What Makes Obama's Beliefs so Important After Romney's Free Ride?

In exercising freedom of the press, the media have pressured Barack Obama into suspending his freedom of religion. We may conclude that his decision not to formally join another congregation until January – when he may well be taking office – directly related to the controversy.

This stands without precedent in history, especially when a candidate with very controversial beliefs got a free pass during the primary. Gov. Mitt Romney's religious beliefs seemed completely off-limits. Even though – unbeknownst to most voters – he is not just a member of his church, but a high priest in it.

It is unfair calling Obama to task for what his church teaches even when he is not around, while treating as irrelevant controversial beliefs at the root of Mormonism which Romney has not only himself taught, but has taught others how to teach. Let's hope that this hands-off approach comes to an end if Gov. Romney runs for VP.

Various members of my family, and other associates, may disagree with the interpretation of some of these Mormon beliefs as represented here. The fact remains that I present valid objective and secular interpretations of these teachings and practices. If asked to answer yes or no regarding these beliefs, most critical of how I present them would have to answer yes, but would try to explain – and I include some of these explanations. I intend no malice against Gov. Romney or his faith. I merely seek to illustrate what a free-pass he received running for office.

WHAT BELIEFS ARE OF CONCERN?
Just being baptized into Mormonism requires declaring that "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true and living Church" on the face of the earth. If you are not Mormon, Romney does not believe your church is either true or living. He would believe, as Mormonism clearly teaches, that all churches have some part of the truth, but that only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has it all in one place.

This foundation supports teachings which -- though not so described within Mormon semantics – specifically teach individual godhood, racial elitism (specifically a form of Zionism), and the same cultural heritage that created the Fundamental LDS church, and many other polygamous sects.

Having mentioned Mormon semantics, readers should know that within Mormonism many common terms of Christianity and religions in general have different meanings to Latter-day Saints. When Gov. Romney declared to the cameras that he believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of the world, it meant a very different thing to him and to other Mormons than it means to most Christians who heard it.

EXCLUSIVITY OF AUTHORITY AND COMPLETE TRUTH
This is the founding concept of Mormonism. Mormons consider one of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s accounts of his "First Vision" as scripture. In this 1820 experience Smith, whom Mormon's believe the first genuine prophet of God since the last of the apostles, prayed about which church he should join. He claimed God answered the prayer with a personal appearance, along with Jesus Christ, who did most of the talking.

According to this LDS scripture, Jesus personally told Joseph Smith to join none of the churches. He also said that all churches' creeds were abominations, that their leaders were corrupt, and "teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof." Mormons consider this scripture, (see verses 17-19 of this reference, Joseph Smith's own account of his "First Vision" as considered scripture by Mormons (Joseph Smith's First Vision).

If you are not Mormon, Mitt Romney believes that your church is an abomination in the eyes of God, or he couldn't be a Mormon. He does not believe this about you, or whatever personal relationship with Christ for which you personally strive. He does consider it scripture that the Church you attend is an apostate remnant of true Christianity, that its leaders are corrupt, that your baptism is not valid, and that your church does not even have a valid concept of the nature of God. To believe otherwise he would have to reject Joseph Smith's First Vision.

If a pastor got up and made such a declaration in Obama's church, even in his absence, it would be all over the media, the blogs, and in sloughs of those junk e-mails. Romney has believed this his whole life, taught it to others, and supervised its teaching within his community, and never had to answer to the media for it.

HUMAN GODHOOD

As Smith's account suggests, Mormons totally reject the concept of Trinity. In fact, pursuant to other teachings of Joseph Smith, they reject any teaching that God is of a nature beyond human understanding. Joseph Smith, and every leader since, specifically taught that we have to understand God, because God is a glorified man, and worthy humans are destined to be gods.

Perhaps no current LDS teaching gets a classic dodge as much as this. The standard diversion is to simply relegate it to something people in the church might believe, but it is not spelled out in scripture.

