Presidential Politix & Mitt Romney’s Underwear
(The photo originally posted here has been removed
at the request of readers who objected to its content.)
I seldom blog on presidential politics (except to give John Kerry well deserved kicks in the slats) because it’s tough to rise above the “horse race” aspect of who is running and what the competition is.
But as my TMV colleague Michael van der Galien has noted, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is making noises about a presidential run in 2008, and he is an exception to my rule.
Even though Romney is much too conservative for my taste overall, there are things that I like about him, notably his efforts to spearhead health-care reform in Massachusetts, which is the first state to embrace near-universal coverage for all of its citizens. That, dear friends, is where we need to go nationally.
But what fascinates me about Romney — and you’ll be reading and hearing tons about this in the coming months — is that he is a Mormon and believes that America had a “divine founding.”
I am old enough to remember the controversy over John F. Kennedy’s Catholicism when he was running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1960. Some people tried to make his religion an issue (you know, the Vatican as bogeyman), but it was a non starter.
Romney’s faith will be anything but a non starter, and there already are questions about whether a Mormon can make a serious run, let alone be nominated. Whether a Mormon is even a Christian in the traditional sense of the word. Whether Romney wears special Mormon underwear (see photo). You get the idea.
Leading the charge is Andrew Sullivan at The Daily Dish. For the record, I like this enormously popular (openly gay Roman Catholic) blogger when he is not endlessly plugging his new book. Andrew has written extensively and intelligently about the right-wing Christianist hijacking of the Republican Party, but is off to a rather uneven start on Romney. This no doubt is in large part because Romney opposes Massachusetts’ legislative and court endorsement of same-sex marriage.
What matters to me is this:
Although I find aspects of the teachings of the Church of Latter Day Saints to be antithetical to my own beliefs, I feel the same way about Roman Catholicism and some other faiths.
Can Romney run without his faith being a ball and chain?Can Romney be the Un-McCain?
Can Romney be embraced by a party whose “Big Tent” has shrunk to the size of a Zip-Loc bag and is intolerant of anyone other than “their own kind?”
Can Romney endure the media exposure that awaits him? What if his great-great grandfather was a bigamist? And what about that underwear?
It’s not likely to be pretty, but it’s bound to be fascinating.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
93 Responses to “Presidential Politix & Mitt Romney’s Underwear”
Holly, unless Mitt Romney is running on the political platform that everyone should wear temple garments, I’m not sure how you could think that photo is anything but a gratuitous snide dig at Mormons.
The photo is on Wikipedia – go look! I don’t see anything resembling an insult here. If you’ve got a problem with the photo being in the public domain, go bother Wikipedia. BTW until I looked in Wikipedia I didn’t realize that you guys had 13 Articles of Faith which vaguely resemble Maimonides’ 13 Principles of Faith. Thanks for helping me learn something today!
Holly. I will focus my response to the other thread to keep from jumping back and forth.
Holly, I’m aware that the photo is at Wikipedia as that was mentioned in previous threads. Though it is a hugely important site with massive traffic, I don’t consider Wikipedia the standard for what is appropriate, especially since the whole point of the site is that anyone can post anything at anytime (minus the protected articles).
That is still a distraction from the argument LDS people have been making (more or less effectively) on this thread.
There are a number of motivation for posting this picture. I understand them. But don’t tell me it was done seriously, while maintaining respect for LDS people. It’s making a mockery of us and something that we take seriously. We get that. You don’t.
As a non-Mormon Utah born-and-bread resident, I will agree that Mormon garments are a very personal subject for the LDS faithful and I can understand their position.
Shaun’s post (other than the photo) doesn’t seem offensive to me and is quite mild compared to others of this topic that I’ve been a party of.
A question for the LDS posters here: It is also true that these topics are going to arise if Mr Romney plans to run. Is taking the “Islamist approach” (throwing a tantrum) the best way to handle this topic?
Rambie, it’s a good question. However, the Islamist approach, as I understand it, is to start a riot or a series of riots – depending on the degree of offense which has been taken. I wish that Islamists only threw “tantrums” when they were offended.
No doubt, we (as LDS people) will have to pick our battles. Hopefully we are not too easily offended. Temple ceremonies and covenants are a particularly sensitive and special issue to many of us.
No doubt we’ll be learning from the process as much as anyone else. I am quite fascinated to see how public discourse about Mormons takes shape during the upcoming election processes.
