Do Mitt Romney's Religious Beliefs Disqualify Him?

I understand that God is no repecter of persons, but I do not think that His ways and thoughts are yours and mine, nor are His timelines and purposes similar to yours or mine.

Why would God only allow those of the tribe of Levi to hold the priesthood?

Why would Jesus tell the Apostles to go to the lost sheep of Israel first to preach the gospel?


Why would Jesus ignore the cries of Canaanite woman and tell her that He was sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel then tell her It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs?

Why was it an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation?

How do these instances not reek of racism or elitism in your judgement?

"Mormons believe they can control a person's salvation."

Really? How is that possible? Where is that taught? Who taught it? When? Where?

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the while man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. The nations of the earth have transgressed every law that God has given, they have changed the ordinances and broken every covenant made with the fathers, and they are like a hungry man that dreameth that he eateth, and he awaketh and behold he is empty. I say to all men and all women, submit to God, to his ordinances and to His rule; serve Him, and cease your quarrelling, and stay the shedding of each other's blood.
If the Government of the United States, in Congress assembled, had the right to pass an anti-polygamy bill, they had also the right to pass a law that slaves should not be abused as they have been; they had also a right to make a law that negroes should be used like human beings, and not worse than dumb brutes. For their abuse of that race, the whites will be cursed, unless they repent.

Brigham made his remarks, then, in the context of a civil war over the issue of slavery. Brigham condemned the white male (and perhaps priesthood holder) who "mixes" with black Africans. Why?

When would a white person "mix their seed" with the blacks? At the time, black slaves could not legally marry—this was a "human right," and the slave-holding states were very careful not to let blacks marry, since to do so implied that they had human rights (and, if they have one right, why not a right to be free?) As a history of marriage in the United States noted:

The slaveholder's callous lust—his moral violence as well as his physical cruelty—gave abolitionists their most effective theme. Sexual abuse of female slaves by rape, incest, forced mating, and concubinage figured even more sensationally in abolitionist literature than the sale of slave family members..."No part of the dark and hidden iniquities of slavery" deserved revelation more than its travesty of the "nuptial covenant" with "odious lusts," the abolitionist George Bourne intoned, referring to the master's unchecked freedom to use the bodies of his female slaves.

Representative Justin Morrill, who would help write the first anti-polygamous legislation, thundered that "By the license of Slavery, a whole race is delivered over to prostitution and concubinage, without the protection of any law."

So, under what conditions would a white priesthood holder (or any white) be mixing their seed with a black woman? All too often, this was under the context of what was essentially rape and assault. Many slave-holders kept their own children in slavery, as they sired children on black slaves who could not refuse. By law, any child born to a slave was automatically a slave.

Thus, a good part of Brigham's objection likely rested on the circumstances which would attend most white male/black woman pairings in his day. He would have likely known of no counter-examples—no relationships with blacks could be legal, and most resulted from duress.

Spiritual death seems an appropriate punishment for a priesthood holder who behaved in such a way, and literal capital punishment might not be too severe if "the law of God" could be administered by a genuine prophet. There are few crimes more grievous than to treat others as subhuman, and rape the powerless.

Unlike contemporary 1860s fears for the virtue of white women when subjected to the predation of black men,[8]. Brigham was far more worried about white men abusing their position of political and cultural superiority.

This is not to say that Brigham did not share some ideas about the desirablity of keeping races separate; virtually everyone of his era did. American ethnologists taught that whites and blacks were separately created races, the mixture of which would corrupt both.

But, when in the same speech Brigham Young condemns the whites for their treatment of blacks, and threatens punishment for white men who have intercourse with black women, it is not really fair to portray him as a ravening racist with no concern for the downtrodden. His fire and brimstone is all for the aggressor; his sympathy is for those who were mistreated.

Does God deny privileges based on race?

