DiscussMormonism.com

I doubt any smart campaign advisors would even suggest such a thing but there could be ways information gets leaked without official candidate approval. If it came down to Obama vs Romney, do you think the church's racist past would become an issue? Did Romney or his dad ever make statements condoning the priesthood ban? It could get ugly if Obama plays ruthless chicago politics.

I think it is almost a certainty that such questions will be asked.

If it comes down to Romney vs Obama, the question for any responsible journalist will have to be: "Mr. Romney, during your adult life, you were a member of a church that officially considered black people to be cursed of God and second-rate citizens. How did you, in good concience, remain affiliated with an organization that held such a racist dogma?"

Don't get me wrong, I think Romney would likely make a good President. He's already shown himself to be pragmatic when it comes to the social issues, and he appears to me to be a person who understands those hazy, nebulous concepts of "income vs expenditures" and "don't spend more than you make", etc. But I think he would make a good president DESPITE his religion, not because of it.

DarkHelmet wrote:Did Romney or his dad ever make statements condoning the priesthood ban? It could get ugly if Obama plays ruthless chicago politics.

George Romney caught a strong admonition from Apostle Delbert Shipley for his support of civil rights. The only card to be played might be from an Uno deck.

As Moksha points out, it would be a pretty weak card to play against Romney because of the letter Elder Delbert Stapley sent to his father essentially chastising him for going against the church's views by supporting the Civil Rights Act, and accusing him of not toeing the Church's line on the "negro".

The race card does work against the church IMHO, but it would be pretty weak against Mitt Romney personally.

Obama; Hi Mitt, why does your Church still believe in racial separation?

Mitt; *smiles cos he's got this one covered* Mr President, that was a policy a long time ago that ended in 1978 after a revelation from God *adopts smug knowing look*

Obama; Hmmmm, *aide brings him a copy of the Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3 and he turns to lesson 31*
How come then that your current manual used for teaching young men between the ages of 12 and 17 contains the following counsel "we recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally..."?

Mitt; *crickets*

jon wrote:Obama; Hi Mitt, why does your Church still believe in racial separation?

Mitt; *smiles cos he's got this one covered* Mr President, that was a policy a long time ago that ended in 1978 after a revelation from God *adopts smug knowing look*

Obama; Hmmmm, *aide brings him a copy of the Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3 and he turns to lesson 31*
How come then that your current manual used for teaching young men between the ages of 12 and 17 contains the following counsel "we recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally..."?

Mitt; *crickets*

America's reaction to this exciting and esoteric study of an obscure manual:

*crickets* and *snoring*

The Nehor wrote:

jon wrote:Obama; Hi Mitt, why does your Church still believe in racial separation?

Mitt; *smiles cos he's got this one covered* Mr President, that was a policy a long time ago that ended in 1978 after a revelation from God *adopts smug knowing look*

Obama; Hmmmm, *aide brings him a copy of the Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3 and he turns to lesson 31*
How come then that your current manual used for teaching young men between the ages of 12 and 17 contains the following counsel "we recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally..."?

Mitt; *crickets*

America's reaction to this exciting and esoteric study of an obscure manual:

*crickets* and *snoring*

LOL

Nehor, why would an inspired teaching manual that is used three weeks out of every four to indoctrinate every LDS young man be classed as 'obscure'?

Do you mean obscure as in there's very few Mormons in relation to normal folks?

jon wrote:Nehor, why would an inspired teaching manual that is used three weeks out of every four to indoctrinate every LDS young man be classed as 'obscure'?

In the context of a national political campaign that qualifies as 'obscure' yes.

Do you mean obscure as in there's very few Mormons in relation to normal folks?

If by "normal folks" you mean non-LDS then:

That would be a part of it though it would be a minor point even in a political campaign with lots or even a majority of Mormons involved.

If you mean LDS are abnormal then I do not accept your premises.

The Nehor wrote:
If you mean LDS are abnormal then I do not accept your premises.

Would you say that a belief in the heavenly requirement of four secret/sacred handshakes, passwords and a new name that even your wife can't be told - is normal or abnormal?

jon wrote:Would you say that a belief in the heavenly requirement of four secret/sacred handshakes, passwords and a new name that even your wife can't be told - is normal or abnormal?

It's an abnormal belief but that is a facet of who I am. It does not make me abnormal as a person or Church members abnormal as a people.

If so my combination of hobbies, interests, beliefs, and philosophy make me uniquely abnormal to the point of absolute uniqueness. Of course everyone else is equally abnormal and there is no point in trying to talk about "normal folk" in any case.

I realize you're just using the label for rhetorical purposes of course and your objective is merely to taint LDS. I am under no delusions that you are trying to say anything intelligent.