Despite my complaints about the picture chosen here, I strongly believe in freedom of speech. Part of freedom of speech is the right to respond to others who use that freedom.
My link above to Article VI Blog did not work for some reason. I’ll try again:
Article VI Blog
Lowell
By the way, Holly, let me just invite you to accept that the special garments Mormons wear are quite sacred to us and it grieves us to see them publicly displayed. That’s really all there is to it, and it ought to be enough.
You have shared much information about Jewish religious clothing. I am not sure there is any other religious symbol that offers a perfect analogy to the Mormon garments, but I do often analogize to the tallit katan. I do so only as a way of pointing out that people would never get away with making fun of a Jewish candidate’s wearing of such garments (nor should they), but it seems to be OK to make fun of the Mormon garments. Or is it?
Lowell
Shaun and Joe,
I’m glad that you aren’t offended by these photos.
It is interesting to me that this is the measure of your comments policy. Apparently, provided the majority isn’t offended, the feelings of the denigrated religious minority aren’t significant.
At this point, I’m sure you are fully aware that Mormons consider these photos to be offensive. I’ve also enjoyed the suggestion that if Mormons feel offense at these photos, then we are somehow in the same boat with Islamic radicals who riot and kill at religious offense.
Religious bigotry wears many faces these days. I’ve enjoyed reading the justification for yours.
Good luck with your blog.
Of course it was done seriously, while maintaining respect for LDS people.
Why Holly, because you say so?
“Of course it was done seriously, while maintaining respect for LDS people.”
I find this to be a little rich coming from you Holly. As I recall it was you who gave us the posts on how (unlike Mormons) Jews don’t worship objects (obviously Mormons worship their underwear) as well as those gems on seminal emissions and menstrual blood.
I have read many interesting defenses for the photo. I have read that he wasn’t using the photo to mock, but just to call attention to a potential issue. I have read that the comments policy only applies to Jews (good thing for you, eh?). I have read that the comments policy and any pretense to religious sensitivity was a mistake to begin with. I have read that if I take offense then I am somehow akin to the Islamic radicals who riot and kill. I have also read that you could have done far worse and that worse is yet coming. To be honest, the justifications for the photo have been far more illuminating than the photo itself.
Holly’s lack of sincerity in the discussion thread has been apparent for awhile. She will simply continue to deny, deny, deny that there is any problem here.
For whatever it is worth, I’m also amused by the suggestion that if a photo is on wikipedia that it must not be offensive.
Try a wikipedia search on “Muhammad cartoons controversy” and see what you find. Did you post those pictures here also?
dan, maybe I misspelled underwear, and excuse me for making that horrible mistake. Oh, I feel so ashamed, NOT. All religion is hilarious to me, so don’t count yours as anything special.
Maybe I misspelled a word, but your shame is showin buddy.
Btw, why doesn’t the LDS let female members travel around proselytize? Does it have to do with the subjegation of women that is so common within religon?
Females are missionaries also. It’s just a little less common. Without knowing the numbers I’d guess that about 1/5 of Mormon missionaries are women.
Pyst,
The spelling error can certainly be forgiven; this however cannot, “Btw, why doesn’t the LDS let female members travel around proselytize? Does it have to do with the subjegation of women that is so common within religon?”
Um…Mormons do have female missionaries and they are encouraged to serve missions. Heck, we even let our women vote.
Lug…out
Pyst,
LDS people have been sending out sister missionaries for a very long time. My mother served a mission in Germany. I have aunts who served missions in Argentina, Scotland and Finland. My sister served a mission in Ecuador. Each of these is intelligent and independent in her thinking.
We don’t subjugate women.
“Subjegation” … while you have a point in stating that spelling isn’t a huge deal, your difficulty with getting facts or spelling straight does make you look like an ignoramus. You might try getting the new Firefox browser … it includes an automatic spell-check feature that underlines misspelled words in red.
If you read Shaun’s original post, it is clear that: “Of course it was done seriously, while maintaining respect for LDS people.” Why? Because nobody who posts here would ever even THINK of making fun of LDS people.
I resent the personal attacks on me.
Do I undserstanbd correctly that one’s undergarments are of importance in a political discussion? If so let me tell you of my neighbor’s recent root canal. Now that has real significance in the debate of liberal v conservative and where our country should go. NO? Well why not? It has about as much relavance as what Mitt Romney wears! Come on guys! Let’s burn up the bandwith with some good old fashioned dental care discussion. What we need is the liberal v conservative view points on flossing and which type of toothe paste is best.
