and a number of strategically important mines (Silver King Coalition Mines, Bingham Canyon Mines, etc.)

The idea that a Mormon wouldn't care about Las Vegas is, of course, silly. Las Vegas was founded in 1855 by Mormons (<link> and has a huge Mormon population. 12% of the Southern Nevada population is Mormon. One of the Mormon Temples are in Las Vegas. And Romney has family in Vegas.

But it will be at that moment that we will know where Romney's "true" allegiance lies. Funny.

So I was ignorant of some facts. Lets make it LA or San Fran. Vegas was just used to give it some regional equivalence.

You could give a Jewish would be president the same question. A million Jews in Israel or a million Angelinos. A Jewish President may be less likely to choose to save the Angelinos than a president of English, French, German, or Italian descent. That is opinion but that is the impression the cohesive Jewish community leaves me with and in a fashion Mormons have left me with.

I may be totally wrong but I'm being totally honest.

Hey, I was being funny or trying to be. That oath is still pretty creepy anyway you cut.

As far as the book goes it seems like it should be a head to head competition between the Jews and the Mormons. They should make a Reality TV show out it.

I took the time to follow your reference to the Living Church of God and watched a film of a man expounding childish nonsense. Many churches expound this kind of gibberish about the AntiChrist and Satan warring with God in heaven, and so forth. These passages are all symbolism of spiritual matters kept hidden from the carnal mind of man. When you take symbols literally, then you believe such things as trees clapping their hands, or Adam and Eve eating an actual fruit in the Garden of Eden, or talking serpents. Hopelessly childish. Does anyone who believes in God really believe that sin can take place in the very presence of God? Satan challenged God in his inner sanctum, the Holy of Holies? Come on! Start fasting and praying and seek the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In malice, be ye as little children, but in understanding quit ye like men. Stop eating pablum and get some meat.

Which Mormon church does Mitt Romney belong to? There are at least two, plus various sects. Those in Utah came from a group who murdered innocent pilgrims at the Mountain Meadow Massacre, and sent the Black Angels to kill those who left the faith, so we know they can't be Christians. Those in the Missouri Synod expect Jesus to return to a fancy apartment they have prepared for Him in their temple, with furniture of gold, so they can't be right in the head. Then, you have all kinds of nuts running loose in the deserts exercising bigamy, child abuse, and assorted crimes.

Which Moron church does Mitt Romney belong to?

Why do these discussions always have to turn into polemic diatribes full of half-truths, distortions and - sometimes - flat-out fabrications? I wrote my thesis at Harvard on Manifest Destiny, with an emphasis on religious ideology and the Mormons. I also began my professional career as a History teacher. I have read just about everything written on most events from the 18th Century related to Mormonism, and the following is some of what I learned - and what is backed by every credible, non-biased (on both sides) historian of whom I am aware.

1) I will never defend what happened at Mountain Meadows Massacre, but almost every non-biased historian who looks closely at the evidence agrees that it was an isolated
incident perpetrated by otherwise law-abiding citizens who were terrified of being killed and driven from their homes once again. It was inexcusable - simply heinous and horrific, but it was an aberration - and it does not appear to have been condoned by the leadership in Salt Lake City.

2) Dark Angels killing those who left the faith? Not a shred of credibility - at any time.

3) Fundamentalists running around the desert . . . Polygamists haven't been associated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mitt Romney's church) for over a hundred years. His great-grandfather was a polygamist - and many Americans' ancestors were slave owners. We and they have left those practices behind; bringing them up in regard to Romney is selective bias at its worst.

I get so tired of these tired arguments. Yes, we have some peculiar beliefs, but so do others of every Christian denomination and other religion. We're ordinary people, trying to find a way to live extraordinary lives by becoming more like He whom we worship as Lord and God and Savior and Redeemer - just like every other dedicated Christian in the world and, in essence, just like every other dedicated religionist in the world. If you want to judge us by what our ancestors were, please consider their successes and good attributes - not just their failings - and do the same for your own ancestors.