Romney is such a poser and a sell out

Valhalla · Profuse Pontificator

Romney is such a poser and a sell out

TitusTodd · Senior Member

I've heard plenty of LDS express themselves similarly about polygamy. I guess that is the issue you are calling him a poser and sell-out on? Quite frankly, thinking about practicing polygamy in is this modern age it does sound awful versus when it was practiced by the Church before the end of the the 19th century. Sounding awful and reality are often two different things. I do believe he could have expressed himself better regarding the subject but I'm not going to condemn him on it.

Many believe the Bush administration could have done better on the Iraq war. I really don't think any amount of additional preparation would have made the situation better. Romney gave the easy answer and one that is not necessarily wrong. Are you calling Romney a poser and sell-out on this issue?

arbilad · Head Chef

I guess the issue is that he gave the answer that he thought the listeners wanted to hear. For good or for bad, many people idealize him as the "prototypical Mormon". He could have given a neutral answer, but instead chose one that would ingratiate him to his listeners.
It's kinda like his flip flop on abortion. Now he's against it, even though earlier, by his own admission, he was effectively pro-choice. The only impetus that I can see for his change of mind is political expediency. To disagree with your own church's position on abortion means that you have significant reason, either emotional or intellectual, to impel you to the disagreement. That sort of impetus doesn't just go away one day. Something stronger has to push you back. Where's the impetus that inspired him to change his mind on abortion? It isn't a small issue, or a simple personal preference like what tie to wear today.
Without a likely candidate for a reason for him to change his mind, isn't it likely that political expediency is at the heart of it? And it's not like the Romneys were simply fence sitters. Sister Romney donated money to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is the same group that helps young girls get abortions and not report (as they are required to by law) when those young, underage girls tell them that the father of the baby was an older man.

Valhalla · Profuse Pontificator

Titus, among other reasons, that is why I say that about Romney. Maybe he really does find polygamy awful, but it is a part of our doctrine and religion and history, and to say such tells me that he is not willing to stand up. He could have given an answer such as it is not an issue, it has not nor has been practised for over a century, and even though relations were involved, it has nothing to do with me or my candidacy. Instead, he denigrates doctrine for political expediency.

I think arbilad's analysis is also important. I see Romeny as only slightly more conservative than McCain, and that is not saying much at all! Romney has also flipped on the 2nd Amendment, a HUGE issue for me. A supporter, yeah right! Hunting is also not supporting that.

I pray that Fred Thompson runs. I don't know what it is about most LDS politicians, but I have found most to be quite disappointing.

Randy · Senior Member

arbilad wrote:

To disagree with your own church's position on abortion means that you have significant reason, either emotional or intellectual, to impel you to the disagreement.

If the church ever announced the position that we must assure that abortion is against the law of the land, I missed it. I admit I could be mistaken, but at the moment I'm not aware.

I do remember the church taking active policy positions on pornography, gay marriage, and even liquor-by-the-drink, but on abortion I'm drawing a blank. Sure, it's against the law of the church to have an abortion, and it's also against the law of the church to drink coffee. I'm not saying the two transgressions are comparable, only saying that church commandment doesn't always necessarily translate to the church officially advocating changes in the law of the land.

Romney got in trouble, with the pro-choice community, even when he was effectively pro-choice, by counselling women to not have abortions. Guess he's upset both sides.

-- Edited by Randy at 10:30, 2007-05-11

Valhalla · Profuse Pontificator

Going and getting an abortion for the sake of doing so, is grounds for serious church discipline. It is not acceptable. In fact, I baptized a woman on my mission who had had a couple of abortions and she first had to go through a special interview. I understand it to be quite a serious issue. The CHI says abortion only for health/safety of the mother, rape, incest.

Randy · Senior Member

-- Edited by Randy at 10:41, 2007-05-11

Randy · Senior Member

My father was raised in a polygamous family, and he found it awful.

