David And Nancy French: A Call To Greater Action

[Zakuska]

Intresting article...

EVANGELICALS FOR MITT

http://mittromneycentral.com/2012/09/08/david-and-nancy-french-a-call-to-greater-action/

So what do you, think? Are they right? Should we go all in? Do we go all in? Penny for your thoughts?

[ERayR]

Intresting article...

EVANGELICALS FOR MITT

http://mittromneycen...greater-action/

So what do you, think? Are they right? Should we go all in? Do we go all in? Penny for your thoughts?

I don't know what November will bring but I do have the feeling that this election cycle is an important pivot point to the future of our republic. A point where the citizens choose which way we are headed.

[KevinG]

My father (non-Mormon but respectful and supportive) was very surprised when I told him MItt was not my favorite in the primary GOP race. I would never vote for a person because they were Mormon but it doesn't harm my opinion knowing he has to answer the same Temple recommend questions I do.

The race shouldn't be about a religion but it should be about policy and character. I would vote for a righteous Muslim or even Atheist before voting for a Mormon simply for his religion.

So while I'm flattered by the evangelical support for a Mormon candidate its not a deciding factor for me.

[mapman]

I don't know what you mean by "we." It sure doesn't make sense to expect LDS Democrats and independents to go all in for Romney. The article made me kind of mad. Basically they say the church officially isn't partisan, but really expects its members to be Republicans. Personally, I like to think that the church is sincere when it says that "Principles compatible with the gospel are found in the platforms of all major political parties." The church has stances that are incompatible with both parties (which includes abortion despite what the French's might say). It makes me sad that Evangelicals are successfully using us for their political goals in the culture wars. Because of the issues that other people have arbitrarily decided were important (apparently for the French's the only important moral issues are abortion and religious freedom), many Mormons ignore or are ignorant of moral positions that the church has taken that go against their party's position.

It's articles like this that make me hate our partisan politics. It's going to be a lot of work to build Zion.

[The Nehor]

So what do you, think? Are they right? Should we go all in? Do we go all in? Penny for your thoughts?

I'm not going all in for Mitt. I'm voting for Obama.

[Tacenda]

I have it bad with some of my sis in laws who are mormon to the bone. They are very judgemental if they know I voted for a Democrat. It's awful. I guess that's why they say to not discuss politics or religion, it's very personal and can divide people.

[Mark Beesley]

Intresting article...

EVANGELICALS FOR MITT

http://mittromneycen...greater-action/

So what do you, think? Are they right? Should we go all in? Do we go all in? Penny for your thoughts?

Nah, they're wrong. This is not the most sluggish recovery since the Great Depression. It was more sluggish while we were going downhill during the Bush administration. People are so myopic.

[DavidB]

While HQ issues statements of neutrality and good found in all platforms etc, there are local leadership who claim Democrats by virtue of claiming the Democratic platform are unworthy to attend the Temple.

And so long as the Church does not remove those persons from leadership positions then people will associate an unrighteous dominion local leader as the Church being partisan.

[The Nehor]

While HQ issues statements of neutrality and good found in all platforms etc, there are local leadership who claim Democrats by virtue of claiming the Democratic platform are unworthy to attend the Temple.

And so long as the Church does not remove those persons from leadership positions then people will associate an unrighteous dominion local leader as the Church being partisan.

These people should read D&C 121 and repent with fear and trembling or earn their reward.

[Judd]

While HQ issues statements of neutrality and good found in all platforms etc, there are local leadership who claim Democrats by virtue of claiming the Democratic platform are unworthy to attend the Temple.

And so long as the Church does not remove those persons from leadership positions then people will associate an unrighteous dominion local leader as the Church being partisan.

Has anyone been denied a recommend for such?

[Stargazer]

I'm not going all in for Mitt. I'm voting for Obama.

I will admit to being disheartened upon hearing this. I'm observant of how well Obama's policies have succeeded. Which is to say, not much. Just how much better do you think Obama's policies will succeed in his second term, given that pretty much every single 2-term President's second term was arguably less successful than his first? Unless you're voting for Obama because you don't want to appear to be a racist. But if you actually like how well his policies succeeded, then so be it.

Romney was actually near the bottom of candidates I preferred in the Republican primary race. Ahead of him was most of the field, with my favorite being Herman Cain. Especially after I read his book. But when it became clear that Romney would be the likely winner of the nomination, I finally broke down and read his book, too. "No Apology" actually fired me up. Which surprised me.

There's no way I would vote for candidate just because he shared my religious faith.

[BCSpace]

So what do you, think? Are they right? Should we go all in? Do we go all in? Penny for your thoughts?

They are absolutely right. They're simply assuming Mormons are Mormons because they believe the doctrine which is not unreasonable. The Church is politically neutral to protect itself. That does not give members spiritual license, or an indulgence if you will, to tolerate doctrines and philosophies that are contrary to the Church's position. It does expect it's membership to vote according to the doctrines it teaches as evidenced by it's commentary on Mosiah 29:

Mosiah 29:26–27. The Danger of the Majority

Choosing “That Which Is Not Right”

• Elder Neal A. Maxwell (1926–2004) of the Quorum

of the Twelve Apostles warned that we must not

be indifferent to wickedness in society, because

destruction awaits nations that choose unrighteousness:

“Speaking behaviorally, when what was once the lesser

voice of the people becomes more dominant, then the

judgments of God and the consequences of foolish

selfishness follow (see Mosiah 29:26–27).

“Cultural decline is accelerated when single-interest

segments of society become indifferent to general

values once widely shared. This drift is facilitated

by the indifferent or the indulgent as society is led

carefully down to hell (see 2 Nephi 28:21). Some

may not join in this drift, but instead they step aside,

whereas once they might have constrained, as is their

representative right. . . .

“We actually have an obligation to notice genuine,

telltale societal signs. . . .

“For what happens in cultural decline both leaders

and followers are really accountable. Historically, of

course, it is easy to criticize bad leaders, but we should

not give followers a free pass. Otherwise, in their

rationalization of their degeneration they may say they

were just following orders, while the leader was just

ordering followers! However, much more is required of

followers in a democratic society, wherein individual

character matters so much in both leaders and

followers” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1999, 28–30; or

Ensign, May 1999, 23–24).

• President Boyd K. Packer also spoke of the recent

trends of distorting tolerance:

“The virtue of tolerance has been distorted and

elevated to a position of such prominence as to be

thought equal to and even valued more than morality.

It is one thing to be tolerant, even forgiving of

individual conduct. It is quite another to collectively

legislate and legalize to protect immoral conduct that

can weaken, even destroy the family.

“There is a dangerous trap when tolerance is

exaggerated to protect the rights of those whose

conduct endangers the family and injures the rights

of the more part of the people. We are getting

dangerously close to the condition described by the

prophet Mosiah [in Mosiah 29:26–27]” (“Children of

God,” BYU Women’s Conference, May 5, 2006, 6).

[mapman]

Unless you think that a party's platform was received through revelation from God, it is unreasonable to think that it is going to match up perfectly with the gospel. No matter who you vote for you are going to be voting against something the church stands for. You've got to decide what's most important to you, and people decide differently. It's just the way it works with our stupid two party system.

[The Nehor]

I will admit to being disheartened upon hearing this. I'm observant of how well Obama's policies have succeeded. Which is to say, not much. Just how much better do you think Obama's policies will succeed in his second term, given that pretty much every single 2-term President's second term was arguably less successful than his first? Unless you're voting for Obama because you don't want to appear to be a racist. But if you actually like how well his policies succeeded, then so be it.

Romney was actually near the bottom of candidates I preferred in the Republican primary race. Ahead of him was most of the field, with my favorite being Herman Cain. Especially after I read his book. But when it became clear that Romney would be the likely winner of the nomination, I finally broke down and read his book, too. "No Apology" actually fired me up. Which surprised me.

There's no way I would vote for candidate just because he shared my religious faith.

Oh I am in no way impressed by Obama's record. I do give him some leniency for being forced to deal with the Tea Party's "Do everything we want or we are going to take our ball and go home/shut down government and blame it on you" and for inheriting an awful economy that government can actuallly do little about but get blamed for anyways.

My reasons for voting for Obama have to do with the way Romney and (particularly) Ryan are running their campaign. I decided to vote for the campaign that violates the Ninth Commandment the least. So far Ryan is playing so fast and loose with the truth I am insulted. Romney has done the same thing to a lesser extent. There are plenty of ways to criticize the current administration without stretching the truth beyond all reason but they are willing to do it because it works with their voting base. Fair enough. Then I have no desire to be lart of their voting base.

I might switch sides but that would require that Obama start using the same tactics to the same extent. So far his campaign has not done so. It really matters little. My state is so red that it is a sure thing that Romney will take it unless it comes out that he is eating babies or worshipping Satan. If that happens it will be a close race.

[Ares]

The topic is about the candidates Mormonism. Please limit comments to that and don't get into a general political thread.

[The Nehor]

The topic is about the candidates Mormonism. Please limit comments to that and don't get into a general political thread.

I apologize for this and would like it to be known that I am not opposing Romney for his religious beliefs no matter how deviant and demonic Mormonism is.

[Stargazer]

Oh I am in no way impressed by Obama's record.

Well, that's a relief anyway.

I do give him some leniency for being forced to deal with the Tea Party's "Do everything we want or we are going to take our ball and go home/shut down government and blame it on you" and for inheriting an awful economy that government can actuallly do little about but get blamed for anyways.

Like the way the Dems in the Senate are perfectly willing to let the Bush tax cuts expire, despite what they know will happen to the economy -- namely send it into a double-dip recession, if they don't get their way and increase taxes on a few so-called "fat cats"? A tax which wouldn't even decrease the deficit by even 10%? The whole point of the Tea Party (which I am not associated with, btw) is to stop Washington DC from spending the USA into oblivion. And because Obama didn't need their support during the first two years, he wouldn't even so much as talk to Republican leaders in the House or Senate.

It is interesting that Reagan inherited an even worse economy from Carter, and turned it around sufficiently in his first term that he won in a landslide against Mondale (only Mondale's home state of Minnesota voted for him). Of course the policies of the President have an effect on the economy. Obama himself recognizes this! In 2008 he stated that he would cut the deficit in half. He failed to do so. He promised to reduce unemployment, but it hasn't changed -- it is arguably worse than the reported value, due to the fact that there are many unemployed persons who do not show up in the stats since they've gone off the unemployment benefit rolls. The supposedly obstreperous Tea Party-dominated House of Representatives gave him most of what he wanted in his proposed job bills, and this still didn't improve things -- IMHO because the jobs bills didn't try to do anything at all with what is holding the economy back.

My reasons for voting for Obama have to do with the way Romney and (particularly) Ryan are running their campaign. I decided to vote for the campaign that violates the Ninth Commandment the least. So far Ryan is playing so fast and loose with the truth I am insulted. Romney has done the same thing to a lesser extent. There are plenty of ways to criticize the current administration without stretching the truth beyond all reason but they are willing to do it because it works with their voting base. Fair enough. Then I have no desire to be lart of their voting base.

So what is Obama's campaign and its surrogates gassing on about anyway? Romney's dog. Ann Romney's horse. Overseas bank accounts.

And speaking of 9th commandment issues, when Obama himself speaks he is constantly setting up straw Romneys and Ryans and knocking them over. I've heard him state positions that Romney/Ryan supposedly have, and refute them -- but I haven't heard Romney or Ryan advocating the positions that Obama claims they hold!

I have listened to both Romney and Ryan, but I can't see what they are stretching the truth about!

All I am concerned with anyway is results. Obama spent 800 billion dollars on a stimulus package that failed to stimulate anything. Obama said he would close Gitmo, and it's still open. Obama said his would be an one-term proposition if the unemployment rate was still 8% at the end of four years -- yet he is still running for re-election despite having failed to reduce it. Obama claims he killed bin Laden, when it was his continuation of Bush military policy that led to the eventual discovery of bin Laden's hideout -- all Obama did was to tell them to pull the trigger, which was a good call and I'm not denying it, yet he wants to take sole credit!

I might switch sides but that would require that Obama start using the same tactics to the same extent. So far his campaign has not done so. It really matters little. My state is so red that it is a sure thing that Romney will take it unless it comes out that he is eating babies or worshipping Satan. If that happens it will be a close race.

I don't know how to tell you this, but Obama and Biden are out there daily, claiming Romney and Ryan are advocating things that they are not, in fact, advocating. If you can't see this, perhaps your lenses are colored differently from mine.

My state is so blue, that my voting for the Man in the Moon wouldn't make the slightest bit difference, so I feel your pain. Sort of.

And this entire post is political, for which I apologize to everyone. I can't come up with an angle that relates to any LDS theme in the matter.

[Stargazer]

I apologize for this and would like it to be known that I am not opposing Romney for his religious beliefs no matter how deviant and demonic Mormonism is.

Oh, you're a true comedian.

I have to apologize again for my political post, devoid of a connection to Mormonism. I can only excuse myself by saying that The Nehor made me do it. As it turns out, I have prepared a long post that shows where the O/B ticket has been misrepresenting the R/R ticket, with a bonus point where O/B has been falsely blaming GWB for the recession. But I will forbear, and will not post it. I may PM it to The Nehor instead. In fact, I just did.

[Zakuska]

Unless you think that a party's platform was received through revelation from God, it is unreasonable to think that it is going to match up perfectly with the gospel. No matter who you vote for you are going to be voting against something the church stands for. You've got to decide what's most important to you, and people decide differently. It's just the way it works with our stupid two party system.

AMEN with this post.

[The Nehor]

Unless you think that a party's platform was received through revelation from God, it is unreasonable to think that it is going to match up perfectly with the gospel. No matter who you vote for you are going to be voting against something the church stands for. You've got to decide what's most important to you, and people decide differently. It's just the way it works with our stupid two party system.

I move we re-form Joseph Smith's party and the Council of 50 and get back on track for world domination so we don't have to mess with this anymore.

[Stargazer]

I move we re-form Joseph Smith's party and the Council of 50 and get back on track for world domination so we don't have to mess with this anymore.

I second and call for the question!

[The Nehor]

I second and call for the question!

Question has been called. All members may now vote. I vote yeah.