http://www.graceforgrace.com

How sad for you that you would allow a man (In your case a Bishop) to determine your eternal salvation. I’ve had several not-so-great Bishops and several not-so-great Stake Presidency leaders, and I would not allow one of them to ever keep me from the gospel of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, I’ve never had a man in the LDS faith treat me as though I were less than them or beneath them. In fact, it has always been the opposite for me: I’ve always commanded respect and have always received it. I’ve been chosen for leadership possessions and have been questioned for my advice on many occassions.

The bottom line is, if you have your own personal relationship with God, you really don’t need to concern yourself with someone elses personal relationship with God, and certainly not Romney’s.

To all the anti-Mormons out there – listen -

Call it multi-theism as you wish but Heavenly Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are 3 seperate and distinct beings. Your idiotic and nebulous trinity was the invention of a committee and makes no sense. 90% of your congregations don’t see God that way – try giving them a quiz. The only people who believe that crap are those who learn it in some divinity school. It defies logic and the common sense Heavenly Father gave you. It serves only to fulfill the purpose for which it was created – to distance man from God.

Yes there is and will be more than one God but there is only one Heavenly Father.

Yes there is a Heavenly Mother.

Yes baptism for the dead gives hope to those who never had a chance to hear the truth.

Yes it does make a difference how you act in this life. Being “saved” is an assinine philosophy drempt up by a man. Only God can give us the gift of immortality – he freely gives it to all. Any more than that (exalatation)has to be earned.

We are put here to work out our own salvation and help one another, but as for the anti-LDS morons -I no longer care about you – you are doing Satan’s work and yes – he is your spirit brother.

No more being PC – I dust my shoes off.

Actually I left the church when I was 14 years old, hardly of an age when I would be married yet. The reason I left? After one of the women in our congregation discovered that her husband was raping their 18 MONTH old daughter, instead of going straight to the police, she sought counseling from the bishop, and he told her that “it must be because she wasn’t fulfilling her duties as a wife.” When the woman came to her senses and took herself and her children back to the states (we were in Germany at the time), as a show of support for that molesting bastard, the church offered his services out as a babysitter. And people took him up on it, based on the recommendation of their church leadership! And he proceeded to molest a bunch of other little girls. After that, and the pathetic response of the church, my family wisely decided that it wasn’t in our best interests to remain members.

As for my comment regarding “I can’t get into the celestial kingdom unless my husband lets me in,” I can’t see too many other ways to interpret being given a secret name that my husband has to call me by and ‘pull me through the veil’. Perhaps they’ve changed the temple ceremonies over the years, and they’ve ditched that portion. If so, well and good. The church always was pretty good about responding to changes in social attitudes over the years, but they’re still overtly sexist, as evidenced by this quote from Hinckley during the April 2007 General Conference: “Husbands, love and treasure your wives. They are your most precious possessions. Wives, encourage and pray for your husbands. They need all the help they can get…”

The problem is that so many LDS members don’t even realize they’re being sexist. Which is why I thought it was kind of sad that the missionaries responded to me the way they did. They weren’t being sarcastic, they weren’t trying to make a joke, they really thought that “women staying home taking care of the kids so men could get things done” = equality.

There are things about the mormon church to like. Their attitude towards women is not one of them, for me, and is sufficient to keep me from ever going back.

Of course, this still makes no sense. It has nothing to do with being in control. In the case of Hillary Clinton attending an all-female college, there are no policies at issue. The concern is still what she believes, entirely independent of where she attended school.

Not to mention none of the other organizations you mentioned have a reputation for being essentially racist or sexist, so your grasping onto Kaimi’s lifeline makes no sense. If you had meant — or written — what Kaimi did, we would not have been arguing, as you would have had nothing to argue with me about and certainly would have had no reason to bring up sexism as an analogy or quote me out of context (which Kaimi fixed for you) or state that I believed things I had expressly stated I did not believe, i.e., outright lying (which not even Kaimi could fix for you).

Agreed that that the broader concerns about whether a candidate previously belonged to a racist and/or sexist organization certainly extend more widely than to Romney alone.

I thought the question to Mitt was quite reasonable – so reasonable that I would support it being asked of all candidates (male and female) to whom it similiary applies. None of the candidates, including Mitt, was “in charge” of the policies that are being questioned, but many (if not all) have at some time participated despite knowing the policy was in effect.

I also agree with your comments about what place race actually takes in the beliefs of the Church. (The 100 mile rule was a *new* one to me too. )

While the Church does involve itself somewhat in Salt Lake politics (which is somewhat understandable given its land holdings in the area), the separation between politics and religion is strictly adhered to in the church buildings. We are counseled to be active citizens in the community and reminded ever year to vote, but I have never heard anyone suggest a specific candidate – including Mitt Romney – either officially or unofficially. What you often see on the news – a candidate speaking from the pulpit during church services – I have never seen or heard about happening in the LDS church in my 30 years of membership.