Brigham Young said when he learned that the Lord expected him to live polygamy, he saw a hearse go by and he envied the corpse.

arbilad · Head Chef

Whether or not Romney feels polygamy is awful is beside the point. If you struggle with a point of doctrine (and polygamy was implemented by divine inspiration), you don't announce it to the world. Just like I don't go to church and post when and why my son was sent to his room. If you have an argument or disagreement on a point of doctrine, keep it within the church family.
And is abortion the law of the land? I thought that it was simply a "right" that the supreme court invented. But anyway, that is beside the point. Even if there was a law specifically allowing abortion, a person who believes that it is wrong can do what he can against it. Sometimes what he can do is limited, of course. But the more information comes out regarding his history on abortion, the more it seems he was not merely not active in opposition to it, he was at least tacitly supporting it.
Also, I realize that wives are usually not identical to their husbands politically. But they are frequently similar. Sister Romney's donation to Planned Parenthood went to support the infrastructure that is actively involved in the killing of babies. That is beyond "it's the law of the land, there's nothing we can do about it." That amounts to saying, "I approve of what you do, I will support you in doing it."

-- Edited by arbilad at 11:17, 2007-05-11

arbilad · Head Chef

Randy wrote:

My father was raised in a polygamous family, and he found it awful.

Brigham Young said when he learned that the Lord expected him to live polygamy, he saw a hearse go by and he envied the corpse.

Either you're older than I thought and you were born late in your father's life, or we're not talking about a polygamous marriage entered into pre-Manifesto. Assuming that the latter is the case (and if I'm wrong, please correct me), then I agree with you; polygamy, as it is generally practiced, is demeaning to women and a pretty awful thing. Jacob was quite clear on the subject about polygamy being practiced without divine approval.
Of course, I'm sure that there were bad polygamous marriages while the church was practicing it, just as there are bad temple marriages today. Only, with several adults involved, it could quickly become much worse than a normal marriage going bad.

Randy · Senior Member

Before the 2nd manifesto in the early 20th century, the church tolerated and approved quite a few polygamous marriages, especially outside the USA.

This is not well known, but is a true fact of history. I suppose we want to believe that everything suddenly changed the moment President Woodruff presented the Manifesto, but it was only the beginning of an evolution that took some time to play itself out.

Another misconception is that polygamous marriages were dissolved by the manifesto. This is not true. Polygamy in the church died off after the last polygamists died, not when the 1st or even 2nd manifesto were announced.

My father was born after the 2nd manifesto, into a legal, church-sanctioned marriage. If you were implying that polygamous marriages suddenly became awful after the manifesto(s) because they were no longer approved by the church, you need to understand that they were still approved by the church under some circumstances.

My grandfather was called on a mission to go to law school to defend the saints in Mexico, he was the translator of "O My Father" into Spanish. He and all four of his wives were always in good standing in the church.

Still, due to several factors, polygamy was awful. Some of them were due to factors beyond the control of my family, such as persecution.

arbilad · Head Chef

What I meant to say is that polygamy practiced in a way other than what the church prescribed would be awful in most cases. Also, I understand that at least in some cases, even though in the Lord's eyes they were still married after the manifesto, legally a husband couldn't "cohabit" with his plural wives, even though he was still obliged to support them.

Randy · Senior Member

Barbara Bush is pro-choice. Nancy Reagan is to the left of Mitt Romney's position on abortion. Laura Bush wanted to remove the abortion plank from the Republican Party.

First Ladies are not elected officials.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Polygamy has always been hard to live, and I think anyone man says otherwise secretly harbors adultery in his heart, he's looking at the benefits without the cold harsh reality of human and feminine nature. Heck in Abraham's time, it was hard to live, and one of his wives was essentially "thrown away".

Be careful what you wish for. I am grateful we can live in the truth restored in which we can show our allegiance to God through living the covenants we now have, without the need to live the law of polygamy to prove our loyalty to the cause (which I believe was one of the main reasons God wanted it restored then).

But I give all the above as my very salty opinion...

--Ray

Randy · Senior Member

arbilad wrote:

legally a husband couldn't "cohabit" with his plural wives

If it was illegal then the law was ignored. The manifesto(s) had no effect on existing marriages, only proscribed new polygamous ones.

arbilad · Head Chef

Randy wrote:

arbilad wrote:

legally a husband couldn't "cohabit" with his plural wives
If it was illegal then the law was ignored. The manifesto(s) had no effect on existing marriages, only proscribed new polygamous ones.

