A Political Prophet?
Posted by Tyler on July 24th, 2006
No one doubts Mitt Romney faces peculiar challenges in his bid for the presidency. If nothing else, he will have to overcome the apparently rampant predjudice spawned by years of cartoonish stereotypes plied against the Mormons; there seems to be a large contingent of folks who would not vote for Romney because of his many wives.
Beyond such outdated and outlandish claims, however, Romney has more serious issues to consider. One such issue is, ironically, his devotion to his faith. Such a trait would normally be considered a virtue–Christianity, after all, is, on its face, a demanding way of life. Christ asks for our hearts, broken and devoted.
For many politicos, however, Romney’s faith is more dangerous than traditional Christianity because, in addition to pledging his faith to Christ, Romney has, as some see it, devoted his life to following a man–the Prophet. Similar to some who were convinced JFK would be the puppet of a shadowy Pope, some will not doubt be convinced that President Mitt would merely take orders from the men in SLC.
I would not be surprised to hear such reasoning from certain corners; it can’t be helpful, however, when Salt Lake City’s most-read newspaper publishes the following letter to the editor (on Pioneer Day, no less):
I’m from Australia currently working in Malaysia and, as a former bishop, branch president and district president of the LDS Church, I am well aware of the influence that church leaders, in particular the prophet, have over its members.
As such, would Mitt Romney take directions from the prophet of the church if he were elected president? Of course he would! And any pretense that the prophet or the church wouldn’t try to influence him on matters important to them is just fantasy.
So, should anyone vote for a president of a country who can be directed or influenced by others? Of course not! And those who try to promote that being a member of the church is incidental to the office of president, or any other position for that matter, needs to have a reality check!
The fact that Mitt has a temple recommend indicates that he has already given his total obedience to his leaders in all matters.
Alan C. Robinson
Melbourne, Australia
Grammatical problems aside, what does everyone think of this letter?
It’s a pretty silly letter, not just in its tone, but in its substance. Especially this:
The fact that Mitt has a temple recommend indicates that he has already given his total obedience to his leaders in all matters.
That’s not what having a temple recommend means at all.
Ironically, the best counterpoint to this line of thinking comes in the person of the highest-ranking Democrat in Washington, Harry Reid. If Reid can be a faithful Mormon and have a recommend (I don’t know if he does, but his political work doesn’t preclude it), then we don’t need to worry that political leaders who happen to be Mormon necessarily take their cues from SLC.
Harry Reid also refutes this one:
And those who try to promote that being a member of the church is incidental to the office of president, or any other position for that matter, needs to have a reality check!
Harry Reid and Orrin Hatch are both Mormons in good standing. Enough Said.
And any pretense that the prophet or the church wouldn’t try to influence him on matters important to them is just fantasy.
The Church is trying to influence the current government. It will contiinue to try to influence the government no matter who wins the next election. In a democracy that’s what citizens and groups of citizens should do.
So, should anyone vote for a president of a country who can be directed or influenced by others? Of course not!
I appreciate the sentiment here, but I’m afraid it’s a bit naive. In the U.S. people gain political power and become president by being willing to be directed and influenced by others, namely the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, big business, AFLCIO, NAACP, AARP, ACLU, NRA, Planned Parenthood, Focus on the Family, the Religioius Right, and on and on and on.
Comment # 1 left by Tom on July 24th, 2006
If the prophet were to tell Mitt Romney to double his fast offerings or to GQ all of his Secret Service detail or to do 100 endowments per year, we can presume that Mitt would obey. But if the prophet were to tell him to invade Iran or dismantle the Social Security system, I’m sure Mitt would tell the prophet to take a hike.
Comment # 2 left by Last Lemming on July 24th, 2006
So, should anyone vote for a president of a country who can be directed or influenced by others? Of course not!
Hear! Hear!, we should only vote for the candidate who has a perfect knowledge of all things and does not need such direction or influence from a “cabinet” or “advisors” or “lobbyists”. In fact, this all-knowing President will be so fair and just that we can abolish congress.. and we shall commit all judgement unto this president… nay, this King!
Oh, sorry, I drifted off to pretty pink world again.
Comment # 3 left by Ryan on July 24th, 2006
I think it would be really interesting to see a Mormon President.
I agree with something Ryan said, that we are all influenced by something. Of course I am biased, but I would much rather have a leader influenced by the teachings of the prophet and the church, than someone who is influenced by lesser sources.
Comment # 4 left by Eric Nielson on July 24th, 2006
Letters like this drive me batty…to “position drop” to somehow build credibility (”I’m a former LDS bishop and therefore I know what I’m talking about”)…. Incidentally, the other thought that came to mind has already been said. Every person in politics is influenced by others. For a “former LDS bishop” to imply that somehow following the prophet would preclude a man from being a good president seems a little fishy to me, actually. I would imagine a man like that rejoicing in someone’s desire to follow the prophet. But what does following a prophet have to do with being president anyway?
Comment # 5 left by mullingandmusing on July 24th, 2006
How do you define a Despot, Tyrant, or Dictator?
