I mean, did she go far enough? She compared a cult that originated in the 1800's to a cult that originated in 33 C.E.

So, apparently REAL Christians get a pass and Jews get a pass, but no Muslims, and no Mormons.

Shit. She had a really good conversation going. I wish she could see that religion is just a cult that's been around a long time. Mormons don't believe they're in a cult. Neither do Christians or Jews or Catholics or Shintos or Muslims, et al.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2011 10:27PM by wine country girl.

I was reading along fine until she started quoting Ed Decker and started showing her own weird Christian leanings.

Cringe. She makes exMormons look bad. She made a lot of good points but ....what wcg said.

+1

An opportunity frittered away ...

Agree, she made a major misstep by quoting Ed Decker. Evangelical Christians eat him up, but that's like preaching to the choir in terms of swinging opinion against TSCC. They're already opposed to Mormonism. He has very little credibility among moderates, the unchurched, and in general those whose opinions may swing given enough information and education.

I do give her credit for being one of the few columnists ever to describe the temple penalties and oaths, in specific terms. And because she is an ExMo, she's "been there and done that"....much harder for the Morg to dispute.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2011 09:33PM by PtLoma.

I KNOW it's diffiCULT for ppl to understant the depth of Loyalty to the tribe that ChurchCo insists upon in its members.... That includes a Unitary faith/belief system, doesn't it?

In receiving Endowment, Mos cement their allagiance to ChurchCo.

While i believe the voters Should know this also (should MR or JH be the nominees), in the final analysis, it's arrogant to Insist that others act the way one says or even suggests; A heavy-handed approach often BACKFIRES...

"In receiving Endowment, Mos cement their allagiance to ChurchCo."

In the endowment session they promise things, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they will follow through. There are thousands upon thousands of Mormons who aren't very active and aren't strict believers.

Agree, but her point was that Mitt Romney is not a passive bystander. He's been bishop, Stake President, etc. Huntsman could make a claim as a new order Mormon who marches to his own drummer, but Mitt is a Company (LDS) Man.

Prove it. Show me some sort of verifiable evidence that Romney is an obedient Mormon who takes his temple covenants seriously.

I'm almost certain you aren't going to be able to do that. I don't think I could either :) I haven't read the book, but one has to assume that the author is guessing on quite a few things.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2011 11:15PM by snb.

How about eight year as Stake President of Boston, MA?

And bishop of Belmont, MA ward for years before that?

Do those jobs go to nonbelievers who do not take their temple covenants seriously?

And he has no history whatsoever of having disagreed publicly with any current LDS church position? (yes, he's said how awful the priesthood ban on blacks was, thirty years later, but no evidence exists that he ever questioned it while it was in effect). Huntsman HAS publicly questioned or disagreed with church policy from time to time, and could make an argument that he is not under the COB's thumb, but not Romney.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2011 12:17AM by PtLoma.

I can't really take that as proof because it is possible that someone could be a stake president and still not be obedient to Mormonism.

How does that prove devotion to Mormonism?

+1. Great points.

> I'm almost certain you aren't going to be able to
> do that. I don't think I could either :) I
> haven't read the book, but one has to assume that
> the author is guessing on quite a few things.

What part(s) of the temple endowment ceremony that she described in the CNN interview were inaccurately portrayed?

I'm not sure she described the temple ceremony in any detail whatsoever, let alone described it inaccurately.

She talked about it being a bad thing, which I think is accurate.

snb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not sure she described the temple ceremony in
> any detail whatsoever, let alone described it
> inaccurately.

Your critical reading skills leave something to be desired.

Quoted directly from the article:

"Tricia Erickson

The “execution of the penalty” for disobedience at the time Mitt Romney took out his “temple Endowments” was demonstrated “by placing the thumb under the left ear, the palm of the hand down, and by drawing the thumb quickly across the throat to the right ear, and dropping the hand to the side.” It is hard to imagine that well-educated Mormon men of such political stature like former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Utah Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah or Senator Harry Reid of Nevada could bring their thumbs to their throats and swear a blood oath that they will “suffer” their throats slit from ear to ear should they not “sacrifice all that [they] possess, even [their] own lives if necessary, in sustaining and defending the Kingdom of God, as defined by the Mormon prophet."