Well, I freeley admit that this is one topic that I'm not an expert on. Both my parents are converts, so I'd probably have to go back a ways (such as abrahamic times) to find ancestors of mine that were polygamists.

arbilad · Head Chef

Randy wrote:

Barbara Bush is pro-choice. Nancy Reagan is to the left of Mitt Romney's position on abortion. Laura Bush wanted to remove the abortion plank from the Republican Party.

First Ladies are not elected officials.

Nor did I say they were. But wives do have an influence on their husbands. Hillary is an example of a First Lady who tried to exercise power even though she was not elected to position. Of course, in her case she didn't really try to influence her husband so much as she just tried to execute power by fiat.

I think that in our discussion on the issue it has at least become clear that there is room for doubt on how strongly or weakly Romney was pro-choice (remember, by his own admission he was effectively pro-choice). Why not clear the air and describe precisely what precipitated his change of mind? His position now is obviously not what it once was. Why not explain to us what prompted this change of heart? It would go a long way towards demonstrating that he didn't just flip his opinion for political expediency. On the other hand, if he never really makes it clear what impelled him to change his mind, an accusation of flipping just for political expediency is not spurious.

People do change their minds. But when it is sincere there is a reason behind it.

Randy · Senior Member

Mitt Romney has described what prompted his change of heart. Admittedly, there are people who remain skeptical, but it's not like he has not described it.

He says that when he was researching the issue of cloning embryos for the purpose of harvesting embryonic stem cells, he was struck by the realization that the legalization of abortion has cheapened our respect for life, and was leading us down a road where that cheapening of human life was going to get worse.

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

rayb wrote:

Polygamy has always been hard to live, and I think anyone man says otherwise secretly harbors adultery in his heart

Ray

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

arbilad wrote:

Whether or not Romney feels polygamy is awful is beside the point. If you struggle with a point of doctrine (and polygamy was implemented by divine inspiration), you don't announce it to the world.

" I condemn it, yes, as a practice, it is not doctrinal."

--Gordon B. Hinckley on Larry King Live, in September 1998.

arbilad · Head Chef

fear of shiz wrote:

arbilad wrote:

Whether or not Romney feels polygamy is awful is beside the point. If you struggle with a point of doctrine (and polygamy was implemented by divine inspiration), you don't announce it to the world.

" I condemn it, yes, as a practice, it is not doctrinal."
--Gordon B. Hinckley on Larry King Live, in September 1998.

And rightly he should condemn the practice. Anyone who claims to be following the doctrine by entering into a plural marriage nowadays is wrong. But earlier the Lord did implement the practice, and later rescinded it. Both times through a prophet of God. It is in our doctrine and covenants. It is part of our scripture, which we accept to be the word of God.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

I'm stunned... I'm almost speechless... That quote from ray that was later quoted by fear of shiz... Just... wow. Thank you for that. It somehow sounds so much more legit coming from men.

See, when I say something like that, I feel like I come across as- I dunno, like it goes back to a problem of *mine*...

Anyway, that was nice.

Valhalla · Profuse Pontificator

Polygamy has always been hard to live, and I think anyone man says otherwise secretly harbors adultery in his heart

I don't think this to be the case and seems a rather judgmental blanket statement with which no one has the right to judge or determine than God. To be frank, I would rather practice polygamy than go to another meeting or home teaching or go on a camp out! I pray that I am never, never, never called to YM or as a Scout leader.

I think it is easy to live the Word of Wisdom, it does not mean that I secretly want to drink coffee and smoke cigars. What is easier for some might be harder for others. Of course most of the things we are asked to do are hard at some point for us, but become easier as we grow in faith and closer to the Lord. Also, the Lord will not give us something we are not capable of handling.

-- Edited by Valhalla at 08:12, 2007-05-14

-- Edited by Valhalla at 08:16, 2007-05-14

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I don't doubt your faith Val, but God isn't asking you to live polygamy, he's asking you to be faithful to the spouse you made an eternal covenant in the temple with, and only to her, and that you sacrifice your very being to her if needs be... that's the hard law that you're expected to live now.

I just think that we men in the church often look back on our history with rose-colored glasses on... there was nothing easy about polygamy. It's a bit like those who say, "If I'd lived in the days of the prophets, I would not have stoned them."

