You’re right; I was inconsistent. I should have said “gubernatorial policies” rather than “gubernatorial platform.”
That said, you have not debunked the idea that Romney has a generally conservative governing record. This is a bit of goalpost-shifting when compared to what I actually said to you, but it still comes to bear in the current discussion.
~”Is that why you chose to shift gears?”~
It was, in fact, an accident on my part. I don’t like a lot of what Romney said as a gubernatorial candidate. I -do- like a lot of what he -did- as a governor. This is not a shift for me; I simply articulated this poorly before. The “platform” point is conceded.
~”...what does that say about the u-turn Mitt has done on almost every homosexual issue (except “gay” “marriage”)?”~
That’s a good point. So... Romney’s flipping in the right direction. You concentrate on “flipping” rather than “direction,” and so you harbor a distrust of him. I concentrate on “direction.”
Still, the point must be made: Thompson has quite a few blemishes in his senatorial record that irk conservatives, ranging from CFR to his vote against one of the articles of impeachment of Clinton. Yet, he doesn’t get called out for “flipping” on FR.
~”The point is that cohabitation is not good for the health of marriages that follow cohabitation; and it’s not statistically healthy for the kids they produce, either...”~
I agree with that. My point is that there’s no justification for conservatives, particularly Christians, to say “ick” whenever the word “gay” is mentioned. Yet we see gays pilloried all the time around here - even when they’re trying to be allies. This leads to attempts to hang an endorsement by LCR around Romney’s neck - it must obviously be a bad thing, because those Christian conservatives will say “ick.” I reject that philosophy on every level.
I fully support vigorous opposition to the radical gay agenda, on the basis that the traditional family unit is the foundation of our society, and it must be safeguarded at all costs. Romney is not perfect in this arena, but he is very good - better than his detractors like to paint.
Your direction #1 displays a deep misunderstanding of the purpose behind plural marriage. In any event, placing that policy into today’s context (or even that of a century ago) is not a productive way to judge it. In the context in which it took place, it made much more sense. But I don’t want to get bogged down into that argument again. My point is that the doctrines of Mormonism don’t affect public policy, other than the tendency to support traditional Christian values in the public square.
You cannot disprove the above statement until you cite for me a contemporary Mormon politician who is advocating some public policy because his religion or his prophet told him to do so. The LDS Church organization simply doesn’t involve itself in partisan politics.
As for your Direction #2:
Let’s start by quoting another verse from D&C 101:79:
79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.
Hmm.. sounds anti-slavery to me. My point is that you have decided to interpret the verses you cite according to your preconceptions. Yet you miss the fact that the verses in question were a commentary on the morality of provoking violence by setting slave against master. In other words, between slavery and the violence associated with revolt, the former is the lesser of the two evils.
You further ignore the fact that the early LDS Church was staunchly abolitionist - a stance that was the primary factor for the early Mormons to get blasted out of Missouri on pain of extermination.
And, so, your argument is based on a false premise - that Romney would potentially ignore continuing slavery in the world because his religion says it is not to be interfered with. Be that as it may, Romney is running for a secular position. The verses you cite from the D&C are an outline of the position of the ecclesiastical organization. The -LDS CHURCH- was opposed to the meddling we are discussing. If Romney, as -PRESIDENT- were to tackle the issue, he would be perfectly free to set any -GOVERNMENT- policy he chooses.
The division between church and state is a revered and honored concept in Mormon tradition. Yet, somehow, you think that Mormons would be in favor of abolishing this separation. It’s ridiculous on the face of it.
~”likewise, if D&C 130 is an “everlasting covenant,” then “everlasting” doesn’t = 60 years”~
We’ve been over this one time and again. The term “everlasting covenant” refers to the sealing power. NOT to plural marriage. Read the section again; the distinction is quite clear, if you don’t choose to ignore it.
I agree that the “faith” vs. “faith and works” debate is a broad gulf, though the LDS position is by no means aberrant; ask a Catholic.