A leader who is not influenced by anything or anyone but himself — his own desires, appetites, and passions!
This “former bishop” has his ideas up-side down!!!
Comment # 6 left by Wade on July 24th, 2006
p.s. I would also agree with other comments in that I would prefer to have someone seeking to lead the country according to standards as taught in the gospel (i.e., in line with what the prophets teach) than seeking more worldly influences or forces.
Comment # 7 left by mullingandmusing on July 24th, 2006
I think Mitt is a pretty honorable man but I would never in a billion years vote for him for President of the U.S. As much as you “White Shirt Boys” hope, pray, and pine for a Mormon theocracy, Im afraid you are going to have to wait another 300 years or so. Just be patient. Remember it was only 130 years ago when Mormons thought it was perfectly fine to have sexual relations with girls as young as twelve. Keep in mind that is was perfectly acceptable for you Mormons to castrate one of your fellow Morman husbands if he failed to agree with one of your plural marriages. Quite unbelievable but true. Was that practice “Christian like? I guess so since I have never heard or have seen a Mormon who said it was wrong. No one runs faster from their past than a Mormon.
Comment # 8 left by Anonymous on July 24th, 2006
I think Mitt is a pretty honorable man but I would never in a billion years vote for him for President of the U.S.
I don’t think it’s an unfair statement to say that many Mormons whitewash or are uninformed as to the history of the church. I do not, however, see the connection you make between Mitt being an honorable man and your disdain for early church practices.
Comment # 9 left by Ryan on July 24th, 2006
Anonymous:
Who is running? It’s funny that you keep making these allegations, but fail to substantiate them. I’m not quite sure exactly what point you’re trying to make here. I’ve never heard any official of the LDS church ever proclaim the church members were perfect — past or present.
I don’t doubt those alleged castrations and sexual improprieties may have occured. But so what!
If you weren’t hiding behind anonymity, I’m quite sure I could allege similar atrocities about people who adhere to your system of beliefs — if you have any. But what point would this make about you??? NONE, because every organized belief system has had adherants who made grievous mistakes; still this says nothing about the majority.
By the way, out of curiosity, are you Christian?
For future reference, please attempt a more civil and substantive argument. If you fail in this regard, I will unfortunately be forced to delete your comments.
Comment # 10 left by Wade on July 24th, 2006
For future reference, please attempt a more civil and substantive argument. If you fail in this regard, I will unfortunately be forced to delete your comments.
OH NO! Not that!
At least you are sticking to the tried and proven Mormon mantra, “Ignore the truth and squelch the facts.” I could fill up a thousand pages that prove the Mormon acceptance of sex with minors, castration as punishment, incest, blood rituals, secret symbols, secret handshakes, secret member lists, secret this and secret that. If Governor Mitt ever made a push for the White House he would have to answer all of these questions and issues. The media would have a field day with all of these unseemly acts and facts. So for that reason I dont see Mitt putting himself in that position.
To answer your question, “Am I a christian?” Of course I am. Although my God is is no way related to your God. My Son of God was never a brother of Lucifer. My Holy Spirit is not even remotely related to your Holy Spirit. To me Joseph Smith was just another guy who lived and died. Only Joseph bedded a lot more women than “your average Joe.” And like Brigham, he liked them young.
Oh BTW, Have you ever read what Joseph and Brigham said about the Black race? Its quite interesting.
Comment # 11 left by Anonymous on July 25th, 2006
If Governor Mitt ever made a push for the White House he would have to answer all of these questions and issues. The media would have a field day with all of these unseemly acts and facts.
Okay, so sticking (somewhat) with the original post, What would Mitt need to answer more than, “I have never performed any act in association with my religion that is illegal or immoral.”
Christianity, Atheism, Islam and just about every other organization is riddled with sordid histories. The press does not hold President Bush accountable for atrocities committed during the crusades just as it did not hold President Kennedy accountable for the Inquisition. Nor, for that matter, does it hold any Presidential candidate accountable for slavery just because they are an American.
Comment # 12 left by Ryan on July 25th, 2006
The “position dropping” that the Austrailian seems to be doing reeks BS if you ask me.
I love anonymous posters, hiding behind masks. How can anyone take them seriously.
Comment # 13 left by Ian on July 25th, 2006
The funny part is that “hiding” on the internet is like “hiding” behind a chain link fence.
The anonymous part just means it takes an extra three minutes to figure out who you are
Comment # 14 left by Ryan on July 25th, 2006
If Governor Mitt ever made a push for the White House he would have to answer all of these questions and issues. The media would have a field day with all of these unseemly acts and facts.
Um, highly doubtful.
First of all, he has nothing to hide. He is a good man, though you, Mr./Ms. Anonymous, may think him guilty of evil atrocities.
Second of all, even if he declined responding to the questions proposed in the media’s “field day”, he would be in good company.
For one who so readily accuses others of “ignoring the truth and squelching the facts”, you simply come across to me as a hypocrite. Next time, try a little less propaganda.
Comment # 15 left by Connor Boyack on July 28th, 2006