Mitt Romney...A Mormon Bishop???

I was watching TV last night, and I land on a documentary about Mitt Romney called "The Mormon Candidate" (video at end of thread).

I've always known Romney was a Mormon...and that aspect doesn't bother me one bit. Everyone has their beliefs, I am no one to claim if their belief is correct or not. I don't care if an individual candidate is Mormon, Catholic, Muslim, or Atheist...I just don't honestly care about their indivdual belief.

However...this documentary covered something that I wasn't aware about before. Researching it now, I see that it isn't secret information or anything...but it isn't something that is being talked about more. And that is that not only is Romney a Mormon...he was a Mormon Bishop and the President of a Mormon stake (comparably to a Catholic diocese).

Now, for some reason this really surprised me. Everyone has their faith (or non-faith), and every candidate usually speaks about their faith. But there is something about having a religous leader as a candidate that I am not entirely comfortable with. And again...I don't care that it is a Mormon leader...I wouldn't want a Catholic Priest, a Muslim Cleric or a Jewish Rabbi (current or former for all of them) to be the President of the United States. Once you get to that point...it seems like your loyalties are seriously divided.

So I decided to look into Romney's tenure as a Mormon church leader...and again...not entirely comfortable with what I found.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

One Sunday in 1982, she recalled, Romney, then a young bishop, and an assistant showed up at her doorstep inviting her to her excommunication trial.

"I was dumbfounded," Gerson said. "I said to him, 'I have already quit -- you can't fire me.'" Gerson said she had never before met Romney, and he did not try to engage her in conversation or discover her story.

"There was no curiosity on his part about who I was and what this was about," Gerson said.

Typically, excommunication in the Mormon Church is rare and reserved for someone who fundamentally violates church tenets. Gerson, a Democrat, said her mother interceded with a church authority in Utah, and she does not know if the trial went forward.

And that isn't the only example of Romney being a very strict Mormon Bishop.

A 1994 article in the Boston Phoenix told the story of an anonymous woman (who has since been identified) who wrote an article in a feminist Mormon magazine claiming Romney, as bishop, discouraged her from having an abortion even though her health was at stake. Romney later said he could not remember the incident.

This isn't the first time Romney has claimed he couldn't remember something from his past...it seems like this is a tactic he uses when he doesn't want to address an issue. But there is more from his time as a Bishop...and unfortunately...it again involves a women.


www.salon.com...

1984: Romney urged church member and divorcee Peggie Hayes to give up her newborn son for adoption, in keeping with church policy against children being raised by single mothers.

“He told me he was a representative of the church and by refusing I was failing to comply with the church’s wishes and I could be excommunicated,” Hayes told the Boston Globe during the ’94 campaign, adding:

“He was saying that because [my son] Dane didn’t have a Mormon father in the home and because of the circumstances of his birth — being born to a single mother — then the expectation of the church was that I give him up for adoption to the church agency so he could be raised by a Mormon couple in good standing.”


In a statement at the time, Romney defended his advice to Hayes to give up her son — in keeping with the official church policy that single mothers “should be encouraged to place the child for adoption, preferably through LDS social services” — but denied ever threatening Hayes with excommunication. Hayes ultimately kept her son and left the church.

So Romney wanted this lady to give her son over to the Church because she didn't have a husband. And again he is threatening excommunication...which is the worst punishment for any believer in any faith.

There is also an example of him being very harsh towards homosexuality.

Another area where Romney was criticized was his attitude toward homosexuality. In July 1994, during Romney's U.S. Senate campaign, The Boston Globe published a story saying that Romney, in a speech to a congregation of single Mormons, said he found homosexuality "perverse and reprehensible." The story cited one named and three unnamed sources.

Romney denied the comments. "I specifically said they should avoid homosexuality and they should avoid heterosexual relations outside of marriage," Romney told the Globe then. "I did not use the words perverse or perversion. I just said it was wrong. ... That is what my church believes."

