Current talk in the media sometimes calls this "The Mormon Moment." A hit musical on Broadway, "The Book of Mormon," has won multiple Tony awards. Posters in busses and on billboards nationwide show pictures of a great variety of people declaring, "I am a Mormon."
Mormons are making headlines -- again. Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, and Jon Huntsman, former governor of Utah and ambassador to China, have been running for the Republican nomination for President of the United States. Though Jon has left the race, his less identifiable Mormonism was as much a part of his persona as Mitt's more tithe-paying traditional look. But this is far from the first time Mormonism and its beliefs have been in the national news. And one of the prime objections of the public to a Mormon in office is "polygamy."
In 1950 my husband completed his Stanford master's thesis on Mormon U.S. Senator Reed Smoot, elected in Utah in 1903. While I vividly remember typing five carbon copies (!) of the 132 pages, I remember even more the riveting details of an investigation that essentially put the Mormon Church on trial before the nation.
Republican Senator Smoot was seated in the Senate in 1903, but powers in Washington were not about to accept the idea of such "mockery of the Constitution," fearing that Smoot was a polygamist and had sworn allegiance to the Mormon Church and against the United States. Not only was Smoot a Mormon, he was in the hierarchy of the Church -- a member of the Twelve Apostles, next to the three in the presidency, and one of the most influential leaders.
For more than three years a subcommittee of the Senate investigated Senator Smoot for the possibility of his being a polygamist. This in spite of the fact that polygamy had been banned by proclamation of the President of the Mormon Church before Utah became a State in 1896. Smoot was not and never had been a polygamist. But suspicion reigned.
In that investigation, Smoot presented his defense; witnesses were called -- even the president of the Mormon Church -- to verify his non-polygamous standing. According to historian Kathleen Flake:
"The four-year Senate proceeding created a 3,500-page record of testimony by 100 witnesses. The public participated actively in the proceedings. In the Capitol, spectators lined the halls, waiting for limited seats in the committee room, and filled the galleries to hear floor debates. For those who could not see for themselves, journalists and cartoonists depicted each day's admission and outrage."
Christopher P. Scheitle and Roger Finke: A Road Trip Across America's Religious Landscape (PHOTOS)
TOO MUCH BUSYBODY INTRUSION INTO THE LIVES OF NON -MORMONS
AND TOO MUCH LYING --- Prop 8 was about something that affected NO mormons directly, but about the paranoid delusion that you would be forced to temple-marry Gays.
dclayton4473
21 hours ago (10:39 PM) I find it interestinÂg that the Church, of which I am a member, gets attacked for standing up for marriage. I believe the same thin you state above, with a twist:
"I'll *defend* to the death anyone's right to believe anything--Â(in fact it is an article of Mormon faith) Âas long as it's kept in your head, your home, your Church. When you bring the little monsters out and attempt to make others in this secular nation kowtow to it (as the Gay Right agenda has done - trying to force religious people offended by their public practices to embrace them publicallyÂ), the line has been crossed and you have fight on your hands."
To Mormons, this line was crossed when immorality was carved out as a special group for government protectionÂ...
OTH, President Obama's father belonged to a so-called faith which practices polygamy to this date, as far from renounced its practice, and he himself, the great protector of women, has a father who practiced polygamy which fact has never, repeat never, be condemned by his son. Of course, President Obama has paternal half-siblings living in poverty to whom he has never given a red sent. Maybe that is how he shows his objection to polygamy.
Bottom line, the left is hypocritical in attacking a person for the fact his great-grandfather was a polygamist but giving a pass to one whose father was a polygamist. Maybe it as something to do with giving a pass to those with whom one agrees or giving a pass to muslims for reason of the symbiotic kindred spirit between the left and muslims or because the racist left does not hold black people to the same standards as it does white people.
ROMNENT ATTACKS HIMSELF BY TRUMPETING "3000 YRS OF TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE"
in response to the call for marriage equality
A FORMER SEXUAL MINORITY SPENDS 100 MILLION DOLLARS OF ITS MEMBERS' AND OTHERS' MONEY
TO PUT DOWN ANOTHER SEXUAL MINORITY
Is there an exemption allowing BLATANT HYPOCRISY in the book of mormon?
