What Can Mitt Say?

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

RE: What Can Mitt Say?

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

arbilad wrote:

Their statements seem very heavily weighted towards "We'll destroy you."
Also, the Gadiantons were, as often as not, homegrown bad guys. The Gadiantons who took over the government were Nephites. It strains credulity past the breaking point to say that we are so righteous that there are no efforts on the part of the rich and powerful to control the government.

FWIW, I was watching "Path to 9-11" the other day on Youtube, because my videotapes are ruined. One line that struck me was when UBL said something like "We will only stop attacking America when it converts to Islam."

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

Arbi has a good point. We know the Book of Mormon was written specifically for our day. We can learn much from the conflicts between Nephites and Lamanites.

Why would Mormon include accounts specifically about the Gadiantons? I think our greatest danger in America comes from the secret combinations within our own borders.

That's another reason I support Ron Paul. It's time to re-evaluate the amount of resources we spend protecting democracy around the world. While that's a worthy goal, we need more attention and resources focused on protecting democracy within our borders. We won't be ablet to send the requested troops to Captain Moroni fighting abroad if we're trying to keep our home government from being destroyed by gadiantons. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. But I'm also not one to say, "All is well in Zion."

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I agree that our greatest danger comes from secret combinations within our own nation... but, I do not feel it is fruitful to go and label everything and everyone that does not agree with a political philosophy or candidate as part of conspiracy or secret combination.

We're not to that point where it will be as clear and apparent as when there were dissensions amongst the Nephites and civil wars began.

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

So do we act on our best doemstic intel or do we wait for the first attack (which has already occured, imo)?

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

I hope I never again have to respond like this to misrepresentations of anything I write or paste here. The following are a few responses from certain Bountiful "Thought Police" that demonstrate failure to read carefully what I wrote or pasted here.

"And Lund, you believe Mitt's a part of that conspiracy?"

"I guess the church leaders just aren't living up to your standards, Lund."

"The implication is that the church is failing in helping members of the church make the correct choice in the voting booth."

"but to make one Gospel principle or one quote from one GA or one section in the doctrine and covenants more important than all others, imo, is to place the cart before the horse... "

These statements are incorrect extrapolations of what I wrote. I wish I could explain in greater detail on the forum the basis of some of my concerns, but responses to my posts like these and others just turn me off. Re. #3, the Church is not failing. The members, particularly of my generation, have failed. Which is why we have LDSs in Congress who continually shred the US Constitution.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

lundbaek, before you get upset, try stepping back for a moment and looking at things through the other person's eyes.

Forget everything you believe or think to know, and look at it from the perspective of the Bountiful "Thought Police" and maybe it will be easier to see why there is such a healthy dose of skepticism expressed.

I know you have perhaps the most life experience of any one in this forum, and I for one respect you greatly for that. But simply being of the generation of many of our parents doesn't mean you have a corner on wisdom from life experience.

There is much that we all can learn from each other, even in the realm of politics.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Roper, good question. And, I think your question is also the reality of the current status quo.

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

lundbaek wrote:

I hope I never again have to respond like this to misrepresentations of anything I write or paste here.

Part of belonging to a forum is explaining those things that people misunderstand. Even if your post perfectly explains your viewpoint (which yours did not) people might still misunderstand and need some additional explanation. Providing that additonal explanation is part of the burden you take on when one posts to a forum.

These statements are incorrect extrapolations of what I wrote.

Then please be kind enough to take the time to explain how we misunderstood what you meant.

I wish I could explain in greater detail on the forum the basis of some of my concerns,.....

Oh, but you DO have that license. Do you have the ability?

....but responses to my posts like these and others just turn me off.

Please, you are acting like someone who has never had his edicts questioned to his face (and who consequently wants to take his toys and go home). We're all equal here. We post our ideas. They are questioned, and occasionally misunderstood. We respond. Say what you mean, and explain the misunderstandings. That's what we do here.

Re. #3, the Church is not failing.

Okay, but what you posted implies that, so you need to expand your explanation.

