Mitt will have to deal with people who think these TBM responses make no sense whatsover. Until he can get over that hump, he’ll continue to be a marginal candidate…

One difference between the 2 situations with these politicians is that for Obama to leave his church/minister, he is really only rejecting the MAN that leads that one church, not God himself, per se, or even Christianity entirely, just a person, not a faith. But for Mitt to disagree or disavow any man in a leadership position, or a single item of dogma or doctrine, according to his faith/church, he is viewed as entirely ‘faithless’ and ‘lost’. The LDS church certainly has the tendency to be black and white that way. We have all seen what is done to a member who dares publicly speak out against anything or anyone. Leaders in the church are given cart blanch by virtue of the idea that there calling is from God….therefore he speaks for God. Since the church says that the GA’s speak for the Lord, does say, the General Relief Society President also?

I have recently been reading the works of Heschel, a Hasidic (sp) rabbi who has been an activist racially and religiously, participating in protests against the Vietnam war as well as marching with MLK in Selma. He is known to have said that on that march he felt his “legs were praying’. He states, “The opposite of good is not evil. It is indifference.” When asked about speaking out he said “His tradition not only gives him the right but the duty.” You have to give the Jews credit for honoring individual belief much more profoundly that perhaps any other faith.

That causes me to stop and think when I quietly sit back and live my ‘new’ beliefs rather than potentially speak up against the injustices and errors in the world and in religions themselves.

He states, “It is customary to blame secular science and anti-religious philosophy for the eclipse of religion in modern society. It would be more honest to blame religion for it own defects. Religion declined not because it was refuted, but because it became irrelevant, dull, oppressive.” He goes on to say that if that is what we experience in religion we should know that we are not getting the ‘real thing’.

I think that spoke to me as to why I left the church. It really did become those things to me. While I accept that as my own personal experience, I make room for the fact that others may not experience it that way.

I do find many beautiful truths within the basic tenants of belief, but am disturbed by so much of the actions and individual beliefs of the leaders and more to the point, the way these individuals have power over the hearts and minds of the members, and how effortlessly the members accept without question the things these men say without taking them not only into their intellect, but more importantly into their moral heart. I have left the church, but not God.

But, alas, the church leaves no room for us to do as Heschel suggests, and publicly speak out or question……so on my way I go.

Our modern society has blessed us with access to so much information, no wonder there is so much reason for our doubt by virtue of our pluralism. Compared to a century ago, we are confronted with other faiths that have different views of the world, but also have truth as well as beauty, depth and profoundness, so it is obvious to anyone who will really open their eyes that no one has a monopoly on ultimate truth. Heschel believes this should not paralyze or intimidate us, but humble us. He denounces relativism, where all are accepted as equally true, but proposes that we each simply “listen to God as best we can and do our work in the world as we understand it to be along side others who likewise feel compelled. He calls it a ’summons to action without giving us the security of ultimate truth’.

Jay, an active LDS, more or less says these issues have been corrected by the church and should no longer be issues, taking the minority and unofficial LDS position that the racial discrimination practiced was a mistake.

““In short the Mormon Church has already addressed the issues and corrected them.”

Now on the other had you have Ditchu that in my experience takes the more common LDS and perhaps even the official Church position of God wanted it that why and we just don’t know or understand why it is simply a matter of faith.

“Neither LDS nor God is the racist here. I am satisified with the reasoning that God had some reason to withhold the preisthood from who he chooses. I will not dictate what God should do. But I feel that there was a reason that I do not as of yet know, that the Preisthood was held back form some. Is it racist to *agnolage* *acknowledge?* that God had a reason or is it racist to let God direct his church?”

First we need to define racism or racist to answer the Ditchu’s question

From Wikipedia
“Racism, by its simplest definition, is discrimination based on racial group.”

“Legal definition
According to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,
the term “racial discrimination” shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. ”

Ditchu asks does this make God a racist the answer is a simple yes. LDS that take Ditchu’s position are are saying that it was okay for God to be racist because he is God, regardless it is still racism.

Mitts dilemma is which position will he take? It was a mistake or it was from God and therefore racism at that time was okay. One thing to also bear in mind, Mitt was 31 in 1978. He was an adult and a supporting member of a discriminating organization. I think it only fair to ask Mitt the questions regarding Racism and even perhaps Polygamy – Do you believe it was an error in judgment by those in Leadership positions of your Church or do you believe they were following directives from God.

I think Mitt would not necessarily have to resign from Mormonism to be successful in his presidential bid if he chooses to run again but would at least need to very clearly denounce certain historical practices of the LDS church and its leaders.

-D

“I think you are too quick to jump on the LDS Church for not having a good explanation of why God would hold back his Preisthood to any group of people.2

The answer is obvious .Its nothing to do with God but Brigham Young’s nonsense ….. and all the rest of the stupidity about LDSWhite Superiority and blacks being filthy and cursed in a dark skin for less valiancy right up until Spencer Kimballs idiotic spell as leader.

“I am satisified with the reasoning that God had some reason to withhold the preisthood from who he chooses.”

So why did God wait until Martin Luther king highlighted Inequality and BYU was threatened that no other Universities would play games with them over the priesthood ban …

” I do not know why women are not in the leadership of the church”

The answer is simple , they haven’t protested enough yet to get Almighy Mormon God to harken to them and change his mind.

-D

“There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient; more or less, to the laws that were given us there.”
–Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, page 61

These LDS prophets were/are not getting direction from God. That is what Mitt Romney will have to deal with when he runs for president again.

(my daughter would say “thank you Captain Obvious”)…