Mitt Romney's great-grandfather, Miles Romney, married his 5th wife, Emily Eyring, in February 1897. (see also the LDS church's genealogy website here: https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.2.1/9ZZ6-YHJ )
The church was still sanctioning NEW plural marriages at least 7 years AFTER they supposedly renounced the practice, with Wilford Woodruff's Manifesto, in 1890.
WOOPS!
Additionally, several polygamist Mormons, including church president Heber J. Grant, were still cohabitating with their plural wives into the 1920's, at least 30 years AFTER the manifesto. This helps to explain WHY the FLDS movement sprang up around 1930, rather than immediately after the manifesto, in the 1890's.
Aside from the fact that Robo-RomneÂy is *totally* unfit to be President, for many reasons, I believe he would not be able to keep his beliefs from influencinÂg his behavior--Âand that's just *another* reason to oppose him. I would rather we have leaders who don't need an Invisible Friend in the office with them. If they must, I would prefer their Holy Eclipse were as benign as possible.
What Mormons tried to pass off as "morality" in their fight to strip away the rights of American citizens in California, was rightly declared unConstitutional by the courts--and as the LDS Church is monumentally secretive about its money, we'll never know how much they spent in their nefarious campaign, but estimates are anywhere from $20 million to $32 million. NO church in this secular nation has the right to impose their beliefs into law. I therefore can only view the LDS Church as oppositional to all the ideals that the United States stands for.
"I'll *defend* to the death anyone's right to believe anything--(in fact it is an article of Mormon faith) Âas long as it's kept in your head, your home, your Church. When you bring the little monsters out and attempt to make others in this secular nation kowtow to it (as the Gay Right agenda has done - trying to force religious people offended by their public practices to embrace them publically), the line has been crossed and you have fight on your hands."
To Mormons, this line was crossed when immorality was carved out as a special group for government protection...
But the fact is how he ran was about tax cuts, not his new right-wing extremist anti-civil rights Christianist face.
Frankly, after what the LDS church he obeys has been doing to my civil rights for years, I don't care if he follows *them* or the FRC, it's the same thing.
I dont' care ifg he's a minority sect or not, he attacks *other* minorities cause he just wants to be counted among the bullies. Hunstman may have been the only civil GOP candidate out there, but his policies still weren't all *that* different from the rest.
Well, I'm not one of the nicer "let's all get along" liberals, but I personally do not disregard this aspect of Romney or any other candidate. I don't vote solely based on one's religious label and superstitions. But I recognize that religion unfortunately has not stayed out of politics and consequently if I want to keep religion and politics from mixing I have to consider religion as a factor in how I vote. One's particular religious (and political) beliefs can be a strong indication of whether they will actually keep religion and politics separate (or more accurately how they will inevitably mix religion and politics) and can be a strong indication of their views on policies like same-sex marriage, abortion, etc where religion and politics are frequently mixed. By considering this aspect of Romney and other candidates, I can work to keep religion and politics separate.
It would be a mistake to think that by wishing religion and politics not to mix that one must disregard religion when considering politics. The mistake being to assume that everyone else wants religion and politics not to mix, which is obviously false.
Note that I think most liberals do make that mistake. Conservative values voters vote Republican. Who do liberal values voters like myself vote for? Not liberals/Democrats, they regularly refuse to stand up for their values.
In today's race, Santorum is the worst, followed by Paul and Gingrich. Then comes Romney, who has been downplaying his religious make up, because he is a Mormon. So, he appears like the less religious of the candidates and the one that would be the most appealing to moderates and independants. Conservatives, however, will have hard time dealing with his LDS affliliation. The truth of the matter is- like Obama, he seems to be less willing than others to foul around with religion. I would chose a moderate Mormon who respects the separation of church and state over a Christian nut who's trying to push his beliefs down my throat. Any day.
"WE THINK GOD APPOINTED US TO IMPROVE YOUR MORALS, SO WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER WE THINK LEADS TOWARD THAT"
and
"BECAUSE WE FLAGRANTLY BROKE THE LAW AND FLOUTED WHAT EVERY OTHER CHRISTIAN GROUP THOUGHT WAS DECENT, WE HAD CONSEQUENCÂES.
