If Mitt Romney Nominated, Then What For The Church And Members?

[Sevenbak]

In our Regional Conference last year, Elder Packer told us that it would get harder for us to endure than it was for the early pioneers who faced extremes like Sweet Water and Hole in the Rock.

Those times are a coming...

[Libs]

There's not much I agree with politically with Brother Reid. And it brought forth a chuckle a few years back when he said that he did not see how one could be a Republican and faithful LDS at the same time.

But back in Searchlight, Nev, many moons ago, he was Bishop Reid. And I have heard apocryphal stories of him and Brother Hatch sharing a hymnbook in one of the Washington wards. So I think that like most of us, to the best of his imperfect ability, Harry Reid is trying to live the gospel, at least as he understands it.

Yes, I agree. I believe he is living his faith...and since I agree with his philosophy, I would not even say "imperfectly". But, then, none of us live our faith perfectly, that's for sure.

[Buzzard]

Forget hymnbook sharing, if Romney is elected, would they be able to attend the temple together in the same session? Would you be able to throw Glenn Beck into the mix, as well? Perhaps the DC temple could host an Uncle Sam night, including all eligible senators and congressmen/women.

Sounds like a good idea to me. And while the assembled hordes of journalists and paparazzi cooled their heels outside, the R.S. sisters could serve red punch and mint brownies, while the missionaries offered free BOM copies.

[selek1]

"Some say, 'I do not like to do this [build temples], for we never began to build a temple without the bells of hell beginning to ring.' I want to hear them ring again. All the tribes of hell will be on the move, if we uncover the walls of this temple. But what do you think it will amount to? You have all the time seen what it has amounted to." -Brigham Young

Bravo Zulu.

Same principle. Or, more succinctly, the words of the theatrical Theoden of Rohan after hearing the size of the army coming to attack: "Let them come."

Since we're also quoting characters from literature, let me echo Captain Picard: "If we're to be damned, let's be damned for who we really are."

The alleged drum beat is not (IMO) going to be effective if shaking the faith of the Saints. There is nothing they can invent that hasn't been tried at least once already.

No- the faithful are not the target of the coming smear campaign. The ignorant (willful and otherwise) are.

The campaign will be designed and executed to inflame the passions and the bigotry of those who do not know the Latter-day Saints.

The only cure for that is to be who and what we really are.

[DH]

I have no doubt that there will be increased scrutiny of the Church due to Mitt Romney's candidacy. However, it seems hyperbolic to claim that "all hell will break loose" and the wrath of Satan will be unleashed. Honestly, I don't think most people even think about Mormonism very often, and most won't care about Romney's religion. Of course the antis will crawl out of the woodwork and make noise. Of course the media will be interested. And of course some of the EVs will make a fuss about a "non-Christian" Mormon trying to take the reins of this "Christian nation" of ours. There will be awkwardness, but I don't think there's reason to hyperventilate about hell and Satan and all that.

[CQUIRK]

Either or, I may be a Ron Paul supporter, but it's inevitable now that Romney is going to become the nominee for the Republican Party, so regardless of speculation, the church is going to be put under the spotlight before, and probably after the election and we all need to prepare ourselves for it.

[BCSpace]

However, it seems hyperbolic to claim that "all hell will break loose" and the wrath of Satan will be unleashed.

I think such will likely be rather restained actually as most people realize the hypocrisy of such and recall the freedom of religion we have in this country.

[Judd]

Either or, I may be a Ron Paul supporter, but it's inevitable now that Romney is going to become the nominee for the Republican Party, so regardless of speculation, the church is going to be put under the spotlight before, and probably after the election and we all need to prepare ourselves for it.

If you're conceding that Romney will be the nominee then obviously you're not really a Ron Paul supporter.

[Stargazer]

If you're conceding that Romney will be the nominee then obviously you're not really a Ron Paul supporter.

Oh, you're a scream.

Actually, to a certain extent you are correct. I know a few of them who are still convinced Ron will get the nomination despite all the evidence to the contrary.

[cdowis]

"Saints and Soldiers" tells the story of two men on opposite sides in the war were nevertheless brothers when it comes to faith.

I saw a BYU devotional with Harry Reid, and no matter how much you may disagree with him, he sincerely believes he is following Christ by his liberal philosophy.

Reid is increasingly finding his party on the opposite side of the official position of the church. He can attempt to be silent and stand neutral for some of the most egregious policies, but as a leader of his party he will be looked upon for active leadership on these issues as they become more prominent in public discourse.

He understands perfectly who voted for him.

[Judd]

If Reid were running for president, would we expect more, less, or the same amount of focus on the church?

[DH]

Reid is increasingly finding his party on the opposite side of the official position of the church.

The only official Church position I can think of that the Democratic Party does not agree with is same-sex marriage. I think the positions of both the Church and the Democratic Party on this matter have been clear for some time, so I don't see how Reid could be "increasingly finding his party on the opposite side," seeing as how it's old news. It's just been brought to the forefront again by President Obama's public support for SSM, and perhaps because of public opinion polls showing increasing public support for SSM.

