How One's (Mormon) Religion Should Affect Your Decision for 2008

We all know that one particular candidate's religion is a major factor in the American people's decision for who to elect. It is an important factor for a lot of people. Even if it's not for you, one's religion (when taken seriously) defines who that person is and molds his/her character, values, and other things that highly effect political decisions and beliefs.

First, I want to say that not only Mormons take heat of misconceptions. Huckabee and other evangelicals are often misunderstood, I think, but they are not the focus of my post. Muslims are, of course, so Obama may take some heat for that (however much he may deny it). Again, not the point of this post. But, briefly, I will say: Get to know a religion and what the people are really like before you trust what "somebody heard" about them.

For any religion:

• Don't Google "Muslim beliefs" or "Mormon beliefs". You will get twisted anti-[whatever] sites. Avoid Wikipedia, too...
• Consult official websites or publications only. For the LDS Church (Mormons), you can get info from www.lds.org and www.mormon.org. Most official publications are searchable from the sites.
• There are people that may be "bad" at their religion. Don't let that affect your thoughts of the entire faith!
• Know at least a few people of a certain faith before you "judge" them, if you simply must.
• There is NO excuse for spreading lies about a religion, even if you don't know they are lies. If you don't know, just admit it: "I don't really know too much about them." Good time to learn.
• Religion has caused a lot of problems in our world's history. Don't contribute to them. Know your facts.
• Even if you think all religious people are nutcases, respect their beliefs. (There are exceptions... like if they are threatening yourself, your family, or your way of life.)
• These are NOT just a "moderate's" guidelines! Any reasonable person anywhere in the political spectrum should be (at least trying) to be fair about religion!

Now the rest of my post I will focus on one candidate: Mitt Romney. He's "the Mormon" running for president.

My goal of this thread is to dismiss common beliefs and answer sincere questions about the faith, in regards to his candidacy. I don't care whether you like him or hate him, READ THIS. This is especially for those of you who judge him based on his Mormon faith, rather regardless of what he says, has done, or will do, politically.

There's too many "wishy-washy" myths or twisted-truths (half-truths) about the Mormon religion circulating for that to be a good and solid foundation for supporting or disliking him, especially if it is your only one!


If you're a stickler about references and truthfulness, my sources are as good as you get: Official websites, publications, and, well, myself. I am Mormon also: been active for over almost two decades. I cite all my sources by each point, or list it as experience.

The following truths are in regards to Romney's campaign, and are common things I see come up in discussion/flaming.

So here we go.

• "Mormons" is an unofficial nickname. "Mormons" are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the LDS Church). We get this nickname from our unique scriptural text, The Book of Mormon. We don't mind; we use this term too. But it's not official. (Source)
  
  
• Polygamists are not LDS. Polygamy is not allowed in our religion. Those who still follow polygamy are not LDS, nor Mormon, no matter how much they claim to be. The FBI is after them. Their leader, Warren Jeffs, was arrested. (Source)
  
  I was in German class back in high school and a student thought she knew everything. After insisting that I was Mormon - I knew what I was talking about - she still persisted that Mormons are polygamists, because of what her Mom told her. I said, "No! Mormons can only have one wife!" Her response? "Nuh uh!" The sad part is, she still insists on believing that. Yeah, and she was a senior too. It's frustrating. Trust me.
  
  
• We worship God, the Eternal Father, and his son and our savior, Jesus Christ. Thus we are Christian. We are not a break-off of the Protestant branch. (Source)
  
  
• We are not crazy, and we are not a cult! We are normal people. It took some people I knew nearly 5 years for them to realize I was Mormon. Not like I didn't act like one, but it just never "clicked" with them. No matter the weird stories you may have heard, we are normal people with normal jobs with normal lives. Mitt Romney and his family are just as normal (I mean, as normal as they can get, being famous, anyway). And no, we are not a cult. I don't care how you define it, the term has a negative connotation and usually refers to religions such as Scientology or some other new-age things. (Source)
  
  
• Temples are sacred, not secret. It hurts us and can offend us to hear things about our temples outside of the proper and appropriate contexts. Too often they are made fun of... abused. Temple topics, including garments, some ordinances and experience in the temples are sacred to us, not secret from you. Please respect that. No, we don't sacrifice animals. And honestly, if you don't like it, just leave us alone then. (Source)
  
  
• Joseph Smith is not our god. I already clarified this. He was a prophet. You may have heard that "oh, he became a god" or something to that effect. In deeper doctrine, we do believe that if we are faithful members to our full capacity, we will inherit everything God has, "and it shall be given unto them". It's not "weird" or "nutso." Please stop trying to make it out like ridiculous. And of course we don't worship him. (Source 1, Source 2)
  
  
• You're not goin' to hell. Non-members, non-believers, or those who even attack the Church will not be damned to hell. However, we will be judged according to our actions and our heart. How you act and what kind of person you are determines your glory in the life to come. We all started somewhere, and we're all going to go somewhere. (Source)
  
  
• Moroni was an ancient prophet. He was a prophet whose records are available for us, abridged, in the Book of Mormon. He did appear to Joseph Smith so the Book of Mormon could be recovered and translated (since he was the guy that buried the plates). Romney has been accused of "consulting" with Moroni... erm, that's just plain dumb Sorry. (Source)
  
  
• Modern revelation exists, but not in a sadistic or fanatic manner. Kind of branching off from the Moroni one above, Romney has been "accused" of "listening" to "angels" or "Joseph Smith" or even "God" during debates (or just whenever)... or he talks to dead people (or hears them)... or portrayed as some fanatic that wants power to do God's will. All of these are incorrect and, actually, pretty funny thoughts. They're ridiculous.
  
  Uniquely, we believe that revelation is not dead and God does guide his people today. Revelation that impacts the entire church, or world, would only be given to our living Prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley, not Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney has served in church leadership positions (and has a calling - a position to serve - now, though I'm not sure what), but, as stated in Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech, church and state are separate. We believe people can receive personal revelation, but not so "wordly", so to speak, as audible dialog. (Which, btw, has been debunked by MSNBC. Take that! )
  
  As I said before: one's religion, when taken seriously, affects who he is. It affects one's character, beliefs, values, morals, etc. It IS those things. Those attributes - whether one has religion or not - will affect their leadership if/once President. But this does not mean it imposes religious principles into national decisions! I hear that Mitt Romney is "a scary guy" (and, funnily enough, these guys are usually Ron Paul supporters, glance at the video responses to that YouTube video) - or even just throwing outright lies out there like "he hates jews" or he's "anti-ron paul" (okay, maybe that one's true, I mean, they are competing... but what's funny is I see that comment in contexts where Romney never mentions Paul). Oh wait, lookie here: Looks like Ron Paul is anti-Mitt-Romney. So where's his bashing?
  
  And it all seems to spawn from this one concept, the concept of personal revelation. It's not like he goes home and chats with God, or God tells him everything to say. Or Joseph Smith. Or anybody. Such thoughts are silly. Mitt Romney is human and makes mistakes, sure. Mormons do that just like everybody else, but we try to live so that our lives only positively affect other people's lives.
  
  So stop with this "creepy" revelation thing. It's annoying. And ridiculous.
  
  
• Mormons want to simply fit in. We don't really like being singled out. Not in the way as in "Look - he's a Mormon. Careful what you do there! He might curse you or something." We like being good examples, though. But really, we just want to live our lives and worry about ourselves. The exceptions are missionary work, and helping other people (explained in the next point). (Source)
  
  
• Our intentions are only honorable, innocent. Mormons don't try to make situations bad. Often, "hostility" arises during discussing missionary work when people get defensive or "easily annoyed" thinking we're just more religious freaks yelling at people about some sort of cleansing. Well, we don't do that. So yeah, missionary work. We want to get the word out, but we're not fanatical about that, either. We're just dedicated. In fact, we're often shy. Now, you may have met more radical Mormons... but... just be patient... we're not supposed to be in your face.
  
  Oh, and as far as going to knock on your door, if it wasn't two young men or women (about 19 to 25 aged) in suits and ties (or dresses) with a namebadge, "Elder..." or "Sister...", with the name of the LDS Church on it, it wasn't us. It's also not us if they force their way in, or literally force you from closing the door. And we're sorry if we woke you. We won't come back if you tell us not to. Sometimes there are mix-ups, but those are rare. If we return shortly afterwards, sorry about that as well. Usually, though, you won't have to bother with our knocking for years and years, if ever.
  
