Anti-Romney, Anti-Christ
Before I start, I want to emphasize that I am not equating the two terms found in the title. It is certainly possible to be anti-Romney and pro-Christ, and it is equally possible to be pro-Romney and anti-Christ. However, I have placed them in close proximity to address a specific argument that I saw, this morning, which is equal amounts of each.
The argument in question is part of a graphic going around Facebook. The text, for those who can’t see the graphic, is as follows:
Of the four points, the latter two are highly debatable and outside the purview of this blog, which is devoted to my reflections regarding the history, doctrines, and society of the Church of Jesus Christ. I thus will address the former.
1) First of all, the first point includes both a religious slur—“Mormon”—and an obvious factual error: Mitt Romney’s ancestors didn’t flee anything in 1892; by 1892, the U.S. government was done with its institutionalized persecution of Latter-day Saints, per se. However, the Saints had fled the United States in 1846, after the U.S. government ignored both a Missouri law making Christian baptism punishable by death and an Illinois legislature that turned a blind eye to those who raped, pillaged, and murdered the early Saints. When the United States claimed Manifest Destiny and annexed the nation of Deseret, the Saints were forced back into the country that had repeatedly refused to defend their civil rights. Nevertheless, they always remained loyal to the Constitution and to the nation itself; they just opposed the tyrants who, at that time, held the government hostage.
By 1884, many Saints, including the Romneys, did indeed flee the United States. However, these Christians were American patriots in every sense of the word: they believed in America; they loved America; they viewed the Constitution of the United States as an inspired document, second only the scriptures themselves. What they fled was a tyrannical, anti-Constitutional government that sought to suppress religious freedom and women’s suffrage. After the U.S. divvied up the now-captured and -defunct Deseret into various states and territories, these early Utahans (including the Romneys) were begging the U.S. for statehood, but the U.S. wouldn’t grant it because these hundreds of thousands of dedicated Americans wouldn’t abandon their civil rights without a fight. (Unfortunately, they were eventually forced to choose between women’s suffrage and statehood. In 1895, the voters—including women—chose the latter, and in 1896 they gained the latter by relinquishing the former.)
Of course, all of this ignores the proverbial elephant in the room: why are the actions of Mitt Romney’s great-grandfather even relevant? My own great-great-grandfather was convicted of second-degree murder and spent three decades in a hospital for the criminally insane. Does that mean I shouldn’t be President? And what of President Obama, whose own father was officially categorized as “anti-American and anti-white” in 1959? I’d say that’s a much more important issue, yet it isn’t mentioned at all. The very foundation of this argument is highly flawed, to say the least.
2) The second point seems contradictory, to say the least. In the same sentence, this unknown critic implies that Mitt Romney was wrong for favoring the Viet Nam War, then openly criticizes him for accepting His Savior’s call to a full-time mission. Mitt, like most Latter-day Saints, was (and is) extremely patriotic. If he was also “pro-Vietnam,” why would he “flee” service therein? The answer is simple: he, like thousands of others like him, was called to the ministry. Service in the Church of Jesus Christ is not something we seek; it is something the Lord thrusts upon us. Years before, Mitt had accepted a call to the Priesthood. As missionary service is considered a Priesthood responsibility, this call from the Lord was not unexpected. However, in wartime, the Church voluntarily reduced its number of missionaries. Thus, the only Priesthood holders who received that calling were those whom the Lord, through His servants, deemed most appropriate therefor. Young Mitt was thus greatly honored by this call, and although we Christians always have the opportunity to reject a calling, either decision—to accept or reject—would likely be a matter involving great prayer and fasting, especially with a calling of this magnitude. (Romney, for example, spent 30 months, without pay, in the service of his God.)
Now, are there valid reasons not to vote for Mitt Romney? Of course, and I would never begrudge someone for making said decision. But the point remains that this poorly worded graphic, riddled with misspellings and misstatements, boils down to one thing: defeat Romney by any means necessary, and if we defeat Jesus in the process, even better. Its authors should be ashamed.
The argument in question is part of a graphic going around Facebook. The text, for those who can’t see the graphic, is as follows:
“[Mitt] Romney’s Mormon [sic] ancestors flee to Mexico to avoid anti polygamy [sic] laws imposed on them in 1892.