How much more detail could she have given, without distributing the entire endowment on a PDF file,e or posting a YouTube video of herself in temple robes/apron/veil reenacting the penalties?

http://ldsendowment.org/parallelinitiatory.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2011 12:51AM by PtLoma.

Looks like I missed it. I'm fine with being wrong, but I don't really care for irrelevancies that have nothing to do with the discussion.

You are trying to start a fight. Go for it dude, internet fight as hard as you can.

Here's something I learned about Mitt last week while reading a book called "Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality" by Gail Dines.

Apparently, Mitt served on Marriott's board for many years, while Marriott was selling porn to hotel guests. The LDS church supposedly tried to put pressure on Romney to get Marriott to stop selling porn, but they never did. When he ran for president in 2008, Mitt Romney tried to downplay his affiliation with Marriott and its policy of selling porn. But then when he lost the bid to John McCain, Romney quietly went back to serving on Marriott's board.

I tend to agree that he's a "company man", but he's also a member of a church that requires its members to follow a living prophet. I couldn't vote for him or any other very religious candidate for that reason.

Believe me, I would never vote for Hinkley's pocket pet!!!

Being Mormon, even in my rabid TBM days was NEVER a good enough reason for me to consider voting for a candidate.

To claim that Romney is anything but a politician, with a politician's goals, is either disingenuous or lazy. Romney is trying to get elected right now, not get into heaven. There is no second "master" to serve.

I bet the Christian right wing loves this sort of stereotypical thinking though. If they believe all of this, they don't have to think very hard when they assume their religion is better than the others.

Taken from the article:

"You cannot attain the “calling” from the Lord to serve as Mormon Bishop or Stake President unless you are a thoroughly entrenched and obedient Mormon."

This is not accurate in the slightest.

I'm not a big fan of Trisha Erickson's thinking and her book is probably alarmist at best.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2011 08:17PM by snb.

it IS ACCURATE, if only for 51% of ppl chosen.

LOYALTY, and along with that the cajones to lie/obfuscate/intimidate doubters is a Part & Parcel of 'the Deal' , IMHO...

just sayin'

So, if that statement were accurate, how would a stake president decide which person should be bishop? Would it be some sort of tangible evidence of how loyal a person is? Is evidence like that even possible?

No, of course not.

The stake president would decide who should be bishop based on his own thoughts and opinions. The stake president would make an educated, but not infallible, guess as to who is more loyal than someone else.

"You cannot attain the “calling” from the Lord to serve as Mormon Bishop or Stake President unless you are a thoroughly entrenched and obedient Mormon."

This statement is not accurate in the slightest. There is no verifiable way to prove someone's loyalty to an organization like the Mormon church. To assume that every bishop and every stake president is an obedient Mormon is lazy thinking.

In the same way, asserting that Romney is an obedient Mormon without verifiable evidence is lazy thinking.

Unless you actually believe that the stake president has the ability to ask god who is the most loyal person, or can read someone's mind and determine whether or not they are loyal, that statement is false.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/10/2011 11:17PM by snb.

How silly of me, you are absolutely right. The fact that he spent over twelve years in unpaid positions that consumed 10-20+ hours per week of his valuable time was because he didn't believe in Mormonism.

Prove his devotion.

You can't.

As governor, Romney was pro-choice and made it so that liquor stores were open on Sunday. To me that shows that there is some evidence that Romney isn't a Mormon drone, but there is zero evidence that he would kowtow to the lds church.

You're right. He served 12+ years in an unpaid position that sucked up a lot of his valuable time (as head of Bain) because he was crazy. Devotion to Mormon beliefs had nothing whatsoever to do with it. No wait, he did it because he opposed the Mormon Church. Makes perfect sense (in your world of logic).