Of course it's not all negative...there were examples of people praising Romney's time as a Bishop. Here is an example where he actually supports women's rights.

For example, male church leaders typically went on monthly visits to speak at other congregations. The women suggested that female leaders could do the same.

"Mitt actually said yes, I don't see why not," Sievers recalled. "He was thoughtful about what's practice and doctrine, what do I have authority to change. ... I felt like Mitt cared more about the congregation than he did his potential career in the church."

And here are a couple examples where he goes out of his way to help a family from the church.

Former parishioners say Romney organized efforts to help needy families. In one instance, documented in "The Real Romney," a book by Boston Globe reporters Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, two boys from the church were paralyzed in an accident. Romney visited the family on Christmas Eve and gave the boys a stereo system and VCR. He offered to pay for the boys' college tuitions, and continued to help the family for years.

Sievers' first interaction with Romney was when a member of the congregation owed her money. Romney helped her get the money back -- and offered to give her money himself.

So, I don't know...I was a bit surprised to discover this information. Like I said, I always knew he was a Mormon...but I never knew he was a leader in the church and from what I see...was kind of a strict fundamentalist in his leadership. It is also nice to see the examples of Romney actually showing some compassion and caring for other people...something he doesn't convey very well on the campaign trail.

For me, this doesn't change my vote because I don't agree with his politics...but it does make me feel a bit uncomfortable that a former church leader (of any religion) may be the President of the United States. I don't believe there has ever been an official church leader elected as President, I think the closest was Garfield who preached but wasn't an official minister...but I may be wrong.

I find it odd that this hasn't been talked about more since it does seem to be a "first" for the Presidency.

America will not elect a mormon named "mitt" to the office of the presidency. Mark my words, Obama will lead us 4 more years.

Ahh well, each party gets their 8 years.

Mormon Bishops are "called" from the general congregation and they are unpaid for the duration of their tenure. When their time is up they will usually just melt back into the congregation and receive another "calling" again unpaid.
Another Bishop will be called from the congregation to take over where the last one left off.
Every member has the opportunity of being Bishop if he is found worthy and able to serve in that office.

Usually Bishops will serve for 6 to 8 years. It is a difficult calling dealing with personal problems of his ward members, spending much time away from his family and many early morning and late evening meetings...all unpaid and voluntary. It is a thankless and very stressful position. Being a Stake President is like being a Bishop on steroids, same obligations but now you have other Bishops under you and much more stress.
I find it very impressive that Romney served in both of these offices with honor...

A community organizer doesn't even come close...

It should be a concern that Romney could become president and take orders from the Latterday Saint President and claimed Apostle, Thomas S. Monson.

If Romney is a devout Mormon he will do what Monson asks him to because it's said the Apostle gets his orders straight from God.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by TheLieWeLive


That same tree was barked up for Catholics. Nearly cost them the right to vote, in this country. History, just keeps repeating itself.

reply to post by Thunderheart


I do understand it isn't a paid position...but it is still considered a leadership position from what I understand. And the President of the stake is definately a leadership position.


At the very least, I find it very odd that this isn't really being talked about. I think it is something that both Democrats and Republicans would want to know about their potential President.

I know a lot of folks base their votes in elections on aspects of each person. Regardless of if those decisions make sense or not. Every year its the same 'ol garbage in my opinion as to why or why not people vote for any particular person running for office. Religion in my opinion shouldn't be a factor at all because its nothing but another business nowadays and its corrupt to boot. I'd like see a regular Joe get elected (or someone close to that) but we all know the establishment won't let that happen for one minute. As for Mitt, he's probably a good person, good dad etc but he is just the lesser of two evils as far as I'm concerned. I couldn't believe that Obama got elected because of his inexperience but during the last election people were tired of war and the secrecy of the Bush bunch. There wasn't a lot of others running that tickled my electoral bone either. Maybe Mitt can step his game up to entice the public but I doubt it seriously, he's about as run of the mill as they come and he is nothing but another excuse for big business. This election in my opinion will be a hot one with perhaps some fireworks to boot. people are tired, grumpy and fed up.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher
It is only a leadership position whilst he is serving in that particular calling, once he is "released" from that calling he no longer has the same authority and powers as he did while actively serving, so Mitt now is just an everyday Mormon member without a calling and zero leadership authority.
It is kind of confusing if you are not familiar with the way the LDS church operates.

Also I wouldn't worry about the Mormon Church Prophet calling up Mitt and telling him what to do the church doesn't get mixed up in politics and NO they do not tell members how to vote or who to vote for.
I have been supporting Ron Paul this entire time and I will continue to do so until Ron Paul himself tells us it is over.

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
reply to post by TheLieWeLive

 

That same tree was barked up for Catholics. Nearly cost them the right to vote, in this country. History, just keeps repeating itself.

What tree was barked up???

I'm not sure what you think is going on, but I would be curious to know.

reply to post by Thunderheart

Also I wouldn't worry about the Mormon Church Prophet calling up Mitt and telling him what to do the church doesn't get mixed up in politics

Wasn't it the LDS Church that poured money into the Prop 8 vote in California???

I don't think you can really say they don't get involved in politics.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Thunderheart

 

Also I wouldn't worry about the Mormon Church Prophet calling up Mitt and telling him what to do the church doesn't get mixed up in politics

Wasn't it the LDS Church that poured money into the Prop 8 vote in California???

I don't think you can really say they don't get involved in politics.

I'll look this up, hard to believe but if you have any links available I would appreciate it.

If you think that is interesting, check out my thread here.

Mitt is also the descendent of a Mormon apostle, Parley Pratt.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel
reply to post by TheLieWeLive

 

That same tree was barked up for Catholics. Nearly cost them the right to vote, in this country. History, just keeps repeating itself.

What tree was barked up???

I'm not sure what you think is going on, but I would be curious to know.

I don't know what he means by "right to vote" but I think he's talking about Kennedy. He was a Catholic and, by extension, beholden to what the Pope commanded.

Unless he makes some crazy promises and reverses his stances during the debates, he's not getting my vote anyway. But... yeah, the whole "bishop" thing is something that should at least be discussed. Or at least open the discussion on just how influential the church will be on his decisions. I mean... if Bush's god told him to slaughter a bunch of people over bad (fabricated) intel, then I think it's a valid concern.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


"If Romney is a devout Mormon he will do what Monson asks him to because it's said the Apostle gets his orders straight from God."

For a long time, there was grumblings in this country about even giving Catholics the right to vote.

In the aftermath of the Reformation it was common in European countries for people of disfavored religious denominations to be denied civil and political rights, often including the right to vote, to stand for election or to sit in parliament. In the United Kingdom and Ireland, Roman Catholics were denied the right to vote from 1728 to 1793, and the right to sit in parliament until 1829. The anti-Catholic policy was justified on the grounds that the loyalty of Catholics supposedly lay with the Pope rather than the national monarch.
In England and Ireland, several Acts practically disenfranchised non-Anglicans or non-Protestants by imposing an oath before admission to vote or to run for office. The 1672 and 1678 Test Acts forbade non-Anglicans to hold public offices, the 1727 Disenfranchising Act took away Catholics' (Papists') voting rights in Ireland, which were restored only in 1788. Jews could not even be naturalized. An attempt was made to change this situation, but the Jewish Naturalization Act 1753 provoked such reactions that it was repealed the next year. Nonconformists (Methodists and Presbyterians) were only allowed to run for elections to the British House of Commons in 1828, Catholics in 1829 (following the Catholic Relief Act 1829), and Jews in 1858 (with the Emancipation of the Jews in England). Benjamin Disraeli could only begin his political career in 1837 because he had been converted to Anglicanism at the age of 12.
In several states in the U.S. after the Declaration of Independence, Jews, Quakers or Catholics were denied voting rights and/or forbidden to run for office.[9] The Delaware Constitution of 1776 stated that "Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall (…) also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.".[10] This was repealed by article I, section 2 of the 1792 Constitution: "No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, under this State.".[11] The 1778 Constitution of the State of South Carolina stated that "No person shall be eligible to sit in the house of representatives unless he be of the Protestant religion",[12] the 1777 Constitution of the State of Georgia (art. VI) that "The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county (…) and they shall be of the Protestent (sic) religion".[13] In Maryland, voting rights and eligibility were extended to Jews in 1828.[14]

