Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

treehugger

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

Recommended Posts

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...

Share this post


Link to post

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. :sorry:

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

"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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

"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.

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

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?

Share this post


Link to post

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?

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By TheRedHen
      I wonder if the Church would consider creating 2 separate types of endowment sessions.  One for living endowments and one for the dead.  It makes sense to have the full 95 minute session for the living, but why not cut out a bunch of the repetition for those who have been through.  Maybe you have to pass a competency test to go to the shorter session, but it could cut the time in half and maybe more people would go.  I'm sure some go and actually believe that 'every time I go to the temple I learn something new', but I certainly don't.  I've had the whole thing memorized for 25 years  I could even take you through the old Samurai parts of the session if you like.  Thoughts?
    • By HappyJackWagon
      I've been hearing rumors since the last conference that there will be some significant changes to the ways we experience and worship in the temple. Most significantly I'm hearing that there is an effort afoot to shorten the endowment to help reduce the logjam of names. As we know, a person (or group) can go to the temple and be baptized for 150 people within the same time it takes a person to do 1 endowment. I've long wondered about this discrepancy and how it could easily cause an imbalance in temple work. I've seen temples limit the number of baptisms one person could do. For a while on youth trips each youth was limited to just 5 names even though we had time to do more. So it would make sense to me to somehow shorten the endowment. Changes have been made before so I don't see any reason why it couldn't be done.
      With that general background, I'm also hearing that Pres. Nelson wants temple worship to be his legacy. For that to be the case I would suspect some significant changes would be needed, else why would it be "his" legacy. He is definitely a mover and a shaker, making things happen quickly so I think it fits his personality to move with changes he may have been considering for many years. In general I enjoy his ambition and determination to make things happen.
      I'm also hearing about mandatory meetings in early January for all temple workers where supposedly they will be informed of these changes so they can be prepared. Perhaps January meetings for all temple workers is a totally normal thing (I don't know as I've only ever served as a veil worker).
      So, it makes sense to me that changes could come, as early as the next few weeks. So I've got a couple of questions.
      1- Would you welcome changes to the length of time it takes to perform temple ordinances? (I call these efficiency changes)
      2- Is the family history/temple approval system adequate for temple work to move forward in a faster way? IOW- will there be enough names (without duplication) to keep up a faster pace?
      3- Are there other changes (besides efficiency) that you might expect to see?
      *Please keep the discussion respectful, both to each other and also to the temple rituals. There are a couple of specific items/topics regarding temple worship that shouldn't be discussed.
    • By nuclearfuels
      With all the new Temples being announced and my excitement builds at attending the dedications of said Temples, can the experts on this forum and the Journal of Discourse experts comment as to a future Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Temple on Mount Horeb (Moses and the Burning Bush site)? Perhaps during the Millennium?
    • By SettingDogStar
      The First Endowment was administered in the Upper Room of the Red Brick Store in Nauvoo. The room is not very big and Joseph said that he spent the day giving all the different "..washings, anointings, endowments and the communication of keys pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood, and so on to the highest order of the Melchizedek Priesthood, setting forth the order pertaining to the Ancient of Days, and all those plans and principles by which any one is enabled to secure the fullness of those blessings.."
      My question was how they would have been able to arrange the room to match the temple layout? What else do you think Joseph included that Brigham Young eventually cut/rearranged in the Nauvoo temple and in later arrangements of the endowment?
      I can't find Josephs original plans for the layout of the Nauvoo floors. However from the ones I can find it doesn't seem to include the rooms that were built in later temples like St. George and Salt Lake. When the Nauvoo temple was finished they hung curtains to section off the different portions of the endowment but I feel like Joseph would have specific rooms built for that purpose? Or no?
      Just curious on your thoughts!!
    • By Cyclingmom
      I’m just wanting some dialogue on something I think about often. I’m active in the LDS church. I believe that it teaches good pronciples and I believe in Christ. I believe families are forever. What I have a hard time with is believing families are only forever IF certain rituals are done in an LDS temple. My heart and mind can’t quite wrap around any possible reason for that....but I’ve tried to have faith. The problem is; it’s the BASIS of our religion. “Families can be together forever”, and “go to the temple”  are pounded in us. But (for example) when a very righteous non LDS friend whose husband has died tells me she knows she will be with her husband again, and sees no reason why some ritual would need to be done....one that she can’t even do now until she’s dead....I tend to agree with her! Did Christ teach that at all? It seems to me that He would have taught us about sealing to a spouse, etc. if that were the bottom line. There are so many examples in life where the ideals we are taught just can’t work out. Blended families, deaths, etc. So, yeah....I do have faith that it will all work out in heaven and that maybe we just don’t have all the understanding needed. BUT shouldn’t we have a logical reason with the minds God gave us? I can’t see it. I want to but I can’t. 
×
×
  • Create New...