~”We don’t have to constantly wonder, “Do I have eternal life with Him if I died tonight?””~
Neither do we. It’s a little thing called the “Holy Spirit of Promise.” Discussion of this is beyond the scope of this forum. Suffice it to say that a person trying to follow Christ will be a recipient of salvation. A person who stops striving to follow Him risks loss of that salvation unless he or she repents. And our doctrine is fully in agreement with you that we are not saved by our works. We are saved by the grace of Christ - where the difference lies is that we believe that grace is conditional upon faith in Him -and- our repentance (what I referred to as getting ourselves right with God).
~”...it was simply looking at the bronze snake lifted up and believing that the source of healing was beyond you...”~
Ah, but they -looked.- That is -action.- That is -works.- It would not have been enough for a person to think, ‘Well, I have faith that -if- I look, I will be healed.’ They had to actually -look.- Likewise, we must actually -strive- to be obedient. God will do the rest.
~”...then I can tell you he would be a self-described worshipper of many gods (a polytheist).”~
Uh, no, you couldn’t tell me that. Belief in the existence of multiple divine beings does not equate worship of them. We only have to deal with God the Father; He and Christ are the only beings worshiped in our faith. You show me the place in D&C that contradicts this statement.
~”I think the actions of all of the so-called front-tier Republican candidates seem to be on the “empty” side when it comes to responding to the LONE true and living God.”~
That’s because you are applying a parochial view of who and what God is. Would you say that God hears the prayers of a Muslim? What about a Hindu? How about the pagan bushman? Or are those of His children who ascribe to your narrow definition of what He is - be it right or wrong - the only ones that God hears?
Even if Mormonism is the misguided travesty you claim it to be, are its adherents not God’s children? Will He not hear their prayers and answer their pleas? Romney is a devoutly religious man; I think there is no argument about that. So if He asks God for help, as a true believer in his misguided faith, will God turn him away?
And if not, then your above statement is entirely invalidated.
Allow me to clarify something to you: I seek each day to build a personal relationship with God and with my Savior. Yet, I am a Mormon. When you abrogate to yourself the power to say that my relationship with God is invalid because I do not believe as you do, you certainly do not act with humility or the charity that Christ exemplified. You commit the same error when you do so to Mitt Romney, or any other of the candidates.
I want a sincerely religious man in that office. A sincerely religious man behaves in certain identifiable ways. Of the three, which one behaves in a manner most consistent with this behavioral pattern? Your or my personal religious beliefs have no bearing on the identification of that pattern.
Of the three top tier candidates, Romney most closely meets this qualification.
As for the $3 bill comparison... The only reason it doesn’t exist is because it isn’t in print. The government can change that with an act of Congress, and it would be fully legal tender.
Likewise, the concepts you list (some of which actually accurately represent LDS doctrines) exist because God decided to print a $3 bill. Man’s philosophies, you see, have a very reliable way of corrupting God’s teachings. Hence the need for a restoration. Just because you don’t believe it, doesn’t make it false. I’d much rather take God’s word over yours.
~”Now, imagine some reporter or debate questioner asking Mitt this exact question post-nomination.”~
Romney’s answer: “I don’t discuss religious doctrine. I’m running for a secular office. If you want to know more about my faith, please visit mormon.org. Next question.”
Score one for Romney.
For full disclosure: this discussion has helped me gel my thoughts. I am as of writing this sentence a Romney supporter. I think, of the three viable choices, he will make the most effective candidate and best leader.
I suspect my rhetoric on political threads will change markedly in the future. It’s been a good experience; I know precisely why I support him, and I know precisely why I don’t support his main rivals.
During Romney's "gubernatorial policy period," he...
#1:...favored "civil unions" between homosexual couples;
#2: ...favored domestic partnership benefits for cohabiting couples;
#3: ...funded homosexual youth programs;
#4: Said in May of 2005...supposedly almost 8 months after he had supposedly "switched" to a pro-life perspective, that he was "absolutely committed to my promise promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice and so far I've been able to successfully do that and my personal philosophical views about this issue is not something that I think would do anything other than distract from what I think is a more critical agenda ..." (Romney Press Conference, 5/27/05)
Even now, look at what he told Chris Wallace in the Fox interview he did Aug. 12 of this year: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't feel I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..."