Look folks, LDS undergarmetns are not secret they are sacred. Anybody who chooses to make a big deal about wearing them is deliberately profaning what others find sacred. It is an attack. Such “revelations” have no real value other than to be used by the profaner as an object of ridicule. It is small-minded and shows that the profaner has nothing of real value to add to the discussion. Engaging in such discussions attacks one’s credibility. One’s religion is of importance only because it is a window into their value system. But I have yet to talk to a Mormon hater who can tell me what thing a Mormon president would do that is so evil. Let’s discuss that.
“I resent the personal attacks on me.”
Then you can imagine how Mormon readers feel when reading the recent threads on this website.
Holly, I don’t find the personal attacks on you to be offensive. Maybe you need to lighten up. Please feel free to disagree with my assessment, but that doesn’t change the fact that you need to “chill.”
The previous lines were said tongue-in-cheek. I don’t endorse personal attacks, and you should not have had them aimed at you. Personal attacks are not wrong because of the opinion of third parties without context, they’re wrong because they make you feel bad.
Likewise, the issue here about showing these images shouldn’t be based on your view of the subject matter, but the view of those that have a stake in the sacred nature of the image subjects. It is the context that counts. You do not understand the context and you, therefore, see nothing wrong. We, however, have a very different context and find the portrayal to be EXTREMELY offensive, if not sacreligious.
Please don’t misunderstand me. The photo isn’t offensive because I don’t think you “like me.” Intent does not need to be present for offense to occur. I am offended because I inherently regard the image, and its context (i.e. no member of the LDS church in good standing would pose for, shoot, or circulate these pictures) to be egregious.
The context is of such a sacred nature that you will not find members of the LDS church openly talking about these things, any more than you would have found Levites coming out of the ancient Israelite Tabernacle explaining publicly the words that they were speaking in there or publicizing to the world the nature of their holy vestements. There are ways for anyone to learn these things, but it is wholly inappropriate for a mass audience.
If there are spelling errors please forgive me.
THANK YOU TO “THE MODERATE VIEW” FOR TAKING THESE IMAGES DOWN. YOU HAVE SHOWN YOUR QUALITY.
Thank you for removing the photo.
Thank you for removing the photo. It’s appreciated.
HollyInCinncy
About the only thing in common with Maimonides is the number 13. But, since you brought it up, if there is any true religion it would be one that is consistent throughout the ages. One would find the priciples of true faith the same 1500 years BC as well as today. It would also follow that, given there was only one religion at the time of the Garden of Eden, that every society since Adam and Eve would have a piece or two of it in their canon today. It would also follow that any surviving scripture from pre-Christianity would have many elements consistant with today’s. The true religion, if it exists, would not tell it’s adhereants to rely on professional religionist’s interpretations as the sole source of enlightenment. The true religion, if it exists, would tell you to first live your life according to the commandments as you understand them. It would tell you to search diligently for the truth. But, since you do not know what the truth is, ask God in prayer and fasting for His help in divining the truth. It would also seem that the Deceiver would try harder than the searcher to keep one from discovering the truth, if it exists. Now as a matter of experience, I suggest some readers and the profane and the bigot* will attack my argument by emphasising the true religion element. The honest in heart will wonder if there is a true religion. The others will attack me and my relgion for suggesting that there might be such a thing. Many honest seekers will have discovered my argument already. They are looking for what is right and are humble enough to look everywhere. They will not have closed their minds because thier hearts are open. What I have said will ring true.
*A bigot believes any way other than his is intollerable and deserving of attack. Any honest discussion of ideas requires the tolerant to respect the other person and his ideas. You don’t have to agree with him. But you do have to respect him and his way of thinking. To determine if you are bigoted, see if you can find real value in the other person’s argument.
I think an appropriate analogy might be the “Piss Christ” of photographer Andres Serrano. Many found it offensive and wanted it banned, others saw it as art. It really depends on whether you are comfortable with your religion IMHO. The “Piss Christ” did not offend me in the least, my view of my religion does not depend on whether others are mocking it or not, my beliefs come from my own soul. As long as others aren’t interferring with my worship, or threatening to harm me, I just simply choose not to take such things seriously.
JLFuller,
Now _you_ need to chill.
They took the picture down already.
