article by R. Packham

[_marg]

viewtopic.php?p=618371#p618371

It apparently mentions the temple and so was relegated to telestial forum..but it makes an excellent point.

From the article :

"The last law is the "law of consecration." It requires the Mormons to
...consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.

A couple of terms need explanation. The "Kingdom of God on the earth" and "Zion" mean, to Mormons, not just their church, but ultimately the theocracy that will replace the non-religious civil government. They believe, of course, that Christ will come to run this government, using faithful Mormons as administrators.
The pressing question for Mitt Romney, and for the Mormons who are supporting his candidacy, is: Would Romney consider the Presidency to be something that God had "blessed" him with, and which, pursuant to his secret oath, he should "consecrate" to his church for establishing a theocracy? If he is elected, will he kneel down and thank his God for blessing him with the presidency? And what is he supposed to do, according to his secret oath, with "everything" God has blessed him with? That's right: he is to use it for the benefit of the Mormon church.
Now wait a minute, you may be thinking. It doesn't really mean that! The Mormon church doesn't expect that from its members, does it? Oh, yes, it does! Remember California's Proposition 8? The Mormon church pulled out all the stops to pass that proposition, which would forbid same-sex marriage, and it called upon all Mormons to cough up and donate, even those who were not California voters.
Those who were hesitant to do so (often the amounts demanded were thousands of dollars per family) were simply and subtly reminded of their "temple covenants." And they all understood that the church was calling in the chits on the oaths to obey, to sacrifice, and to consecrate whatever the church demanded of them.
How would a President who was also a good Mormon obey those secret oaths?
It wouldn't even take a phone call from church headquarters to the White House. Mitt, being a well-trained Mormon, knows "in his heart" what God would want (which is the same thing that the church wants, of course) and doesn't need to be told. That's the way it works already in the only American theocracy in existence today (Utah). The Mormon politicians who run that state—the judiciary, the legislature, the executive branch—don't have to ask church leaders for direction. They know what they should do, without asking specifically (usually).
The question for American voters is: knowing that Romney has taken this secret oath, that he is a faithful Mormon, do you want him to answer the question "Would you feel bound by your sacred oath to obey the law of consecration that you made in the endowment ceremony and use the power of the presidency to benefit the Mormon church?"
Should it make a difference to you, the voter?"

[Guest]

Should it make a difference to you, the voter?"

It might if I believed that Romney was a man of any real convictions.

[_marg]

FYI..Kish I was quoting Richard Packham in his article (see link). So those are not my words you are quoting.

by the way here is some more by R Packham of that same article.. :

"And why does Romney (and his church) want to keep people from knowing those secrets? Most Mormons will claim that they are not "secret," but merely so "sacred" that they cannot be discussed. That is a quibble, since Mormons hold any number of other aspects of their religion to be "sacred," and yet they don't hesitate to discuss them (for example: baptism, conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost, ordination to the priesthood, etc.).

[_Kishkumen]

"And why does Romney (and his church) want to keep people from knowing those secrets? Most Mormons will claim that they are not "secret," but merely so "sacred" that they cannot be discussed. That is a quibble, since Mormons hold any number of other aspects of their religion to be "sacred," and yet they don't hesitate to discuss them (for example: baptism, conferring the gift of the Holy Ghost, ordination to the priesthood, etc.).

You know, I really have a difficult time getting worked up about Romney's temple covenants. I think this is a bogus issue. Plenty of good Mormons have provided stellar service to their country without the temple covenants interfering in any way. You might argue that they are hypothetically problematic, but in practice I have seen no evidence that they are. One needs to know how Romney interprets his covenants in order to gauge whether he views them as superseding his duty to his country as president. I have seen nothing in his statements or actions to suggest that they would.

Furthermore, I think the Brethren know well not to interfere in the first Mormon presidency.

[_MrStakhanovite]

You know, I really have a difficult time getting worked up about Romney's temple covenants. I think this is a bogus issue. Plenty of good Mormons have provided stellar service to their country without the temple covenants interfering in any way. You might argue that they are hypothetically problematic, but in practice I have seen no evidence that they are. One needs to know how Romney interprets his covenants in order to gauge whether he views them as superseding his duty to his country as president. I have seen nothing in his statements or actions to suggest that they would.