[Stargazer]

If Reid were running for president, would we expect more, less, or the same amount of focus on the church?

Definitely less.

Too bad Mitt and Harry are not running against each other. Now THAT would be interesting. Maybe next time.

[Libs]

If Reid were running for president, would we expect more, less, or the same amount of focus on the church?

Same amount...perhaps even more from the GOP side, as they wouldn't feel constrained to support him. I think Evangelicals, in particular, would be even more open about their negative beliefs, regarding the church.

[Avatar4321]

It's already starting. Political message boards are already starting to discuss the "Mormon" issue.

[cdowis]

The only official Church position I can think of that the Democratic Party does not agree with is same-sex marriage. I think the positions of both the Church and the Democratic Party on this matter have been clear for some time, so I don't see how Reid could be "increasingly finding his party on the opposite side," seeing as how it's old news.

OK, so SS marriage has been discussed over the past week, and Obama has made his position official, so I guess anything over one day is "old news". Reid has made some modifications on his position, which was also recently reported. But that is old news.

Earlier this week, the Senate’s majority leader said he believed marriage was between a man and a woman. But Reid now says he would “follow my grandchildren and my children,” and vote to repeal Nevada’s constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriages.

His family convinced him to modify his position and he decided to follow their lead. BUT his lips proclaim his allegiance to the official position of the church.

Again, it is clear that he is finding it increasingly difficult to reconcile those conflicting views, and someday he will have to make a decision.

[ERayR]

Again, it is clear that he is finding it increasingly difficult to reconcile those conflicting views, and someday he will have to make a decision.

Old saying: He who straddles fence gets sore crotch.

[Libs]

I just don't see a conflict in having a personal, religious view and yet supporting something else for the general public. The reasoning being that not everyone holds my particular religious views, and in a free society, I don't expect them to. That is not straddling a fence or being untrue to your own faith. It is being true to yourself, while allowing others to be true to whatever it is they believe is right. That is what democracy and a free society are all about, IMO.

[ERayR]

I just don't see a conflict in having a personal, religious view and yet supporting something else for the general public. The reasoning being that not everyone holds my particular religious views, and in a free society, I don't expect them to. That is not straddling a fence or being untrue to your own faith. It is being true to yourself, while allowing others to be true to whatever it is they believe is right. That is what democracy and a free society are all about, IMO.

I think I understand what you are saying. For me I am solid on what I see as basic doctrine. The plan of salvation including the fall and atonement. The saving ordinances and a life of service. Where I differ is on the details of the how. I am the same way with scientific premises also. I think we are often too quick to pronounce dogma at the expense of overlooking and ignoring data that we do not understand or can not see where it fits. There are some interesting possibilities left unexplored because it may conflict with what is popularly accepted.

[DH]

OK, so SS marriage has been discussed over the past week, and Obama has made his position official, so I guess anything over one day is "old news". Reid has made some modifications on his position, which was also recently reported. But that is old news.

Do you honestly expect me to believe you didn't know Democrats in general (not necessarily every individual Democrat, but Dems in general) have supported SSM for years? That Democrats support SSM is old news. That Harry Reid supports it is new news, but that isn't what the post was saying.

[DH]

I just don't see a conflict in having a personal, religious view and yet supporting something else for the general public. The reasoning being that not everyone holds my particular religious views, and in a free society, I don't expect them to. That is not straddling a fence or being untrue to your own faith. It is being true to yourself, while allowing others to be true to whatever it is they believe is right. That is what democracy and a free society are all about, IMO.

+1

One example is coffee. As an active Mormon, I don't drink coffee. But neither do I believe in outlawing it.

[cdowis]

I just don't see a conflict in having a personal, religious view and yet supporting something else for the general public.

I just cannot find adequate words to respond to your post. Has the world really come to this?

You might start with Mosiah chapter 29. There are several verses you might find of interest.

One example is coffee. As an active Mormon, I don't drink coffee. But neither do I believe in outlawing it.

OK, so voting on SS marriage is like voting on the consumption of coffee. You got me convinced.

[Calm]

I would not participate in adultery myself and view it as a sin, yet I do not believe it should be made illegal.

What is your view on this?

[Libs]

I just cannot find adequate words to respond to your post. Has the world really come to this?

You might start with Mosiah chapter 29. There are several verses you might find of interest.

OK, so voting on SS marriage is like voting on the consumption of coffee. You got me convinced.

Actually, it is exactly the same principle, in DH's example of coffee drinking. Why do you believe it's different? Do you believe that the United States should make it's laws based on LDS doctrine?

[cdowis]

I would not participate in adultery myself and view it as a sin, yet I do not believe it should be made illegal.

What is your view on this?

Adultery has been illegal in many states and I agree with this law. But the problem would now be enforcement. Sodomy was illegal until it was struck down by the Supreme Court.

Now a question for you == prostitution, should it be illegal? Give it careful thought before answering. You don't want to contradict yourself.