Chuut, I see where you’re coming from but I think the main flaw in that arguement is the idea that our feelings are a function of embarrassment, not respect for things sacred. It is because of the latter that I am speaking out. The artwork to which you refer I would never be comfortable with, and I would revile against at any point in my theological progress because it disgraces a Being that I worship. My response to it may change over time based on the circumstances, but hopefully my revulsion at that kind of theme would never change. Being comfortable with one’s religion places the issue in an entirely inappropriate framework. It is not as though we are trying to “get used to the water.” The posting of those types of images will always be inappropriate.
It is amazing that this thread morphed into this discussion. It shows just how sensitive that the subject is to members of the LDS church. I say that cautiously because in such a de-sensitized society, the word “sensitive” is almost always pejorative.
Joe,
I don’t know whether you are responsible for the eventual removal of those photos. If so, my most gracious thank you. I will also publicly post this on the blog. If you were not responsible–then a thank you to whomever was responsible.
It may not seem like much to you . . . but it was a step–and a good one in the right direction. Again, thank you.
Regards,
Guy Murray
Danithew
I am not sure what there is to chill about. We have tip-toed around bigots and Mormon haters forever it seems. I think we should define the boundaries. And we should call on the violators of civil discourse to constrain themselves. Honorable people will. Dishonorable people will not. We are not obligated to tolerate those who abuse civil societal norms.
Herodotus: …Apparently, provided the majority isn’t offended, the feelings of the denigrated religious minority aren’t significant.
As I stated, I’m a born-and-bread Utahan and I’m also non-Mormon. I could understand how the picture was offensive to those of the LDS faith.
However, I’m seeing a little hypocrisy here in your comment. There have been many laws passed here in Utah that have denigrated the non-Mormon minority here without a second thought by the majority.
Again, I understand where you’re coming from, but I’ve seen the shoe on the other foot when you are in the majority.
Rambie has a point. It’s far from uncommon for those who resent their treatment as a minority to be more than willing to treat others the same way when they are a majority or when it fits their beliefs.
“As I stated, I’m a born-and-bread Utahan and I’m also non-Mormon. I could understand how the picture was offensive to those of the LDS faith.
However, I’m seeing a little hypocrisy here in your comment. There have been many laws passed here in Utah that have denigrated the non-Mormon minority here without a second thought by the majority.
Again, I understand where you’re coming from, but I’ve seen the shoe on the other foot when you are in the majority.”
Could you provide examples of such laws?
I am the Sys Admin of an online LDS forum and this evening one of our members pointed out this thread to the other members as an example of what we can be looking forward to seeing should Brother Romney decide to run for President.
The prospects of having our Faith drug through the mud while all of the Anti-Mormons take advantage of this window of opportunity/vulnerability are not in the least bit enticing. Nevertheless, it does pose an opportunity to educate people on who we are and what we really believe.
As for Brother Romney’s Underwear…
This might help some of you begin to understand what our garments are all about and why we feel so strongly about them..
The terms “underwear” or “undergarments” are routinely used in the garment industry, and retailers have entire departments and stores that sell these items. To most people, undergarments or underwear are thought of only as another article of clothing. However, if you mention the word “garments” to your Mormon friend or neighbor, you’ll get an entirely different reaction.
To millions of Mormons around the world, garments are a special piece of clothing worn as a symbolic gesture of the promises that they have made to God. The garment is always worn under other clothing, next to the skin. For most people who wear it, the garment takes the place of regular underwear. (For this reason, some people refer to the garment as Mormon undergarments or as Mormon underwear. Most LDS shy away from such terms, preferring the simpler garment term, instead.)
The garment is directly related to Mormon temples. It is there that faithful members first receive the garment after individual instruction on how it should be worn and cared for. The garment is worn as part of a special ceremony called the temple endowment. The garment is worn at all times (day and night) by members as a constant reminder of the promises they have made to God in the Temple.
Mormons are not unique in the wearing of special clothing for religious purposes. Perhaps the most well-known example is the yarmulke, which is worn at special times by many Jewish men or at all times by devout orthodox Jews. Similarly, in some religions a minister or priest will wear a special collar that has religious significance, or nuns may wear special clothing that signifies the religious order to which they belong. In all cases the special clothing reflects the religious conviction of the wearer.
