“I missed the part where an LDS leader was directing the fundraising committee. Holland did facilitate the networking aspect, it appears.”
In those two sentences you say I am wrong, and then say I am right.
There is obvious coordination of the Mormon Church with the Romney campaign, it would be a lie to think not. Now I don’t have a problem with this religious involvement (have at it, it’s a free country), what I do have a problem with is your speaking out of two sides of your mouth. You say there is zero influence of Mormon hierarchy in elections while admitting Council of 12 member Holland was involved. It is this two sidedness of all our discussions that is problematic (Joseph Smith, both fallible man and Saint Prophet God, for example). Do I act stupid that you think you can get away with a shell game like this? If we allow this two-sided thinking, there is absolutely no argument that can be won against you - so I believe I should take the same tact (I am always right, except when I am wrong, in which case it was a mistake)
[But, then, we’re talking about Mormons. There just -has- to be something shady in the works!]
I don’t believe that is the case any more than you do, but what I have said is that because of the internal doctrinal tensions within the Mormon Church, political leaders and power brokers that are faithful show incredible strains that lead to bad decisions. That is not a universal condemnation of lay Mormons, but a specific criticism of the power elite.
A similar statement against another religion would be that celibacy in the Catholic priesthood is linked to pederasty. That is certainly not a pleasant statement, and I don’t believe it applies to all Catholics, but I think you would be hard pressed to dismiss it out of hand.
“Thanks for the link. Now I have a resource to refute this particular claim.”
Well, we started this thread by you implying I completely made up the involvement of the Mormon hierarchy with Romney, which accusation you’ve obviously been forced to eat (without apology I might add) after I provided a legitimate link. So the fact that you are determined to spin the facts just provided in the opposite direction is hardly surprising.
What part of “Mormon hierarchy involvement” don’t you understand?
~”There is obvious coordination of the Mormon Church with the Romney campaign, it would be a lie to think not.”~
Prove it. I’m sure there are plenty of regulators out there trying to.
~”...what I do have a problem with is your speaking out of two sides of your mouth.”~
Then let me be very clear: There is evidence that Romney consulted with LDS Church leaders (which, I think, any religious faithful would want to do). There is no evidence that LDS Church leaders are directing activities of the Romney campaign, or actively participating in fund raising for said campaign (I do not consider Holland’s initiation of the network at BYU as active participation - perhaps you will disagree).
You have made both charges. I concede the first. I reject the second. This is not speaking out of both sides of my mouth. It is making a logical separation the two charges that you made simultaneously.
~”Do I act stupid that you think you can get away with a shell game like this?”~
No comment. Next question.
~”If we allow this two-sided thinking, there is absolutely no argument that can be won against you - so I believe I should take the same tact (I am always right, except when I am wrong, in which case it was a mistake)”~
Fair enough. Let’s take this to its logical conclusion. I will not attack your faith, and you will not attack mine. I will not work to undermine a candidate on the basis of faith, and neither will you.
“...political leaders and power brokers that are faithful show incredible strains that lead to bad decisions.”
Examples please? What -faithful- (and by that, I mean, by definition, law-abiding) LDS power brokers have been led -by their faith- to make bad decisions? Precisely what strains do you reference?
“Well, we started this thread by you implying I completely made up the involvement of the Mormon hierarchy with Romney, which accusation you’ve obviously been forced to eat (without apology I might add) after I provided a legitimate link.”
I believe my exact words were “I highly doubt that.” If you take that as a personal implication of dishonesty, then I’ve got a little extra skin over here you can slather on.
“What part of “Mormon hierarchy involvement” don’t you understand?”
The “involvement.” “Hey, Elder Holland, how are you? I’m running for president. What do you think about that? Know anybody that might be willing to help out? Thanks a bunch!” does not seem like involvement to me. Now, do I know that that’s all that went on? Of course not. But you don’t have any evidence that anything more sinister happened, either.
Both of us are colored by our own perceptions on this matter, and it’s very destructive to accuse one another of duplicity for that disagreement.