With respect to Sunday liquor sales, I feel qualified to comment, having spent ten years in RI and MA. Both states banned all Sunday sales for years, until merchants began to defy them. These blue laws went back to colonial times and had nothing to do with Mormonism. Both states began to legalize their blue laws in the 1980s, that process began long before Romney entered office. Given that the Democrats controlled >2/3 of the legislature, a Romney veto would have been overridden. MA is majority Catholic, they have no problem allowing alcohol, and a Mormon governor vetoing a bill to loosen alcohol sales would really smack of religious oppression (not to mention a humiliating veto override potential).

With respect to abortion, the LDS Church is hard to pin down. Anyone who performs or assists with an abortion is ex'd, but the same doesn't apply to a member who has one, nor does the CHI call for sanctions against LDS politicians who vote pro-choice (the Catholic church does discipline pro-choice Catholic politicians in some cases, depending on the rabidity of the local bishop).

*Note: Rhode Island's blue laws allowed Sunday sales if the employee-hours totaled 16 or less on Sunday. I.e., a store open eight hours could have two employees. Small convenience stores (Store 24, Cumberland Farms) often were open 12-16 hours, with one employee. Store 24 was a misnomer, because in RI it could not remain open 24/7 because of the 16 hour limit on Sundays.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2011 12:44AM by PtLoma.

"Devotion to Mormon beliefs had nothing whatsoever to do with it. No wait, he did it because he opposed the Mormon Church. Makes perfect sense (in your world of logic)."

Obviously you weren't trying to understand what I was saying or have a discussion in good faith. On the other hand, I actually was trying.

Interesting information though, thanks for sharing.

Nothing, I think.
He's a pretty damned institutionalized Mormon as far as I can see.

Erickson says:

"Ex-Mormon Ed Decker reveals the penalty for disobedience that was made by Mitt Romney (and all temple Mormons) at the time he took out his temple endowments: The "execution of the penalty" for disobedience was demonstrated "by placing the thumb under the left ear, the palm of the hand down, and by drawing the thumb quickly across the throat to the right ear, and dropping the hand to the side.""

Bushman says "Erickson does a good job of making Mormon temple rituals seem ominous and irrational" but he doesn't address the claim. It makes him sound like he has something to hide.

If I was a nevermo reading the article I would be frustrated by Bushman's response and start googling for answers about what's really in the temple ceremony. Then I would learn that Decker was telling the truth. Some apologist Bushman is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2011 01:00AM by Makurosu.

>Bushman says "Erickson does a good job of making Mormon temple rituals seem ominous and irrational" but he doesn't address the claim. It makes him sound like he has something to hide.

Of course, Mak, the only reason that she does such a good job of making Mormon temple rituals seem ominous and irrational is that they ARE ominous and irrational!

If any other church or group had weird "cut yer throat" ceremonies, TSCC and whackjobs like Bushman would be the FIRST to point their fingers and cry "Satanic! Evil!"

The nature of the office of Presidency means any President would be under the system's checks and balances. Are we afraid a Mormon President would try to bring back polygamy? Seems like that's inevitable even without a Mormon President, but the Mormon Church doesn't seem very interested in promoting polygamy anymore. A Mormon President is no more dangerous than a Southern Baptist, a Methodist or a Catholic whether they be conservative or liberal.

Boilermaker, anyone who has taken secret oaths to obey secret orders from a secretive, unaccountable sect is a potential threat to society.

matt Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Boilermaker, anyone who has taken secret oaths to
> obey secret orders from a secretive, unaccountable
> sect is a potential threat to society.

Do you realize how many Freemasons have been President? Give me a break. And how secret are the oaths? If any Mormon as President tried to do something underhanded he/she would be impeached so fast ... you think a Mormon President could buck the Congress, the Supreme Court and the military? We're not a banana republic here.

Bingo! We have a winner.

+1

This interview kinduv cuts both ways. The lady is a bit of a wacko, but her message in many respects has validity. The Mormon temple ceremony is weird and I can't think of anything in any other religion that would compare in weirdness and cultishness. Really, separate my feelings about Mormonism (I don't like it, it is a con) and the statement I just made is still true and stands by itself, regardless of my personal bias.