There is also a historical precedent for wearing religious clothing. In fact, Adam and Eve wore clothing that was made for them by God before they left the Garden of Eden. Genesis 3:21 states that “unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.� Mormons believe that such clothing was provided as part of the religious instruction provided to Adam and Eve by God. This is the same context in which Mormons receive the garment—as part of the religious instruction contained within the temple endowment.
Other religious figures throughout history have also worn special clothing as they performed their religious duties. For instance, Moses was commanded by the Lord (as recorded in Exodus 28:1-3) to place holy garments and priestly vestments upon Aaron and others in preparation for officiating in the tabernacle.
For temple-going Mormons, the garment serves much the same purpose as religious clothing throughout history—it privately sets them apart from the world and signifies a covenant between the wearer and God. There is no professional clergy in the LDS Church, so in some ways the garment serves as a symbol of the lay clergy, where both men and women share in the responsibilities and blessings of the priesthood, particularly in the temple.
If you look at a pair of garments, there is nothing physically special about them. They are made from a variety of light-weight fabrics, and most garments are white. (There are some special colored garments that can be worn by members of the armed services, but for the vast majority of Mormons, garments are always white.) The white color symbolizes purity and the length and cut of the garment helps assure modesty in dress and appearance. The garment bears several simple marks related to gospel principles of obedience, truth, and discipleship in Christ.
The meaning attached to the garment by devout Mormons transcends the fabric and design used to create the garment. It is sacred to the wearer not for what it is, but for what it represents. It reminds the wearer of the continuing need for repentance and obedience to God, the need to honor binding covenants voluntarily made in the temple, and the need to cherish and share truth and virtue in our daily living. By so doing, the garment helps the wearer to focus his or her life on Jesus Christ and to thereby lay claim on the blessings promised to those who do so.
Christopher
I think you told them more than they needed to know.
I have never seen a single female Mormon missionary out of the hundreds to visit my door.
And you can both kiss my backside, if you are picky about my spelling.
Somebody let the freaks out.
Three-word advice to the hyper-sensitive mormons posting here:
Lighten up, Francis.
JLFuller: Perhaps. But only through education can we ever hope to overcome ingnorance and bias. Everything I posted was from public sources and fairly commonly known. I started off with a posting from McConkie, but I thought it was just to deep an explanation for most people.
Thank you for taking down the photo. Its provenance demonstrates that its purpose is mockery of that which is sacred to Latter-day Saints: the copyright is held by Richard Packham a self-described atheist and former Mormon, who has released it for use without attribution.
For those shallow readers who completely missed the point of my comparison, I repeat, with added emphasis: “Would you get away with posting a photo of an Orthodox Jew wearing *nothing* but kippe, tallit, and phylacteries?”
Thank you, Danithew, for getting the point and daring to make it explicit. The most sacred physical symbol of the covenant between a Jew and his God is never displayed in public.
In the final analysis, Mormons are hated because they, like the Jews, claim a covenant relationship with God. Scratch an anti-Mormon, and you’ll find an anti-Semite.
Tracy Hall Jr.
Provo Canyon, Utah
I notice that no news commentator or interviewer is willing to be probing and confrontive with Mitt Romney on the subject of the many odd or disturbing doctrines and practices of the Mormon church.
Whatever his justifications, Romney’s facile and glib deflections of such inquiries should be vigorously challenged. The only reason he attempts to evade such questions is that honest and complete answers would derail is presidential campaign.
When candidates for high public office belong to religious organizations which espouse doctrines or practices which can reasonably be viewed as morally or politically questionable they become a legitimate object of close public scrutiny.
If a less influential religious group than Mormonism was thought to be a cult no one would object to an investigation into its doctrines if a presidential candidate was one of its members. It is no less important to look carefully at Mormonism
Here is a sampling of the kinds of doctrines, practices and history that make a close examination and public discussion of Mitt’s Mormonism necessary and appropriate:
Until 1990 the Mormon temple ceremony, called the endowment, participation
in which is necessary for the salvation of all faithful Mormons, contained
a segment requiring the unison oral recitation and enactment by all
participants of mock throat-cutting and disemboweling as the penalty for
disclosure of the secrets of the temple. I.e., “…we agree that our
throats be cut from ear to ear and our tongues torn out by their roots”
and “…we agree to have our bodies be cut asunder in the midst and all our bowels gush out.”
These statements were spoken as each participant stood at his/her seat
(women were seated on the left of the auditorium’s dividing aisle and men
on the right) and drew the thumb of the extended right hand first from
ear to ear across the throat and then from hip to hip across the abdomen per
the spoken instructions and demonstration of a temple worker.
