Posted on 10/11/2007 2:00:29 PM PDT by Spiff
Unless he spent months researching all the other candidates, and spent hours with them in their homes, offices, and on the road....I'd say we have a biased man looking to support his guy. I wonder what his opinion would be if he spent the same kind of time and effort getting to know the other candidates?
Oh give me a break. This just gives you a technical "out." I mean how many words have been "canonized" over the past 60 years by your "living prophet" or general authorities, anyway? (So much for the benefits of a "living prophet")
So here you have a so-called "apostle" who doesn't offer up canonized scriptures like the apostle Paul (And LDS portend (& pretend) to be a restoration of the original church? So here you have an "apostle" who is called a "general authority." (So much for "authority" the LDS church is constantly boasting about; yet back off on at the first challenge of any publication by a so-called "authority")
Funny you should mention Paul. Most Christians consider him telling women they have to pray with their head covered as him offering his personal counsel according to the culture of the time. And at another point he specificially states he is not speaking by way of commandment (ie he is not using the usual "thus saith the Lord".)
1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
2 Corinthians 8:8 I speak not by commandment, but by occasion of the forwardness of others, and to prove the bsincerity of your love.
When a prophet speaks the will of the Lord we listen. When the prophet extols whether he eats Cheerios or Wheaties for breakfast I assume he is not speaking the will of the Lord. Moses, Jonah, Nathan, Gideon and Jonah all have instances in the Bible where they do not speak the will of the Lord. (see the article for references)
Here is a quick primer on the matter...
Fair wiki - General authorities' statements as scripture
Criticism - Critics are fond of imposing their absolutist assumptions on the Church. Many critics hold inerrantist beliefs about scriptures or prophets, and assume that the LDS have similar views.
Critics therefore insist—without reason—that any statement by any LDS Church leader represents LDS doctrine, and something believed by a given member.
Response -[edit]
2.1 Prophets in the LDS tradition are not "infallible" 2.2 Standard of doctrine in the Church 2.3 Prophets and new scripture 2.4 Establishing new doctrine 2.5 Biblical standard? 2.6 Protection against error 2.7 Biblical comparison 3 Conclusion 4 Endnotes 5 Further reading
Mark DeMoss on being “dispatched”
Earlier this month, I wrote that the Mitt Romney presidential campaign had “hired” Mark DeMoss, an evangelical publicist who focuses on faith-based organizations (and author of The Little Red Book of Wisdom). My use of the word “hired” was inaccurate, since DeMoss was not receiving any money from the Romney campaign.
The inaccurate assertion was based on a line in a New York Times article that said the Romney campaign had “dispatched” DeMoss to meet with conservative Christian leaders in various states, including South Carolina and Iowa. I saw “dispatched” and wrote “hired.”
The post was quickly corrected, but that didn’t keep me from being curious about DeMoss’ relationship with the Romney campaign and what exactly “dispatched” meant.
Thus, I asked and DeMoss wrote in an email earlier this week. Since his response adds some new content to an important story, here it is:
"I am working as an unpaid advisor to the campaign, at my request, following a meeting I solicited with Gov. Romney last September in his office. I was then asked by the surrogate office if I would speak to pastors and religious leaders in several cities in SC and Ala. I agreed and gave them 4 days for this purpose. I’ve spent two of those (Greenville, SC; Huntsville, Birmingham, Montgomery, AL). I am using whatever influence I have to promote his candidacy. I would not take issue with the word “dispatched,” though I certainly don’t have to go anywhere."
So there you have it.
FYI CoD
Sorry about the late reply; I’ve been involved in a family function the last few days.