You know what I've concluded? In his own mind, he's leap-frogged enough back & forth from two positions, that he's convinced himself that even when he was "pro-abortion" he was "pro-life." (So why wouldn't both of us think that when he says he is now "pro-life" there's always enough reservation left within him to define it as fairly close to a "pro-choice" position)
So... Romney’s flipping in the right direction. You concentrate on “flipping” rather than “direction,” and so you harbor a distrust of him. I concentrate on “direction.”
OK, he supposedly "flips" to pro-life direction in November of '04, yet by May of '05 he's saying what I quoted him above? (The real is not why I distrust him; it's why you do trust him?) And then now he says he "never called himself pro-choice" even with the absolutely absolute pro-abortion statements he made both in 1994 and 2002. (All you're proving is my contention that somer religionists are more vulnerable to deception than others)
My point is that the doctrines of Mormonism don’t affect public policy, other than the tendency to support traditional Christian values in the public square. You cannot disprove the above statement until you cite for me a contemporary Mormon politician who is advocating some public policy because his religion or his prophet told him to do so. The LDS Church organization simply doesn’t involve itself in partisan politics.
May I explain a few philosophical foundations here? An agnostic may think he hasn't come to any conclusion about the existence of God; but in reality he has. He has come down on the same side as the atheist. A "life agnostic" may think he or she hasn't come to any conclusion on when life begins; but in reality he or she has when the pre-born are dying all around such a person. He or she has come down precisely on the side of the abortionist, who wands all folks to at least remain neutral (and paralyzed) on this.
Now how does this apply to your comment, you ask? Well, Article 11 of the LDS "Articles of Faith" at first glance sound like this noble ideal of liberty: "We claim the privilege of worshiping the Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
But upon closer examination, can you imagine the Israelites of the Old Testament making such a statement? "We claim the privilege of worshiping the Lord according to our own conscience, and allow Baal-worshippers, idol-worshippers, calf-worshippers, etc. the same privilege. Let them worship how they want, prostitution and all, where they want--up on the high grounds, and what they may--oh, any old idol is an 'OK' privilege according to our open-minded, tolerant viewpoint."
You can't read the constant condemnations of idolatry and spiritual adultery in the OT; the constant condemnations of the high grounds being used to conduct practices of idolatry; and the constant judgments by God upon idolaters and then try to reconcile the God of the OT with the God of Mormonism!!!
I mean, when Article 11 says "let them worship...what they may" it's not just saying, "Well, who are we to tell you that you can't do what you want spiritually?" in some kind of neutral manner. My point above is that there truly is no neutral or middle ground on issues like the existence of God, the personhood of the pre-born, or the worship of God. When you declare to someone who is physically promiscuous or online porn-perusing on a daily basis, "worship...what you may" you are sanctioning sex-worship. When you say to a backyard tulip-worshipper, "worship...what you may" you are sanctioning animism or paganism.
This issue isn't about refraining what people worship. It's about sanctioning (or not) what people worship.
And so we see this spiritual libertarian attitude in many LDS leaders. Mitt, for example. What do we see on Mitt's Web site during the 2002 governor's race? “As Governor, Mitt Romney would protect the current pro-choice status quo in Massachusetts. No law would change. The choice to have an abortion is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own BELIEFS, not the government’s.”
There ya have it. Mitt learns all about spiritual libertarianism from his faith. He then applies it to abortion, since he recognized (even if you refuse to) that abortions are simply the outcropping of a personal BELIEF system.
How ironic. Here Mitt says in 2002 that the very undergirding of abortion can include "beliefs" (including theological beliefs), and yet we have deniers like yourself who keeps trying to extricate faith and theological beliefs from the public square.
Let’s start by quoting another verse from D&C 101:79: 79 Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another. Hmm.. sounds anti-slavery to me.
