Mitt Romney and Mormonism

[Pirate Bill]

Originally Posted by 3894

It is just not true that all beliefs of the Mormon Church are readily available to non-Mormons.

Feel free to be specific. Since I'm not coming up with which beliefs you're talking about you'll need to let me know.

[3894]

Originally Posted by Pirate Bill

Feel free to be specific. Since I'm not coming up with which beliefs you're talking about you'll need to let me know.

I remember a Mormon friend telling me about the possibility of having his own planet after death. This was many years ago that he told me so I wanted to make sure I was remembering correctly. An internet search produced this article. Does it accurately describe some of the beliefs of the Mormon Church?

[Pirate Bill]

Originally Posted by 3894

I remember a Mormon friend telling me about the possibility of having his own planet after death. This was many years ago that he told me so I wanted to make sure I was remembering correctly. An internet search produced this article. Does it accurately describe some of the beliefs of the Mormon Church?

I'm trying to read through that whole thing but I'm running short on time. But what I have read so far (about half), is exactly what I was talking about earlier... the half-truths and misinformation provided by anti-Mormon propaganda. The whole "follow a few simple rules and get your own planet" thing is a twisted misconception of the belief that God is our Father and wants us to become like Him. That means we (by "we" I mean all mankind) have the potential to be gods ourself. Notice the small "g" and not a big "G." That's to say that we become like Him, not replace Him or even equal to. Just receive all that He has. Which is also taught in the Bible. Does that mean you "get your own planet"? I suppose it's possible, and why not? But it's also no guarantee. It's also not as simple as following a few simple rules. Nor does it imply that the rest of humanity will go to hell.

The problem with this doctrine is not that it's secretive or that you have to "pay to play." This is one of the fundamental doctrines and it's one of the first things taught to non-members who are interested in learning more. But it's also one of the deepest and can be the hardest to comprehend. (And in my rush I'm probably making things worse.) I mean in someways it's very simple but in others we're dealing with a finite mortal mind trying to grasp the concepts of eternity and immortality.

The author also twisted what the role of the priesthood is and how it relates to women. This is probably because of the perception and role of the priesthood in other churches as having authority to advise or instruct. The author implies that a prepubescent boy can rule over his mother, but that just isn't the case and it's not how the priesthood works in the Mormon church. It's a role of service. If said prepubescent boy is not obedient to and honor his mother then he's not honoring his priesthood. The claim that Mormon women are oppressed would be laughable if it weren't so sad.

[Snowflake]

Other than my snarky comment earlier, religion plays almost no part in my vote. I really do not have an interest in that as I do not feel embracing or not embracing a faith has anything to do with the job that is president. Unfortunately, it does seem to be a huge factor to many, just not so much to me. I'd much rather cast my vote based on someone who has views on issues similar to mine and has much more intelligence than me to do the job and is crazy enough to want to do it.

[Moonliner]

So the general consensus seems to be that organized religions all have their skeletons in the closet. Some more than others.

Would you support an atheist for President of the United States?

[mousepod]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Would you support an atheist for President of the United States?

Like iSm, I have a laundry list of qualities that I look for in a candidate, and their religious beliefs are waaay down on that list. Having said that, a candidate who chooses to incorporate his or her beliefs into the way they run the government as opposed to informing the way they think (splitting hairs, I know, but still... ), frightens me. Since an atheist wouldn't be saddled with any tricky religious dogma, it's just one less thing to worry about. It wouldn't be a deciding factor, but it certainly would enhance the candidate rather than detract from him or her.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

Would you support an atheist for President of the United States?

With everything else being equal between two candidates, I would vote for the atheist every time. Every time.

[NirvanaMan]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

So the general consensus seems to be that organized religions all have their skeletons in the closet. Some more than others.

Would you support an atheist for President of the United States?

All else being equal, abso-freakin-lutely. I am in the minority here, by a considerable margin, but that's ok. If issues and all else put two candidates on a level playing field, the atheist would easily get my vote.

What concerned me about listening to Mitt this morning was not that he was a Mormon, but how religion would clearly define him and his decisions. He was careful to say that his personal religious beliefs would not guide his policy (hard to believe, but I'll take it on it's face for the sake of argument) but that belief in a "creator" would certainly define his administration. Not that this would technically be different than many if not all that preceded him, but he seemed far more adamant about it than is typically discussed from mainstream candidates and I have to admit frankly that it scared me a little.

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

So the general consensus seems to be that organized religions all have their skeletons in the closet. Some more than others.

Would you support an atheist for President of the United States?

Interesting question. Actually, if someone was a declared atheist, probably not. But that's because I've known too many proselytizing atheists who push their religion of non-religion on people. In other words, even atheism has its orthodox practitioners.

Now, would I vote for someone who didn't declare a particular preference for any specific set of beliefs but claimed they were at least spiritual, or who owned up to being a very casual practitioner of whatever their religion was? Hell yeah.

edit: how the hell did I end up putting a flamingo in this post? Bizarre. But cool. I think I'll leave it.

[Alex]

Helen, I'd be interested in your answer to the first question you asked (if you gave it and I missed it, I apologize).

If secrecy in religion in an issue for anybody here, then is membership in other secret societies (such as the many masonic or masonic inspired organizations) a significant issue?