~”So that’s why the Log Cabin of Massachusetts endorsed Mitt, because of all his “generally conservative” views in his gubernatorial platform. (I always wondered about that)”~
I reject the premise that an endorsement from the Log Cabin Republicans is an undesirable thing. The party is a big tent; LCR are primarily fiscal conservatives, and they liked that about Romney. I think many on FR unjustly shun LCR, particularly Christians. Somehow it’s OK for some of us to forget that gays are God’s children, too. Yet these are not the gays we should be worried about - my understanding is that they generally do not promote the radical gay agenda. Why shouldn’t LCR be fully accepted into the Republican movement? Because we’re scared of people who are different from us?
That being said, while MA’s LCR organization may have endorsed Romney, the national organization is none too happy with him right now:
http://online.logcabin.org/news_views/reading-room-back-up/more-distortions-from-mitt-as.html
~”Listen, name me just two (something other than “gay” “marriage”—and even THAT was passed on his watch) issues on anything related to homosexuality that he took a “generally conservative” position on in 2002.”~
Now, it’s a bit unfair to place that restriction on the debate - gay marriage IS the “gay rights” issue. Still, I can meet your criteria, except, of course, the 2002 bit, since he has changed his politics since his governor’s run - a thing which I’ve already conceded to you bothers me. From Unmarked Package’s page
(http://www.freerepublic.com/~unmarkedpackage/#gayrights):
***
Governor Romney strongly defended the right of Catholic Charities in Massachusetts to deny placing adoptive children in the homes of gay couples; saying it was unjust to require a religious agency to violate the tenets of its faith in order to satisfy a special-interest group. Romney filed “An Act Protecting Religious Freedom” in the Legislature, a bill to exempt Catholic Charities of Boston and other religious groups from the state anti-discrimination law.
~~~
Governor Romney responded to a question about the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and gays in the military during an NRO interview with Kathryn Jean Lopez in December, 2006:
Lopez: And what about the 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans where you indicated you would support the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and seemed open to changing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military? Are those your positions today?
Gov. Romney: “No. I don’t see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges.”
“As for military policy and the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, I trust the counsel of those in uniform who have set these policies over a dozen years ago. I agree with President Bush’s decision to maintain this policy and I would do the same.”
***
~”Name me anything pertaining to abortion or micro-abortions or embryonic stem cells that he took a “generally conservative” position on in 2002.”
OK. The 2002 thing is out again, for the reasons mentioned above. But we do have the benefit of his more recent rhetoric as well as his gubernatorial record. Once again, thanks to Unmarked Package for the legwork. He has a lot more than the following listed (http://www.freerepublic.com/~unmarkedpackage/#abortion):
***
Governor Romney was presented with legislation concerning life issues on several occasions from the 85% majority Democrat Legislature in Massachusetts. In every instance he took the pro-life position by vetoing bills or lobbying for the pro-life approach, including the following actions:
He vetoed the bill providing state funding for human embryonic stem cell research
(Theo Emery, “Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney Vetoes Stem Cell Bill,” The Associated Press, 5/27/05)
He vetoed a bill that provided for the “morning after pill” without a prescription because it is an abortifacient and would have been available to minors without parental notification and consent
(Governor Mitt Romney, Op-Ed, “Why I Vetoed The Contraception Bill,” The Boston Globe, 7/26/05)
He vetoed legislation which would have redefined Massachusetts longstanding definition of the beginning of human life from fertilization to implantation
(Governor Mitt Romney, Letter To The Massachusetts State Senate And House Of Representatives, 5/12/05)
He supported parental notification laws and opposed efforts to weaken parental involvement
(John McElhenny, “O’Brien And Romney Spar In Last Debate Before Election,” The Associated Press, 10/29/02)
He fought to promote abstinence education in public school classrooms with a program offered by faith-based Boston group Healthy Futures to middle school students. Gov. Romney’s administration was the first in Massachusetts to use federal abstinence education funds for classroom programs.
(Office Of Governor Mitt Romney, Romney Announces Award of Abstinence Education Contract, April 20, 2006)
***
Now, if you’re so against Romney, you really should know these things about him. Why’d you ask me? Have you not looked at his record? We both know he has shifted right since 2002; but we’re discussing the presidential candidate today, not the gubernatorial candidate of five years ago. He pandered to MA voters on these things. I grant that. But he’s where he should be today.
