Obama Resigns From Church, Should Mitt Romney Resign From LDS Church?
Posted by skiutah on Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Barack Obama has resigned from his church because of controversial statements made in the past by various preachers within his church.
I think Obama has done the right thing. He has recognized that his ministers and pastors have taught destructive and divisive concepts, and he should not associate with such people.
Should Mitt Romney follow Barack’s lead and resign from the Mormon church?
Previous LDS prophets and leaders have taught and preached far worse things than Obama’s pastors. For example, the LDS prophets have claimed to be in direct communication with God when espousing many flawed doctrines such as polygamy, racism, Book of Abraham, and so on…
Book of Mormonisms 
Jay said
No, Mitt Romney need not resign from the LDS Church. Comments and teachings of early LDS leaders have largely changed. Polygamy was ended over 100 years ago, the priesthood ban was lifted almost 30 years ago. These issues are old news (though admitedly they are still hotly debated among critics of the LDS faith). The only reason Obama had to resign was his pastor was making offensive remarks today and was unapologetic. The pastor is a contemporary figure, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Orson Hyde, Bruce R. McConkie, etc. are not. In short the Mormon Church has already addressed the issues and corrected them.
ditchu said
Why would Mitt show weekness in values by running from his faith? It is silly to leave a faith just for political gain. I think B.H. Obama should not have been so hasty to drop his “religion.”
Bishop Rick said
Obama has not left Christianity, he has merely revoked his membership from his old church.
Mitt could leave the LDS church without showing weakness and without denouncing Christianity.
ditchu said
Rick,
My comment still stands.
It is not mearly a question if these people profess to be christians. The issue I see is that these indivisuals have spent several years as members of their religous orginizations. it is a shame to turn from these idealogies for nothing more than political insentive. If B.H. Obama thinks I would vote for him now that he has left the church he was standing by for some 20 years as he has said, then he is sorely mistaken. I wonder how quick he will turn from his politics or his Contry when it suits his current short term wims. No, Mitt is better where he is, standing up for his beleifs.
-D
E said
No Mitt should not resign from the LDS Church. God has commanded his children to do many things that seem odd by today’s standards (read the bible, God commanded polygamy), the fact that God spoke to His children in biblical times makes it clearly evident that he can do the same today. Just because what God commanded in biblical times does not mesh with the “American” conscience of what is right or wrong today does not mean that it was not right then.
coventryNcabo said
The future will tell, it seems to me that Mitt has set himself up to run in 2012. Many LDS on the blogs I read cried foul and religious bigotry on how Mitt and Mormonism were treated. As we can see as with case for Obama at some point if Mitt gets further along next time all those statements made by present and past LDS leaders will become issues. This will always be IMHO Mitts down fall in regards to his presidential chances.
deaconj123 said
Mitt has a quandry, if he wants to be president, he can’t be seen associating with a religion that most people in this country view as a cult. (whether the Mormons like it or not, that’s the reality)
Yet if he ditches his religion, he might be seen as a flip flopper.
I think it would show a lot of character for Mitt to resign from the LDS church. It takes a great deal of inner strength for somebody to recognize that the religion they were raised in has a long history of teaching falsehoods, fraud, and bad practices and really isn’t anything like what they were taught it was.
conservativeme said
Living in a dominantly LDS community, I can tell you if Mitt left the LDS church he would be viewed with such awful disdain that you cannot imagine. To hold to one’s values amid a tumultuous uproar of “popular opinion” is the definition character. The values of the LDS church are solid. I know of no other organization that is more adamant in protecting the natural family than them.
Like was previously said, your proposal that the LDS are racist is just wrong; that they are polygamists shows either your bigotry or lack of proper education. The “extremist” views of the LDS exist as nothing more than rhetoric in the minds of those who fight against the LDS.
The fact that B. H. Obama left his church because of public dislike for his pastor is a remarkable showing of how he will bend to the opinions of those around him. To a conservative this looks awful, he has no “core” convictions. To a liberal, he’s a human and not an awful “monster” like George Bush. Only time will tell how that issue plays out.
coventryrm said
“natural family ” How are you defining that?
coventryrm said
LDS are Polygamist they still teach it as a princible for the next life but have conceded because of legal pressure in this life. My Father was just sealed to his second wife he is also sealed to my Mother who passed away years ago, if the roles were reversed my Mother would not be able to be sealed to another man. I guess I am a bigot and uneducated to understand and know these simple FACTS!
SkiUtah said
Yes, the LDS church still practices a form of polygamy. Here’s a poem from the LDS prophet Harold B. Lee who thanks God for a heavenly menage a trois:
“My lovely Joan was sent to me: So Joan joins Fern
That three might be, more fitted for eternity.
O Heavenly Father, my thanks to thee.”
