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

[_bcspace]

It would mean, among other things, leaving your job to serve in the Church, not using your job as an arm of the Church.

Oh....it's much more than that bcspace.

Nothing more.

[_sock puppet]

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.

+1

[_MCB]

It is my perception that Romney marches lock-step with the LDS church. His family history indicates such attitudes, and close affinity with the church hierarchy. Just the fact that they repeatedly left the country in order to practice polygamy indicates a family cultural heritage that places the LDS church above this country. But family history does not necessarily mean everything.

His modifications of his stands on various issues indicates such such affinity for the purpose of political expediency. His history of an extreme level of donations to the LDS church, to the neglect of other compelling social issues also indicates that. His claims of moderate conservatism presents an alternative to other Republican candidates who claim staunch conservatism. However, it is based on his past record, rather than his current platform. I do not trust the man.

Reid and Huntsman are not threatening to me.

Yes, the probability that he has had his "calling and election made sure," in contrast to Huntsman and Reid, is another reason why I am opposed to his candidacy. Anyone but Romney.

[_Radex]

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?

As you're so fond of pointing out, Mormons and Masons have an undeniable history together. My question was this: why is it okay to have had several American presidents who were also Masons, but it is not okay to have one who is also Mormon?

[_Chap]

As you're so fond of pointing out, Mormons and Masons have an undeniable history together. My question was this: why is it okay to have had several American presidents who were also Masons, but it is not okay to have one who is also Mormon?

Like I said already:

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.

And if not ... then the Mormon president would be a different case, would he not?

[_Darth J]

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?

As you're so fond of pointing out, Mormons and Masons have an undeniable history together.

It sure is funny how you know so much about the posting history of specific board members and have already developed grudges against them, and yet you are a brand new member who is just fumbling his way around trying to get to know who is who.

And you have singled out me and The Mighty Builder already, just like Simon Belmont, and have referred to threads from over a year ago involving Simon Belmont but you have no idea who he is. Just one of those things, I guess!

My question was this: why is it okay to have had several American presidents who were also Masons, but it is not okay to have one who is also Mormon?

Then you are changing your question, because your original point was to point out that Freemasons have been elected president to suggest that opposition to a candidate because of the organization with which he affiliates is unique to Mormons. "I don't think too many Americans were concerned with these presidents."

[_Radex]

It sure is funny how you know so much about the posting history of specific board members and have already developed grudges against them, and yet you are a brand new member who is just fumbling his way around trying to get to know who is who.

I meant no offense, Darth J. It's a simple process to use the search feature when I wish to learn more about a particular member. You have pointed out the Mormon/Mason connection numerous times (see here, here, here, and here for a good starting point), but I don't fault you for it. I was making an observation, and one that I also embrace, though much less sarcastically. There is a clear connection.

And you have singled out me and The Mighty Builder already, just like Simon Belmont, and have referred to threads from over a year ago involving Simon Belmont but you have no idea who he is. Just one of those things, I guess!

The search feature is a great tool, but like any tool it can be misused. I am sorry to have offensed you so. The truth is, I remain very concerned about the anger levels of The Mighty Builder, and about you for hanging about with him in person. I believe that, based upon his postings here, he may benefit from medical attention. I hope I'm wrong about him, and I hope I'm wrong about the company with which you choose to associate.

[_Yoda]

Is it terrible for me to hope Romney wins just to see how the Church would be affected by a Mormon presidency?

[_Buffalo]

Is it terrible for me to hope Romney wins just to see how the Church would be affected by a Mormon presidency?

I'm with you on that one.

[_Quasimodo]

The search feature is a great tool, but like any tool it can be misused. I am sorry to have offensed you so. The truth is, I remain very concerned about the anger levels of The Mighty Builder, and about you for hanging about with him in person. I believe that, based upon his postings here, he may benefit from medical attention. I hope I'm wrong about him, and I hope I'm wrong about the company with which you choose to associate.

Wow, Darth. Radex seems to have made a study of you. I agree that it is remarkable that a new member would know so much about you. You will need to be circumspect about all those beautiful teenage "legal" groupies that must be throwing themselves at you :D.

"Mr. Darth J Esq., we have your files in front of us and it's apparent that you have been associating with anti-Mormons. Bearing in mind the penalties for perjury, are you now or have you ever been an anti-Mormon? Just answer yes or no!"