The post-1990 version of the temple death oath contains the less explicit
version [if I disclose these secrets] “…I would suffer my life to be
taken”.
This ritual was performed while participants were dressed in ceremonial
costume called “temple clothing” which for men consists of a white
jumpsuit or white shirt, pants, tie, socks, headgear like a chef’s hat and a dark green apron and matching shoulder sash which were ritually turned around, changed from side to side, and knotted per instructions. For women the attire is a floor and wrist length plain white dress with a high neck and a white veil worn on the head and hanging down over the face. The temple clothing and associated rituals remain the same as in 1990.
I attended this ceremony at the Salt Lake City Temple in 1977. I wore the
costume, performed the fatal cutting strokes and spoke aloud the graphic
death oaths as instructed. Mitt must have done the same (and many times
thereafter for the benefit of his kindred dead) because his participation
In the ceremony just before he left on a proselyting mission to France at the age of 19 was required by church policy. Immediately prior to their
wedding in 1969 his wife Ann would have attended the same ritual and
would customarily have been accompanied by her husband-to-be.
The costume and ritual language of the endowment is primarily borrowed
from or inspired by the ritual costumes and ceremonies of Free Masonry in the mid 19th century when the endowment was written by Mormonism’s founder,
Joseph Smith; who at the time of its authorship was Mayor of Nauvoo, Illinois, General of the Nauvoo Legion, Prophet Seer and Revelator of the Mormon Church and the leader of Illinois’ largest Masonic lodge.
Until 1990 the temple ceremony required women take an oath of submission
to the will of their husbands. That was softened in the post-1990 version.
Until 1990 the temple ceremony referred to the paid clergy of all other
Christian denominations as being in the employ of Satan; also no longer
politic and since deleted.
The temple ceremony still involves, and admission to heaven requires, the
learning of a secret name, password and handshake (one of which involves
pressing the tip of the forefinger into the would be crucifixion nail
wound in the grasped wrist of the attendant at the veil of heaven)
Until the 1970′s Mormons taught that the Catholic church was “the great whore that sitteth upon many waters” described in the 17th Chapter of the
Book of Revelation of the King James version of the Bible. Until the
mid-1970s this teaching could be found in writing in the Mormon reference
book, Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie. Later printings deleted the reference.
Until 1978 black men could not be admitted to the lay priesthood of Mormonism although members of all other races could. This was due to
Their lack of righteousness as spirits prior to birth and the old testament curse of Ham carried by them in the form of their dark skins so they could be singled out.
Brigham Young, Mormonism’s most famous leader, taught that Adam, the first
man, was God.
Mormonism views itself as the “only true church” on the planet and only
those who join it and follow its rules can be saved.
Whomever is the current president of the Mormon church is deemed “prophet,
seer and revelator” and the only authorized representative and mouthpiece
of God on the earth. He has twelve apostles to assist him.
Its public denials (and Mitt Romney’s) notwithstanding, polygamy is still
the official and scriptural doctrine of the Mormon church. It is only
the practice of polygamy that was suspended in 1890 and that was only because federal anti-polygamy law enforcement caused its leaders to be jailed and its assets confiscated.
Because polygamy is considered by Mormons to be an essential principle of
salvation the practice was carried on for some decades after the public
renunciation in secret even by the mainstream Mormon church. Others carried on the practice in varying degrees of more open defiance. Those hold-outs eventually became known as today’s various polygamous sects, who
now number some 30,000-50,000 practitioners in Utah, Arizona and
Surrounding states. These are the descendants of the Mormons who refused to
capitulate to political and social pressure to abandon the practice of what they were taught was an essential tenet of their religion.
The current Mormon polygamy doctrine, taught to its membership but never
publicly acknowledged in these plain terms, is that the practice of
polygamy, though temporarily suspended due to political necessity, is an
essential part of God’s plan of salvation, will be practiced by all
righteous Mormons in the afterlife and is practiced by God himself; who
by sexual relations with his many celestial consorts generates souls with
which to populate innumerable worlds throughout the universe.
These behaviors of God are possible because Mormons believe He has a
special body of flesh and bones, that He was once a man who progressed to His exalted state and that men may, by righteous living, i.e., the faithful
practice of Mormonism, including plural marriage, become Gods themselves.