  
• We are lovers of peace. Mitt Romney is often bashed for being a warmonger. What an insulting statement that is totally untrue! Our Church teaches peace. It is and must be against war. However, those who are called to war are highly encouraged to honor the service to their country. (The Church of course doesn't force you to.) The Church itself cannot wage war. The Church's teachings are in accordance with Christ's teachings and examples which were only peaceful. Mitt Romney is not a violent man. He does not wish for war. But he, along with our Church, realize that war is something that cannot be avoided, because we cannot control the actions of others to prevent it. (Source 1, Source 2)

In conclusion, please don't judge any candidate solely by his religion, especially anything false you may have heard about it. Huckabee and Obama included. Because religion has caused so many problems in the past, you should not want to be a hypocrite and condone those rumors yourself. Don't be like some of these guys on digg.

So how should one's religion affect your decision for 2008? However much you deem appropriate. But I ask you to look into the issues deeper than just what you hear, or what you think, or to assume silly falsities are true. Especially be sensitive to not being brainwashed by lies about candidates.

If there's any questions you have or want to discuss this, your responses are welcome. Thank you.

 

Great post. Don't endorse Romney myself, but I don't think his religion or anyone's religion should have a bearing upon whether they are fit for office or not.

 

Agree with Fletch. Romney hasn't made his religion the center of his campaign, and I see no reason to judge him by his personal beliefs.

To be clear, Ron Paul's campaign didn't push poll against Romney in New Hampshire. That is an unsubstantiated rumor we should be able to put to rest in a few days when the investigation is released.

Dr. Paul has gone out of his way on Newsweek and in other interviews to explain that it is unfair to judge Romney by anything but his record, and his religion is irrelevant.

 

Agreed. It should always be about the issues . Separation of church and state. Remember that one.

 

Someones religion is the foundation of their life. it underpins every decision they make. To pretend that it wont have an effect on their presidency shows how little americans have learned over the last 8 years.

Someones religious views have as much of an effect as would someones racist views. it's not something that can be turned on and off depending on the situation or the task at hand.

 

I am very happy I make a firm decision to remain neutral politically. To me, I will have the fact whichever man is going to be running the county I reside in will have no bearing on man's outcome in time to come. There's only one government I have faith in and that one is certainly not elected by a majority of man.

 

@Chulium

Nice post. You provided very good information. I believe in mutual respect for all religions.
I respect your right to religious freedom. And I am a Ron Paul supporter.

Now, I had a couple of questions, just out of curiosity.
1. On which issues do mainstream Protestants and Mormons differ?
2. How do you choose successors to your current living prophets?
3. Do Mormons do missionary work, just like Catholics? I am not sure whether Protestants do missionary work.

 

Even jesus understood the need for separation of church and state. What about people of other religions and atheists? In america no one has preference over another. Its called a democracy. and your statement that a persons religion has an effect on their decisions is full of it. We have never had a very religious president ever. Almost every president we had was a slave to one special interest group or another.

 

Yea actually, mormons, catholics and protestants all do missionary work. I think its more mandatory in the mormon religion than the catholic or protestant religions. Im catholic so i know its not mandatory in my religion but its highly favored to do it as it teaches you to empathise with the suffering of others. I think all religions teach never to twist the truth or copy and paste .

 

Thanks chulium for the clarification on the LDS faith in which users either dont understand or misquote. I myself am LDS and have been fully taught as far as voting, to vote for the one I fully believe in. Dont vote for the candidate just because they are female or black or because they are certain religion or affiliation. Vote for the person on the basis that I/we think are the best possible candidate to do the job.

I, at the moment still deciding on the candidate I want to support/vote for.

 

http://pacm.dawnofthegeeks.com/itow.php?section=bombible&page=6

Not yet.

This was brought to my attention at an LDS Institute I attended. You can look it up. Mormon leaders have talked about it well into the mid-late 1900s.

Regardless of all that, I don't think Romney is qualified to run the country. He may be qualified to work as an advisor on domestic issues but in this very war torn time in history, we need someone who has military leadership skills that can help deal with the problems arising in the world.

The economy is not really an issue. In a few years it will work itself out. The dot com bust didn't destroy the country. 9/11 didn't destroy the country. Stupid lenders are not going to destroy the country.

Since Romney is only running on his business skills, that leaves no other qualities that he possesses that this country needs in the top leadership position.

In a year or two the mortgage mess will work itself out but I don't see an end to conflicts in the world.

The reason people are leary of his Mormon beliefs is because of what the LDS church teaches. He may not be aware of these things but when you're in the top leadership position, ignorance is not an option. If he can read the Bible and come away with the idea that the LDS church is right about blood sacrifice being somehow necessary I'd hate to think what he will do to the constitution to try to justify unconstitutional things.