Wiki.

Kennedy was the 1st and only Catholic president for a reason.

Here, more info.

I want to know if he wears the secret Mormon underwear.

But seriously, the Mormons have some strange beliefs that would seem very wacky to many other Americans. Beyond the gender gap issue this might be part of the reason for the quick condemnation of Akin by the GOP. There is a real opportunity here to portray Republicans as nut jobs if they lose control of the narrative.

Originally posted by CynicalDrivel

Kennedy was the 1st and only Catholic president for a reason.

Well, there's going to be Catholic a heartbeat away from the Presidency no matter who wins this fall.

I completely understand where your concerns are coming from Outkast, but being an active member of the LDS faith most of my life (had a couple periods of 'doing my own thing') I'd love to help shed some light on what it means to be a Bishop or Stake President.

In the LDS church, there isn't any one person who preaches every single sermon on Sunday. Typically, several speakers are invited each week, ranging from all members of the congregation (adults, teens, children), folks from other wards, stake leaders, etc. Yesterday in our meeting the woman running the special needs ward (congregation) for our area spoke, along with 3 specially abled members of that ward.

The point being this: Bishops and Stake Presidents provide two main things for the church: Organizational and administrative command at the local level, and personal counsel for individuals and families.

So to be afraid of a "church leader" becoming president in this case probably isn't an issue. Romney isn't a preacher in the sense you might think. Sure he stood at a podium and spoke on religious topics, but his service to the church points to accomplishments in non-profit administration and organizational management, thousands of hours of volunteer service, and human relations/personal counseling experience. If anything, it ought to point to a more human, organic facet of the mega-bazillionaire.

As for the examples, many folks who are wronged by a church get bitter and love to tell the tale of injustice. It probably has something to do with a person being emotionally invested in a group, and then feeling slighted or abused. I'm not saying there isn't anything to those accusations, but I generally take things with a grain of salt.

An excommunication isn't anything Romney himself would just decide to do. That decision would come from several meetings with his leadership, and excommunication is not thrown around lightly. To my knowledge it is a rarely used option.

Remember as well that serving as spiritual counsel for an individual requires a high level of confidentiality. Romney may simply feel uncomfortable responding to probing questions about some counseling sessions, and gives as neutral a response as possible, ie "I don't remember that conversation." Or among the potentially hundreds of people he gave advice to while he served, he really doesn't remember.

I don't think he should become president either...but not for his religious background!

reply to post by DelMarvel


The Mormon church was started by a Mason, but almost all religions are run by Masons, the Catholic Church is just crawling with them.

The Mormons are the original "preppers", and there is a prophecy that goes that when the US Constitution is in threads, a Mormon president will be elected and save the country's soviergnty.

It could be the Masons are running the whole show, and that our vote doesn't even count.

Mormons do have some pretty wacky beliefs, but they seem to be very good people who definetly take care of their own. In this current world, that says a lot.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Thunderheart

 

I do understand it isn't a paid position...but it is still considered a leadership position from what I understand. And the President of the stake is definately a leadership position.

Its really not a big deal.

Any male in good standing could be chosen to be Bishop. They could hold the position from 1 to 5 years - - generally I think.

Some are good leaders - - some suck.