Letter to editor re "Mitt's Two Oaths" ....

[_MsJack]

Why are people so interested in asking this question of Mitt Romney, but no one seems interested in asking the same of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid?

[_Yoda]

Why are people so interested in asking this question of Mitt Romney, but no one seems interested in asking the same of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid?

Good point!

I think that the question is asked more often of Romney because Joseph Smith ran for President before his death. And, his intention was to turn the US into a theocracy.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Why are people so interested in asking this question of Mitt Romney, but no one seems interested in asking the same of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid?

It's because not all Mormons are created equal. It's fairly obvious that Reid marches to the beat of his own drum---it's why, per that Pew poll that came out recently, Reid is so unpopular with his fellow Mormons. I think the consensus is that Reid seems much less like a "tool of the Brethren" compared to Romney. I personally don't have a whole lot of problems with a potential Mormon president, though I see plenty to worry about with respect to Romney himself. I would have had far less issues had Huntsman been the front-runner.

[Guest]

Why are people so interested in asking this question of Mitt Romney, but no one seems interested in asking the same of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid?

90% of Americans cannot tell you who the Senate Majority leader is let alone what he/she does. We are only slightly better at knowing who the republican presidential nominee might be. Right now Romney is getting lots of press face time. Were we better informed and less apathetic here in the U.S. we would pay a lot more attention to who and what he does.

Edited to delete what EA already said.

(Oh and 73% of all statistics are made up on the spot.)

[_EAllusion]

I think that the question is asked more often of Romney because Joseph Smith ran for President before his death. And, his intention was to turn the US into a theocracy.

I'm putting the % of Americans who even are aware that Joseph Smith ran for president, much less his end-stage theocratic dreams, at less than 5%. I'm skeptical even very many Mormons know about it. This has nothing to do with it.

My best guess would be a combination these factors listed in decreasing importance:

1) Reid is a Democrat in a highly conservative religious culture, thus insulating him from the charge he is beholden to them.

2) Nevada politics are not influenced by evangelical Christians much.

3) The senate majority leader post isn't the result of a popular election.

4) The senate majority leader post is more obscure for the average American. (I'm willing to bet a large sum of money that a healthy majority of Americans could not put a name to Reid's picture.)

[_Buffalo]

Really, though, Mitt's temple oaths are the least of our worries. His being beholden to Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, HIG Capital, Barclays, PriceWaterhouseCoopers etc is much more troubling.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Why are people so interested in asking this question of Mitt Romney, but no one seems interested in asking the same of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid?

Probably because as president, Mitt would be THE executive branch and have incredible power, whereas Reid is one of 500+ members of the legislative branch (albeit the powerful leader of the Senate). I think anyone running for president should disclose any and all loyalty oaths taken as an adult (including religious oaths). And if there is no disclosure, then they ought to be questioned strongly where there is evidence oaths have been taken (such as in Mitt's case with the temple oaths).

[_Radex]

I don't think too many Americans were concerned with these presidents:

http://www.mastermason.com/wilmettepark/pres.html

[_Chap]

I don't think too many Americans were concerned with these presidents:

http://www.mastermason.com/wilmettepark/pres.html

Do Masons make a promise equivalent to promising that they will

"consecrate [themselves], [their] time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed [them], or with which he may bless [them], " to the Masons, and for the building up of Masonry?

If yes, it would be reasonable to be concerned about the loyalties of a Mason president, given the possible conflict of interests with the president's constitutional obligations.

[_Darth J]

I don't think too many Americans were concerned with these presidents:

http://www.mastermason.com/wilmettepark/pres.html

Every day I read this board, I learn something new. For example, today I have learned the fascinating fact that there has never been an anti-Mason movement in the United States. Indeed, the U.S. certainly would never elect a president who was part of the non-existent anti-Mason movement. And a former president of the United States would certainly not become involved in an anti-Masonic movement (since it never existed).

Certainly, nobody has ever accused Freemasons of taking secret oaths that undermine society. Unlike our poor, persecuted Mormons, Masons have not had to deal with suspicions about their loyalty to their organization conflicting with their political duties.

Although I can kind of see the point of Radex's remark. If it's okay to have a president who has participated in Masonic rituals in a Masonic temple, then why not a president who has participated in Masonic rituals in an LDS temple?