My opinion comes from a long line of stories of men in my family who actually lived it and found it a great source of contention, heart-ache and stress. Men told these stories, not just women. Though quite frankly I don't know how you communicate to a daughter of God her infinite potential when she is so easily marginalized by the practice.

Now we men of the church face the demon of divorce, pornography, a culture of toxic moral values, which likewise threatens to marginalize our wife and daughters... We must fight those demons, not demons of the past... and I feel no great obligation to defend an old practice, when it is over and done--especially not through the dark cultural lense in which we now currently live. I rejoice that my stewardship is the size and portion granted me, and take hope that I can live up to the ACTUAL challenges of my faith that I face today...

--Ray

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

rayb wrote:
Though quite frankly I don't know how you communicate to a daughter of God her infinite potential when she is so easily marginalized by the practice.

--Ray

Now that is where I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.
Polygamy does not marginalize the infinite potential of a daughter of God. To make that statement tells me that you don't get it Ray and I pray that someday you will understand this inspired doctrine (that at present we do not practice ... unless you are Elder Russell M Nelson) Is Wendy Nelson's infinite potential marginalized because she is wife #2 to a current apostle? I THINK NOT!

My grandfather married a beautiful young lady and had three children with her. She then DIED.
My grandfather then married MY GRANDMOTHER, his first wife's best friend and they had 5 children together. Two of those 8 children died as infants but MY GRANDMOTHER cared for those 6 children and taught them the gospel in every way possible until death also took her prematurley. The same was true of my grandfathers third wife who I grew to love dearly.

Is my grandmothers infinite potential marginalized because she is wife #2? I THINK NOT!

Like Val, I also disagree with your previous statement. It's blatantly judgemental and it is simply NOT TRUE. Adultry in his heart? C'mon get a grip... I'll say it right here and right now, that statement speaks VOLUMES about you as an individual Ray... in Cat's words, "You little twerp!"

In my mind your statements tell us all that you haven't a clue as to what plural marriage means in an eternal sense.

BTW, I could tell you stories of my ancestors who lived it. Was it difficult? Shucks, ANY MARRIAGE takes work! Were they blessed because they lived it? THEY would testify YES!.NO DOUBT that they were blessed. Were wives 2, 3, 4 etc... marginalized in their infinite potentials because they were not wife #1? You'd better answer no.

Isn't it great there is repentance?

-- Edited by Mahonri at 06:23, 2007-05-15

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Mahonri, you are right, I don't "get it" and while I don't begrudge you the right to "get it" I think that you are trivializing polygamy to suggest that it is the same to practice what Brother Brigham practiced, having fifty wives at one time, and a man who marries a woman after his first wife has died.

If President Hinckley sees no reason to rationalize or defend the practice of polygamy to the world, I don't see a need to do it either. No one is asked in this church to get a "testimony" of the practice. We as members are expected to openly oppose it and to show no sympathy--and what I have said about its temporal practice in this day is not an overstatement.

Do you think the young women who still are enslaved by its practices today understand their value? Why would Brother Jacob, a prophet of God, describe the unauthorized practice of plural marriage as an abomination? The degrading practice robs them of their chastity before they even have an ability to object. If God delights in the chastity of women, as Jacob says, then the said practice robs them of it.

I have ancestors who lived it. I am grateful to be alive. I don't think Romney should have to apologize to any LDS member about his comments about how abhorrent being required to live Polygamy would be to him. There's plenty of curiosity about the practice among the men of this church. We all like to think we could do it, but seldom do we tell the true tales of hardship that accompanied it. Just as we tend to only remember the good parts of our own past, the same thing has happened in the same way with the practice of polygamy.

I stand by my statement, which I made at the beginning about the difficulty of the practice. If you trivialize the sacrifices they made then you do your own ancestors a great disservice. If you go back and reread what i wrote originally about adultery, you'll see I don't.

I know a man who actually left his wife and family, thinking he was "living the higher law" because he would not end up divorced with a temple divorce. He told his own daughter that it would all work out okay, because in the eternities he would still be sealed to both women. He claimed he still loved his original wife and certainly he loved his children, but she was a bit older and he would be paying child support. He had it all worked out in his mind. In our culture which already is so brutal to women, we should cling to our wives and none else--and rid ourselves of these male fantasies... regardless of how "righteous" we make them sound.