The Book of Mormon, from which the church takes its common name, was
purportedly translated using a seer stone by founder Joseph Smith from
gold plates buried in a hillside outside Palmyra, New York circa 1820. The
existence and location of these plates inscribed with glyphs Joseph called
“reformed Egyptian” were revealed to him by an angel who visited him on a
number of occasions at night in his bedroom.
The Book of Mormon (the most correct book ever written according to
prophet Joseph Smith), in its original form, is largely the story of two peoples inhabiting the pre-contact Americas who were descended from a Jewish patriarch who had fled Jerusalem just prior to its destruction and reached the Americas by boat with his family and servants. The first group which
descended from the righteous side of the family, were called Nephites and
were described as “white and delightsome”, a complexion attributed to
their righteous living.
The other group, the Lamanites, from whom Native Americans are purportedly
descended, were described as “dark and loathsome” hunters and gatherers
who suffered this skin condition as a consequence of generations of non-belief and unapproved lifestyle. The Lamanites were, however, promised if they would change their ways they would become light -colored like their more righteous Nephite cousins. (these racist passages were revised sometime after I read the Book of Mormon in the mid 1970s)
The Lamanites, who eradicated the Nephites in war circa 600 A.D, together
with all the native peoples of the Americas and the pacific islands are
believed by Mormons to be remnants of the ten lost tribes of Israel.
Public records show that the founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith, was
convicted of being a fraudulent treasure digger in his early adult life,
was later adjudicated bankrupt and was ultimately assassinated in 1844 by
an angry mob after being arrested on charges arising from his unlawful
efforts to prevent the newspaper publication of his secret practice of polygamy in Nauvoo, Illinois.
Here is evidence of institutional racism, religious intolerance and arrogance, misogyny, violence, secrecy and a variety of claims that
strain credulity.
Isn’t it critical that a presidential candidate who belongs to an organization known or suspected to have any of these qualities be closely questioned concerning them and not allowed to dodge with responses like (paraphrasing) “don’t ask me about doctrine, ask the Mormon church”, or I’m not going to get into that” or “the oddest belief in my religion is the story of Noah and the flood?”
Hidden between the lines of ex-Mormon Phil Story’s boast that he has broken sacred covenants is his disdain for the principle of repentance.
What Story does not disclose is that he once made those alleged covenants of his own free will and choice.
Being himself unwilling to repent of his betrayal (or more likely being unwilling to assume any personal responsibility for his sins or even to allow the possibility that sin can exist), he lashes out against today’s Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for allegedly correcting alleged past mistakes. (I choose not to dignify his “revelations” with either affirmation or denial.)
The last time I checked, repentance was right up there among the leading principles of Mormonism. Assuming, hypothetically, that a Mormon like Tracy Hall might make a mistake and repent therefrom, why could not the Church itself be allowed to correct alleged past mistakes? But Phil Story, having engraved his own sins in granite, would also engrave his selective view of the Church’s alleged errors in granite.
When living prophets revealed in June of 1978 that the priesthood would be extended to all worthy males, without reference to race, the entire Church followed the policy instantly! What does that say about alleged LDS racism? Only that if it was there, we repented.
Only one so-called “racist” passage in the Book of Mormon was changed, and that was done to conform with a correction made by Joseph Smith himself. Other similar passages remain, showing that (no surprise to students of the Bible), an ancient people had a racist world view. If Story would re-read the Book of Mormon, looking for the big picture, he will find the message, quite politically incorrect for the year 1830, that pride of tribal or racial affiliation must inevitably lead to the destruction of any civilization.
No doubt Phil Story was not in attendance during the priesthood session of general conference in April of this year when the living prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley, said, “Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.”
The Need for Greater Kindness
It really irks our enemies that the LDS Church is a moving target, fully capable of change — or even (gasp) repentance. While paying due respect to dead prophets, ancient and modern, we follow, in fact, living prophets.
They can leave the church but they can not leave it alone. Do you ever wonder why some ex-Mormons are so verbose in their displeasure at having been excommunicated? It is because they know in thier heart that through thier behavior they have broken covenants they entered into with God. Even in thier sinfulness they know they really messed up. But they are so wrapped up in their ego-driven position that they can not bring themselves to make it right. The torment must be awful. In trying to find relief they must find a way to continue in their ways but not be found at fault. It is a battle they fight internally but because thinking drives behavior, it spills out for the rest of the world to see.