Rollo Tomasi wrote: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.
Are you suggesting that the oaths are not to be taken seriously? That they are rhetorical? I have no problem with this, but I doubt any member of the Brethren would agree. The oaths mean exactly as they state, I'm afraid.
It seems silly to make a fuss, coming from someone that is LDS, but whatever.
My question was and is from the perspective of an American citizen; I only know about this issue because I am LDS.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Rollo Tomasi wrote:Are you suggesting that the oaths are not to be taken seriously? That they are rhetorical? I have no problem with this, but I doubt any member of the Brethren would agree. The oaths mean exactly as they state, I'm afraid.
Well my point is just because it is extreme doesn't mean its concerning, or needs to be concerning. But as it is there will always be people who will find LDS objectionable, so I don't mind the questioning.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
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.
Yes, but the point is that the church is requiring obedience to the leadership - and disobey at your spiritual peril. Other churches aren't doing that.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
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.
Not at all. I have no love for any sort of undue influence. Dam* them all! I was just responding to your belief that the Church doesn't try to exercise it's influence.
After all, they did leave the US for the Mexican territories in order to have complete control of their members outside the rule of US law. They did attempt a military resistance (albeit frail) to Federal authority when the Utah territory was part of the US.
I think that the concern for many people is not that Romney would defer to his religious conscience in matters of State, but that the Church leaders might dictate his actions.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
stemelbow wrote:Well my point is just because it is extreme doesn't mean its concerning, or needs to be concerning.
When we're talking about electing a U.S. president, I think that anything "extreme" should be a concern and vetted by the electorate. And I would apply this standard to anyone (LDS and non-LDS alike) who runs for president and has made loyalty oaths to his church (or any other organization).
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
If he gets the nomination, I think the press is going to fry him for his oaths, pure and simple.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
harmony wrote:If he gets the nomination, I think the press is going to fry him for his oaths, pure and simple.
I think you're correct, harmony. The LDS church will get the most press it's ever had and most of it will not be very nice. All the things we talk about on this board will become stories for the national media.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
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.
Again, hapless stem, you don't see the point? Chalk up another (the count is getting rather high) of what you miss.
It is a matter of how the individual interprets the oaths and TRI, and how much pressure the hierarchy places on the individual to conform. Mormonism x personality issues is the problem, not just whether the person is LDS or not. Such applications to other jobs are legitimate. What if a LDS High School principal [public school] prohibits teaching Geoffrey of Monmouth in Brit lit because it reads so much like Book of Mormon? After all it was the source for "King Lear" and the Arthurian legend.
Huckelberry said: I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.