Now she is some form of still born Christian, it sounds like to me. OK, they don't like Mormons so of course a Mormon is not fit to be president, in her still born opinion. Got it.

George W. Bush was a still born and he wasn't fit to be president, but he became president, and look what happened. QED.

So yes, in my opinion, a Mormon should not be president, at least one who is a believing Mormon. The last poll I saw said something like 22% of Americans would not vote for a Mormon. I suspect the real number is higher. When people get asked a question that implies bigotry they will usually lie, they don't want to be a bigot.

elcid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This interview kinduv cuts both ways. The lady is
> a bit of a wacko, but her message in many respects
> has validity. The Mormon temple ceremony is weird
> and I can't think of anything in any other
> religion that would compare in weirdness and
> cultishness. Really, separate my feelings about
> Mormonism (I don't like it, it is a con) and the
> statement I just made is still true and stands by
> itself, regardless of my personal bias.
>
> Now she is some form of still born Christian, it
> sounds like to me. OK, they don't like Mormons so
> of course a Mormon is not fit to be president, in
> her still born opinion. Got it.
>
> George W. Bush was a still born and he wasn't fit
> to be president, but he became president, and look
> what happened. QED.
>
> So yes, in my opinion, a Mormon should not be
> president, at least one who is a believing Mormon.
> The last poll I saw said something like 22% of
> Americans would not vote for a Mormon. I suspect
> the real number is higher. When people get asked
> a question that implies bigotry they will usually
> lie, they don't want to be a bigot.


So if a liberal believing Mormon were running for President would you still be against him? Say someone like Reid or Matheson were running would you be against them because they were Mormons?

I voted for Morris K Udall in the California Democratic Presidential primary election in June 1976 (my first Presidential election). He came in second in delegates behind Jimmy Carter. He comes from "Mormon Royalty" and appeared to be an inactive or Jack member. He publicly disagreed with his church on at least two issues: priesthood ban on blacks, and ERA. That was my first vote for a Mormon, but for someone to criticize his church leaders that publicly, it was clear that Udall was no one's lackey. I believe news stories of the day stated that he was not "actively attending" the LDS Church because of these issues.

I've heard Mitt criticize the priesthood ban from the safe distance of thirty years, but I see no evidence that he has ever publicly disagreed with any LDS Church position. There were small-scale BYU protests against the priesthood ban but no evidence that Mitt was ever involved. He's a company man. Huntsman has on occasion publicly opposed LDS leaders, but not Romney. I've heard Romney's story that he pulled over to the side of the road and wept upon hearing that the priesthood ban had been lifted....I find that story very difficult to swallow.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2011 11:10AM by PtLoma.

PtLoma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I voted for Morris K Udall in the California
> Democratic Presidential primary election in June
> 1976 (my first Presidential election). He came in
> second in delegates behind Jimmy Carter. He comes
> from "Mormon Royalty" and appeared to be an
> inactive or Jack member. He publicly disagreed
> with his church on at least two issues: priesthood
> ban on blacks, and ERA. That was my first vote for
> a Mormon, but for someone to criticize his church
> leaders that publicly, it was clear that Udall was
> no one's lackey. I believe news stories of the day
> stated that he was not "actively attending" the
> LDS Church because of these issues.
>
> I've heard Mitt criticize the priesthood ban from
> the safe distance of thirty years, but I see no
> evidence that he has ever publicly disagreed with
> any LDS Church position. There were small-scale
> BYU protests against the priesthood ban but no
> evidence that Mitt was ever involved. He's a
> company man. Huntsman has on occasion publicly
> opposed LDS leaders, but not Romney. I've heard
> Romney's story that he pulled over to the side of
> the road and wept upon hearing that the priesthood
> ban had been lifted....I find that story very
> difficult to swallow.

I don't find that difficult to swallow at all. I had the same feeling that Romney had at the time. A lot of Mormons didn't like the priesthood ban.

But then, women don't count, do they.

I agree that an indoctrinated Mormon should NOT become Pres. Where would his loyalty lie. Would he cow-tow to the Brethren? My guess is yes.

