If Romney wins the Presidency, which oath will come first?

[_Jason Bourne]

I find it absolutely incredible that Romney is going to go through the same three ring circus JFK went through forty years ago because of his Catholicism.

in my opinion, the issue is not really Mitt's Mormonism -- it's his taking part in a very unique LDS temple ceremony where he personally and expressly made a very absolute and unqualified oath of loyalty to the LDS Church, which, at least in theory, could come into conflict with his presidential oath. This has nothing to do with religious prejudice, but just the actual existence for Mitt the Mormon and Mitt the President of two potentially conflicting oaths of loyalty.

YOu seem really fixated on this.

So give us one or two examples.

[_Jason Bourne]

Here it is:

It [the law of consecration] is that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents and everything which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.

How can you say that doesn't require any member to 'robotically' follow LDS leaders? The leaders are the ones who tell us what we need to do - they're God's mouthpiece right?

There's another oath where the maker also agrees to give up everything, including his/her life if necessary.

Related to keeping thing secret and nor revealing it.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

YOu seem really fixated on this.

So give us one or two examples.

Not fixated -- just bringing up an issue that I think will be a big one in the coming campaign. Plus, I found Mitt's comments in the NY Times article to be very misleading.

Here's an example from history: what would Mitt have done if he was the U.S. president during the time Utah Mormons were being prosecuted under federal law for polygamy? The laws were held constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, so Mitt would have been forced between enforcing those laws as Chief Executive or not (due to his temple oaths). Could such a scenario happen today? Unlikely, but GBH could receive a revelation tomorrow reinstituting the broad practice of polygamy, even though there are still laws against it -- what would Mitt do as President? Conflicts are possible, at least in theory, which is why I think this is a real issue that needs to be addressed fully by Mitt.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

There's another oath where the maker also agrees to give up everything, including his/her life if necessary.

Related to keeping thing secret and nor revealing it.

Neither. I'm talking about the oath made in conjunction with the Law of Sacrifice, which I think potentially gives Mitt more trouble than the oath made in conjunction with the Law of Consecration.

[_Jason Bourne]

I voted that Romney would put the Presidency first.

The irony of it is....I think that most Church members will vote for him BECAUSE they honestly feel he'll put his temple covenants first. ;)

If he is nominated maybe most will vote for him because his politics agree to theirs. I doubt many will think "Oh goodie!! Mitt will put his temple covenants before his oath of office."

[_Jason Bourne]

YOu seem really fixated on this.

So give us one or two examples.

Not fixated -- just bringing up an issue that I think will be a big one in the coming campaign. Plus, I found Mitt's comments in the NY Times article to be very misleading.

Here's an example from history: what would Mitt have done if he was the U.S. president during the time Utah Mormons were being prosecuted under federal law for polygamy? The laws were held constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, so Mitt would have been forced between enforcing those laws as Chief Executive or not (due to his temple oaths). Could such a scenario happen today? Unlikely, but GBH could receive a revelation tomorrow reinstituting the broad practice of polygamy, even though there are still laws against it -- what would Mitt do as President? Conflicts are possible, at least in theory, which is why I think this is a real issue that needs to be addressed fully by Mitt.

I see. You are very hard pressed to find real and relevant examples. I also noted that the oath does not include following every word or direction the prophet utters.

by the way, how do you personally feel about the oath and how it applies to you and me? What does our participation and criticism here mean in regards to it?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

You are very hard pressed to find real and relevant examples.

When it comes to Mormons, there is no more relevant example of Church/State conflict than polygamy.

I also noted that the oath does not include following every word or direction the prophet utters.

Polygamy is a core doctrine of Mormonism, unlike teased hair and earrings. Nevertheless, I interpret "sustaining and defending the Kingdom of God" as including doing what the Prophet tells you to do.

by the way, how do you personally feel about the oath and how it applies to you and me?

I always found that oath, and others like it, very odd and uncomfortable. Of course, I took the oath when I was a 19-year old kid and totally bewildered by my first temple experience. Would I do anything the Prophet told me to do? No. I would be more willing to give up my own life rather than sacrifice another, even if ordered by the Prophet (or God, for that matter). I suspect that many TBM's would answer differently. I'm not sure where Mitt stands, but I think it ought to be discussed before he's given the most powerful job in the world.

What does our participation and criticism here mean in regards to it?

Nothing, in my opinion. This thread is about how Mitt ought to deal with it in his pursuit of the presidency. So far, I have found his comments misleading on the topic. I hope that changes before the election.

[Anonymous]

Looking ahead, I expect that Mitt Romney and Steve Young will be the next two Republican Senators from Utah. By then they may even have middle initials.

LOL. Memories of an old thread...

[_Coggins7]

Comparing catholicism to Mormonism is laughable. Mormonism is an NRM started by a criminal. Christianity was an NRM started by a criminal 2000 years ago.

Mormonism is not catholicism and anyone who tries to make the comparrison is probably Mormon. Anyone else is uninformed or in the pocket of romneys camp.

Laying aside your blustering lie about Joseph Smith, in your describing Jesus Christ as a criminal you have for all intents and purposes recused yourself from intellectual or moral credibility (as wel as missing a point that any anthropoid Ape could understand).


Loran

[_skippy the dead]

I didn't choose either option. In reality, I'm guessing he'd really be beholdin' to whoever is most responsible for getting him elected. As they say, you dance with the one that brought you.

Considering that we currently have a president who professes to carry out things his god tells him to do. . .