It is abundantly clear from the Bible and other scriptures that, in certain circumstances and for various reasons, God has given certain privileges and responsibilities to certain groups and withheld them (or allowed them to be withheld) from others. Examples of this include:

God made a special covenant with Abraham, and reaffirmed it with his descendants the Israelites, beginning with Moses. While conversion to the Israelite religion was possible, it was rare, and the Lord forbade Israel from intermarrying with the surrounding foreign nations.

Within the Israelite community itself, only the Levites were tasked with performing the ordinances of the tabernacle, and later the temple (Num. 3:5-13; Num. 8:5-26). With this privilege came certain sacrifices; for example, the Levites did not receive a land of inheritance when Israel took control of Canaan (Josh. 14:4).

During Jesus' mortal ministry, he instructed his disciples to only preach to the Jews (Matt. 10:5-6). It was only during the later apostolic ministry that Peter received a revelation authorizing the gospel to go to the Gentiles (Acts 10).

The last two are especially instructive, in that there is no apparent reason why non-Levite Israelites in Old Testament times and Gentiles in early New Testament times could not receive the same privileges as others. Sometimes God operates on a timetable that he chooses not to explain.

2 Ne. 26: 33
33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them ball to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

Richard L. Bushman, LDS author of the recent biography of Joseph Smith, writes:

...[T]he fact that [the Lamanites] are Israel, the chosen of God, adds a level of complexity to the Book of Mormon that simple racism does not explain. Incongruously, the book champions the Indians' place in world history, assigning them to a more glorious future than modern American whites.... Lamanite degradation is not ingrained in their natures, ineluctably bonded to their dark skins. Their wickedness is wholly cultural and frequently reversed. During one period, "they began to be a very industrious people; yea, and they were friendly with the Nephites; therefore, they did open a correspondence with them, and the curse of God did no more follow them." (Alma 23:18) In the end, the Lamanites triumph. The white Nephites perish, and the dark Lamanites remain.


One faithful black member, Marcus Martins—also chair of the department of religious education at BYU-Hawaii—has said:

The [priesthood] ban itself was not racist, but, unfortunately, it gave cover to people who were.

Big G has a bunch of good responses, but I just wanted to add a couple of things.

One, Damon Smith is such an authority on Mormonism that he can't even get the name of the book right. It's the Journal of Discourses, not the Journal of Disclosures, you dufus. And that book is NOT part of the LDS canon. The LDS canon consists of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.

So we already see that Damon Smith can't even get the most basic information about Mormons right, so now we're going to trust him to get Mormon doctrine correct?

Anyhoo, two: he says that Mormons think they can control a person's salvation. Totally untrue. Ordinances performed for the dead must be accepted in the hereafter by the person on whose behalf they were performed. Otherwise they are of no effect. Each person's salvation is between that person and God.

Three: "Apostle Mark E. Petersen banned..." Uh, an apostle in the LDS Church has no authority to do so on his own. Any official action must be unanimously agreed upon by the entire First Presidency and the whole Quorum of the Twelve. So Damon Smith is up in the night.

Four: "W.W. Phelps, wrote a letter theorizing..." Lots of people have theorized lots of things; some guy's theory does not LDS Church doctrine make. As I said above, any official action must be unanimously agreed upon by the entire First Presidency and the whole Quorum of the Twelve.

"There is no way we can accept Mitt Romney as a vice-presidential candidate without scrutinizing his belief system." Sure, fine. But let's scrutinize Mitt Romney's ACTUAL belief system, rather than whatever Damon Smith manages to pull out of his butt. Damon Smith can't even get basic, easily verifiable facts correct; how about next time we get our information on Mormon belief from Mormons?

That was corrected moments after the blog was published. I (his assistant) typed it in wrong and Damon corrected me after it was published. And he specified that there are SOME (not all) denominations that do incorporate it into doctrine.

The basic premise is that Mormon doctrine deviates from the Holy Bible by adding its own doctrine on top of doctrine which does not exist therein.

Revelation 22:18-19 - For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.