Are Romney's temple loyalty oaths legitimate questions?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Well I have no doubt if he is nominated it certainly will be brought up.

I hope you're right. Perhaps this could provide the impetus for the Brethren to consider toning down some of the more extremist parts still remaining in the endowment (like they did in the early 90's). I wouldn't mind seeing those loyalty oaths diluted or even thrown out altogether. I know, wishful thinking ....

[_stemelbow]

I tend to agree, but the loyalty oaths to which I refer are extremist, and these days Church leaders seem to be promoting even greater participation at the temple. A "loyalty to the Church" type of theme also seems to be increasing, in my opinion. I still think this is a legitimate line of inquiry toward any Mormon seeking the American presidency.

I'm afraid this type of reasoning might lead to people questioning LDS when it comes to other jobs too. I would hope it doesn't lead to a slippery slope, in other words.

On that note, I don't see how fulfilling the office of the presidency differs much from, in terms of loyalty to the Church, than does fulfilling the office of many jobs all around that, it seems, many LDS most likely do well.

In light of the lack of reason to believe there is any concern here, I don't see the point, other than to stir the pot and perhaps some promote some well-poisoning for an LDS presidential bid. Oh well.

[_Quasimodo]

I asked the same question yesterday in a letter to the La Crosse Tribune. He is a liberal outlander, his father was not a robot for the church. However, it remains to be seen.

I don't think one can discount the dislike and distrust of the LDS church by many Protestant and Catholic voters. Especially the Tea Party folks. Many Christians don't regard the LDS as Christian. They don't hold Mormons highly.

If Romney can get passed the Republican nomination, he might have a slim chance. I'm betting against that, though.

I haven't seen a poll about this, but I bet if you asked the average voter to name the one word that comes to mind when you hear "Romney", the first answer would be "Mormon". The second would be "boring".

[_Rollo Tomasi]

On that note, I don't see how fulfilling the office of the presidency differs much from, in terms of loyalty to the Church, than does fulfilling the office of many jobs all around that, it seems, many LDS most likely do well.

I see a real difference in terms of power -- the U.S. president is "the leader of the free world," and all that. So much power in just one guy (even with all the checks and balances we have), I think, requires much greater vetting than with someone seeking any other job (I know that many others take a similar oath, but, again, the office of U.S. president is just so damn powerful). It's nice to think that no president would ever do anything to knowingly violate his oath of office (ignoring Nixon for the moment), but I think that anyone seeking to be president and who previously made absolutist oaths of loyalty should be expected to address them and explain how there could never be a conflict.

In light of the lack of reason to believe there is any concern here, I don't see the point, other than to stir the pot and perhaps some promote some well-poisoning for an LDS presidential bid.

I'm not trying to "poison" anything. I'm simply saying this is a legitimate area of inquiry for anyone seeking the American presidency. And if there are candidates who are not LDS but have made similar loyalty oaths, then the same applies to them (I just don't know of any right now).

[_MCB]

I asked the same question yesterday in a letter to the La Crosse Tribune. He is a liberal outlander, his father was not a robot for the church. However, it remains to be seen.

Excellent letter, by the way.

Thanks. There were just too many problems in the piece I was responding to. It got bounced back to me for being too long, so I had to take just my most important point.

[_Jaybear]

In light of the lack of reason to believe there is any concern here, I don't see the point, other than to stir the pot and perhaps some promote some well-poisoning for an LDS presidential bid. Oh well.

Well poisoning. Nonsense. A wise man once said, "Freedom requires religion."

I think the public should be aware of his oath, so that they can better understand how deeply committed Romney is to his religion, and therefore to our freedoms.

[_stemelbow]

I see a real difference in terms of power -- the U.S. president is "the leader of the free world," and all that. So much power in just one guy (even with all the checks and balances we have), I think, requires much greater vetting than with someone seeking any other job (I know that many others take a similar oath, but, again, the office of U.S. president is just so damn powerful). It's nice to think that no president would ever do anything to knowingly violate his oath of office (ignoring Nixon for the moment), but I think that anyone seeking to be president and who previously made absolutist oaths of loyalty should be expected to address them and explain how there could never be a conflict.

Fair enough. I fear Romney and many LDS will take issue with it due to the secrecy of the happenings in the temple though. 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.

[_Morley]

In light of the lack of reason to believe there is any concern here, I don't see the point, other than to stir the pot and perhaps some promote some well-poisoning for an LDS presidential bid. Oh well.

Well poisoning. Nonsense. A wise man once said, "Freedom requires religion."

I think the public should be aware of his oath, so that they can better understand how deeply committed Romney is to his religion, and therefore to our freedoms.

It was Mitt Romney who said, "Freedom requires religion." You're defending Romney by quoting Romney ("a wise man once said")? Hilarious.

edit: Apologies, Jaybear. I misread what you were saying. Ah well--still working on my somewhat inadequate reading skills.

[_stemelbow]

Well poisoning. Nonsense. A wise man once said, "Freedom requires religion."

I think the public should be aware of his oath, so that they can better understand how deeply committed Romney is to his religion, and therefore to our freedoms.

Sounds good, actually. my point was meant to suggest playing off the fears of LDS secrecy in temples seems well, well poisoning. But askign about it, after consideration, can't be so bad.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I remember back when Romney was running in 2008 that there was talk of him consulting with the Brethren on political decisions during his governorship of Massachusetts. That is: Romney went to the General Authorities in order to get advice on how to formulate his policies.

So, in short, I think it's essential that he be asked about this oath. With other LDS politicians, I think you get less of a sense that they'd kowtow to the Brethren (e.g., Harry Reid). Romney, though---in my opinion---seems much more likely to act as a puppet for the Church's interests. That's just my .02.