“Pro Vietnam War [sic] Mitt Romney flees to France as Mormon [sic] missionaryto [sic] avoid military service in 1968.
“Mitt Romney makes millions of dollars exporting American jobs to China and other low wage [sic] countries.
“Mitt Romney parks his personal wealth in overseas banks to avoid USA taxes.
“Now we are told he is a patriot who should be elected President? Seriously are [sic] we that stupid?”
Of the four points, the latter two are highly debatable and outside the purview of this blog, which is devoted to my reflections regarding the history, doctrines, and society of the Church of Jesus Christ. I thus will address the former.
1) First of all, the first point includes both a religious slur—“Mormon”—and an obvious factual error: Mitt Romney’s ancestors didn’t flee anything in 1892; by 1892, the U.S. government was done with its institutionalized persecution of Latter-day Saints, per se. However, the Saints had fled the United States in 1846, after the U.S. government ignored both a Missouri law making Christian baptism punishable by death and an Illinois legislature that turned a blind eye to those who raped, pillaged, and murdered the early Saints. When the United States claimed Manifest Destiny and annexed the nation of Deseret, the Saints were forced back into the country that had repeatedly refused to defend their civil rights. Nevertheless, they always remained loyal to the Constitution and to the nation itself; they just opposed the tyrants who, at that time, held the government hostage.
By 1884, many Saints, including the Romneys, did indeed flee the United States. However, these Christians were American patriots in every sense of the word: they believed in America; they loved America; they viewed the Constitution of the United States as an inspired document, second only the scriptures themselves. What they fled was a tyrannical, anti-Constitutional government that sought to suppress religious freedom and women’s suffrage. After the U.S. divvied up the now-captured and -defunct Deseret into various states and territories, these early Utahans (including the Romneys) were begging the U.S. for statehood, but the U.S. wouldn’t grant it because these hundreds of thousands of dedicated Americans wouldn’t abandon their civil rights without a fight. (Unfortunately, they were eventually forced to choose between women’s suffrage and statehood. In 1895, the voters—including women—chose the latter, and in 1896 they gained the latter by relinquishing the former.)
Of course, all of this ignores the proverbial elephant in the room: why are the actions of Mitt Romney’s great-grandfather even relevant? My own great-great-grandfather was convicted of second-degree murder and spent three decades in a hospital for the criminally insane. Does that mean I shouldn’t be President? And what of President Obama, whose own father was officially categorized as “anti-American and anti-white” in 1959? I’d say that’s a much more important issue, yet it isn’t mentioned at all. The very foundation of this argument is highly flawed, to say the least.
2) The second point seems contradictory, to say the least. In the same sentence, this unknown critic implies that Mitt Romney was wrong for favoring the Viet Nam War, then openly criticizes him for accepting His Savior’s call to a full-time mission. Mitt, like most Latter-day Saints, was (and is) extremely patriotic. If he was also “pro-Vietnam,” why would he “flee” service therein? The answer is simple: he, like thousands of others like him, was called to the ministry. Service in the Church of Jesus Christ is not something we seek; it is something the Lord thrusts upon us. Years before, Mitt had accepted a call to the Priesthood. As missionary service is considered a Priesthood responsibility, this call from the Lord was not unexpected. However, in wartime, the Church voluntarily reduced its number of missionaries. Thus, the only Priesthood holders who received that calling were those whom the Lord, through His servants, deemed most appropriate therefor. Young Mitt was thus greatly honored by this call, and although we Christians always have the opportunity to reject a calling, either decision—to accept or reject—would likely be a matter involving great prayer and fasting, especially with a calling of this magnitude. (Romney, for example, spent 30 months, without pay, in the service of his God.)
Now, are there valid reasons not to vote for Mitt Romney? Of course, and I would never begrudge someone for making said decision. But the point remains that this poorly worded graphic, riddled with misspellings and misstatements, boils down to one thing: defeat Romney by any means necessary, and if we defeat Jesus in the process, even better. Its authors should be ashamed.
Comments
Post a Comment