One thing that I think many non-members don’t either know or understand is that the while the largest number of LDS live in the United States, over half of the total members of the church are from overseas. The LDS church is a world-wide one and the President over all members, not just the US ones.

Dozens of different languages (and various dialects of those languages) are taught to missionaries before they go into the field. When missionaries go into the field overseas, they don’t live in 5-star hotels – they live and work as the citizens of the country do. I can speak from personal experience when I say that missionaries find it very easy to bond with the people of their home countries.

Now does that mean Mitt would give preference to the French were he to be elected? No, of course not, but he just might be able to relate to the French better than some our past presidents have been able to do so because of his experience.

Personally, I have not yet decided on my vote for President. For one, it is WAY to early for that decision. Also, however, I can see a number of plusses and negatives to each candidate. I just prefer such decisions to be made on facts versus urban legends.

Rose started it by calling me “inconsistent and remarkably ill-informed” in a post in which she deliberately chopped up my post, took phrases out of context, and ignored explicit statements that I made, e.g., claiming I have no problem with sexist politicians after I had stated that I cared whether Hillary Clinton held anti-male views that would influence her public policy-making, but not whether she attended an all-female college. Her tone was incivil, and I responded in kind. But point taken, both about tone and the handle.

As to your comment that “Agreed that that the broader concerns about whether a candidate previously belonged to a racist and/or sexist organization certainly extend more widely than to Romney alone,” that does not appear to be Rose’s point. If that were Rose’s point, she would have taken at face value my statement that I do not think all-female colleges are sexist institutions or that the Girl Scouts is a sexist institution. Of course, if one was a member of the Klu Klux Klan, that would be of concern. But one can obviously distinguish between the Klu Klux Klan and an all-female college. The Klu Klux Klan has as its central pillar a belief in the inferiority of certain classes of human beings. An all-female college might, but that isn’t necessarily or probably the case. And a former member of the Klu Klux Klan might have joined for the social networking benefits in his local community when the KKK ran local politics and government, not because he privately held white supremacist views. The focus of the inquiry would not center on the membership in the organization, but rather on whether the person actually held the views. I do not think having attended Harvard is an equivalent to membership in the KKK as a warrant for inquiry, nor do I think being a Mormon would be equivalent if there weren’t the public perception that racism is a central pillar of the faith. One could easily imagine a religion in which only hermaphraodites were priests because two sets of genitalia reflected the duality of God; that doesn’t necessarily mean males and females are considered inferior in the religion or that any adherents of the religion hold such views. The Mormon policy rescinded in 1978 only warrants inquiry because of the public perception about Mormonism; thus Russert asked about the policy specifically and Romney responded about whether he was a racist in general, using the policy as a framework to discuss it, i.e., “I was so overjoyed that I wept from my profound and eternal belief that racial equality is holy.”

By contrast, Rose’s position seems to be “Any organization that excludes female members for any reason is a sexist organization,” which is simply illogical, e.g., “The Association of Male Breast Cancer Survivors,” not to mention leads to the notion that any benefit exclusively accruing to one gender is unfair. Striking down the Pregnancy Discrimination Act because it is in effect a disbursement of cash to “women only” seems rather foolish to me, even if it is principled. Not to mention it has nothing to do with Mitt Romney’s comments about racism on Meet The Press.

I, personally, am not deciding whether or not to vote for Mr. Romney based on his faith, but I don’t think it’s bigotry if others do.

I think it’s fine to make decisions based on the content of Romney’s (or others’) belief, religious or not. I do have concerns when Romney (or any other candidate) has beliefs attributed to him that don’t seem to correspond to actual belief.

are constantly telling me that these are the last days, have boxes of stored food in their living rooms, and don’t want to travel more than 100 miles from home for fear that they won’t be safe when the last day comes, who give me faith promoting material at the drop of a hat or a holiday, whichever comes first, who join MLM schemes @every two years, whose e-mails are filled with urban legends, and who are members of the John Birch Society because the “prophet” encouraged it.

You’ve got some weird relatives, CBiden. But then, you probably knew that.

I know weird Mormons who join MLM, and who send around lots of urban legends. I don’t think I’ve ever met any who follow the 100-mile rule, though. (Or at least, who have ever told me about it).

There are valid criticisms of the LDS church, especially related to race. One is that the doctrine was quite muddled. It’s documented that at least one black held the [LDS] priesthood in the mid-nineteenth century

Certainly true. There’s some good research and study that’s been done on the issue, including Bush and Mauss’s book Neither White Nor Black that traces the development of the doctrine.

Worse, the religion seems to embody some horrendous claims about humanity. Black people, according to Mormonism as I understand it, are black precisely because they turned away from God and are cursed by God. The black skin is proof that God does not love them and they are sinners. Now, either that is a fundament of the religion, or it is not,

That’s easy. It’s not.

