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) :)
Whew... what a pair of long-winded fellows we are both turning out to be. —Deep breath—
I’ve studied the points you have brought up about Romney. I do believe I made it clear to you that I have some concerns. However, the points you have brought forward are cherry-picked from amongst the backdrop of context provided by many, many other statements as well as his record over the past years. You’ve been present at the re-re-re-hashing of this particular argument, so I see no need to repeat myself further. I think neither of us is likely to convince the other.
Is Romney perfect? No. But I do think he is the best choice of three.
~”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 are familiar with the term “free agency?” You’ve certainly heard the term “love the sinner, hate the sin.” I assume you’ve read the article I gave you the link to before. In order to understand the LDS position, you must realize the core centrality of personal free agency in the LDS ethic. Will people choose to do bad things? Yes. And that choice cannot be taken away from them. They may have to deal with the consequences; a criminal will go to jail. But it is not in accordance with God’s plan to deprive man of his free agency.
~”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!!!”~
By this standard, then, neither can you reconcile the God of the Old Testament with the God of the New Testament.
~”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.”~
You’re making a logical leap here that is not warranted. You are jumping from personal beliefs, which are the set of ethics that govern a person’s day-to-day decisions, with doctrine (i.e. theological beliefs). Apples and oranges.
Romney was speaking to the point of personal ethics. Such ethics may or may not be instilled by doctrine. It’s inaccurate to conflate the two.
~”Please explain how that statement is any different than what Rudy or a whole host of Democratic candidates have said.”~
You’re missing the point. Is it right to stop an abortion by bombing an abortion clinic? Neither is it right to preach the Gospel of Peace in situations where doing so will lead to violence. If the early Church had preached to slaves without the permission of their owners, such situations would have arisen. As evil as slavery is, that would have been worse.
~”If I am too “parochial,” is it at least possible that you are too open-minded?”~
If the idea that God loves us all, and that He is no respecter of persons is too open-minded, then I claim the title.
The evil man does not have God’s ear. It matters not whether that evil man is a Baptist, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, or Mormon. This is the sort to whom Isaiah was referring, while simultaneously calling such to repentance. The good man - one who is following that spiritual light that he has - will be heard and his pleas will be answered according to his faith. Whether that person agrees with you or me as to the precise nature of God is immaterial.
~”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.””~
Thank you. This helps me a great deal to understand your point of view. I can’t say that it’s pretty, but it is enlightening.
But I am confused in one point: After spending paragraphs pointing out your disagreement with the libertarianism of Mormonism, you then switch gears and accuse us of being legalistic and Pharisaical.
Please, which is it? It seems flip-flopping is an easy thing for all of us to fall prey to.
~”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?”~
It wouldn’t matter. If you then looked at me and spoke, I would respond. How much more, then, is our Father in Heaven willing to answer the pleas of His sincere children, each of whom He loves and knows personally, regardless of their misconceptions of Him?
As I was serving as a missionary in Italy, I came across a number of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Their view, of course, is that if you don’t pray to Jehovah - by name - then He will not hear your prayer. Their doctrine is that God will not respond unless He is called by name.
Your words remind me very much of this stance.
~”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.”~
The difference comes where you have received spiritual light and then rejected it. For example, if a person receives the truth that Christ is his personal savior, but rejects it and returns to his prayers to his tree spirit or rock, then he’s not a sincere seeker of God, is he? He has used his free agency to reject the truth; as such, he must repent or continue in rebellion. God does not hear the prayers of the rebellious until they soften their hearts and repent, for such are not sincere in their prayers.
~”I disagree with you over complete and utter corruption.”~
Who said anything about complete and utter corruption? We believe that truth is to be found in any faith that leads men closer to God. We do also proclaim that there is only one place where the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ - pure and uncorrupted - can be found.
You, for example, believe in Christ as your Savior. It is a true principle. Therefore, your beliefs have not suffered “complete and utter corruption.” Where we do believe things that are untrue to be of God, however, our beliefs have become corrupted.
~”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?”~
Nope. I’ve prayed to God on many occasions and asked confirmation of the truth; I have received it. It is by this method that I accept truth. If that truth comes by means of God’s spokesmen, then that’s fine; but it is still subject to confirmation by the Holy Ghost.
You may find it difficult to relate to this unless you’ve experienced it. I’ve spoken with people who, for example, relate how they experience peace, hope, and joy while they read the Bible. This is a manifestation of the Holy Ghost - testifying of the truth of the principles contained therein.
That testimony (in even more certain and powerful manifestations) is available to man in a far more broad application - indeed, it is available in day-to-day life. It is by this light that I walk, and to which I strive to become closer.
Imagine my surprise when others accuse me of being led astray by this light. If that is the case, then I will stand toe-to-toe with God at the judgment day and call Him a liar, for it is His testimony to my soul that I follow, not the ramblings of man. I have a torch to light my way; while you are welcome to it, I have no need of the candle you carry.
As for the potential questions you list by the MSM, it is my opinion that your tactic is nothing more than scare-mongering. Journalists will not ask such questions. It simply won’t happen, certainly not on a widespread basis. If I weren’t Mormon, I’d bet real money on it.
Here is Political Truth According to Tantiboh. We’ll see how well it holds up:
Thompson will continue to wane as disillusionment sets in and more conservative leaders embrace Romney as the best option available. The party will be fractious and contentious throughout the process. Nevertheless, Romney will take off like a rocket when he wins Iowa. He is very likely to win New Hampshire, and certainly won’t come in at less than 2nd place. He’ll pick up steam as he takes Nevada and Michigan and does surprisingly well in South Carolina - I predict 2nd place, behind Thompson.
The big contest will be in Florida. While having been behind in recent polls, his momentum will take him over the top, and he’ll beat Giuliani by a narrow margin as former Thompson supporters realize that he’s their only hope for keeping Giuliani off the ticket. The national publicity will be feverish for the next week, and Romney will emerge from Super Tuesday with a formidable lead in delegate count.
The presidential contest will put him against Clinton. It will be brutal. Oh, the candidates will be “above the fray;” but it’s going to be one hell of a fight all the way to the grassroots. Conservatives of all stripes will realize that they must support Romney or risk utterly disastrous defeat. Support will quickly coalesce and solidify. Romney will be far behind Clinton in March, but will make steady gains against her. There will be no October Surprise, because Romney is brilliantly clean. Romney will surpass Clinton as he touts family values and projects himself as the change agent and Washington outsider, as well as the best man to shore up a shaky economy and a strong hawk on Iraq and the WoT. This will give him a significant cross-over factor. He will use rhetoric that inspires people with an optimistic outlook reminiscent of Ronald Reagan. Clinton will grate on people, and her base will not be energized. Romney’s lean and efficient campaign will run rings around Clinton’s cumbersome, if formidable, machine, and Romney’s organizational skills will be fully employed to develop a nationwide base of supporters and powerful fundraising prowess.
On election day, he will beat her by the standard slim margin, thanks to record Republican turnout inspired by Hillary. I doubt there will be much in the way of coattails in the House and Senate; but that is a fight for another day.
Mark my words, and throw them in my face if I turn out to be wrong: Mitt Romney is the 44th President of the United States.
What will be particularly fun is to watch the reaction from people such as yourself as this happens. Do I have a crystal ball? No. But I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.