Julia Duin's got a blog/Ask Mitt

I would ask him to explain the reasons used by the Morman hierarchy to come to the conclusion less than thirty years ago that African Americans are elgible for inclusion in thier cult, err, religion.

I would ask him if they received any thank you notes from the decendents of Holocaust victims after the Morman church baptized all of them.

Has the Vatican sent a thank you note to Salt Lake City for the baptism of Pope John Paul II?

Do you plan on baptizing my father? Can you look into the Hubble telescope and show me the planet that he now reigns over?

Can you show me the studies in a medical journal which explains how the DNA of the Native Americans is closely related to those of the Middle East? More specifically the Mizhari Jews?

Just a few. You get my point.

This simply points out the wisdom of the separation of Church and State.

I cannot think of a place where a strictly theological matter should be a political issue. How one's religion would influence foreign and domestic policy - fair, because we want to understand what foreign and domestic policy would look like under this person. How one's religion has affected one's character - fair since the issue is the person's character.

The GOP is playing with fire if its base starts disqualifying candidates strictly because they do not pass a theology litmus test.

I'd say Huck's creationism is fair game since this has become a national issue. If you don't believe that, consider that the national park office at the Grand Canyon has literature explaining the Grand Canyon from a Biblical creationist perspective. Why the Hindu or Mormon creation perspective is not available may become a legitimate question.

My question would be something like this: Mormons consider themselves descendants of the Jewish patriarchs and adopted members of the House of Israel. As a consequence many Mormons hold political views which are decidedly in favor of the goals and aims of the state of Israel. Do you share the Mormon esteem for and identification with Israel, and do you think that this will influence your foreign policy decisions in the Middle East?

I ask pardon at the outset for what will necessarily be a long post. From what I’ve learned about the LDS church as an outsider, it is my impression that they really are not like other churches in terms of their power structure. They are more like one big religious order, where everyone owes obedience to the head of the order--or in this case, the First Presidency.

Mormon leaders are every bit as infallible in the eyes of their followers as the Pope is among Catholics--and in fact, more so, because papal infallibility is limited to his speech ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. In theory at least, there is no limitation to the authority of Mormon leadership. The First President is a “living prophet” and is revered as such.

Moreover, the Pope has limited avenues of redress if an average American politician openly opposes papal teaching--as we have seen in the controversy over denial of sacraments to pro-abortion Catholic politicians. Mormon leadership, however, can wield a stunning array of sanctions against the disobedient--sanctions which will affect their business and family as well as their spiritual life.

It’s a known fact that officials of the Mormon Church used their ecclesiastical resources and authority to help defeat the ERA. The Church financed and organized buses, leaflets, and door to door canvassing. No doubt many conservatives think the ERA defeat was a good thing--but would they feel the same if Mitt Romney’s divine guide started giving him orders about other policy issues? With the implied threat of withdrawal of the Church’s considerable resources from Romney’s support if he failed to obey?

JFK had to assure Americans that he would obey his conscience, rather than taking orders directly from the Vatican, before Americans trusted him with the Presidency. I would like to ask Mitt Romney if he can say the same--if he can assure us that he would make decisions based on the best interests of ALL his constituents rather than on the divine guidance of the elders in Salt Lake City.

I would like him to explain his thinking on some of the following statements by past First Presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints.

“When our leaders speak the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan--it is God’s plan. When they point the way, there is no other way that is safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy.”

President Wilford Woodruff stated:
'My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.'

-Ezra Taft Benson quoting Marion G. Romney quoting Heber J. Grant
“I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God.” (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, pp. 212–13.)

Said President Marion G. Romney, “It is an easy thing to believe in the dead prophets, but it is a greater thing to believe in the living prophets.” And then he gives this illustration:

“One day when President Grant was living, I sat in my office across the street following a general conference. A man came over to see me, an elderly man. He was very upset about what had been said in this conference by some of the Brethren, including myself. I could tell from his speech that he came from a foreign land. After I had quieted him enough so he would listen, I said, ‘Why did you come to America?’ ‘I am here because a prophet of God told me to come.’ ‘Who was the prophet?’ I continued. ‘Wilford Woodruff.’ ‘Do you believe Wilford Woodruff was a prophet of God?’ ‘Yes, sir.’

