What is OmniNerd?

Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by you, the reader. Through voting and moderation we strive to highlight the nerdiest of what's around and provide content that's a little more thought provoking than other sites.

Submit New Content

Voting Booth

I am most afraid of dying?

View Results, All Polls
68 votes, 10 comments
0
Nerd-Its
+ -

RE: The usual hypocritical religious load of junk

Comment comment by Brandon on 12 December 2007

Or, in other words, according to your logic, someone accepting LDS beliefs isn't able to make any promise. Romney couldn't honestly say he wouldn't join the circus over the weekend, much less claim he would run a country properly. If God up and changed his mind, who's to say he couldn't command just about anything, right?

But wait, isn't the same true for anyone? I mean, who's to say something other than God couldn't happen to bring about a situation in which almost any promise would be broken? I might promise/tell my wife I will pick up some bread today on the way home from work, but what if someone kidnaps our baby and end up choosing to deal with that situation and break my promise?

Now, you'll probably counter with how unlikely a scenario like that would be, but where was the consideration for probabilities in your analysis of the LDS doctrine of modern-day revelation?

The key, of course, is probabilities do matter. When I promise to pick up bread, it's because I can't think of anything that would get in my way. There are hundreds of situations, some in my control and some not, that might prevent it from happening, but it's likely everything will work out as usual and I'll show up at home this evening with a couple of loafs.

The question, then, is: In the LDS view, how likely is God to hand down a command that would prevent Romney from being an effective President?

My answer? About as likely as my son being kidnapped.

Before someone counters citing polygamy or Mountain Meadows as support, I urge the consideration of a recent interview on the Pew Forum entitled "Mormonism and Politics: Are They Compatible?" In it, Richard Bushman (an emeritus professor at Columbia University and author of several books about Mormon history) discussed the relationship between Mormon faith and U.S. politics and how it has developed over the past 200 years - specifically, it's "shift from 19th-century radicalism to 20th-century conservatism and the significance of this religious heritage for presidential candidate Mitt Romney." I highly recommend reading the entire interview, but here are some introductory excerpts:

I think the starting point is suitable: Mitt Romney's Mormonism. It brings to a head the general question of how Mormonism bears on politics and democratic government. Romney is not the only eminent Mormon politician.

[I will attempt to] give you a historical perspective on Mormonism's relationship to politics going way back. I'll also try to speculate a little bit about its possible bearings on Mitt Romney. I'm not altogether persuaded that Mormonism has a huge influence on his concrete political thinking. It probably has an influence on his attitudes toward participation in government in some fundamental way, but that is a question that perhaps we can discuss later.

I think it would be useful for you to see how Mormonism has related to politics over its century and three-quarters of existence, which will permit us to speculate about how this might all bear on Romney. Some of it is directly relevant.

It is a little bit difficult to talk about Mormonism and its relationship to Romney because it's so unclear what Mormonism is. We have divided views of Mormons. On the one hand, Mormonism and Mormons are suspect, they are forbidding, and under the nice exterior there is something menacing. On the other hand, Mormonism is the archetypical American religion. Mormons are ideal model citizens, and they are very nice people. I often hear that.

That split image applies also to Mormonism's history, which also divides right down the middle. We think of the 19th century as a time when Mormonism was radical in about every dimension you can imagine, while in the 20th and 21st centuries Mormons are considered conservative in about every dimension you can imagine. When Vice President Dick Cheney wanted a place to deliver a commencement address to a safe audience, he wrote to Brigham Young University. He gave the talk there this year.

The interesting thing is that this switch from radicalism to conservatism occurred in such a short period of time, from about 1890, when polygamy ended, to about 1910, after the Reed Smoot hearings. ... So the question is, Which is the true Mormonism? Which is the one that is most likely to affect Mitt Romney?

You are a viewing a subset of a larger discussion.
View Full Discussion
Star This to Save in Your Profile Favorite
Thread parent sort order:
Highest Voted : Lowest Voted : Oldest : Newest
Thread verbosity:
Expand All : Minimize Replies to Comments
3 Nerd-Its - +
RE: The usual hypocritical religious load of junk by markmcb :: NR7

Um, I think this post completely missed my point. You're getting defensive about LDS, which I'm not attacking.

The question, then, is: In the LDS view, how likely is God to hand down a command that would prevent Romney from being an effective President?

No, that's not the question, but let's address it quickly. Probability is of no concern. It's a binary question, i.e., either God can hand down such an edict, or He can't. The answer with LDS is yes, He can.

To get back on track, the question: is Mitt Romney at all governed by other men on this planet? If so, there is an issue. One who believes in LDS believes in modern day revelations (MDRs). These MDRs are witnessed by men who update the LDS faith. This morphing religion is a concern.

I wouldn't trust any overly religious person in office. However, a classic Christian president and an LDS president are very different in their belief set. One goes to church to get an interpretation of a static text. The other does the same but is also subject to his church's leaders extending the rules due to MDR.

You can cite things until you're blue in the face, but this is a fundamental issue, not a detailed or specific one. Mitt Romney's adherence to the LDS faith demands his acceptance of church leaders' MDRs. He is a hypocrite if he says he can govern without church influence AND still be a member of the LDS church. As long as Mitt's church leaders are claiming to get messages from God and he is believing/following them, the two cannot mutually exist.

Posted 12 December 2007, Hide, Parent, Reply