This lack of specific scriptural reference does not keep the concept from being formally taught. It is the Church's central doctrine of man's relationship to God. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches with no ambiguity that human beings are Gods in embryo. Manuals and classes throughout my life clearly explained it. The following URL goes to just one example.( Manual Statement )


Joseph Smith, Jr. himself declared the doctrine in the funeral discourse for a man named King Follett (known as the King Follett Discourse). He clearly states that God is a glorified man, and Godhead is man's divine birthright.

The more common expression used for this teaching was put into words by a later Mormon president, Lorenzo Snow, to state, "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be." The Church's own formal periodical Ensign in Feb. 1982 published this statement from Gerald N. Lund, now an even more prominent LDS leader, "It is clear that the teaching of President Lorenzo Snow is both acceptable and accepted doctrine in the Church today." Check out the context in this link. Gerald N. Lund's Statement

If someone got up and taught this in Barack Obama's church, wouldn't it be plastered all over the place now? The history of this teaching in Mormonism, and its continued teaching today remain inseparable from any knowledgeable lifelong Mormon's world view. This theology is an anchor of Romney's core values, not just something taught in his church. It is important in a presidential election because history establishes that leaders of world powers believing themselves destined for godhood invariably tend to act like one already.

RACIAL ELITISM
Mormons believe, from what they consider the most dependable of all scripture, that Native Americans have dark skin as a punishment from God. Additional teachings extend this concept to all blacks of African descent, to the point that such black people were not permitted to hold the priesthood until 1978.

They do not believe that this is a racist doctrine. They do not make pre-judgments regarding an individual's personal character based on skin color, so Mormons will honestly state that they believe racism wrong.

This doctrine is set forth unambiguously in the Book of Mormon as it was originally published. Mormons consider The Book of Mormon, in Smith's own words, "The most correct of all books, and the keystone of our religion." A 1980 revision of the Book of Mormon eliminated numerous arguably racist references. One example is a prophecy that the Lamanites, the Book of Mormon term for Native Americans, would convert to Christianity and become "a white and delightsome people." The 1980 revision changed it to read "a pure and delightsome people."

While the Church explains these as corrections of typos perpetuated through re-printing, a study of the addresses of significant Church leaders, and LDS tradition in literature and curriculum, indicates that Mormon leaders always supported the first version as accurate. Most notably, LDS President Spencer W. Kimball, who led the Church when the change was made, addressed the matter in a book called "Faith Precedes the Miracle" (if I recall correctly).

Having done much work with the LDS missions to Native Americans – including large scale assimilation programs – Kimball described having witnessed the literal fulfillment of this prophecy. He saw it through darker skinned Indian children adopted into Caucasian Mormon families who became lighter skinned as their lives went on. He cited the specific Book of Mormon reference recalling this.

Romney grew-up, served his mission, and went through about nine years after college before that revision. The original wording and the teaching around it composed a significant part of his formative thought regarding religion. The references to skin color being a punishment from God to the entire line of an individual's descent (specifically to prevent intermarriage) remains in the Book of Mormon. It continues forming part of the doctrinal basis for the Mormon world view. Romney has taught these things to other people, and can't sever himself from association with these beliefs and remain a Mormon in good standing. Rejecting it would mean invalidating the whole Book of Mormon, so central it is to the book.

Voters deserve the right to hear one aspiring to office answer for such beliefs. This is particularly important when it involves beliefs about the Middle East. While consistent with many Christian denominations, Mormon beliefs in Jews as God's chosen people extend into a clear bias favoring the State of Israel. This bias could be of concern for one seated in the Oval Office in any capacity. Early in the Church's history (the 1840s I believe), Smith dispatched Orson Hyde to dedicate Israel for the return of the Jews. Unlike most dispensationalists who waited for the formation of the State of Israel as a sign of the end days, Mormon heritage includes a perception of having proactively helped to bring it about.

Furthermore, Mormons believe themselves part of the scattered tribes of Israel being gathered together in the last days, and that being part of this chosen people enables converts to accept Mormonism. The more of the blood of Jacob one has, the more readily one will accept the testimony of the Holy Ghost. This concept is key in all instruction to missionaries, and to normal members serving in a missionary calling. While it may not be specifically Jews or the nation of Israel, it is a form of Zionism. The United Nations has declared unequivocally that Zionism is a form of racism. The public has a right to question any candidate for office about Zionistic beliefs, but during his candidacy the media held Romney surprisingly unaccountable.

