Replies

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.

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.

Well, again, you asked for examples of that which would counter the notion of a "generally conservative" governing record. There's enough there to show on social issues that it's a clear mixed bag even from 2003 to 2005...and worse, that he flopped back toward abortion in 2005 after supposedly flipping our way in late 2004.

You are familiar with the term “free agency?”

Familiar with the term. Certainly Adam & Eve had it. But it's not a Biblical term; (and I'm not sure even the Book of Mormon has such a term in it). Basically, when you look at Biblical passages like John 8 (Jesus: "He who commits sin is a slave to sin"); Romans 6 (the entire chapter); and Eph. 2:1 (dead in sin) you realize that humanity aside from being in Jesus is enslaved to sin. (And slaves aren't exactly "free"). Frankly, enslaved people really have no choice other than to remain in sin (minus the liberation of Jesus, that is).

So just because people think mucky living and mucky living conditions are A-OK doesn't mean that God lowers the standard and basically say, "Well, go ahead, whatever turns you on."

By this standard, then, neither can you reconcile the God of the Old Testament with the God of the New Testament.

Not so. If anything, Jesus and Paul expand the application of condemning idolatry. Jesus talks about attempting to serve two masters; and Paul even labels the stomach of some as their idol.

And you're making a leap here that isn't warranted...as if theological beliefs about the character of God has little to no influence on our own character and ethics and practices derived from them. To hear you tell it, "theological beliefs" are almost like picture frames hanging on the stake wall that attenders see on a weekly basis...but otherwise doesn't intersect with daily ethics. Somehow you think apples and oranges are big differences. They are small...They are both fruit...and the fruit of the Spirit is... (well, see Galatians...)

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.

Partially true at best. 85% of folks have some religious identity in this country...linked to the Christian church. So most people import some value and ethical components...even if it's fragmented, incomplete, and inconsistent. (Bill Clinton, for example, said he first believed life began at birth because his pastor in Arkansas taught that)

You’re missing the point. Is it right to stop an abortion by bombing an abortion clinic?

Why resort to violence when there's many peaceful ways to stop abortion clinic abortions? (that would still, mind you, rile them up and lead to persecution of your perceived "intrusion").

Neither is it right to preach the Gospel of Peace in situations where doing so will lead to violence.

Apples and Oranges. Violence (bombing) begets violence, says the book of Hosea. Peaceful actions and the gospel of peace begets both peace and preturbed reactions. For example, if a Christian becomes a martyr for sharing the gospel, he or she can't let the fear of martyrdom (the violence that will result) determine whether or not to share the gospel. (You are way off-base here, as you basically condemn many of the actions that have led to the martyrdom of thousands of people who were faithful to the gospel)

If the early Church had preached to slaves without the permission of their owners, such situations would have arisen.

Yes and no. Not in every case.

As evil as slavery is, that would have been worse.

That's only "worse" to you because you live in a world where you think most all will be saved and even then, the baptized-by-proxy will have a "second-chance" gospel opportunity. (Please re-read Romans 9:1-4 to see the very urgency Paul had to save the lost...Paul would conclude that the worse thing is for folks to be damned, not for the violence that erupts because of the proclamation of the gospel...Imagine that...folks who actually believe that the one of the few things worse than slavery is proclaiming the gospel and then dealing with the flak).

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.

Hey, the garment LDS today matches the wardrobe selection of its true founder, Joseph Smith. Joseph was anti-polygamy and then pro-polygamy. Joseph was "single-God" focus in the original Book of Commandments (D&C predecessor) & the Book of Mormon & even the Book of Moses but was then multiple-god focused in the Book of Abraham and his 1844 talk where "Ye have got to learn how to become gods yourselves."

Social issues wise, LDS tend toward libertarianism. It's not that they don't have social values and convictions; it's just they don't want to be imposing except for when it comes to missionary activity. So for those outside the faith, they are more "live and let live." For those inside the faith, they tend toward legalism and Phariseeism. (And I won't begin to pretend that there are not Christian churches who over the decades have the same tendency)

On this point, I can't adamantly disagree (for whom would I be to dictate to God how He responds to prayers?). I would just have to respectfully disagree at your absolute conclusions (that God answers all prayers). Let me give you an earthly example: A child who speaks in a disrespectful or whiny tone to their parent is often best not answered by their parent. (A parent will not want to reinforce such tones). I've heard parents even finally say to such a child, "I can't hear you when you're speaking to me in such a manner."

Well, God our Father is the originator of discipline. I'm sure He's not overly concerned about proper prayer table manners or trivial constructs as to what is "appropriate" prayer or "inappropriate" prayer. But that doesn't mean that anything goes. Our prayers at times can be downright disrespectful to His sovereignty; to His holiness; to His power, etc.