 

I couldn't care less about Romney being a Mormon. What I care about is his lack of concern for civil liberties, his pro-war stance, and that he comes across as extremely untrustworthy. That being said, I'd take him over Rudy Giuliani. That's the only positive thing I can think to say about ol' Mitt.

 

You really need to do a special for Comedy Central.

We can call it the Sunshine Report. Where economics works itself out, and no one gets hurt.

 

What government action fixed the dot com bomb?

Are you implying that the checks mailed out by GW and his tax cuts fixed the economic problems after 9/11?

The market (especially the housing market) is correcting itself. For a year or two there a house would double in value just because you bought it. Now people are shocked, shocked I say to find out that their house has not really doubled in value. And the suckers who really believed a 150K house was worth 300K are being given a healthy dose of reality.

Unemployment is still very low and the GDP is still going up. You can't look at one sector (mortgages) and pretend that the whole ecomony is failing. There was a lot of money injected into the economy through bad loans that shouldn't have been there. Now that money is being taken back out.

 

1% overnight rates, greater and easier availability at the discount window, and lax lending standards. The dot com bust and 9/11 panic where simply transferred into the housing market. The difference is, to replace intangible wealth, we ended up with hard physical assets under threat.

If you don't see the problems brewing and their consequences, then you need to look harder. The FED doesn't hold an emergency meeting and cut rates 3/4 of a point unless it's a potential crisis. It's unprecedented in recent history. Now they are talking about cutting further, which will totally destroy savings and fixed incomes.

In a consumer economy, with the world's largest debtor nation, and a massive trade imbalance, you can only call water "milk" for so long, before people realize that it is tasteless and transparent.

 

How so? I still get over 4% on my ING savings account. Banks like Bank of America have never given an appreciable interest rate on savings. The credit card companies are still screwing people over.

The rate cuts are to encourage banks to not screw over the customers they gave bad loans to. Banks know they can keep the customer in an ARM and get a forclosure on a house the bank can't sell or try to refinance so the customer can continue to afford the loan. They have to decide if financing a house for more than it's worth will result in a better return than a forclosure.

Interest rates are still higher than a few years ago when you could get a fixed rate around 5%.

So no. I'm not seeing the problem outside a limited industry. I see a perfectly natural market correction to an unnatural market boom.

 

You can believe a twisted "Anti-Mormon" site or you can believe me, a Mormon. I'M not in power, "blinded" by the teachings. You are a great case study as to what type of people should be ignored and should not go to the polls in November. Basing your choice on what his religion teaches - when it does not violate any of the "rules" I stated above - is pathetic.

 

How do you understand the teaching that blood sacrifices will be offered?

As you say

So let's figure out what Mormonism teaches about blood sacrifice.

http://www.askgramps.org/who-is-gramps/

"Gramps" is an LDS Member who was president of an MTC. Someone asked him about Blood Sacrifice.

http://www.askgramps.org/will-blood-sacrifice-ever-be-performed-again/

He quotes some LDS sources.

Why doesn't "Gramps" have a problem with this teaching but you do? I learned about it between 1998 and 1999. My teacher didn't shy away from the issue. So has anything changed in the last 10 years?

I'm not basing it on what the church teaches. His ability to "rectify" the Bible with LDS doctrines makes me question his abilities to understand the Constitution and properly apply it.

The constitution requires interpretation. If he can interpret the Bible and justify the return of blood sacrifice then that makes me wonder what he can force the constitution to say.

You may argue that the ability to interpret a religious text is unrelated to the ability to interpret a legal one but I'm not sure how valid that argument would be.

 

Uhhh I am LDS/Mormon and the church does not or will not ever participate in Blood Sacrifices. Why you say. Because we believe that Jesus Christ was the ultimate sacrifice. The atonement and the death of Christ is the representation of the sacrifice, therefore replacing the blood sacrifices. The sacrament that we take and participate in every Sunday is a representation and remembrace of Christ, the atonement and the sacrifice. The LDS will not ever participate in a blood sacrifice because of what we do every week with the sacrament with the bread and water replacing the Old Testament practice.

I am 40 years old and have been a member since I was 7 years old. I have gone to all 4 years of seminary as well as Institute of Religion classes in College. The church has never taught in any of the classes that the church will go to the blood sacrifices. The sacrament on Sundays replaces such a thing. Any member in the church knows this and is taught this.

 

So how do you understand what "Gramps" is quoting then?

Why would Joseph Fielding Smith say that it would be done? Are you saying that JFS didn't actually say what he was quoted as saying in "A Companion to Your Study of the Doctrine and Covenants?"