Are Romney's temple loyalty oaths legitimate questions?

[_bcspace]

In practice I think problems from this are slim to none.

I agree; my comments were more theoretical.

It's really no different than any Christian promising to follow Jesus Christ. The Biblical doctrine then becomes the issue, how willing is the candidate to follow it. The same wiould hold true for an LDS candidate, how willing are they to adhere to the doctrines and policies of that specific Church. For example, does he agree with CA's Prop 8? The same exact question could be asked of candidates form a variety of churches.

I've always felt that these severe loyalty oaths have the potential to come into conflict with Romney's oath as U.S. President, which oath is as follows: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

in my opinion, a conflict could arise if the LDS Church institution (or leader thereof, such as the Church president) either espouses an unconstitutional position, or directs President Romney to act in a certain way, or otherwise influences a decision President Romney makes. I know, I know, this is an extremely unlikely scenario (particularly in today's PR-driven LDS Church), but it is possible and there is precedent (i.e., the Church's defying anti-polygamy laws, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional). Therefore, are not Romney's temple loyalty oaths relevant in connection with his campaign to become U.S. president?

Not in the least. It goes simply to the tenets of the religion. A Muslim candidate might be asked if he will try to institute Sharia Law or if he agrees with Sharia Law. And that is exactly how I would deflect the question. However it remains true, as it always has, the the LDS Church leadership does not and cannot pull those kinds of strings.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Its really an oath to do good as much as possible in the LDS mind (or should be). Nothing more than that. As I see the Church is to do nothing but promote good int he world.

Perhaps, but giving an oath to defend the Church to the point of your own death, sounds a bit more intense that merely "promoting good," in my opinion. This is precisely the type of extremism in the temple loyalty oaths that would seem to Trump any presidential oath.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

It's really no different than any Christian promising to follow Jesus Christ.

I disagree. The temple loyalty oaths are much more detailed and extreme; even the way by which the oaths are given cements their solemnity (i.e., the arm to the square, etc.); it is quite a bit more than one's simply deciding to follow Christ.

The Biblical doctrine then becomes the issue, how willing is the candidate to follow it. The same wiould hold true for an LDS candidate, how willing are they to adhere to the doctrines and policies of that specific Church. For example, does he agree with CA's Prop 8? The same exact question could be asked of candidates form a variety of churches.

I don't know of any other mainstream church that requires the type of absolutist loyalty oaths the LDS Church requires of its members in the temple.

A Muslim candidate might be asked if he will try to institute Sharia Law or if he agrees with Sharia Law.

Here's the difference: Mitt Romney has already made the oaths, years ago. His making these oaths are, for lack of a better phrase, 'set in stone,' unless, of course, he wants to renounce or break them. With the temple loyalty oaths, there is no "trying" or other qualification -- Mitt has already sworn to give all to the Church if asked (per the Law of Consecration) and/or give his life in defending the Church if necessary (per the Law of Sacrifice).

However it remains true, as it always has, the the LDS Church leadership does not and cannot pull those kinds of strings.

But the temple loyalty oaths state that's exactly what they can do (even if they choose not to).

[_Quasimodo]

However it remains true, as it always has, the the LDS Church leadership does not and cannot pull those kinds of strings.

If you really believe that, bc, your innocence is truly touching.

From the beginning of the LDS presence in Utah, it has put forth every effort to influence even the smallest State Government functions. And that influence was (and is) very powerful.

When I lived there, virtually every state post was held by a faithful Mormon (maybe it's still the same). No law, ordinance or regulation was passed unless it followed church guidelines. Utah was, in effect, a theocracy.

Besides my own observations, I have this on good authority from an inlaw's father that held one of the highest offices in the State for twelve years and many other lower offices for many years prior.

No reason to believe that the Church would not try to have that same sort of influence over Romney.

[_bcspace]

It's really no different than any Christian promising to follow Jesus Christ.

I disagree. The temple loyalty oaths are much more detailed and extreme; even the way by which the oaths are given cements their solemnity (i.e., the arm to the square, etc.); it is quite a bit more than one's simply deciding to follow Christ.

I disagree. It's no different than someone becomming a dedicated Christian.

I don't know of any other mainstream church that requires the type of absolutist loyalty oaths the LDS Church requires of its members in the temple.

The doctrines of these churches are just as absolutist.

Here's the difference: Mitt Romney has already made the oaths, years ago. His making these oaths are, for lack of a better phrase, 'set in stone,' unless, of course, he wants to renounce or break them. With the temple loyalty oaths, there is no "trying" or other qualification --

The problem with that logic is there is nothing to renounce in order to become President. And if the Church does or says something controversial, it's still a matter of belief which cannot always be predicted. It is therefore, no different than, another example, questioning a Supreme Court nominee what they will do in a hypothetical case. The best answer you'll get is "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" and all you can do is judge based on past action, words, or stated beliefs.

