I didn’t vote for Mitt because he’s Mormon
Feb 6th, 2008 by jeremy
I decided early on that I wasn’t going to vote for Mitt Romney. The main reason is because he’s Mormon. I don’t know if you can call me a bigot for that view, it’s more in defense of the church I belong to.
But if he did get elected, how does a missionary in Brazil, Australia, Sweden or South Africa explain to someone that the Book of Mormon is true, including Moroni 9:7-15 which calls torture an abomination, while the most powerful man in the world, who is Mormon, says we need more places of torture like Guantanamo Bay?
When early Saints were being killed and their property destroyed, it was only natural that the Missouri members “should feel an inclination toward retaliation and revenge.” But God said something different “an ensample unto all people” (D&C 98:38). “Renounce war and proclaim peace” (D&C 98:16). Instead of seeking war, they should “seek diligently to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers, and the hearts of the fathers to the children” (D&C 98:16). What does a potential convert think when they read this, but know Mitt Romney supports a war in Iraq that had nothing to do with our defense, and supports invading Iran, another country that is not attacking us?
Spencer W Kimball said
We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel — ships, planes, missiles, fortifications — and depend on them for protection and deliverance.
When threatened, we become anti-enemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.
Romney believes in these gods of stone and steel, and many people around the world may know nothing more about the LDS church than the Mormon President of the United States is a warmonger. Romney running may be a good way to bring more publicity to the church, but his ultimate loss is the best thing that can happen for a church that gathers more international members every day.
I’m not anti-war, and that’s my bad. If I had enough faith I would probably be strong enough to renounce all war, and let someone kill me while I laid down my arms. But I’m not a good enough Christian and Mormon to do that yet, maybe someday. Right now I have to start somewhere, and that’s renouncing a war that we never should have started. If Mitt Romney can do the same thing maybe I can support him in 2012.
Although I may not agree with all you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it. I am indeed very pleased to see my children take an interest in politics.
I always tell people that I wouldn’t vote for Mitt because it would be like going through the Bush administration all over again. But how you said it probably would be the better way.
Interesting thoughts, Jeremy. I think there are legitimate debates here. Just for fun, I remembered a talk by President Hinkley a few years back (Gordon B. Hinckley, “War and Peace,” Liahona, May 2003, 78–81) that addressed some of these points. Here is a pertinent quote:
“In a democracy we can renounce war and proclaim peace. There is opportunity for dissent. Many have been speaking out and doing so emphatically. That is their privilege. That is their right, so long as they do so legally. However, we all must also be mindful of another overriding responsibility, which I may add, governs my personal feelings and dictates my personal loyalties in the present situation.
“When war raged between the Nephites and the Lamanites, the record states that “the Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for … power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church.
…(additional scriptures)…
“It is clear from these and other writings that there are times and circumstances when nations are justified, in fact have an obligation, to fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat, and oppression.
“When all is said and done, we of this Church are people of peace. We are followers of our Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ, who was the Prince of Peace. But even He said, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34).”
Now, I understand you feel this war is not justified, and I think that is a legitimate debate. As I see it, the issue isn’t as much about war vs non-war, but determining the best way to fight for “the better cause” and to defeat the threat of tyranny. Some think that being more preemptive, keeping enemy combatants off of U.S. soil, and perhaps using controversial techniques that some label as torture are valid strategies to fight these causes. Some see certain threats as legitimate that others dismiss as irrelevant. Good people can disagree on where to draw these lines (or they can be like me and be stuck in the gray areas on these issues)–none of which necessarily love war for its own sake.
Since you don’t really know me well (and vice versa) and may not know how to read the tone of my words, please interpret these (and any potential future) comments as a means only to engage in interesting conversation motivated by intellectual curiosity and the pleasure of exchanging ideas in a respectful, civil dialog. I don’t pretend to know anything more than anyone else, but I do enjoy a good philosophical discussion.
Thanks for the space. I don’t want to post my blog address in an open forum but your mom knows it if you ever feel like wasting some time.
Why would the Church have to explain to others the views of Mitt Romney? That is just ridiculous. I think you have lost sight of the meaning of seperation of Church and State which the Church supports. I really wish members such as yourself wouldn’t drag the Church into the fight… the media has done that enough.
Jeremy - I apologize. My above comment is too harsh and mean. I shouldn’t claim anyone’s view as ridiculous. That in and of itself is ridiculous. I am ridiculous.
I’m just a little sensitive when I see members of the Church associate Romney’s platform with Church views/doctrine. I think that is wrong.
I support Barack Obama and have my own reasons for not wanting to see Mitt in the White House…but I came to these reasons putting religion aside.
Drew, I don’t associate Mitt Romney with the church. Most of his platforms don’t mesh with my church. My concern is how others, especially outside if the United States will associate him with the Church. When discussing a stance that isn’t popular around the world, how often do you think the media outside of the U.S. will bring up that he’s Mormon? How many times do you think a missionary will knock on a door only to have it closed because they think they already know what Mormons believe based on the U.S. President?
No matter how much someone supports our current President, I think you’d have to admit he’s had a negative effect on how people view the United States. And having the leader of the United States be LDS, and continue many of the policies people dislike about President Bush, would only hurt our image.
As a missionary in a foreign country I already had to deal with people that only thought of the LDS church as being an “American” church, my guess is it would only get worse. Romney took a swipe against Europe in his speech today when he gave up, you think a person like that is a good representation of Mormons who are trying to build the WORLDWIDE Kingdom of God?
Again, I don’t think it’s right that Romney would be associated or compared to Mormon doctrine, but I think it’s inevitable.
Thanks for everyone’s comments.
I understand what you are saying and partially agree. Thank you for taking the time to respond to me reply.