Please explain how that statement is any different than what Rudy or a whole host of Democratic candidates have said. "I'm personally against abortion, but I wouldn't stop someone from having one." Or: "Nobody is pro-abortion; nobody enjoys having an abortion; they should be rare but legal."
Just because a verse declares something isn't right doesn't mean they act on that belief. Think of all of the Northern folks who thought slavery wasn't right but didn't become vocal abolitionists--even within their own small circle of influence.
Many conservative so-called "pro-life" Republicans don't think abortion is right but haven't yet to do one thing truly beneficial on behalf of a pre-born child.
You further ignore the fact that the early LDS Church was staunchly abolitionist - a stance that was the primary factor for the early Mormons to get blasted out of Missouri on pain of extermination.
Well, for every LDS who was an abolitionist, I'm sure there were 10 other Mormons who, upon hearing D&C 134:12, concluded that those were proper authoritative "weasel words" that gave them an escape clause from having to recognize any neighborly justice or gospel recipient status.
That’s because you are applying a parochial view of who and what God is. Would you say that God hears the prayers of a Muslim? What about a Hindu? How about the pagan bushman?
Well, admittedly, since we all "see through a glass darkly" our view of God is always an "underestimate." If I am too "parochial," is it at least possible that you are too open-minded?
The issue is not whether God is deaf. Have you noticed a key theme that the prophet Isaiah started off his book and came back to toward the end?
Stop bringing meaningless offerings! Your incense is detestable to me. [In the book of Revelation, prayer is describe as "incense" to God] New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—I cannot bear your evil assemblies. Your New Moon festivals and your appointed feasts my soul hates. They have become a burden to me; I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide my eyes from you; even if you offer many prayers, II will not listen. Your hands are full of blood; wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight! Stop doing wrong, learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow. 'Come now, let us reason together,' says the LORD. 'Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool. (Isaiah 1:13-18)
Or are those of His children who ascribe to your narrow definition of what He is - be it right or wrong - the only ones that God hears?...Will He not hear their prayers and answer their pleas?
As I said, the problem isn't on the Lord's side, as Isaiah also reminds us in Is. 59: Surely the arm of the LORD is not too short to save, nor his ear too dull to hear. But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear. For your hands are stained with blood, your fingers with guilt. Your lips have spoken lies, and your tongue mutters wicked things. No one calls for justice; no one pleads his case with integrity. They rely on empty arguments and speak lies; they conceive trouble and give birth to evil." (Is. 59:1-4)
Imagine a guilty-fingered person who tells lies and who doesn't seek neighborly justice. Imagine such a person who thinks "I am saved by grace, but not until AFTER all I can do. I am going to progress spiritually. THEN I'll become grace-worthy. THEN I can talk directly to Jesus like the Nephite disciples of old." That's like saying, "I'm going to get well first so I'm able to be mobile enough to go to the doctor's office or hospital."
The issue, then, is not what religious label a person wears re: God's approachability. The issue is, do we really see our crimson, scarlet and blood-stained hands that we reach out to God? (And if so, do we then apply the crimson, scarlet, and blood-stained cross of Christ to our sins?) For God is holy, and we are reconciled to Him only through the cross.
Even if Mormonism is the misguided travesty you claim it to be, are its adherents not God’s children?
Listen. It's fairly difficult to try to find a more legalistic re-presentation of Christianity than Mormonism. (I saw one Mormon ritual performed repeatedly on a new LDS convert for the most absurd minute legalistic reasons). You could ask your question about the Pharisees: Even if Phariseeism was the misguided travesty the gospel writers claim it to be, are its adherents not God's children? And the answer according to Jesus in John 8:37-44? His answer was "no."
(It's not up to me to determine who is or who isn't God's child)
Romney is a devoutly religious man; I think there is no argument about that. So if He asks God for help, as a true believer in his misguided faith, will God turn him away? And if not, then your above statement is entirely invalidated.
Jesus didn't turn away the thief at the cross--a man who wasn't devout and religious. So certainly, God's sovereignty is not predictable along "man's boundaries." So I won't pretend to know how God responds to prayers of those who misconceive Him (since no one is "pure" conception-wise, anyway).