I think a Mormon President would likely go out of his/her way to make sure it didn't look as if they were cowtowing to the First Presidency. What you need to do is make sure you get the candidate's views before they are elected. Pin them down and hold them to it.

John F Kennedy had similar questions circling his bid for the presidency when he ran for president. Could Kennedy serve as President and the Pope at the same time? We all know how that turned out. It may be different with Mitt since the President of the Mormon church resides in the US and the Pope did not.

I am not in favor of Mitt becoming President. His belief in Mormonism is one reason but not the only one - perhaps not even the major one for me. Other Mormons serve in government office and not just as representatives from Utah. Senate majority leader Harry Reid is a Mormon and a Democrat from NV. Do we all have the same misgivings about Reid as we do Romney?

A candidate's religious indoctrination can be an issue but I think we also need to keep it in a proper context. For example, I can't help wonder if Mike Huchabee's brand of evangelical Christianity would be preferable to Romney's Mormonism. wcg makes a great point about the author's willingness to condemn Romney for his religious cult founded in the 1800's vs the one one the author supports originating somewhere around 33CE.

Puli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> John F Kennedy had similar questions circling his
> bid for the presidency when he ran for president.
> Could Kennedy serve as President and the Pope at
> the same time? We all know how that turned out. It
> may be different with Mitt since the President of
> the Mormon church resides in the US and the Pope
> did not.

Catholics do not take secret oaths of loyalty to the Pope. They "are" required to believe items of dogma as infallible when the Pope makes an "ex cathedra" statement from the chair of St. Peter, or when all the world's (Catholic) bishops make a similar statement. You'll read or hear of Catholics all the time in the media disagreeing with the Pope on this or that.

Kennedy went beyond that by stating that he believed in an American in which the Pope would not tell a Catholic President what to do, and in which Protestant ministers would not tell their congregants how to vote. He went further by stating that if the requirements of his religion ever caused a conflict with his office as President, he would resign the Presidency.

Abortion of course was not a hot button political issue during his presidency. But two issues dear to the hearts of the Catholic leadership at the time were:

1. contraception (birth control pill came to market in 1960-1)
2. public aid to private (read: parochial) schools

On both issues, JFK publicly opposed the Catholic leaders. He offered no support for public aid to parochial school, and never tried to stop contraceptives or birth control clinics.

(Note: a 2000 SCOTUS decision allows public funds for private schools, in the form of computers and textbooks, as opposed to providing funds directly).

> I am not in favor of Mitt becoming President. His
> belief in Mormonism is one reason but not the only
> one - perhaps not even the major one for me. Other
> Mormons serve in government office and not just as
> representatives from Utah. Senate majority leader
> Harry Reid is a Mormon and a Democrat from NV. Do
> we all have the same misgivings about Reid as we
> do Romney?

No but Reid is on record as having opposed some LDS COB positions.

> A candidate's religious indoctrination can be an
> issue but I think we also need to keep it in a
> proper context. For example, I can't help wonder
> if Mike Huchabee's brand of evangelical
> Christianity would be preferable to Romney's
> Mormonism. wcg makes a great point about the
> author's willingness to condemn Romney for his
> religious cult founded in the 1800's vs the one
> one the author supports originating somewhere
> around 33CE.

Huckabee scares me just as much.

I do think it makes a difference that with Catholics the Pope is not in our country. Also with Catholics they are all over the board with regard to illegals, abortion, married priests, etc. As far as I know the priests do not tell them how to vote or send out people to knock on doors or push any one belief. Mitt would be a disaster as he tries to strattle the line. He would be in favor of the Brethren in all cases in my opinion. And as for Harry Reid. He is in a state that cares little about Mormons and he can do what he wants because of union support. He is a flaky, rude and uninspiring politician who should be removed by anyone and I mean anyone (well, there may be a few exceptions).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2011 01:12PM by honestone.

