Coggins7 wrote:I think its about time for a specific, detailed example of just what it is in the Temple Oath in question (and precisely the same points are made in the scrptures; that we are to consecrate our time, talents, skills, and temporal resources to the building of Zion) that could concievable be thought of as being incompatible with holding public office. None has yet been put forwared. All we've had is vegue generalities and innuendos.
In theory, the Brethren could ask anything of Mitt and he'd have to do it under the Law of Consecration, regardless of his presidential duties and obligations under the Constitution. The Law of Sacrifice could create even greater problems. Again, this is all in theory; I'm not saying a conflict would occur, just that it could. Thus, the electorate is entitled to full disclosure, in my opinion.
What parts of the constitution could possible come into conflict with that oath (especially since Mormons consider the constittion and its guarantees of protection from government and individual liberty to be divinely inspired)?
The polygamy days are a good example of when a conflict arose between the U.S. Constitution and the Church's practice of plural marriage.
This is interesting because the consitiution, as originally written and understood, empowers the state to do little more than protect its citizens from internal or external threat by fielding a military, setting the guidlines for a fair and impartial criminal and civil justice system, coining money, funding some forms of infrastructure, and engaging in foreign policy.
It allows Congress to pass laws, which it did to criminalize polygamy, which the U.S. Supreme Court found was constitutional; the Church obviously disagreed and many Saints went to jail for their beliefs.
What in the oath regarding building Zion and loyalty to the church ...
The Law of Sacrifice requires one to covenant to sacrifice everything, including one's life, in sustaining and defending the Church.
... (which would necessarily imply loyalty to America and her constitutional institutions, since we understand these to be, at their core, inspired, and necessary to the free functioning of a commuity of faith in any case) ...
Baloney. The covenant is to the Church, not the U.S. or anyone/anything else.
... is in conflict with loyalty to America when America was conceived as a country in which government would be severely limited and individual freedoms maximezed?
Tell that to the Saints back in the 1880's. They likely would have a very different perspective.
All Romney has to do is be loyal to is the constitution, which means he must defend it and the citizens of this country against all enemies, foriegn and domestic, and see that the unalienable rights of the individual identified and guaranteed in the constitution are protected.
But what if Romney, as president, must enforce a law that the Brethren deem unconstitutional (such as the Brethren viewed the anti-bigamy laws in the 1880's)? Which oath would Mitt obey -- the one he took in the temple, or the one he took on the steps of the U.S. Capital?
What is there, or under what conditions, could loyalty to the constitution (indivudual liberty under the rule of law) come into conflict with loyalty to the church (freely using that liberty to work toward the building of a Zion society, or a society exemplifiing the very moral, intellectual, and social attributes and virtues upon which a free, civil, and lawful society is founded)?
Polygamy is an example. What if GBH received a revelation reinstituting the practice of polygamy? What would Mitt do as President?