The question is whether the religion has as a central pillar the belief that blacks are inherently evil and indeed are black to alert others of this irredeemable flaw. If Romney does believe this, which I take to be O’Donnell’s point, then he is unfit to be President, because you simply can’t have a President who believes millions of Americans are evil because of their skin color.

It’s not a central pillar of belief. Or a minor pillar, for that matter. It’s not part of church doctrine.

Was Mitt Romney a racist until age 30? This is O’Donnell’s point. I don’t think all Mormons need to answer this question; just Mitt Romney.

That seems like a reasonable enough suggestion.

I appreciate the statements that Romney has made. I agree that they’re not as clear as they could be. That’s probably the usual political-speak. But I’d be happy to hear a more forceful statement.

Rose,

Agreed that that the broader concerns about whether a candidate previously belonged to a racist and/or sexist organization certainly extend more widely than to Romney alone.

Anti-Rose person,

Pick a handle and stick with it, dude. I’m counting 10 different handles on this thread. And “Rose is stupid” is not an appropriate handle. It’s fine to disagree with another commenter, but let’s keep it civil.

Except you ignore that my concern is not with membership to organizations that have restrictive policies, but only to whether individuals have private beliefs about the inferiority of other humans that they will enact into public policy — the question arises with regard to Mormonism because Mormonism is perceived, rightly or wrongly, to embody the belief that black skin is a sign of God’s disfavor. As I state explicitly above, it isn’t about whether blacks were allowed to be priests, or even admitted into the religion, so the rest of your nonsense about membership to organizations is wholly irrelevant.

I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man

is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I

do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I

must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just

let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had

a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible

for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes.I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its correctness—and that is the case of Judge [Senator Stephen] Douglas’s old friend Col. Richard M. Johnson.

Johnson was Van Buren’s Vice President. He was notorious for having a slave mistress, whom he treated as his de facto wife. In 1836 the Virginia electors would not vote for him, and so he became the only Vice President elected by the Senate. (In 1824, the electors split four ways on the President, leading to the election of John Quincy Adams by the House, but they largely concurred on John Calhoun as Vice President.)

You demanded:

But Mitt Romney was a Mormon before 1978. In 1978 he was 30. Was Mitt Romney a racist until age 30? This is O’Donnell’s point. I don’t think all Mormons need to answer this question; just Mitt Romney. He is, after all, running for President of the United States of America.

I agreed, but I also pointed out that the same question was a fair one for all Presidential candidates (which the rest of us know include both male and female human beings). Most have attended a college and/or belonged to an organization that had restrictive policies at one time or another when they were members/students. I also pointed out the same situation applied to Lawrence O’Donnell.

Mitt, as much as you apparently would like to pretend, is not the only one.

From that you “logically” claim:

Uh, no. I just don’t think the Girl Scouts is a sexist organization or that all-female colleges are evil, which is where your logic leads. Your logic means that women can’t have their own organizations. Which is sexist. In that case, Hillary Clinton should turn down any contributions from Emily’s List and we should strike down the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. I think that’s nutty. It’s also irrelevant to Mitt Romney’s candidacy.

And you think I haven’t read YOUR posts?

LOL!

I think your personal attacks on me have adequately demonstrated your inability to discuss the situation rationally or logically.

Personally, I find you to not have read what I wrote and to have never taken a biology or biological anthropology class.

Uh, no. I just don’t think the Girl Scouts is a sexist organization or that all-female colleges are evil, which is where your logic leads. Your logic means that women can’t have their own organizations. Which is sexist. In that case, Hillary Clinton should turn down any contributions from Emily’s List and we should strike down the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. I think that’s nutty. It’s also irrelevant to Mitt Romney’s candidacy.

Personally I find you to be inconsistent and remarkably ill-informed.

It’s about privately held beliefs about the inferiority of other human beings.

The difference in our POV’s is that I care about privately held beliefs about the inferiority of all other human beings.

No, I didn’t say that at all. I don’t think the Girl Scouts is sexist because no boys are allowed, and I think your analogies are illogical and irrelevant, so I moved the conversation back where it belongs.

I can remember when, when I heard about the change being made. I was driving home from, I think, it was law school, but I was driving home, going through the Fresh Pond rotary in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I heard it on the radio, and I pulled over and, and literally wept. Even at this day it’s emotional, and so it’s very deep and fundamental in my, in my life and my most core beliefs that all people are children of God. My faith has always told me that. My faith has also always told me that, in the eyes of God, every individual was, was merited the, the fullest degree of happiness in the hereafter, and I, and I had no question in my mind that African-Americans and, and blacks generally, would have every right and every benefit in the hereafter that anyone else had and that God is no respecter of persons.

MR. RUSSERT: But it was wrong for your faith to exclude it for as long as it did.

GOV. ROMNEY: I’ve told you exactly where I stand. My view is that there–there’s, there’s no discrimination in the eyes of God, and I could not have been more pleased than to see the change that occurred.