–Deseret News 1974 Church Almanac, p. 17
It’s very common for widowed LDS men to be sealed for time and eternity to more than one wife.
deaconj123 said
Mitt Romney should explain to Barack Obama some of the mormon racist teachings.
For example, Brigham Young says that Barack has no business running for president:
“If the Affricans cannot bear rule in the Church of God, what buisness have they to bear rule in the State and Government affairs of this Territory or any others?”
ditchu said
Strange that this comment was said by a man who died long before Obama was born.
j,
I think you are using that statment out of context.
deaconj123 said
Not out of context, the actual speech is much worse and racist than what I quoted:
http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/brigham1852feb5_priesthoodandblacks.htm
ditchu said
J,
The context I speak of here is one of culture and time. The american culture in the 1800’s is drastically different than that of today. What we call rasism today was common in 1800’s America, It was not only accepted, it was expected. I have heard many statments I consider racist but I do not consider the people who say them racists because they have proven to me that they are equally fair with all races, colors, and creeds. I however have had the unfortuniate experience of hearing a real racist speak and the terms and vaulgar ideas they held to were gastly bias and mostly untrue. I do not feal compelled to point out that a few terms does not depict a peoson of being racist, however the mentality that backs up these statments would tell us if one is really a racist.
Again my point here is not to argue that someone is or is not a racist, just that in a different culture (and time has changed the american culture) statments are often used out of context. We often forget the original context unless strictlly recorded, as by Folklore or sociology studies, where sometimes the time of day would be a part of the context. i.e. Your sitting around the campfire telling Ghost stories… From this you may assume it is night or late evening, but unless stated we could be talking about this experience as if it happened at noon with the sun blazing down. The difference is not the stories or the place or people but a slight differenc in time changes the attitude we view it by, in short it changes the context. If a few hours can change a simple activity as in my example, just think how much context changes in 150 years or so, when the culture is so different.
Again I think you are still out of context due the culture.
-D
coventryNcabo said
D
Here is something to think about, you are correct that it was a different time and culture racism was more common place however consider this there were people at that time that were enlightened to how wrong racism and slavery were. How is it then that the Man who is talking to God and is Gods mouth piece on earth was just as bad if not worse when it came to these issues of race. In fact it took the LDS church untill 1978 to figure it out. Why is the ones who claim to actually talk to God and receive revelation lagged so far behind social concience!
ditchu said
The decision in 1978 was not made by man. This is apparent if you look at the comments prior to 1978 by Pres. Kimble. He often commented that he prayed to God about letting all worthy Men hold the Preisthood. Several years later that answer came. How do I know why God withheld the Preisthood? I do not but all I could do is make guesses and I think many have tried to rationalize this docturine without accually knowing the full extent to which it would be followed and why. Maybe God was testing our resolve and some people took it too far. Why God did not tell Pres. Young his intentions with this, I do not know, but I can think of better things to question.
-D
coventryNcabo said
okay so God is the racist which is it, maybe you should think more about these things and the implications of this pretzel logic
coventryNcabo said
afterthought
Ditchu your (typical LDS) position of I don’ t know why “GOD” withheld the priesthood proves exactly the point that LDS are indeed RACIST! OR was it a mistake? one or the other take your pick
SkiUtah said
yep, 1978 is when the LDS church officially abandoned racism. You can find plenty of racist teachings from the prophets up until that time. Here’s a classic from the prophet Joseph Fielding Smith:
“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”)…
ditchu said
CoventryNcabo,
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 that God had a reason or is it racist to let God direct his church? 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. I do not know why women are not in the leadership of the church but I do see it as a good way to get us men off our duffs and working in the church. Are we sexist in your mind too?
-D
elderjoseph said
Ditchu
you said
“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.
ditchu said
Joe,
I did not know that LDS women asked an ex-JW man to speak for them. Did you get this information from women who left the LDS church, current women members, or come up with it yourself?
-D
Bishop Rick said
God has a history of withholding the Priesthood from certain groups. The Aaronic Priesthood (for example) can only be held by descendants of Aaron.
coventryrm said
As I read through the comments I think this dialog precisely shows why Mitt will have some tough choices down the road in regards to these issues.
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.
myreligioniskindness said
I find the previous post very relevant in that if looked at logically, one would have to say that God IS a racist if he would truly put one man above another, which to me is unimaginable. Of course, the God I have come to know is so much different that the God of any Western religion. How could the creator of all assign unequal value to any of It’s creations. Just as a human parent is incapable of making one of his children more or less valuable than another by virtue of some outward physical characteristic.
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’.
skiutah said
awesome thoughts. thank you.
Barack Obama Resigns From His Church | Top Videos said
[…] coventryrm.wordpress.comBarack Obama has resigned from his church because of controversial… […]
SkiUtah said
The TBM answers to all of the crazy things the past Mormon prophets have said makes perfect sense to other TBMs. But to somebody on the outside, the answers just seem ridiculous.
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…