Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Colofornian
Sorry, not buying it.

You point to the LDS leadership flip flops on key doctrines (no argument there) and then appear to claim that Romney's flip flop on issues is inherent in his faith. I rather think it's inherent in his being a politician.

I don't think you would argue that Fred Thompson exemplified Mormon ideology when he flip flopped on CFR.

160 posted on 10/29/2007 12:45:57 PM PDT by Notary Sojac ("If it ain't broken, fix it 'till it is" - Congress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies ]


To: Notary Sojac
You point to the LDS leadership flip flops on key doctrines (no argument there) and then appear to claim that Romney's flip flop on issues is inherent in his faith. I rather think it's inherent in his being a politician. I don't think you would argue that Fred Thompson exemplified Mormon ideology when he flip flopped on CFR.

Well, nobody who's in politics a while stays static. There are going to be both some changes for the better & some for the worse.

So you're right in one sense. Politicians change. Politicians flip flop. (And the same is true w/us humans spiritually, relationally, emotionally, etc.)

But there's gotta be some big dividing line between public policy wayward outbursts and just plain double-mindedness as one big pattern.

Of the list I gave you on Romney's "gumbility," the three or so things that convinced me of his double-mindedness were..

(a) coming out with a pro-Boy Scouts and anti-Boy Scouts statement in the same breath...back to back sentences...in 1994; and...

(b) undergoing a supposed "pro-life" conversion in Nov. 04 only to say he was fully "pro-choice" in late May 05; and...

(c) telling a Fox interviewer in Aug 07 that in his mind he always thought of himself as being "pro-life"--not "pro-choice."

You can also include his being against civil unions, and then being for them. (Moving leftward).

It just seems that social policy wise I don't see the LDS erecting social policy stances or theological stances based upon an everlasting, universal absolute foundational basis. I mean, if polygamy was God's "Everlasting Covenant" for all peoples in all times--as LDS "Scripture" still contends (see D&C 130)--then the LDS god would not be strong-armed by some peasily little earthly government residing in some peasily little district called, "Columbia." Nor would such a god be a respecter of slave owners that He would be afraid of giving the gospel or baptizing slaves, as D&C 134:12 contends.

LDS know they have a god who not only does about-faces, but is two-faced. "god-liness" = becoming like the god you worship and admire.

To end on a more "upbeat" acknowledgment of LDS moving rightward on some things, it's nice to know that the LDS church has been trying to protect marriage for a number of years now...but when I think about how they were the ones militating against it for 55 years...it makes me think, "What happens if the Mormon god changes his mind again on a key social policy?"

Now for YOU to contend that the LDS god won't do that--or that theology doesn't overlap with public policy--then you just don't know enough about 19th-century history and what our government had to do to kick polygamy into a few southwest desert communities.

173 posted on 10/29/2007 1:12:42 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson