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

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?

If you think SS marriage is in the same category ("exactly the same principle") as drinking coffee, we have no common ground for discussion. We live on very different planets, and communication is garbled if not impossible.

But I will make an attempt but I have no interest in discussing this with you ==>

I believe that certain laws controlling morality have a profound effect on the overall public good, that they are necessary. For example, prostitution.

Share this post


Link to post

Mitt Romney's clinched the nomination with his victory in Texas today. So, may the free tacos commence. ; > )

Share this post


Link to post

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?

If I can jump in on this question for a bit. I think that the United States should base its laws on good, solid morality. Making laws, by its nature, means that certain moralities are considered and enforced upon the public. There is no better morality taught than that in the Judeo-Christian theology. We are very blessed as a nation to have had a Judeo-Christian foundation. Without which you and I would not have nearly as much freedom as we do right now and as we traditionally have had. The first colonies to have been successful which became part of the United States were not colonies established to gain the world's riches. All these colonies utterly failed in what is today the United States. The first American (United States) colonies established which succeeded were religious colonies. Namely, colonies set up with the idea of being free to worship. What a deeply blessed foundation to have. Not only is religious freedom perhaps the most pivotal freedom Americans enjoy today but more than any other group in world's history, Christians have shown the most perfect knowledge as to where freedom comes from. And that is God. It is god's will that man be free to choose how to best serve Him and all other freedoms hinge on that one blessing of religious liberty.

LDS morality stands side by side with the traditional Christian positions of morality. LDS standards are very high as it should since God's standards are very high. But, like freedom of religion, man should be free to choose the laws which govern its society. Banning coffee on a national level will perhaps never happen. Prohibition came and went after the people chose against it. As far as I'm concerned, it's a done deal. Would society be better off not drinking? Absolutely. Same goes for smoking. But, like alcohol, the people have chosen to keep tobacco legal and so it is with its legal regulations. As far as I'm concerned, you can take any LDS dcotrine and make it law so laong as it has the support of the people. And if they don't, then so be it. The people have spoken.

Share this post


Link to post

If you think SS marriage is in the same category ("exactly the same principle") as drinking coffee, we have no common ground for discussion. We live on very different planets, and communication is garbled if not impossible.

I don't believe it is in the same category, no, but it does involve the same basic principle...which is, at it's very base...man's agency.

But I will make an attempt but I have no interest in discussing this with you ==>

I'm sorry to hear that. I mean no offense...but, I do have some very strong opinions on this subject (as you seem to have, as well). I respect your right to your opinion, even though I may disagree with it.

I believe that certain laws controlling morality have a profound effect on the overall public good, that they are necessary. For example, prostitution.

Yes, I understand. A lot of people feel that way about moral issues...although, I think, in the last thirty-forty years, we have moved away from that to a large extent. Since many morality issues vary and are, in large part, a matter of opinion, I think it is better that we leave those decisions to individuals and their own conscience.

Share this post


Link to post
As far as I'm concerned, you can take any LDS dcotrine and make it law so laong as it has the support of the people. And if they don't, then so be it. The people have spoken.

To some degree, this is true, unless it becomes a matter of constitutional rights, then the courts would step in (and they have done this numerous times). But, it's a good thing, in that our rights and liberty are protected, even if we are in the minority.

Our laws should be based on the constitution, IMO, giving people as much freedom to choose, as we (practically) can.

Share this post


Link to post

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

You don't think there is something significantly different in receiving and paying money for sex and just participating in it because one desires it?

Share this post


Link to post

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.

This is quite untrue. Nowhere did it appear in the party's plank in the past.

Hillary went on record in her quest for the primary against it.

Obama went on record in his first campaign against it.

Bill signed the DOMA. I don't have the vote counts but Wiki said it passed both houses with large majorities.

Before about three years ago, there may have been a few scattered Dems but very few.

Having said that, there are plenty of Republicans who have seem to support SSM, at least those who claim to be libertarians.

From today's perspective, the issue divides the parties. I'm sure that if you asked this question in the mid 90s when DOMA was passed, more Dems would have opposed DOMA than Republicans. But to actually claim the issue is a recent innovation.

Share this post


Link to post

Old saying: He who straddles fence gets sore crotch.

Unless you take up planking.

Share this post


Link to post

You don't think there is something significantly different in receiving and paying money for sex and just participating in it because one desires it?

Of course..... and.....?

Why should payment make it illegal anymore than purchasing a pack of gum or a car wash. We can require that they have a business license , if payment for services is the issue.

The issue is the protection of the institution of marriage and public morality. But, as I said, we have no common ground for discussion. We reside on different planets.

Share this post


Link to post

In Canada,prostitution is legal,but,a prostitute cannot advertise,solicit,or run a bawdy house. Such is the weirdness of the law.

Share this post


Link to post

Holy thread resurrection!

 

That said, I'd probably vote for Romney again. The political divide is ornery and while I may not agree with all his policies his governance of a very blue state shows at least some willingness to "get along".

Share this post


Link to post

IIRC, threads used to be locked automatically at 6 months….I liked that.

 

Too often people respond to posters who haven't been around for quite sometime…unlikely to get much of a response.  Plus one has to go reread the thread in order to remember what was being talked about.

 

Once is usually enough for a thread, imo.

Share this post


Link to post

Holy thread resurrection!

 

That's, "Holy thread resurrection, Batman!" to you, Robin. :D

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with the message attributed Elder Bednar, as I see it, he is urging the members of the Church to attain strong testimonies. I have often felt that there will come a time when all we can have to confirm the correctness of our positions (regardless of the forum) is a testimony of Gospel.

On a different note, provided the statements from Elder Bednar to Sister Romney and at Dixie College are generally accurate, should Romney step down to spare the Church and those who cannot weather the storm?

 

Nothing untoward happened to the Church when he was the GOP nominee in 2012. On a different note, yes, yes indeed has the correctness of all my positions been confirmed.

 

8)

 

Share this post


Link to post

IIRC, threads used to be locked automatically at 6 months….I liked that.

 

Too often people respond to posters who haven't been around for quite sometime…unlikely to get much of a response.  Plus one has to go reread the thread in order to remember what was being talked about.

 

Once is usually enough for a thread, imo.

Plus I am running out of thread necromancy images.

Share this post


Link to post

If he is nominated then the voters will have to decide if they want to vote for him.

Share this post


Link to post

If he is nominated then the voters will have to decide if they want to vote for him.

Hmmm. It does seem that simple, doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post

Plus I am running out of thread necromancy images.

Yes,that makes it complicated. It would be counterintuitive, hypocritical even to resurrect an image while condemning a thread resurrection.

Share this post


Link to post

What?  This isn't a thread about baptism for the dead? :huh:  Oh.  Sorry. :unknw:

Share this post


Link to post

Romney needs to want to perfect his " deck chair straightening " skills! That is if you follow Jim Rickards' statements.

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 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. 
    • By nuclearfuels
      So in the Primary class I teach, my coteacher is incredible and brings video clips from a Jewish film library.
      Last Sunday we learned about Solomon's Temple, which imitated the Tabernacle Moses built, and Moses' Temple imitated/represented the actual, physical Garden of Eden with the Tree of eternal life being up on top of a hill and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil being lower than the hill, according to Jewish scholarship.
      Was the Garden of Eden a Temple? A representation of mortality, condensed?
      Hoping Robert Smith will weigh in on this.
       
       
×
×
  • Create New...