The counter-question, then, becomes, what in Romney’s record as governor or rhetoric today demonstrate that he is in any way supportive of the life issues or gay “rights” issues you’ve mentioned? What leads you to think that his conversion is not genuine, that he is really closet pro-abortion or will in actuality support gay marriage if elected?
~”I don’t see posters saying that Harry Reid & Orin Hatch shouldn’t run for the Senate or Sherrod Brown shouldn’t run Congress or Mitt Romney shouldn’t run for POTUS, do you?”~
That’s true. But, then, we do hear some people saying things along the line of, Well, there are hundreds of senators and representatives. A Mormon in that position won’t be able to do much damage. A Mormon in the White House would be far too dangerous.
Well, this is laughable on the face of it. I suspect the real fear that many of these people have is derived from their perception that an LDS president would serve to legitimize a religious system with which they disagree. I don’t accept the premise, but I think that fear is prevalent amongst those who oppose Romney on religious grounds.
~”I’ve seen no “campaign” or even loose pot-shots calling for Mitt or any of these others to withdraw from any race.”~
That’s true. It would backfire badly were a candidate or special interest group to do so, so we haven’t seen it. Which is why I refuse to accept the idea that Clinton would make that mistake.
But we DO see it amongst a vocal faction of mainstream Christians, so we’ve got a bit of a circular firing squad going on here.
~”Are you saying if this candidate claimed that such a belief was religiously motivated, somehow he gets your “religious exemption free pass?””~
No. But you tell me one religious doctrine in Mormonism that would affect Romney’s public policy. Since we see Mormons running the gamut from left to right, it seems a very reasonable conclusion that religious doctrine in Mormonism has very little intersection with public politics (though I, for one, fail to understand how Reid reconciles his religious convictions with his liberal policies; still, he evidently does it).
On this subject, you might find the following article interesting:
http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=3594
It’s a remarkably even-handed attempt at taking on the demanding task of explaining to mainstream Christians what makes Mormons tick, and therefore what Romney’s religion might do to inform his presidency.
~”For example, a person who thinks they are earning their way to godhood will inevitably exhibit behavior that is what I call “boomerang” behavior...yeah, they’re doing “good works” but even at a sub-conscious—if not conscious level—they are doing it because it ultimately benefits themselves.”~
You severely misunderstand LDS doctrine. Our goal is to get ourselves right with God. This is done through faith in Christ and repentance. The rest is details. It has nothing to do with public policy, except that it tends to reinforce our conscience. Same effect on us as any other Christian denomination on its adherents. This is not threatening; some choose to see it as such, but that is the voice of prejudice rather than reason.
Now, some of the doctrinal points you mention are not accurate; in any case, every faith has kooky points to it, things that it’s difficult for the outsider to understand. For example, I think the idea of the “rapture” is patently ridiculous; but do I oppose an Evangelical because he’s certain that I’m going to be “left behind” because of my evil ways (that is, my Mormonism)?
Now, since we are discussing the religious aspects, let’s broaden it to the other major contenders.
Giuliani? Catholic-in-name-only.
Thompson? He attends church when he’s visiting his mother.
Both may well believe in God; but do they worship God? Do they humble themselves before Him? Do they earnestly try to apply Christ’s saving grace in their lives? Their actions would not seem to indicate so.
One thing I truly admire about Bush is his humility before God. He prays for guidance. He goes to his knees in humility and pleads for help to make the right decisions.
I don’t particularly care what religion you are (God hears and answers all His children), but what I DO want is a man who will seek that guidance. I want a man in there who is a man of faith.
Agree with Mormonism or not, which of the three do -you- think is most likely to meet this particular criteria?
I can’t support any candidate who’s religion is a cult. I can’t, and neither should evangelicals.
~”I know the definition of “cult”.”~
So do I (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/cult):
“a system of religious beliefs and ritual”
We spoke about family values at cult today; I found it most inspiring. How did you like your cult today?
The label “cult” is applied to us to try and inspire fear and loathing. It is a tactic weak on intellect and strong on manipulation.
Ho-hum.
OK, if I was talking to a host of other folks, I'd expect this deceptive debate tactic. But your personal standards are higher (and I know you hold yourself to a high standard), so you need to back off of this comment. Go back to my post #151...why was I even addressing the Romney MA record? Why? Well, it's because YOU said on an earlier post:
Believe it or not, Romney was generally conservative on about every other issue in his gubernatorial platform... a point which you now concede you can't defend based upon your latest tidbit (Still, I can meet your criteria, except, of course, the 2002 bit...)
So what then do you proceed to do in the latest post? You shift gears. Instead of talking about or defending what Romney said in his gubernatorial platform (2002), you first give a litany of what he did in his post 2002 years (that often didn't match his 2002 promises) and you then say, "We both know he has shifted right since 2002..."
Listen, yes I know what his post 2002-record, is thank you. I wasn't addressing that, because I was addressing YOUR 2002 assessment of his platform, which you concede in your latest post is undefendable ("Still, I can meet your criteria, except, of course, the 2002 bit...) Is that why you chose to shift gears? 2002 was undefendable; but 2003-2007 was more defendable?
So, not only should you back off your latest comment on this subject, but your previous comment on this subject: Believe it or not, Romney was generally conservative on about every other issue in his gubernatorial platform... Well, believe it or not, I don't believe it; and believe it or not, you don't either ("Still, I can meet your criteria, except, of course, the 2002 bit..." (And just so everybody else fully understands, the "2002 bit" was the year of Romney's gubernatorial platform)
I reject the premise that an endorsement from the Log Cabin Republicans is an undesirable thing. The party is a big tent; LCR are primarily fiscal conservatives, and they liked that about Romney.
OK, if you want to believe that the Log Cabin sees itself as primarily a "fiscal-focused" special interest group, you go ahead and believe that. But for others who want to check out the issues alignment between Romney and the Log Cabin folks between 1994 and 2002, please go to "The Romney Files" at http://baywindows.com. They lay out a litany of issues they agreed upon (including funding of what you might call a "fiscal" support of GLBT youth-based organizations.)
Somehow it’s OK for some of us to forget that gays are God’s children, too.
No, we don't forget that ex-gays were in the Corinthian church; no, we don't forget that ex-gays are in the Kingdom of heaven. No, we don't forget that ex-heterosexually promiscuous people are likewise in the church and in the kingdom. But let me add the words of Jesus and apply them here: Somehow it's OK for some of us (Christian and Mormons) to forget that both (most) gays and (most) non-gays are NOT the "children of Abraham" they think themselves to be: (Allow me to cite Jesus himself): "'I know you are Abraham's descendants. Yet you are ready to kill me, because you have no room for my word. I am telling you what I have seen in the Father's presence, and you do what you have heard from your father.' 'Abraham is our father,' they answered. 'If you were Abraham's children,' said Jesus, 'then you would do the things Abraham did...You are doing the things your own father does.' 'We are not illegitimate children,' they protested. 'The only Father we have is God Himself.' Jesus said to them, 'If God were your Father, you would love me...you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire.'" (John 8:37-44)
Yet these are not the gays we should be worried about - my understanding is that they generally do not promote the radical gay agenda. Why shouldn’t LCR be fully accepted into the Republican movement?
Well, your understanding is not backed-up by a firsthand look at what LCR stands for, which again, you go ahead and concede by saying the following: That being said, while MA’s LCR organization may have endorsed Romney, the national organization is none too happy with him right now (OK, if LCR is "none too happy" with Mitt right now, what does that say about the u-turn Mitt has done on almost every homosexual issue (except "gay" "marriage")?
The counter-question, then, becomes, what in Romney’s record as governor or rhetoric today demonstrate that he is in any way supportive of the life issues or gay “rights” issues you’ve mentioned?
He is pro domestic partnership benefits; and he was pro-civil unions in 2005. Both are just "marriage lite" under euphismistic labels. Not only are these not good for society for same-sex couples, but they are not good for opposite-sex couples themselves--let alone their kids and society at-large. (what? are you pro-cohabitation?). [There. That disproves the point you were trying to make about us being "scared of people who are different from us" 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...(of course, you can find exceptions to everything)].
What leads you to think that his conversion is not genuine, that he is really closet pro-abortion or will in actuality support gay marriage if elected?...you tell me one religious doctrine in Mormonism that would affect Romney’s public policy. Since we see Mormons running the gamut from left to right, it seems a very reasonable conclusion that religious doctrine in Mormonism has very little intersection with public politics. though, I, for one, fail to understand how Reid reconciles his religious convictions with his liberal policies; still, he evidently does it).
Let me take that two different directions. Direction #1:
You don't get it, do you? Let's hit the rewind historical tape & import something from the Mormon past to a more contemporary time. Let's say that the living Mormon "prophet"--rather than...
introducing polygamy for himself in the 1830s...
and introducing it to the LDS community at large in the 1840s...
and putting something finally into print in 1852...
let's say the living Mormon "prophet"...
introduced polygamy for himself during the turbulent mid-1930s (it was easier for him to explain to his wife why he was taking in all these poverty-stricken single women);
introduced it to the larger LDS community during the WWII years ("well somebody's gotta take care of these women at home with all the men overseas");
and then put something in writing for wider distribution in 1952.
Now answer this question: Would polygamy as a combined doctrine & social issue be considered by the rest of the US as (a) a traditional family value? or (b) a "liberal" policy?
If you answer (b), then you have to ask the same question to your then living "prophet" that you asked of Harry Reid (though, I, for one, fail to understand how this living prophet reconciles his religious convictions with his liberal policies; still, he evidently does it). [You see, Harry Reid, like other LDS leaders, can at any time, simply say to himself..."Well, if Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Taylor, Woodruff and others could all embrace 'liberal' policies on marriage and yet maintain their religious convictions, so can I."] Now what I meant by you "not getting it" is that from the outset, religious doctrine in Mormonism has had plenty intersection with public politics...and it's exactly because of this, and the fact that religious doctrine in Mormonism has played both sides of the same fence, it is precisely on this basis I argue that a Mormon can be a pro-closet anything! (I mean, who would have thunk it? (1) Book of Mormon was published...anti-polygamy; (2)Joe Smith embraced polygamy himself so D&C became pro-polygamy; (3)Woodruff then said church was anti- polygamy; (4)LDS off-shoot religions are often pro- polygamy].
So, tell me, what LDS would have thunk it? Who would have thought in 1834 that Joseph Smith was a closet "liberal" on marriage? Who would have thought it at the time that Woodruff was making his rah-rah pro-polygamist statements in the 1880s that he was a closet "traditional values" guy?
What you fail to understand is that the two sides of Romney we've seen on a dozen or so issues pertaining to abortion & homosexuality is, in fact, partially justified by the moral & social issues schizophrenia unveiled in Mormonism: Historically, LDS is anti-polygamy, pro-polygamy, anti-polygamy. Mitt is pro-abortion, anti-abortion, [and then who knows what? pro-abortion again?]. Mitt is pro-homosexual behavior [minus marriage], then pro-marriage protection, [then who knows what? pro-homosexual behavior again?].
Direction #2, zeroing in especially on your comment, ...you tell me one religious doctrine in Mormonism that would affect Romney’s public policy.
Since we're talking about Mitt, which is a slightly different question than just "any" Mormon, allow me to start by referencing the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol. 4, where Mitt's father, George Romney, was writing about what you keep harping on in a lot of threads--what George Romney referred to as "religious intolerance and his view of God." (Can't get any more relevant to this discussion than that, right?) Here's one George Romney excerpt from that source:
The LDS principles of tolerance are rooted in the teaching that all who have lived, now live, and will yet live on this earth are spirit children of God and are responsible only to God for their religious beliefs and practices. "We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience," says Article of Faith 11, "and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship, how, where or what they may." A corollary of this statement is a declaration of belief regarding governments and law, adopted by the Church in 1835. It affirms that governments have no power to prescribe rules of worship to bind the consciences of men or to dictate forms for public or private devotion. In matters of religion, the declaration asserts, "men are amenable to God and to Him only for the exercise of their religious beliefs, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others" (D&C 134). The Church has maintained these principles while accommodating to secular authority: "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law" (A of F 12; cf. D&C 134:1-12).
Do you notice George Romney's reference to D&C 134 there at the end? (For the uninitiated, what is "D&C?" It's LDS "Scripture"--short for "Doctrine & Covenants." LDS usually don't mind citing D&C 134:1-11 at will; but they usually become a little more shy in citing verse 12 as George Romney did) So, since we're looking at how religious doctrine intersects with Mitt's perceived public policy, let's look at how Mitt's adherence to LDS "Scripture" (& Mitt's father, I remind you) thinks about black slaves in the "bigoted days" of the 1800s:
D&C 134:12: We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude.
How's that for LDS "Scripture" commenting upon the public policy of bond-servants (read "slaves") and Mastuhs! (What? You think slavery is only a yesteryear concept? Time to bone up on FOREIGN POLICY, which just happens to land in the lap of the POTUS. Try reading up on Sudan; try reading up on the global trafficking of women & children). So, what's Mitt's real position on this delicate foreign policy matter of the future...issues like slavery in Sudan and human trafficking and human rights violations?
On the one hand, many LDS pretend to "allow all men the same privilege" (LDS articles of faith); yet that claim was written exactly at the same time that LDS claimed they really didn't believe in "religious freedom...for everyone else" as "bond-servants" (slaves) worldwide are to be excluded as recipients of the gospel, lest their "masters" (and rogue governments that sanction slavery) become a bit riled up. [What you need to wrestle with here is exactly the same question as to polygamy, and that is, If the eternal God's word is eternal, and IF he was the inspirer of this "scripture," then it becomes a universal and eternal word that can be neither bound by time nor geographic lines in the sand drawn by men. IOW, if D&C 134:12 was God's word for slaves in the 1800s, then it also applies worldwide to slavery and trafficking today (likewise, if D&C 130 is an "everlasting covenant," then "everlasting" doesn't = 60 years)].
So, one last review of D&C 134:12: Are slaves & trafficking victims worthy of the "gospel?" LDS Answer? Nope! "neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them..." says LDS "Scripture" (and Mr. George Romney who referenced this specific Scripture.) And why not? Well, says D&C 134:12: We don't want ta meddle with the Mastuhs' business property, or to say it as precisely as LDS "Scripture" says it: nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life... (Nah. We can't have unhappy slaves now, can we? Too disturbing to their "stations" of life, eh?) Now what are the ultimate reasons for this again? D&C 134:12 provides the answer:
Reason #1: ...such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust... (There ya have it...wouldn't want to be "unjust" by giving slaves the gospel & baptizing them, would ya?)
Reason #2: ...and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude. (And, of course, the "closer": Wouldn't want to disturb the peace & quiet of slavery-sanctioning governments, now would ya?)
But, then, we do hear some people saying things along the line of, Well, there are hundreds of senators and representatives. A Mormon in that position won’t be able to do much damage. A Mormon in the White House would be far too dangerous.
For example, I think the idea of the “rapture” is patently ridiculous; but do I oppose an Evangelical because he’s certain that I’m going to be “left behind” because of my evil ways (that is, my Mormonism)?
Straw man at its most basic level (tho I understand why folks reject the added baggage attached to this word). All "rapture" = is reference to 1 Thess 4:17, where "we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air." So if all Evangelicals, Protestants, Catholics, and yes, even Mormons believe this, it's not "biblical" to label a Biblical verse as "ridiculous."
Now, it's true, people put 2 & 2 together...verses like 1 Thess. 4:17 together with Matt. 24:40-41...and again, those bare verses are fine as is...but it doesn't mean folks have to accept extra-biblical theories about all that's been presented under the broad umbrella of "the rapture."
On this subject, you might find the following article interesting: http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=3594 It’s a remarkably even-handed attempt at taking on the demanding task of explaining to mainstream Christians what makes Mormons tick, and therefore what Romney’s religion might do to inform his presidency.
I'll read it.
You severely misunderstand LDS doctrine. Our goal is to get ourselves right with God. This is done through faith in Christ and repentance.
Well, why you personally may have a better handle on faith than other LDS, the fact is that LDS severely misunderstand Biblical doctrine. The Bible isn't simply about man getting right with God; it's about God getting men right with him. It may seem a subtle way of saying the same thing, but it's not. It's God who has always taken the initiative. It's His Son who already accomplished that (getting right) on the cross.
Can't you understand the big "gulf" here between LDS & Evangelicals? For LDS, "getting right" is a seemingly endless process (that's why they call it eternal progression) that is always a seemingly never-ending "futurequest." (Saved by grace "after all you can do" = forever doing "all you can do" just so you hope grace will kick in one day). Evangelicals instead find reassuring forgiveness in the cross. As those who are adopted by our Father (John 1:12; Eph 1:5; Rom. 8:23; 9:4), we don't have to ask daily, "Am I worthy enough for Dad? Am I worthy enough for Dad?" ("And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming in a loud voice, 'Who is worthy to breeak the seals and open the scroll?' But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it. I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside. Then one of the elders said to me, 'Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has trumphed. He is able toopen the scroll and its sven seals.'...And they sang a new song: 'You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood your purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth.'" (Rev. 5:2-5, 9-10)
We don't have to constantly wonder, "Do I have eternal life with Him if I died tonight?" (Why? Because we share John's inner testimony: "And this is the testimony. God HAS GIVEN eternal life, and this life is in HIS SON. He who HAS the Son HAS life; he who does not HAVE the Son of God does not HAVE life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may KNOW THAT YOU HAVE ETERNAL LIFE" (1 John 5:11-13)
Only a faith that transfers a trust from ourselves to Jesus could make the assurance, the confidence, the present-tense structure of 1 John and the book of John makes about "eternal life."
Jesus himself when, "When I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men to myself." (John 12:32). Jesus also said: "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life." (John 3:13-14)
So first, it all God's initiative ("No one can say that Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit" - 1 Cor. 12:3). Secondly, the "getting right" is Jesus' deed on the cross, not our meek-worthy deeds on this planet. Thirdly, even in Old Testament times (Moses onward) it wasn't about keeping Old Testament Commandments that opened some future door to a spiritually healthy eternal life; no, it was simply looking at the bronze snake lifted up and believing that the source of healing was beyond you (vs. residing in your own empowerment) that led to life. (See Num. 21:8-9, which Jesus then says was a physical reality depicting the spiritual reality in John 3:14)
[BTW, did you ever notice in John 3:13 that Jesus said, "No one has ever gone into heaven [at that point] except the one who came from heaven." (So much for the "pre-existence" of the folks who lived up to Jesus' time).]
Now, since we are discussing the religious aspects, let’s broaden it to the other major contenders. Giuliani? Catholic-in-name-only. Thompson? He attends church when he’s visiting his mother. Both may well believe in God; but do they worship God? Do they humble themselves before Him? Do they earnestly try to apply Christ’s saving grace in their lives? Their actions would not seem to indicate so.
I am not pro-Giuliani nor pro-Thompson. If they worship God, they tend to hide whatever impact that has on their lives (I don't know their inward hearts). As for Mitt, I don't know his heart, either; but if his god is the god of the Doctrine & Covenants, then I can tell you he would be a self-described worshipper of many gods (a polytheist). (You can't get around the "council of gods" in the Book of Abraham) As for "humbling himself," I don't think men aiming for godhood is a very "humbling" characteristic...so while you ask very worthwhile questions about Rudy & Fred re: applying saving grace, etc., 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.
Agree with Mormonism or not, which of the three do -you- think is most likely to meet this particular criteria?
Listen, you could hand me three supposed "legal tender" bills. Two of them could be blank (like a blank check) for me to come up with on my own to try describe Rudy & Mitt's public and personal faith. You say it seems to be missing. I don't argue with you. Then you hand me a third bill, a $3 bill, which represents Mitt since coincidentally, Joseph Smith really made $3 bills at his bank in Kirtland, Ohio).
My immediate reaction if you handed me a $3 bill? Well, suspicious, of course. "Hmm. A $3 bill. Must be counterfeit." That is, until I remembered....
No, there really are no $3 bills...you can't counterfeit what isn't even in real circulation...
You see, there really is no grand council of gods out there.
You see, Heavenly Father really had no grand-god and great grand-god.
No, no Scripture really has touted a "Mom" God, have they? (unlike LDS hymns written by prophet's wives and sung by all LDS ever since)
No, as of the pre-crucifixion era, "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven" (and anyone arguing with Jesus about that calls him a direct liar)
No, men don't become angels (like Joseph tried claiming in the D&C);
And no, men and Jesus aren't brothers to demons;
And no, black skin is not a curse; and no, any myth claiming African-Americans were "less valiant" in the alleged pre-existence is itself an indictment against the entire doctrine of the pre-existence;
And no, Adam and Eve's fall wasn't this "celebrative" experience (LDS general authority's word); and no, Adam & Eve's fall wasn't the marvelous "upward fall" and led to these "marvelous" wars, "marvelous" abuses and exploition of men, women, and children; and "marvelous" rapes; and "marvelous" greed & coveting; and "marvelous" murders; and "marvelous" thefts; and "marvelous" (fill-in-the blank). Go on, de-program yourself. Say it out loud: "Adam and Eve's fall were not wonderful events. Adam and Eve's fall was disobedience on the grandest scale because of the impact it had upon every other human who has lived."
I'm sorry, but do we really want a president who interprets the original and profoundly consequential first and second sin on this earth through the LDS grid of seeing it as a "celebrative" event? (For all of the folks who constantly congratulate the integrity of their LDS neighbor and co-worker, you can discover the real foundation of their moral acumen by asking them: "Was Adam & Eve's fall ultimately a good thing or a bad thing for mankind?" Now, imagine some reporter or debate questioner asking Mitt this exact question post-nomination.
OH, excuse me. I wasn't aware that after the Mormon Apostle (capital "A") originally published his initial manuscript known as "Mormon Doctrine," that all subsequent revised versions that were then "approved" by the First Presidency were re-titled, "Mormon Cheerios." (I assume the sub-title was: "And other lowly apostolic opinions and venture-guesses and top-of-the-head responses to matters pertinent to appetizing LDS cereal-eaters")
[I apologize profusely. We "non-LDS authority" types never would have guessed that "Mormon Doctrine" was tantamount import-wise to the high sober calling of cereal selection. But who would have known had it not been for your authoritative, enlightened record-straigting correction?].
(Note for non-Mormons: "First Presidency" = top three head haunchos of the church, including the living "prophet")
Careful there, can’t put meat on Mormon Cheerios.
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) :)
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.
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.
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.
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)
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?
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..."
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.
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?
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.
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).
Yes, there have been many irrational Romney-bashing threads here. One day I jumped into their sewer and really regret it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.