--Ray

-- Edited by rayb at 07:00, 2007-05-15

arbilad · Head Chef

This is a sensitive subject, and let's make sure that our tempers don't get in the way of us having a civil discourse.

Fregramis · Senior Member

I wish I could have more than 1 wife. Then my share of dirty laundry would shrink in significance and I'd stop being harasssed for wearing clothes for only 1 week.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Freg: Yes. That would definitely make life easier. You're right. Polygamy is cool.

Mahonri: In an effort to refocus, Can you give me any quotes from our current prophet (his name is Pres. Gordon B. Hinckley) defending, apologizing for, explaining in great detail, the practice of polygamy in ANY sense?

Btw, you still a fan of Romney, now that he's said what he said about polygamy?

It will be interesting to know if defending the legacy of polygamy or getting a mormon in the whitehouse is more important to members...

--Ray

-- Edited by rayb at 09:54, 2007-05-15

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

If Fred Thompson doesn't run, I'm voting for Richardson.

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

I'm annoyed by all the outrage. I don't see anything wrong with expressing a true opinion. Family dirty laundry? Puh-lease. The wash is already hung out to dry.

I also don't see the huge problem with his pro-choice stance. Heck, I'm pro-choice...if by pro-choice we mean "I don't think abortion should be illegal." Nowhere does the Church say that abortion should be illegal. So that position is not 'opposite to the Church position' as Randy tried to state earlier.

Maybe I should go cool off now...

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

rayb wrote:
I'm not slow; I'm a special.

--Ray

not worth responding to..., you're right. You won't get it.

-- Edited by Mahonri at 03:12, 2007-05-16

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Again, if I won't get it, does it matter? Do all members even need to get it? Does it matter in the least? ANd if not, why should it matter to other mormons what Romney says about Polygamy?

Are you suggesting that there's a "secret" knowlege or doctrine that members should obtain centering upon the issue of polygamy? I want to know what that is and when it was preached by Gordon B. Hinckley. I want actual quotes.

--Ray

Valhalla · Profuse Pontificator

My original point in all this is not whether one has a personal testimony of plural marriage, it is that a very prominent member of the Church, a presidential hopeful, states that something is awful that is a doctrine of the Church given by God. It is scriptural, it was instituted by God, and it was stopped by God. For Romney to say it is awful, well, he might have just as well have said that the law of chastity or the Word of Wisdom is awful. He does not have to agree, but to publicly decry it is wrong as wrong can be.

There is no need for Pres. Hinkley to say anything affirming it, we have already the knowledge of polygamy and that at this time it is not practiced. It is found in the D&C. It is an eternal principle and doctrine, it has existed, will exist in the Celestial Kingdom. Whether an LDS likes it or not is irrelevant it is a fact for us.

A relateable example was given in this last General Conf. by Elder Oaks. He talked about those who divorce and then marry another and that it is adultery, but that the Lord has suspended that for the time being. It is a law/doctrine for us, but like polygamy, it's institution and practice are not currently in force via divine fiat.

http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-690-25,00.html
"In ancient times and even under tribal laws in some countries where we now have members, men have power to divorce their wives for any trivial thing. Such unrighteous oppression of women was rejected by the Savior, who declared:

"Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

"And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery" (Matthew 19:89).

The kind of marriage required for exaltation - eternal in duration and godlike in quality - does not contemplate divorce. In the temples of the Lord, couples are married for all eternity. But some marriages do not progress toward that ideal. Because "of the hardness of [our] hearts," the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard. He permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law. Unless a divorced member has committed serious transgressions, he or she can become eligible for a temple recommend under the same worthiness standards that apply to other members."

The behavior and words of Romney and Reid and others is deplorable. They are very poor examples to the world of the LDS. For them to fight for things and say things against the Church and its doctrine and practices, is beyond the pale. Romney does not have to like polygamy, but he could have worded it differently, but he was pandering to people, distancing himself from a divinely given principle, that is what is appalling.

If Romney does not have the guts to stand by his religious doctrine, especially for political expediency, he is a man that cannot be trusted. Christ, Joseph Smith, Nephi, and others, when faced with death never backed down and yet someone who wants to lead this country and does this is not worthy of it.

Just because someone does not object to the doctrine or even the thought of polygamy in the past and in the future, does not make them a secret adulterer or wrong. Personally, I think it is a sign of spiritual maturity, obedience, sacrifice, etc. If one looks at it for personal gratification with many women, then that person does not understand its purpose and is out of line with God's ways. God delights in the chastity of women and when plural marriage is done under the auspices of God and at His direction to righteous and obedient children, then it is a pure and beautiful thing. Beyond this, the point is moot and a non-issue.

I do think it will happen again in the future, based on scripture, and based on that I believe that there are and will be fewer righteous men than women. Where much is given, much is required and men have the priesthood and ability to become a god in their own right at some point and that places a far greater burden to do what is right.

-- Edited by Valhalla at 08:51, 2007-05-16

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

But from time to time God also commanded the children of Israel to slay whole cities, wiping out every man woman and child, and all their possessions... That's a practice... commanded of God... a hard thing for most people... other times he commands a man to lay down his life, rather than defend it.

The practice of polygamy may be as abhorrent to some as this command would be to others... I'm willing to grant members their personal feelings in regards to the PRACTICE. It's noteworthy that in public interviews, Pres. Hinckley calls polygamy a practice, not a doctrine. I'll stick with Hinckley's point of view.

Perhaps Romney should put it more tactically, but he's running for President of the United States, not for General Authority.

--Ray

-- Edited by rayb at 08:58, 2007-05-16

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Instead of worrying about whether or not someone else is a poor example of Christ, I will focus on whether or not I am a good example of Christ.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Folks, can we calm down for a bit? I think this is really such a non-issue. Come on guys, it really isn't worth getting your shorts bunched up about.

That being said, I'll share my thoughts as to why I think it is a non-issue. (no pillows allowed... I don't care if it does turn into a snorefest!

)

A new and everlasting covenant is entered into everytime an individual is baptised by the power of the priesthood into the church. Honoring that covenant concerning the new and everlasting covenant of the gospel (as referred to by Elder Russell M. Nelson in May 1995 Ensigh) qualifies the individual 'for marriage in the temple and be blessed to come forth in the first resurrection and inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, to [our] exaltation and glory in all things. '

President Joseph Fielding Smith, The new and everlasting covenant is the sum total of all gospel covenants and obligations.

Doctrine & Covenants 131:1-4:
In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase

Will there be plural marriage in the Celestial Kingdom? Yes. If we say no, then we are denying the fact that at various times in the various dispensations of time, God has sanctioned and commanded that the saints of various dispensations practice it in mortality as well as all the valid sealings by the priesthood that have taken place and have been sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise. But, that does not translate into an automatic supposition of universality that every man who makes it to the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom will have plural wives or every women will be a plural wife.

Note, please that only those who have been commanded to enter into the covenant are under that obligation. We are not under that obligation, though clearly a man who is worthy in our day can still be sealed to more than one wife, but only one living at a time. That is far from a commandment. The Lord uses the terminology "new and everlasting covenant" whenever He reveals doctrine and commandments anew, to show that while it is "new" to the people at the time, the doctrine is eternal and everlasting, as are covenants entered into with Him.

D&C 132:28-29

"I am the Lord thy God, and will give unto thee the law of my Holy Priesthood, as was ordained by me and my Father before the world was.

"Abraham received all things, whatsoever he received, by revelation and commandment, by my word, saith the Lord, and hath entered into his exaltation and sitteth upon his throne."

We are also under that law, just as those in earlier days of the church who were commanded to take plural wives, and those who were not commanded to take plural wives. And currently, that law states a man shall have but one legally and lawfully wedded wife. Does that mean we will fail to gain exaltation? I don't think so. Anything else is just incidental and not worth the effort to speculate about, IMHO.

So what if folks have different opinions and responses as to how they view the practice of polygamy or doctrines and laws pertaining to the Celestial Kingdom. I think in the case of Romney being asked his feelings on polygamy, he was clearly being baited into trying to give an answer that will make him look like a nut. He gave an honest answer under the situation, not merely a calculated response.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Why do you assume I'm not calm, Cat? I've taken absolutely no offense to any of the comments made in this thread, I understand others have opinions about polygamy. If anything it's a great source of entertainment to me to observe the raw reactions some have to the topic, seeing as how it pretty much has NO impact upon our lives today.

--Ray

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Well Ray, you may be calm, but from one who has avoided the thread for a long while, appearances do look like things are getting tepidly consternationing amongst some others.

They don't always get their raybies shots like I do...

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Bah! Lund, Val, Mahonri are oldtimers... they've built up an immunity to raybies... :)

--Ray

-- Edited by rayb at 11:30, 2007-05-16

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

*sigh* What ray said is that there is a difference between polygamy sequentially vs. simultaneously. Unless you really don't think there's a difference, you really haven't addressed his point either.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

rolleyes

I guess we're both not going to answer each other's questions then... cuz you never answered mine.

--Ray

PS> I have nothing against polygamy as a commandment from God, nor Pres. Nelson's personal situation. You fail to understand the subtlety of my point...

PPS> Do you think Romney was out of line to say he thought the practice of polygamy was abhorrent to him?

-- Edited by rayb at 01:07, 2007-05-17

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I live to serve.

arbilad · Head Chef

Euphrasie wrote:

I'm annoyed by all the outrage. I don't see anything wrong with expressing a true opinion. Family dirty laundry? Puh-lease. The wash is already hung out to dry.

I also don't see the huge problem with his pro-choice stance. Heck, I'm pro-choice...if by pro-choice we mean "I don't think abortion should be illegal." Nowhere does the Church say that abortion should be illegal. So that position is not 'opposite to the Church position' as Randy tried to state earlier.

Maybe I should go cool off now...

Actually, it seems that the church does advocate a law against abortion. I found several article on the church website from the Ensign where, before Roe v. Wade, they advocate not changing the law, and after Roe v. Wade, they talk about how it was a bad judicial decision. You can go to the church website yourself and type "abortion law" into the search engine. Dallin H. Oaks especially, who was at one time a law professor, speaks out strongly against it. Here are some illustrative quotes.

If we say we are anti-abortion in our personal life but pro-choice in public policy, we are saying that we will not use our influence to establish public policies that encourage righteous choices on matters Gods servants have defined as serious sins. I urge Latter-day Saints who have taken that position to ask themselves which other grievous sins should be decriminalized or smiled on by the law due to this theory that persons should not be hampered in their choices. Should we decriminalize or lighten the legal consequences of child abuse? of cruelty to animals? of pollution? of fraud? of fathers who choose to abandon their families for greater freedom or convenience?

Similarly, some reach the pro-choice position by saying we should not legislate morality. Those who take this position should realize that the law of crimes legislates nothing but morality. Should we repeal all laws with a moral basis so that our government will not punish any choices some persons consider immoral? Such an action would wipe out virtually all of the laws against crimes.

It sounds pretty conclusive to me that Elder Oaks was encouraging a law against abortion. The Ensign is an official publication of the church. To me, that weighs very strongly in the direction of "The church advocates that abortion be illegal except in cases of incest or rape, or where the health of the mother is in danger."

fear of shiz · Profuse Pontificator

Ray,

You usually have some purty far out there ideas and like to stir the pot, but this time I think you are spot on.

Randy · Senior Member

Ensign articles do not in all cases rise to the level of official statements of church policy.

The editors of Ensign are more interested in having the articles readable, making some kind of sense in their opionion, and generally being uplifting.

The portions of the Ensign that are official statements from the church are First Presidency messages and General Conference issues. Those quotes from Elder Oaks may well have been from Conference Reports, but your post doesn't make that clear.

Still, if the last reference is 30 years old, no one can blame us if we forget them.

One of the tricky parts of understanding official church policy is that the church never makes an announcement when they stop holding a certain position. They just let it be forgotten. The church did not make an announcement when they stopped prohibiting women to wear rouge. Or when they stopped prohibiting the members from reading inexpensive novels. When the committee that writes our priesthood/relief society manuals quoted Joseph F. Smith on gambling, they carefully edited out all the numerous references to the evils of playing with face cards--which was strongly emphasized in my youth, but hasn't been mentioned for decades.

