Sunday, November 25, 2007

Why Won't Anyone Answer This Question?

I have asked countless people an no one will give me an straight forward answer...

Loose Scenario (but you get the point):

Mitt Romney wins the nomination and then the general election. America has it's first president from "the one true church on earth". al Qaeda starts blowing up malls all over the country. Romney decides the only retaliation is blowing up something of theirs. Congress agrees. The American people agree. The President of Brigham Young University doesn't agree. Cecil O. Samuelson comes to Mitt and says this is wrong and against our doctrine. Now, as far as I know, the president of BYU is believed to be a prophet. As in chosen, sanctioned and ordained by God. What then? Is Mitt's duty to the American people or to a man he believes to be conveying God's actual words? A man that Americans didn't elect.

Yes, Christians have Pastors and Catholics have Priests and the Pope...but we believe they are servants of God -not God himself or a direct line from Him...we know they are fallible and (like us non-clergy) relying on their own interpretations. It's different.

So, if Mitt we then have a President that is indeed answering to another human that wasn't elected (I realize we may have already tackled that with Bill & Hillary)? What would Mitt do if caught between a decision for the country and what the Prez of BYU imparted? Is it right for America to have a President that feels bound by an earthly power greater than him?

This is not meant to be a condemnation of LDS, but a serious theological question that no one seems to want to answer...

No comments: