re: Cats | 7:07 a.m. June 23, 2011 "Dear Linda A: Viable is the
key word. Unfortunately, Ron Paul isn't. He's a good man. I like him. But, he's
just a little too far out there. He's also a little too old. He's also gone back
and forth between being a Republican and a Libertarian."If Dr.
Paul would forget about being a Republican; he'd be a lot more viable. RP has done more for politics w/ his grass roots movement to Audit the Fed
than Mitt will EVER do.
LDSareChristians,For me at least, the only beef is with how the
church presents things differently to the public. I think it can and does damage
the reputation of the church when there is a sense that public relations and
mainstream acceptance is the primary driver in today's LDS church. The plural marriage issue is actually a good example. Public comments portray
it as something far in the past and absolutely irrelevant now - "nothing to
see here folks, move on." While the reality is that hundreds of living LDS
men have been sealed to multiple wives in the case of death or divorce. The
doctrine and accompanying practice through temple sealings has NEVER stopped.I have my personal feeling about the doctrine of plural marriage. But I
believe the church has every right to teach, practice and believe whatever it
wants to. I just wish they would be more transparent about what that is.Why can't the church just say, "We follow the laws of the land and
do not practice plural marriage. However, the doctrine remains important to us
and is reflected through our sealing practices in the temple."Maybe not PR but absolutely honest and correct.
A belief in a practice that takes place after we leave this earth is breaking
which law here and now? Does anyone (Govenment, people) care what
happens after death? Do they have the authority to manage events after death?
LDS do NOT practice polygamy here and now. Whats the beef folks?
Pagan posted:Mitt Romney on Job creation: From 2003-2007 job
growth0.9%. In rankings with the rest of the country MA was 47th in
Job creation when Mitt Romney was there.=================================The above is not relevant. Taken in
context.....Did MA have population growth during that same time?2000 to 2010 MA had 3.1% population growth, US had 9.7%.9%
job growth for 4 year period not to far off (1.24%) track for 3.1% pop growth
for a 10 year period. You just throw out numbers, implying they mean
something bad, when that isn't even the case.
"My president would not saddle my children and grandchildren with mountains
of debt to pay for benefits to those who financially support his party."Then you can't want the Republicans either who want more tax cuts for
the rich."Nor would he plunge America into a recession"Okay so you won't vote for Bush. (Obama inherited the recession you
@MoJules"As to the eternal practice, that is a practice that
continues and me personally, I am not going to be so bold as to council God on
that, are you? "I'm not going to council God on that because I
don't believe polygamy is an eternal practice, therefore there's nothing to
council God on. Answering yes to that question requires believing that God has
that in heaven.
As a Latter-day Saint, I would vote for a president who is Catholic, Baptist,
Protestant, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu as long as he had moral standards that
reflected my own, namely, a respect for life, liberty and the freedom of choice.
My choice for president should respect my right to worship the God or gods I
revere and would be accurate in describing members of my religion. My choice
for president would not refuse to wear an American flag pin until he discovers
that doing so is politically incorrect. My choice for president would be
presidential and would use the bully pulpit to address and solve American
problems, not to campaign for his party and its ideologies. My president would
not apologize for America. My president would not saddle my children and
grandchildren with mountains of debt to pay for benefits to those who
financially support his party. Nor would he plunge America into a recession by
buying into an unproven theory that the most economically feasible energy
sources are causing the globe to heat dangerously. My president would believe
in the freedom and benefits of capitalism, not the economically disastrous
policies of socialism.
First of all GIZMO, you are awesome!!! In the early days of the church, when
there were so many people seeking to kill and destroy the members, even some of
the "members" were turning on their own. But there were some
wonderful people who were not members of the LDS church who were friends to them
and you are that kind of person. Thank you Gizmo for being a classy good
person.As to all you people that are making this a discussion about
Polygamy, give it a rest. There were people in the Old Testament that had
plural wives, but that was not always the practice. And after the Savior came
to the earth and gave his life for all of us, they stopped practicing the Law of
Moses and didn't do animal sacrifice anymore. There is a time and a season for
different practices and practicing plural marriage while on this earth did end
in the LDS church. As to the eternal practice, that is a practice that
continues and me personally, I am not going to be so bold as to council God on
that, are you?
Ms.Molli: Like you, I am not offended and couldn't care less. I think the
point (for me anyway) is that we wouldn't know what anybody else's religion is
(just by relying on the media) because it's not reported. Unless you're Mitt or
Jon.FullDisclosure: I think what President Hinckley meant was that
once polygamy was taken out, practicing it is not a doctrinal practice. I don't
think he meant it was never doctrinal, and I am not speaking of heavenly things.
If you practiced polygamy today as a Latter-day Saint, you'd get the boot,
right? That's just my point of view.
I worked for Romney in the CA primary. He ran on healthcare and described it on
his site. Obama copied it and that is now Obamacare to GOP. Among the the GOP
lies is that Romneycare in MS is unpopular. In fact, it is working very well. My
company's HQ is in Boston and I wish i in CA could get the same.Romney was a liberal Republican who felt that he had to repudiate what he
stood for in order to gain the GOP nomination. When he was defeated in CA, I
switched to Obama and worked for him. And I'm glad I did.If the GOP
does not moderate, they will be looking at 4 more years of Obama. A centrist
Romney or Huntsman could win. None of the others would have a chance. So Romney,
go ahead and claim Romneycare and defend it. You'll win in the end if you do.
Try to out crazy the rest of the GOP candidates will just get you beat.
Really DSB? That is your equivalence of convoluted beliefs?1) I
have no idea what transubstantiation is and am not going to bother to research
it.2) Do I think the 911 bombers will get 27 virgins? No, I think that line of thinking is a way to control others.3)
Total depravity? Got me there. Have not had a sit down discussion about that
either.If your point is that there is a lot of weirdness in other
religions, we agree.Are there are some religions more convoluted
than the LDS? Certainly.But that was not what the article was
about. The article in question was about who the media should ask about the
beliefs of the LDS.Every one of my posts was on point and valid. My
point was that the LDS have some beliefs that they wish to sidestep when
asked.And I understand why that is. And, on some of these beliefs,
one is more likely to get a more accurate description by asking someone that is
not LDS.And lastly, I do not strictly follow any faith. Yours may
be true. I dont know, and I don't believe anyone does. NO_MORE_POSTS Left
To JoeBlow - as long as you're asking theological questions that you think
should have simple answers, how about these, to other believers:"Is this the teaching of the Catholic Church today, that the concept of
transubstantiation is literally true?""Is this the
teaching of the Islamic faith today, that martyrs inherit a heaven full of
virgins?""Is this the teaching of the Presbyterian faith
today, that every person is totally depraved?" "Sorry to
be so blunt," but why do you pretend that Mormons' unique beliefs are any
more "convoluted" than those of other religions? Why must deep and
thorough answers to the questions about Mormon doctrine be palatable to shallow
thinkers, when you probably give a pass to the odd doctrines of other
religions?What faith do you follow, so we can ask you to justify, in
a sound bite, one of your doctrines that others might find perplexing?
Abeille writes "However, for me to answer the question effectively requires
a lot of 'ground-laying' before understanding of the principle can take
place."I can sympathize with that, but in many cases, by the
time the "ground-laying" is done, the answer becomes so convoluted
that one can not decipher it. Which in many cases is the reason for the
"ground-laying"How about this for the start of an
answer.YES, but let me clarify.Or, how about NO, but let me clarify.Perfect exampleQuestion -
"Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a
man like we are?"Answer - "I don't know that we teach it.
I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time
in public discourse.............but I don't know a lot about it"How would you have answered that question? I know it is a tough one, and I
can sympathize. But I believe that there is a DEFINITIVE answer.But
an answer that would rather not be stated.Sorry to be blunt, but
that is the crux of the discussion.
Its about time!!! Give the LDS people a break!!!!
I agree with you, Idaho Coug. Funny thing is, I have no problem at all
explaining this seeming inconsistency to either Members or Non-Members. However,
for me to answer the question effectively requires a lot of 'ground-laying'
before understanding of the principle can take place.
Thanks Abeille. I agree with your statement. But I also think that as a church
we then have to understand that Mormon doctrine is much deeper and more
complicated than we like to or than we can potray to the public. And for those
who know this, that can be why it is just so difficult to accept what we
"believe" while appreciating how we live and what we "do".
Mormonism is far more complicated, deep and nuanced than the standard message we
like to give the world, investigators or even teach in our basic Sunday classes.
That can be exciting for some but daunting and even become a negative for
others. It can't help but appear that we say one thing publically and teach and
believe another privately.
Idaho Coug -Before we can answer your question, we have to
understand three important things:1. This question is more complex
than can be explained with an answer of 'Yes' or 'No'. Answering either 'Yes' or
'No' would result in misunderstandings. 2. Not all people are on
the same level of understanding when it comes to Mormon Doctrine. Someone who
doesn't understand Eternal Marriage, the Priesthood, and the sealing power would
be lost by an answer that might explain things to you.3. When it
comes to the Eternities, we only have a glimpse into some of it. There are still
many things we don't fully understand. The only knowledge we have to give is the
knowledge that has been revealed to us. Anything more or less than this would be
opinion only."We believe all that God has revealed, all that He
does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important
things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." (9th Article of Faith)I could give you an answer, but be prepared for a half-hour sermon! ;-)
This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for
they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms because of the things
which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.Behold, David and
Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before
me, saith the LordWherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of
the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and
concubines he shall have none;For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up
seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these
things. These things were spoken by a Book of Mormon prophet named Jacob.
Almost all of the missionaries I served with were descendants of polygamous
families (before the Manifesto abolishing it). It was started and stopped by
commandment of the Lord. Jacob also proclaimed the word of the Lord on wealth
distribution that may be of interest to some.
albu1595 - thank you for explaining your understanding of why we practice
spirtual plural sealings today. To be honest, the explanation that there are
more righteous women than men sounds a lot like the explanation of living plural
marriage that there were more women than men in the church when in reality all
census records of early Utah show the opposite.IMO it continues
because the doctrine of plural marriage continues and this is the only way we
can legally continue it. Therefore, my discomfort is not so much with this
reality (although I do think it was instituted via man not God) but with the
fact that it seems we portray something to the world for PR purposes and being
mainstream while believing and practicing something different. I actually know
people who have left the church because they believe we have strayed so far from
revealed truth in the name of public acceptance.If Romney and
Huntsman were to be honest if asked if we still practice the doctrine of plural
marriage through temple sealing policies - they would have to say yes. But that
is entirely contradictory to the public image they and the church want to
To no fit in SG - except for Log Cabin Republicans, no gays are going to vote
for ANY Republican candidate, and I think we all all know that. Although, as
The Authority said above, people will vote, or withhold their vote, based on a
variety of personal reasons (eyebrows, height, and yes - religion too), I highly
doubt the specific doctrine of Celestial Marriage will be the defining point for
very many. For those to whom marriage fidelity is important, I strongly suspect
Romney's devotion to one wife and the absence of any infidelities will garner
far more supporters than the largely obscure doctrine of his religion on eternal
plural marriage.I don't suppose he'd lose any more votes because of
the LDS doctrine of eternal plural marriage than a Baptist would lose over the
doctrine of predestination.
They can not win and run as aMormon, It just wont Happen!
So is your question on why we still practice it in our sealings or why we
minimize the doctrine?This is not doctrine(world according to me)--I
understand that why we practice this is because they are more righteous women
then men. Celestial marriage(marriage in the temple) is one of the ordinances
required for the highest degree of the celestial kingdom.As far as
minimization: I don't think we minimize the doctrine for any reason other than
that the doctrine above is a deeper doctrine and is not easily understood by
men. We follow the law of the land and modern revelation has discontinued
Romney-Huntsman 2012 is way prophetic, but is the Constitution hanging by a
Re: Idaho CraigAgree that this will come up as a problem for
Romney......How can he promote "traditional marriage" as he is
doing, when the practices of his religion, requires attendance at a LDS Temple,
where spiritually plural marriage is practiced and promoted. Not long ago, LDS
women's Relief Society discussed "plural marriage in the Celestial
Kingdom".How will Mr. Romney tell Gay and Lesbian constituents that
they cannot be married, if his own religious practices are questionable?
I'm being serious here. Huntsman is too nice of a guy. I think he was a fine
governor, but he's not projecting the strength it takes to be the president. I
really think he's not going to win because he's not presidential enough, he's
too thin. Romney is a bit tougher, but his eyebrows make him look a little
too mean. i know it sounds stupid, but his eyebrows are too heavy to win the
presidency. Dumb, yes, but just watch. In the end neither of these
guys will win, or even get the nomination. It will be for stupid reasons like
the one's I just mentioned, but people vote for persona, not the person. It's
wrongheaded, but at least its consistent. I'm okay with both of them losing
based on these things. If they lose based on their Mormonism, that'd
just be showing how ignorant and intolerant we are as a country. Lose because of
being skinny or having eyebrows that aren't, that's okay. Lose because your a
Mormon, that's just wrong.
It often seems like the church itself causes much of the confusion that is out
there. A few posters have hit on one issue that represents an example of
this.In public comments and even correlated material the church does
everything it can to minimize plural marriage as some outdated practice that was
never doctrine and should not even be mentioned or worried about today. The
article mentioned President Hinckley's comments, we all have heard the PR
comments, and a few years ago the manual accompanying the study of Brigham Young
did not even mention one of his plural wives by name. There definitely is an
effort to minimize it almost into non-existence.BUT - literally
hundreds if not thousands of LDS men have been sealed to multiple women in LDS
temples upon death or divorce of a former spouse. LDS men can and do have
multiple wives (spiritually) sealed to them. Some current LDS apostles included.
LDS women can only be sealed to one man on earth regardless of circumstances.One one hand, we publically minimize this doctrine. On the other, we
continue to practice it in our temple sealings daily.Can anyone help
me understand this?
Mormon records a situation where the Nephite society had certain lawyers and
judges who were constantly stirring up strife for personal profit. They cared
nothing for society only their personal gain. Today we have the media,
especially talk show hosts, who create controversy for the same reason. Utah
seems to be stirred up more than any other state Texas a distant second. We
need to recognize these people for what they are. I think even Adam Smith would
have trouble extolling this invisible hand.
Dear Pagan, As one who lived in Massachusetts during the time when
Romney was governor, the rate of growth was tied to the high, corporate tax
rates which he inherited and worked over time to improve despite the democrats
control of the legislature. The health care in Massachusetts was a state
solution to take the astronomical, state losses from previously legistated
programs and indigent health costs to the commonwealth and the hospitals of
Massachusetts where people used emergency rooms for basic, healthcare needs.
I say its early in the campaign and we should see what shakes out. I know who
the front runners are not and they are Ron Paul to flipity flopity on what party
he belongs to. Way to far out there advocating a free for all in morality and
drug useage and he is to old. Herman Cain great man no chance. Newt to much
baggage. Mitt has this election to lose as for Romney care that is a state issue
the people of MASS wanted it begged for it voted for it and he signed it in to
law. And now it blew up in the face of the very people who begged for it. Mitt
can use that and show what Obama care will do to every single person in America.
The only other person that can beat Mitt is the governor of Texas if he jumps in
to the fray.
To Ms Molli - I guess I'm totally blind to any offense being taken either in
this specific article, or in the responses to it. Yours was the only one
referencing Mormons being offended. It gives the appearance to me that you're
looking for a way put down your LDS brothers and sisters, and make yourself look
better than the chip-on-the-shoulder masses.Look at gizmo33 above -
not even a member and sees the good in other people, and sees LDS people as
good-natured and forward-moving despite any negativity that may come from
anti-Mormons, or in your case, from our very own.
Springvillepoet - It isn't only the GOP that is dependent on a Mormon candidate,
the media have changed their coverage also. The love afair with Obama has past
and mahy in the media want Obama to be a one term president. A moderate GOP
candidate is their best shot.full disclosure - It is correct that
widowed men may be sealed to another wife in the temple, but clearly that does
not involve co-habitation laws. Most people are not too concerned with how
Mormons will be running things after the resurection.
As someone who is non-LDS may I also say that the Church is being MUCH smarter
in how they respond to negative comments on Mormonism. Four years ago the
standard reply to any criticism was one of high indignation and rants about
Governor Lilburn Boggs of Missouri. Today they are inviting people to come find
out what Latter-day Saints really believe. They are using the "Book of
Mormon" musical to get in the doors of people who never would have even
answered the door before. Maybe most of them won't join the Church, but I bet
the majority come away with more respect for the faith than they had before.
The election is more than 16 months away... I'm sure in the months to come
coverage will be more intense and incorrect.
A President who has access to a Prophet is far more valuable than one who looks
to the streets of Chicago or the middle east for his inspiration. We do not
realize how fortunate we are to have access to understanding Biblical Prophecy
and preparing for the eventual outcomes. "Where there is no vision the
people perish". (Proverbs)
full disclosure,I, too, was perplexed by Pres. Hinckley's comment on the
Larry King interview, but in a later interview with the Associated Press he
seemed to clarify his statement by saying that plural marriage was begun by
revelation [in the 1830s] and ended by revelation. That statement agrees with
D&C 132 and the Official Declaration 1. As you stated, plural sealings are
performed in temples.
I dont belong to any religous affiliation. religion is something I have no use
for whatsoever. but that my choice and as far as what other peoples beleifs are
is not for me to critisize anyone for being a member of a religious group all I
can say is enjoy it have fun with it enjoy your practices. but I have never
ragged on anyone for being a member of any church. in all my travels while in
the Army for 20 yrs I have seen all out hatred for all kinds of religion but I
never really thought that I would see the anti ( mormon ) position as I do here
in Utah I was really surprised. its amazing how a religous group can take such a
public bashing. but what I like is the LDS people just move on forward and they
let nothing discourage them and they have my respect for that. I have a lot of
LDS people as friends and thay have always been good to me and my family. and
they have never critisized me for my way of life...
It is a very good start - Mitt Romney, Jon Hunt, the "Book of Mormon"
Broadway play! I hope this will replace plural marriage; are Mormons are a
Christian cult etcetera, etcetera?There is much more to the
doctrines of Jesus, Christ as revealed to Joseph Smith, Jr. Is there a future
for the doctrines of Jesus, Christ in our nation?
@DSB , are you completely blind when it comes to reading the negative comments
from many members of church when they are offended by how the press approaches
To Ms. Molli - who said anything about being offended? Can we not hope for, and
be grateful for more fair media coverage of our faith, and be disappointed when
it's not? I hope the reporting about all faiths is accurate, but I have a more
vested interest in whether mine is portrayed in a fair manner. Most of us don't
have much of a say in the accuracy of media coverage about any religion,
including our own. I don't understand why you would ask if Mormons
are only supposed to care about our own coverage. My guess is that you care
more deeply about issues to which you are personally associated, so what's your
point? If you're LDS, and you're not glad that coverage is more accurate, that
would seem rather odd to me.
I don't think the chrch is looking for fair. I think they are more looking for
sheading the church in a positive light.Okay- Sorry President Hinckley
Polygamy is doctrinal and was the main tenant of our religion before both the
first vision story and the Book of Mormon. Read section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. It's still in there. Polygamy was practiced in the LDS
church long after 1890. We still practice polygamy today in our temples. We
believe that a man can have more than one wife in heaven and can be sealed to
more than one person today. Isn't that polygamy. Someone correct me if I'm
Are other religions reported fairly? Or are we supposed to only care if
mormonism is reported fairly? We CHOOSE to be offended. I choose not to be.
How the media decides to report about mormonism doesn't affect my faith one
The biggest reason Mormonism is being more fairly reported on in 2011 than it
was in 2008, is because the GOP has no choice but to put Mormonism in a better
light than it did four years ago. With Romney being out in front, and Huntsman
being a viable VP pick, most GOP members have admitted to themselves that being
a Mormon isn't as important as it used to be if it means beating President Obama
Dave31: You are correct. One needs to realize that Mitt was in Massachussetts,
not Texas. It's a far-left state. Mitt could only do as much as was feasible
in that state. Under the circumstances, he did quite well. If he'd been in
another state, he could have been a lot more conservative in his governance.
Everyone needs to realize that.
@PaganIt seems to me that Mitt did a remarkable job in
"Taxachusetts" when he was governor considering that he was a
Republican Governor in the midst of the usual situation when both houses of the
legislature were entirely controlled by the Democrats.
'The Book of Mormon' show on Broadway was meant to poke fun at the Church. But,
in my opinion, it has actually brought greater light to the Church. Let the
stories come out and the truth will be sorted out.
And the coverage of Mitt Romney on the DSNews...? I agree with the
sentiment of others on this thread. If religion is 'not an issue'...
then don't MAKE it one. I try very hard to look at the actions of
the PERSON, not the group. Mitt Romney on Job creation: From
2003-2007 job growth0.9%. In rankings with the rest of the country
MA was 47th in Job creation when Mitt Romney was there. - Think Progress
Travis Waldron 06/02/11 As for healthcare: Romney care
support was up 10% to 63% in Massachusetts. -The Boston Globe by Kay
Lazar - 06/05/11 It is truly unfortunate that Romney is trying to
run on his 'job creation'...which is 0.9% in MA... but due to the
irrational view of the Republican party on healthcare, he cannot run on it's
benifits and increasing populartity in MA.
Dear Linda A: Viable is the key word. Unfortunately, Ron Paul isn't. He's a
good man. I like him. But, he's just a little too far out there. He's also a
little too old. He's also gone back and forth between being a Republican and a
Libertarian. Good article. I hope we get better coverage. Mitt
has a real shot this time. I hope the public has realized what a terrible
mistake we made in 2008. Mitt's made a few mistake in the past which, I hope,
he has learned from. But, he's the best man by far to solve our economic
problems and get us back on the right track. He'll repeal Obamacare and get the
economy moving in the right direction. He has actual executive experience. Go
Give it some time...
Linda? What is Ron Paul's religious affiliation? I think it would
affect my vote. :-P
One of the themes of the article is that in the past, the media talked to
non-members to get information when they should have been talking to members.Of course, that seems reasonable.However, in my experience,
the LDS are oftentimes not straightforward with answers on many issues. Even Pres Hinckley's answers on 60 minutes were less than
"complete" when dealing with some sensitive LDS issues. In those cases, one could get a more complete picture of beliefs by asking a
non-member.I understand that some of these issues can be
uncomfortable and even damaging to church image. I understand that the LDS
church does not need to volunteer all the dirty laundry.But, when
asked, spill the beans and let the chips fall as they will.
cult (kʌlt) n 1. a specific system of
religious worship, esp with reference to its rites and deity 2. a sect
devoted to such a system 3. a quasi-religious organization using devious
psychological techniques to gain and control adherents 4. social a
group having an exclusive ideology and ritual practices centred on sacred
symbols, esp one characterized by lack of organizational structure 5.
intense interest in and devotion to a person, idea, or activity: the cult of
yoga 6. the person, idea, etc, arousing such devotion 7. a.
something regarded as fashionable or significant by a particular group
b. ( as modifier ): a cult show 8. ( modifier ) of, relating to, or
characteristic of a cult or cults: a cult figure By the World
Dictionary, any religion could be called a cult. But let's get down to it.
Cult has negative connotations that I do not believe are accurate to use for the
LDS church. For example, if the Mormons are a cult then other religions should
be held to the same definition and should be referred to as cults by the media
too. If they are not, then the negative word should not be attached to the LDS
WHO CARES what religion they are? They STILL would not make good Presidents of
the U.S. Mitt doesn't stay congruent to his values (just look what he did with
mandating health care in MA), and Huntsman was a horrible Governor (plus his
family donated to Harry Reid's campaign). RON PAUL is the only viable candidate
who knows anything about the Constitution and no one is going to question HIM
about religion ...