Don't get the impression that I'm pro-choice. I have never been so. However, I can forgive those who have been so, I see where they have been.

Had Romney advocated during his run for governor that that state pass a law prohibiting abortion, it would have prevented his ability to serve that state. It would have prevented his ability to balance the out-of-control budget of that state. It would have prevented his ability to defend the Catholic church from the homosexual lobby. It would have prevented his ability to reach consensus on health care. It would have prevented his ability to stop gay marriage from causing a constitutional crises in the USA--without his leadership, gay marriage in Mass. would have become available to anyone in the USA. Not only would it have prevented all those things, it would have (if my some miracle he had actually been elected governor and persuaded the Mass. legislature to outlaw abortion) been struck down by the Supreme Court.

Tilting at windmills is all romantic and everything, but sometimes there is something to be said for actually doing something useful.

arbilad · Head Chef

Those Elder Oaks quotes are 6 years old, if I remember correctly.
Romney didn't have to enforce gay marriage in Massachusetts. The legistlature there never actually passed a law enacting it. If you feel otherwise, please locate the section of the Massachusetts law that was changed, because I was not able to find such a thing. The court told them to do support gay marriage. Romney folded. He even told clerks who had a religious objection to gay marriage that they had to perform them even though, according to the laws on the books, it still wasn't legal.
I wouldn't agree that Romney was good for Massachusetts, or that he would be good for the US.
And there are two types of articles in the Ensign, generally speaking. There are those who help build faith, encourage you to endure to the end, etc. Those are typically stories that have happened in people's lives, etc. Then there are the stories where the church is stating doctrine. Elder Oak's article, "Weightier matters", clearly falls in that region. We have been told that such things are latter day scripture.
There are some battles that are worth fighting, such as the fight for the lives of the unborn.

arbilad · Head Chef

Here is a quote from a 1995 First Presidency message:
Abortion Abortion is one evil practice that has become socially accepted in the United States and, indeed, in much of the world. Many of todays politicians claim not to favor abortion but oppose government intervention in a womans right to choose an abortion. During a prayer breakfast in Washington, D.C., on 3 February 1994, Mother Teresa gave the most honest and powerful proclamation of truth on this subject I have ever heard. She is the 84-year-old Yugoslavian nun who has cared for the poorest of the poor in India for years. She is now aged .and physically frail, but courageous, with immense spiritual strength. Mother Teresa delivered a message that cut to the very heart and soul of the social ills afflicting America, which traditionally has given generously to the peoples of the earth but now has become selfish. She stated that the greatest proof of that selfishness is abortion. It was reported that Mother Teresa had tied abortion to growing violence and murder in the streets by saying, If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill each other? Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. Then she alluded to the concern that has been shown for orphan children in India and elsewhere in the world, for which she expressed gratitude. But she continued: These concerns are very good. But often these same people are not concerned with the millions who are being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace todayabortion, which brings people to such blindness. Commenting on this powerful message, columnist Cal Thomas asked: Why should people or nations regard human life as noble or dignified if abortion flourishes? Why agonize about indiscriminate death in Bosnia when babies are being killed far more efficiently and out of the sight of television cameras?" In conclusion Mother Teresa pled for pregnant women who dont want their children to give them to her. She said, I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child and be loved by the child. What consummate spiritual courage this remarkable aged woman demonstrated! How the devil must have been offended! Her remarkable declaration, however, was not generally picked up by the press or the editorial writers. Perhaps they felt more comfortable being politically or socially correct. After all, they can justify their stance by asserting that everyone does it or that it is legal. Fortunately the scriptures and the message of the prophets cannot be so revised.

Randy · Senior Member

Yes, there is a small group on the fringe who believes that governors and presidents can ignore their supreme courts.

However, that battle was lost a long time ago.

Randy · Senior Member

On several political/moral issues, the church has mobilized lawyers, asked specific people to get involved in grass-roots efforts, hired advertisers, and sent leaders to lobby. Such issues have included the ERA, pornography, liquor-by-the-drink, and gay marriage. For abortion, they quietly publish an article or two in a magazine that no one outside the church reads, and many in the church might scan.

It seems to be a pretty big difference. We can be forgiven if we didn't know that the church was advocating the illegalization of abortion.