All I can say as an analogy is, if I were to describe you in 100 different details, but only got 15 of them correctly, have I really described you? If I said I "knew" you but had only a 10% "on the mark" assessment about who you were, well, would I really "know" you?
I think we could agree--even if we don't agree where--that at some point some folks' description of God is going to be so foreign to who He is that such a person can't possibly be describing the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The face of God then becomes so marred that we'd have to conclude such a description is no divine face at all. And so a person who thinks they know the true God is not relationally tied to that God at all. Some folks' imaginations and myths of God are so foreign to Him that it becomes no different than the animist who thinks their local god is a certain tree spirit or rock.
Man’s philosophies, you see, have a very reliable way of corrupting God’s teachings. Hence the need for a restoration. Just because you don’t believe it, doesn’t make it false. I’d much rather take God’s word over yours.
I don't disagree with you re: corruption. I disagree with you over complete and utter corruption. As for taking God's word over mine, well you've already taken man's word (LDS leaders) over God's word on this, haven't you?
Didn't Jesus say, "The gates of hell shall not prevail against my church?" (What does LDS as mere men say? "Yup. Sure did. 1500 years' worth.") Didn't Paul tell Timothy that "the Spirit says SOME will depart from the faith in the latter days?" (What does LDS as mere men say? "Yup. Not only SOME. We don't the Holy Spirit was on the mark there. We're going to edit Him a bit. Revise what He said. We're going to say ALL at one point departed from the faith.") Didn't Paul say to the Ephesians--Eph. 3:21--that God's glory would remain in the Church through ALL generations? (What does LDS as mere men say? "Well, not ALL generations. We're going to revise and edit what the apostle had to say, and we think there was about up to 40 or so generations that were AWOL of his glory.")
Romney’s answer: “I don’t discuss religious doctrine. I’m running for a secular office. If you want to know more about my faith, please visit mormon.org. Next question.” Score one for Romney
Well, let's see how long he'd be able to hold out vs. the MSM if he was the nominee. (His non-answers to the following 2008 MSM questions are going to strike voters as odd):
"Mr. Romney, do you believe that magical coded handshakes are needed to enter into the celestial kingdom when you die?" "Mr. Romney, do you believe this earth is like an audition by God to fill up hundreds of thousands of other 'god' positions available in the universe?" "Mr. Romney, do you believe that D&C 134:12 applies universally and eternally? IOW, do you believe that slaves everywhere should NOT be recipients of the gospel?" "Mr. Romney, do you believe that most Republicans are actually apostates of the true faith?"
Or how about this one?
"Mr. Romney, obviously you have different opinions than that of your deceased ancestors--as we all do--but could you please explain what you think about these comments from the brother of your great-great grandfather? "Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' whom the Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. Any person who shall be so corrupt as to receive a holy ordinance of the Gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent" (Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 255). [Pratt also said: "This great apostasy commenced about the close of the first century of the Christian era, and it has been waxing worse and worse from then until now" (Journal of Discourses, vol.18, p.44) and: "But as there has been no Christian Church on the earth for a great many centuries past, until the present century, the people have lost sight of the pattern that God has given according to which the Christian Church should be established, and they have denominated a great variety of people Christian Churches, because they profess to be ...But there has been a long apostasy, during which the nations have been cursed with apostate churches in great abundance" (Journal of Discourses, 18:172).
I am as of writing this sentence a Romney supporter. I think, of the three viable choices, he will make the most effective candidate and best leader.
Well, if I was to apply the best of your Article 11 of your faith, while editing out it's worst portion, I would paraphrase my answer to this comment of yours as follows: "We claim the privilege of voting for candidates according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow men the same privilege. Let them vote how and for whom they may. But beware. Not every candidate is office-worthy, even if they are ballot-worthy. Not every undershepherd is of the True Shepherd. And not every vote is a vote unto itself, for every voter usually influences others to consider voting in certain ways.
(Oh, and certainly you can't vote "where...you may" unless you subscribe to the "vote early and vote often" principle) :)