“Then came the sixty-four dollar question, ‘Do you believe that Heber J. Grant is a prophet of God?’ His answer, ‘I think he ought to keep his mouth shut about old-age assistance.’

“Now I tell you that a man in his position is on the way to apostasy. He is forfeiting his chances for eternal life. So is everyone who cannot follow the living prophet of God.” (Conference Report, April 1953, p. 125.) (Ezra Taft Benson, "First Presidency Message: Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet," Tambuli, June 1981).

(And I acknowledge upfront that I obtained these quotes from various websites--I did not personally peruse all the writings of these sages. I’m somewhat conversant with information about Mormons--but not to that degree! So it is possible they are taken out of context somehow--but if so, I would like to hear that explained.)

What's the deal with that d*mn underwear?

(Hey, you said ANY question involving LDS theology ...)

In Mormonism the sitting Prophet has the authority to contravene standing doctrine and practice--even those born directly from founding documents or Joseph Smith himself--via claims to new revelation. Given that such a view of authority and truth is central to your religious faith and given the very similar claims regarding the malleability of truth and the reach of executive authority made by the current president and by your party, why should we not fear that, as President, you would not hold yourself accountable to the Constitution

An interesting question. As a Mormon, I think my answer would be two-fold. First, I'd reject the premise of the question. The prophet is not going to call up the President and order him to ignore the Constitution and you know it. You're question is like asking a politician who says that he loves his wife more than anything what he would do if his wife told him to start taking orders from the Chinese or else she'd leave him. The answer is that part of the reason he loves his wife so much is he knows she's not the sort to put him in that position.

Second, I'd point out that the Church is only one of four independent sources of authority that Mormons recognize. The others are the family (i.e, parents), direct instruction from God, and the state. The boundaries and interaction between these authorities can be fuzzy at the margins, but in the main its clear that a President and other political officials are not accountable to the Church for their actions in office. He's accountable to the voters and to God. That's why, for instance, when the Church recently asked its members to support a traditional marriage amendment, there were no repercussions against Harry Reid when he vocally opposed it (or for any other liberal Mormons either). Unlike in other faith traditions, we almost always impose ecclesiastical discipline on people who vocally oppose church teaching (i.e., forbid communion, expulsion from membership, etc.) but when it comes to politics its different. In the ERA era, Mormon feminists vocally opposed the Church on ERA but generally* only those who started calling on Americans to boycott Church services and Church missionaries faced any discipline.

*I say "generally" because the great majority of disciplinary decisions happen at the local level and in a worldwide church some local leaders will be at the overzealous end of the bell curve and their actions will sometimes slip through the cracks.

I'm a devout traditional Catholic, but I would vote for someone who worshipped Moloch as long as I agreed with his/her policies and plans for the country. Is it just me?

Personally, I'd rather have a sincere pagan or atheist as president than a sham, nominal Catholic (read: JFK). But it all takes a back seat as to whether I agree with his/her policy politions and the direction in which he/she plans to take the country.

Sigalaris, If a Scott is wearing anything under his kilt, then its just a dress.

In Mormonism the sitting Prophet has the authority to contravene standing doctrine and practice--even those born directly from founding documents or Joseph Smith himself--via claims to new revelation. Given that such a view of authority and truth is central to your religious faith and given the very similar claims regarding the malleability of truth and the reach of executive authority made by the current president and by your party, why should we not fear that, as President, you would not hold yourself accountable to the Constitution.

An interesting question. As a Mormon, I think my answer would be two-fold. First, I'd reject the premise of the question.... Second, I'd point out that the Church is only one of four independent sources of authority that Mormons recognize.

My question does not concern a Mormon President's ability to be independent from the sitting Mormon prophet. That's likely not an issue. It concerns the Mormon religion's view of the power and authority of its high executive, a view which grants the power to contradict and contravene both tradition and founding documents and, a la Orwell's recdep, essentially rewrite history. Because the Republican Party is so enamored of a similar view of Presidential authority I would like to hear why Romney's religious views (deeply ingrained, we must assume, in a self-professed good Mormon) will not dove-tail and reinforce an already potentially disastrous development in the history of our republic.