Furthermore, I think the Brethren know well not to interfere in the first Mormon presidency.

Reminds me of JFK being a Catholic and the issues that created.

[_Bob Loblaw]

You know, I really have a difficult time getting worked up about Romney's temple covenants. I think this is a bogus issue. Plenty of good Mormons have provided stellar service to their country without the temple covenants interfering in any way. You might argue that they are hypothetically problematic, but in practice I have seen no evidence that they are. One needs to know how Romney interprets his covenants in order to gauge whether he views them as superseding his duty to his country as president. I have seen nothing in his statements or actions to suggest that they would.

Furthermore, I think the Brethren know well not to interfere in the first Mormon presidency.

+1

If Romney wins (a big "if"), people will be watching very carefully to see if the church has any contact and influence on the White House. The press would pounce immediately if the church gave even a hint of wanting to influence policy. They are smart enough to stay out of the nation's business.

[_Jason Bourne]

What Kish said.

He says everything so much better than I can.

[_marg]

You know, I really have a difficult time getting worked up about Romney's temple covenants. I think this is a bogus issue. Plenty of good Mormons have provided stellar service to their country without the temple covenants interfering in any way. You might argue that they are hypothetically problematic, but in practice I have seen no evidence that they are. One needs to know how Romney interprets his covenants in order to gauge whether he views them as superseding his duty to his country as president. I have seen nothing in his statements or actions to suggest that they would.

Furthermore, I think the Brethren know well not to interfere in the first Mormon presidency.

So your argument against R. Packhams argument seems to be that Mormons don't take temple covenants all that seriously. And yet from my perspective an outsider ..just based on this board alone...R. Packhams article which only presents facts ...could not even be linked to in the Terrestial forum..because he discusses something that is deemed off limits for Mormons to discuss. This illustrates to me that not only are temple convenants taken very seriously by Mormons..but that Mormons are extremely obedient to the church.

[_Cicero]

You know, I really have a difficult time getting worked up about Romney's temple covenants. I think this is a bogus issue. Plenty of good Mormons have provided stellar service to their country without the temple covenants interfering in any way. You might argue that they are hypothetically problematic, but in practice I have seen no evidence that they are. One needs to know how Romney interprets his covenants in order to gauge whether he views them as superseding his duty to his country as president. I have seen nothing in his statements or actions to suggest that they would.

Furthermore, I think the Brethren know well not to interfere in the first Mormon presidency.

So your argument against R. Packhams argument seems to be that Mormons don't take temple covenants all that seriously. And yet from my perspective an outsider ..just based on this board alone...R. Packhams article which only presents facts ...could not even be linked to in the Terrestial forum..because he discusses something that is deemed off limits for Mormons to discuss. This illustrates to me that not only are temple convenants taken very seriously by Mormons..but that Mormons are extremely obedient to the church.

I agree that we definitely do take certain covenants very seriously, but consecration is not one of them. However, I do think it is a fair question to ask Romney. JFK had to come out and definitively state that he would not take orders from the Pope.

[_Darth J]

So your argument against R. Packhams argument seems to be that Mormons don't take temple covenants all that seriously. And yet from my perspective an outsider ..just based on this board alone...R. Packhams article which only presents facts ...could not even be linked to in the Terrestial forum..because he discusses something that is deemed off limits for Mormons to discuss. This illustrates to me that not only are temple convenants taken very seriously by Mormons..but that Mormons are extremely obedient to the church.

Marg, this is what Kishkumen said:

"It might if I believed that Romney was a man of any real convictions."

He is not saying that "Mormons" do not take their temple covenants seriously. He is saying he believes that Mitt Romney the individual person is an opportunist who would to whatever is politically expedient.

And from my perspective as an insider, when I really believed that all this temple endowment stuff was just great and divine and whatever, there was never any point in time when I, or a single believing Mormon I knew, believed that the law of consecration meant that we would help establish an LDS theocracy in the United States. It is a non sequitur to say that if Mormons take it seriously not to discuss the secret parts of the temple endowment, that must mean they generally interpret the law of consecration the way Packham thinks they should.