Mitt has already sworn to give all to the Church if asked (per the Law of Consecration) and/or give his life in defending the Church if necessary (per the Law of Sacrifice).

So has basically everyone who has committed to a religion. Every religious person says something akin to "God first".

If I were a candidate, I would turn this around and ask rhetorically, hasn't every politician essentially sworn an oath by taking money from an organization and is now beholden to that organization? My opponent has taken money from these George Soros funded organizations. Is he not now sworn to uphold his radical or socialist agenda?

The answer might be no or somewhere in between, but like the religion question you propose, it might be yes, but such can never be determined. A savy politician would turn your reasoning around and use it to attack his opponent. I would.

[_stemelbow]

Perhaps, but giving an oath to defend the Church to the point of your own death, sounds a bit more intense that merely "promoting good," in my opinion. This is precisely the type of extremism in the temple loyalty oaths that would seem to Trump any presidential oath.

The "extremeness" sound to it, it seems to me, is nothing but an effort to make it sink in that much deeper.

As it is, I guess I don't care if a Presidential candidate is asked about it all. Whateves. It seems silly to make a fuss, coming from someone that is LDS, but whatever. I've seen much sillier things.

[_bcspace]

However it remains true, as it always has, the the LDS Church leadership does not and cannot pull those kinds of strings.

If you really believe that, bc, your innocence is truly touching.

From the beginning of the LDS presence in Utah, it has put forth every effort to influence even the smallest State Government functions. And that influence was (and is) very powerful.

When I lived there, virtually every state post was held by a faithful Mormon (maybe it's still the same). No law, ordinance or regulation was passed unless it followed church guidelines. Utah was, in effect, a theocracy.

Besides my own observations, I have this on good authority from an inlaw's father that held one of the highest offices in the State for twelve years and many other lower offices for many years prior.

No reason to believe that the Church would not try to have that same sort of influence over Romney.

By this logic you have been caught in hypocrisy; singling out the Church and ignoring all other types and sources of political influence such as the liberal elite, unions, and yes, even "big" business.

What might influence Romney is the doctrine. His level of belief and commitment might tell us how much and which. But as we have seen, having a temple recommend and having attended the temple and made covenants is not always an accurate predictor. Witness Harry Reid, who as a Democrat, is intrinsically and demonstrably in opposition to the LDS Church.

[_Buffalo]

BC, the difference is other churches let people follow god as they see best, following their own conscience. The LDS Church replaces that with following a literal physical organization - and absolute obedience to it.

[_bcspace]

BC, the difference is other churches let people follow god as they see best, following their own conscience.

That is LDS doctrine.

The LDS Church replaces that with following a literal physical organization -

You can choose to follow it or not.

and absolute obedience to it.

You can choose to be obedient to it or not.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I don't know of any other mainstream church that requires the type of absolutist loyalty oaths the LDS Church requires of its members in the temple.

The doctrines of these churches are just as absolutist.

Do you know of any church that requires its members to give a verbal oath, with arm to the square and head bowed, to "defend" that church to the death?

Here's the difference: Mitt Romney has already made the oaths, years ago. His making these oaths are, for lack of a better phrase, 'set in stone,' unless, of course, he wants to renounce or break them. With the temple loyalty oaths, there is no "trying" or other qualification --

The problem with that logic is there is nothing to renounce in order to become President.

Fine, then at least Romney can address the temple oaths and explain why they will never conflict with his presidential oath, right?

And if the Church does or says something controversial, it's still a matter of belief which cannot always be predicted. It is therefore, no different than, another example, questioning a Supreme Court nominee what they will do in a hypothetical case. The best answer you'll get is "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" and all you can do is judge based on past action, words, or stated beliefs.

President is quite a bit different than a justice on the Supreme Court, and not just because a president has enormous power. Here, we know for a fact that Romney has made the temple loyalty oaths, and, in order to become president, he will make the presidential oath. He needs to explain how these oaths will never, under any scenario, conflict.

So has basically everyone who has committed to a religion. Every religious person says something akin to "God first".

But not nearly to the extreme as the temple loyalty oaths as currently worded.

If I were a candidate, I would turn this around and ask rhetorically, hasn't every politician essentially sworn an oath by taking money from an organization and is now beholden to that organization? My opponent has taken money from these George Soros funded organizations. Is he not now sworn to uphold his radical or socialist agenda?

No, that candidate has not given an actual oath. We are talking about actual and spoken oaths, in all cases with the arm to the square, spoken by the very lips of Romney (i.e., loyalty oaths in the temple and the presidential oath in front of the Capitol); not some feeling of loyalty that a donor may have.