PLURAL MARRIAGE: HERITAGE, TEACHING, CULTURE, AND PRACTICE
When Joseph Smith, Jr. died in 1843, the individual designated by revelation to replace him as Church leader was his Brother, Hyrum Smith. Unfortunately, Hyrum Smith took his own bullets just moments before Smith himself, and was probably dead first. This threw the Church into a schism over leadership. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints now based in Salt Lake, and the only church rightfully called "Mormon", is just one of many churches that sprung from Smith's ministry.

The acceptance or rejection of the practice of polygamy, which some at that time considered Brigham Young promoted rather than Smith (Smith did, in fact practice it), became one basis of dissent and forming new denominations. These sects exercised a sort of Mormon Fundamentalism of the day. Leaning on Book of Mormon supremacy, they correctly maintained that "the most correct book" condemns polygamy without question. These groups did not accept the later "revelations" affirming that polygamy was acceptable if God so commanded (this commandment could come through the living prophet). They were right. The Book of Mormon alone left no room for questioning the prohibition of polygamy.

The teachings of the currently controversial Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS) have their roots in the identical teachings as the more dominant Salt Lake organization. Both trace their roots back to the period of Mormon heritage when polygamy was practiced as a formal religious rite in Mormonism. Congress passed laws specifically targeted at stopping the Mormons from practicing it. Brigham Young passed on leadership to John Taylor, and he to Wilford Woodruff, until exhausting all appeals against such laws, and falling under a U.S. Supreme Court decision against them. Then, in 1890, the order to end the practice was issued.

Fundamentalism suddenly meant something different than it had nearly 50 years before. By 1890 many members of the Church now somehow considered the revelations enabling polygamy more fundamental to the religion than they did the "most correct book" itself. Some polygamous dissidents remained so tied with LDS society that the dispute continued in some Mormon communities for decades. Just one of many splinter groups over this issue, the FLDS church did not emerge until nearly 50 years later during the 1930s.

Here's the thing – all the teachings and heritage that the FLDS church uses to justify its polygamous practice remain in regular Mormon doctrine and history to this day. They still affect the Mormon perception of the nature of marriage and the role of husbands and wives. With all of its teaching monogamy for more than a hundred years now, remnants remain within the church expecting the future re-establishment of the practice. Mormonism teaches that plural marriage is an option in marriage subject to the will of God as declared through a living prophet, and that monogamy is not irrevocably mandated by scripture. There is no question that Romney believes this. It is inherent with contemporary Mormonism.

FLDS leaders believe it for the same reason, but accept as well another line of leadership to their own current prophet, who says God commands polygamy now. The very misinterpretation (in my opinion) of Mormon Doctrine that allows the FLDS practice to go where it has still dominates among individual Mormon members' beliefs, despite being inconsistent with the rest of LDS doctrine and heritage. These parties believe that God commands polygamy as a rule, not an exception. The only way any Mormon can fully reconcile the "practice by command" doctrine with the Book of Mormon is to consider the practice of plural marriage – by Mormonism's most basic tenets – the exception, and monogamy the rule.

That teaching alone is valid doctrine. Perhaps church leaders took it too much for granted as I was growing up, so they never spelled it out. I never heard it expressed that way in any church meetings, though I did hear the contrary fallacy expressed often, with the current rule of monogamy considered by many a temporary command, into the current century. Individual Mormons can believe either way and still be good members of the church as long as they teach that polygamy is wrong now, and to not practice it now.

Only Gov. Romney knows to which school of Mormon thought he belongs. Should he support the belief that polygamy is God's intended rule, not the exception, this is important for voters to know. The very emerging laws now permitting marriage among those attracted to their own gender might be turned to again legalize the practice of polygamy, lacking a constitutional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In this environment voters should know if they are electing a president who looks forward to the restoration of the practice of polygamy.

Does he believe this, or does he believe that God wanted his religious forebears to practice plural marriage as a necessary exception for survival? If nobody ever asks, he won't have to tell.

(originally published on MySpace, June 3, 2008, Copyright Peter John Stone, 2008)