And if I'm an animistic who converses with a tree, a rock, or a backyard tulip, I don't think He always concludes, "Well, their concept of Me is a little jaded. But since he's sincere..."

I mean, if someone is praying to Satan or demon, calling them their "lord," I don't think God responds by saying, "Well, I'm the only true LORD in the universe, so since he's really talking to me I'm going to pretend to ignore all the thoughts he has about the identity of the being he is praying to..."

No, certainly "theological correctness" rarely hurts; but life isn't a series of formal theological educational courses. So, actually, what you described above reminded me of the LDS folks I've conversed with through the years. They have told me flat out that you don't pray directly to Jesus...that prayers "have to" be directed to Heavenly Father in Jesus' name. Then when I go to 3 Nephi and point out the Nephite disciples praying directly and repeatedly to Jesus, they seem a bit flabbergasted...as if the prayer protocal they've been indoctrinated in all these years has been turned on its ear.

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.

First of all, LDS clearly teach in many, many sources (if you wish, I'll cite them next time) that the church apostasy was basically 100%...100% minus John and the Nephite disciples, and maybe Elijah and Elisha. (And frankly if all of them were still alive, that in and of itself disproves other sources where LDS claim the apostasy was so complete that a 14 year old had to be enlisted to restore the church). So that is what I mean by "complete and utter."

If the church only needed a facelift, or a reformation, Smith would have been a reformer and the church would be considered a "protest(ant) of both the Protestants and the RC." But it's not by folks inside or outside of the church.

Secondly, you've seen me quote it over & over again...but you just can't get around vv. 18-19 of Joseph Smith - History, PoGP. (Please re-read it and note carefully the word "all" as attached to the description of other churches' leaders AND creeds).

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.

Well, actually the D&C in a few places says the Book of Mormon contains the "fullness of the everlasting gospel." That is the supposed one place. Yet when I look there, do I find anything about the priesthood? (No) Anything about God being a former man? (No) Anything about me or you becoming a God? (No) Anything about three degrees of glory? (No) Anything about proxy baptism? (No) Anything about a woman needing to be married to attain exaltation? (No)

You know, in the marketing world, that's called "false advertising." It has a certain reputation built up by another organ of the church (the D&C). But when you check under the hood of this "leader" come-on, where's the "fullness?" (It only takes one false prophecy to = a false prophet; just like it only takes one theft to put away a thief).

You, for example, believe in Christ as your Savior. It is a true principle. Therefore, your beliefs have not suffered “complete and utter corruption.”

The Major League playoffs were on tonight. Had a commentator said about one of the teams, "Their manager, coaches and front office is completely corrupt. And their entire baseball philosophy is a complete abomination." You know, such a statement would grab my attention. Why? Well to start with the last statement first...I would immediately (rhetorically) respond to the TV set, "Oh, yeah, that's why they've made it this far when most teams are watching this game...gutter-poor philosophy." Now, if I immediately went to other sources online and consulted the best experts and concluded, "No, this team isn't a bunch of cheaters. No, their leadership is perfectly fine. Where does this commentator get off waging open war against the team in front of a national audience?"

My point is simple: No, this team is NOT suffering from complete and utter leadership and philosophical corruption. But that's exactly it. Anyone who claims it is IS a false commentator. So my question is, Do you agree with the commentator or not?

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.

Well, the context of what we were talking about here was specifically whether there was a 100% apostasy & therefore a need for a 100% restoration thru Joseph Smith...and specifically whether you thought Jesus committed a false prophecy by claiming the devil would not prevail against His church (like LDS say happened for 1500 years); and whether you thought the Holy Spirit lied when He said only SOME would depart from the faith (what? didn't the Holy Spirit know that it would be a total apostasy?) Did you pray about these verses being true or not?

Actually, I don't but you are the rare Mormon in tying this to hearing God's word in the Bible (most LDS I've talked with tend to make this feeling or burning much more open-ended, thereby moving away from the Biblical precedent where this happened in Luke 24 to those hearing Jesus' words as He interpreted the Scriptures).

Well it's late. I read the rest of what you wrote. (And you're right, we're both long-winded). So I'll restrict my remaining comments on this thread to your forecast.

Romney as POTUS? (I think you forgot that you went to bed & decided to write out your dream :) )...[It's either that or you thought..."Hmm, I wonder how I can give Colofornian nightmares tonight?" :) ]

If you want to see my "forecast" see my baseball analogy, post #29, on the "How Would Jesus Vote?" thread. (I basically say that the "manager's" gut feeling is a loss is around the corner).