NONE OF THESE CONSEQUENCÂES MERITED (SINCE WE ARE TEFLON COATED),
SO WE DESERVE TO BE RIDULOUSLY PARANOID THAT TROOPS WILL MAKE MORMONS MARRY GAYS IN THE TEMPLE"
This is ILLNESS
What you do about it is FASCISM
And you would improve others' regard for you if you did not spout ridiculous and twisted statements -- such as
...if we jettison the current definition of marriage (along with its attendant societal benefits) in favor of genderless marriage.
YOU DO NOT NEED TO CHANGE THE DEFINTION OF MARRIAGE FOR MORMONS
..,,, although doing so would be Christian of you, and bring you past 1880
Mormons' problem is that savvy folks know about your involvement in Prop 8 and NOM -- I have read all sorts of denials from mormons, but the facts are there.
Some of us think it is EXTREMELY UNAMERICAN to try to push your values on others -- even when done in a legitimate way. When you add all the lying and manipulating to enforce your agenda, the mormon likeablity factor is very low, only kept up a bit by the mulimillions you spend on PR.
The last president I voted for, and " I REALLY thought I was doing the right thing ", was Kennedy, but had I known then what I know now, I would not have voted for him either.
If 1/2 of the money that will be spent on getting someone hyped in the voters minds would be spent encouraging and promoting "true" Christianity, it would probably do so much more to help make the world a better place.
Santorum, on the other hand, is both extreme and desires to legislate his beliefs on the people. I find him far more dangerous....if I thought he had a snow ball's chance in hell of winning.....than Romney.
IMO, only religious people have any exception with Mormonism. You're preaching to the choir, literally.
Romney is certainly not going to be helped by this aspect of his persona. However, his Mormon priesthood pales considerably in comparison to all the other reasons why not vote for him, namely, his lack of backbone, his phoniness, his establishment conservatism, his readiness to cater to the worst impulses of the masses, his past as a hedge funder and his career as someone who makes a living by moving money from one account to another.
Seems like Romney and his wife get along pretty well and have a deep affection for one another. I suppose Ann ought to be asked about how she feels Mitt either does or doesn't respect her and whether she feels that he values her as a VIP in his life. Mitt and Ann don't quite seem to fit the abusive model you're attempting to throw off on us here. Most LDS husbands respect their wives. After all, they believe that they have the opportunity to spend eternity together.
He treats her about as well he as he treats the family dog.
Only in the sense that when LDS folks worship in their temples and to vicarious work for those that have passed on they consider the work sacred and not open to public view. Who wants to see their sacred sacraments/ordinances ridiculed by the uninitiated or those that are not willing to take the time and effort to really understand what's going on? Besides temple work, I can't think of much else that is in any sense, SECRET. You're welcome to attend any of the LDS temples before dedication at the public open house that each temple has. You can then see what transpires there. It really is a sacred work to those that participate therein.
The covenants made in the temple are basically to live exemplary Christian lives of honor and respect towards God and man. Those covenants if adhered to, even by a sitting POTUS, would only act as an impetus to treat others with Christian charity and love/respect.
Nothing wrong with that.
They think that all Mormons are taking marching orders from the Prophet to vote for Romney..
Silly h8ers.
The LDS church and Romney wanting to be counted among the ones entitled to do the bullying doesn't actually win them sympathy as a religious minority from the rest of us.
Having said that I know that Mitt Romney would not be able to represent me because of his religious beliefs, this is a religion that baptizes the dead, and I have no respect for that what so ever, only distain that say was I not given the choice in life to choose my faith, so how dare you change it when I am dead?
Anyone who believes in this practice, does not merit my vote.
Baptisms are done in behalf of those that have died and gone to the other side of the veil without having had the opportunity to hear and/or accept the gospel of Christ. If the vicarious work that is done for these folks is not accepted by them, that's OK. No worries. They can reject the baptism and it will have no effect on their situation. Baptisms for the dead cannot "change a person's faith". That is a choice made individually without any coercion. Baptisms for the dead aren't any where near as weird as some would like to make them appear. Very similar to a typical LDS baptism, which anyone can attend, BTW, except that Baptisms for the dead are done in temples and are performed vicariously for those that have passed on from this life.