Its probably discriminatory on my part, but I would not vote for Mitt because he is mormon. My concern isn't so much the fact that he is mormon, but that because he is mormon, he would not be able to keep church and state separate. Generally no person could keep the two completely seperate, but of all the Christain faiths I've encountered, I haven't encountered one that encroaches on one's personal and professional life as much as the LDS church. I can't envision the Pope trying to influence the president through the church; I can envision president Monson doing just that through Mr. Romney. That's why he wouldn't get my vote.

I would say, however, that Geo W Bush had trouble separating church and state as well. He was big on supporting faith based organizations. His father made an infamous statement that he didn't think atheist could be considered US Citizens. Although Romney raises certain kinds of intrepidations for us as ex-mo's - we have a good idea what trouble mo's can pose - the problem is greater than just Mitt.

I think the faith-based funding was a ploy to build up support for the GOP in church organizations. In many cases, Rove and the GOP were given access to the mailing lists of churches that participated in the program. That alone should have yanked the churches' tax exempt status, since they are forbidden to dabble in partisan politics (they may endorse or oppose specific issues, but not candidates).

There are some loopholes, one of the most common being when a pro-choice Catholic candidate is publicly barred from communion by his or her bishop. There is no reason why such a ban could not be privately communicated by letter, but the public announcement (as if it's anyone else's business to know) seems politically motivated, in an attempt to hurt the candidate's support among Catholic voters.

I recall a 1994 or 1996 election for Congress between Rep Bob "B-1" Dornan and Democratic challenger Loretta Sanchez. Both are Catholic and both made the rounds of various parishes on Sundays: attend two or three masses at different parishes around the district, hang out at coffee hour and talk to people, etc. (neither was allowed to speak inside the church). The bishop of Orange (County) publicly forbade Sanchez to visit these parishes because of her abortion stance. It didn't cover communion, it simply stated she was not to step foot in any parish in the district on Sundays, even on a private basis.

Dornan was allowed to continue his parish visits, and it amounted to an ecclesiastical assist to the Dornan campaign. My feeling at the time was that I could understand a bishop's concern if he thought that post-mass coffee hour was becoming politicized by the candidates' presence, but if so, he should have banned both--or neither.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2011 12:22PM by PtLoma.

catholicdefender Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its probably discriminatory on my part, but I
> would not vote for Mitt because he is mormon. My
> concern isn't so much the fact that he is mormon,
> but that because he is mormon, he would not be
> able to keep church and state separate. Generally
> no person could keep the two completely seperate,
> but of all the Christain faiths I've encountered,
> I haven't encountered one that encroaches on one's
> personal and professional life as much as the LDS
> church. I can't envision the Pope trying to
> influence the president through the church; I can
> envision president Monson doing just that through
> Mr. Romney. That's why he wouldn't get my vote.


The Pope would have a whole lot more influence with a Catholic than a Mormon President would with a Mormon simply because so much of the Congress and the Supreme Court is Catholic. So I can imagine the Pope trying to influence the President, but it wouldn't stop me from voting for a Catholic.

To answer your question, a liberal-believing Mormon does not exist, so I would never get the chance to vote for them!

(OK, I am just re-inforcing the idea of not being able to be a good Mormon and a democrat!)

And I don't mean the political Tea Party. I mean literal tea parites.

How else can you solve the world's problems unless you gather all of your stuffed animals and have a tea party?

Mormons don't drink tea

Ipso Facto: NO MORMONS IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!!

I'd STILL take MR / JH / RP over the rest.

MR and JH just in terms of looks. If the country is going to crap, as both parties are working well towards, we may as well look good doing it! Yay for image over quality!

RP...just in terms of entertainment!

Who would give him the TR interview? I'm having problems imagining that the local Bishop and SP in DC would do that. Maybe, but it sort of stretches the imagination.

And could he even attend a temple session as President? I doubt it, even though there are probably some LDS temple-worthy secret service personnel who could go in with him. Just because of communication issues, I doubt he could do any temple work while POTUS.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2011 02:00PM by my2cents.

The article was cringe-worthy. The interviewee would make a good point, and then undercut herself. She did this repeatedly. I doubt that anyone will take her seriously.