In Lundbeck land, how is the church NOT failing if these things are so vitally important, but the CURRENT PROPHET (not the prophets of yesteryear) is saying ZIP, ZERO, NADA about them?

Current prophets still talk about every single commandment that is still important for us, from family home evening to preparedness to the word of wisdom. So to say that "past prophets have said all that needs to be said about it" is demonstrably false. If a commandment or an issue is important for us, they keep saying it. Period.

Organist · Senior Member

One of the United States' first wars was against a group of pirates, so this isn't unprecedented.

The biggest secret combination are the entertainment media trying to indoctrinate people with their own views on morality. They have a lot of talent and it is hard to resist watching if you believe you can just cover your eyes over "that one part".

Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad, Seinfeld, Scrubs, Heroes, House, Law and Orders, Friends, Lost, BattleStar Galactica (the new one), Star Treks, Jay Leno, David Letterman, SNL, South Park, Chuck, and many others are or were under the control of secret combinations trying to change the country's morality through entertainment. Normalizing it. \

But, I don't think the constitution allows the government to quell free speech. It is our individual jobs to fight against this, to change the morality. Preach the gospel to our friends and their morality will change faster than any government instituted policy.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Hoss Cartwright wrote:

Cocobeem wrote:

Did someone say cookies?

Please, let's not do English muffins over here.

.

.

Everyone's being nice. I love the discussion. Please continue, and those who can't deal with some intelligent back and forth, please go get cookies or muffins elsewhere.

Please.

I was just responding to Euph. I'm enjoying the discussion also. If there are those who find a post uninteresting or otherwise useless, you are more than welcome to refrain from responding to said post.

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

Second that. The cookies comment was in noooooo way meant to serve the function of muffins.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Lund: Again I'm sorry for coming down on your implications, but you and I see things differently. I see the church's leadership and priorities having changed to fit the global nature of our society. It isn't just the government anymore that influences the lives of members, and so I see church leadership getting less political and more directed at the problems facing families at the family level, rather than one specific nation's problems.

It may be we both see parts of the same picture, who knows we may both be correct. But I don't think you should feel isolated just because I object to your implications. And it's certainly not like you've been alone in your attacks on Romney, so what's wrong if we disagree with you? Does that have to mean we're policing your thoughts?

I'm glad you're happy with the church leadership, but I could see some getting carried away with what you've written and going a step further and stating the implications that I stated as logical extensions of your heated disgust with members of the church. And though it may not be obvious, I'm not a huge fan of leading others to apostasy... so I tend to state my opinions when they occur to me.

Certainly there are many on this board that share your opinions and beliefs a lot more than I do... and I'm grateful that you share yours, even if I don't agree with them.

--Ray

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

Euphrasie wrote:

Second that. The cookies comment was in noooooo way meant to serve the function of muffins.

Pardon my misunderstanding.

Randy · Senior Member

The world is idubitably much smaller than it was in Book of Mormon times. So I'm not so sure that all the Gadiantons have to be in our country, although I'll grant that many are.

And, Organist, that was a good point about the pirates, but I sure didn't know about that as a young man.

dianoia · Senior Member

So I'm not so sure that all the Gadiantons have to be in our country

Thank you, Randy.

I'm a temple-going, scripture-reading, heed-the-prophet faithful member of the Church. The Book of Mormon is written for our time, not just "our time if we happen to be American."

I'll ask again, speaking for myself and the more-than-half Church membership that are not United States citizens:

How do we fit into this?

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

dianoia wrote:

So I'm not so sure that all the Gadiantons have to be in our country

Thank you, Randy.

I'm a temple-going, scripture-reading, heed-the-prophet faithful member of the Church. The Book of Mormon is written for our time, not just "our time if we happen to be American."

I'll ask again, speaking for myself and the more-than-half Church membership that are not United States citizens:

How do we fit into this?

How about you tell us how you think you fit into this?

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

I'll try take this one step at a time. I wonder sometimes where you all get the time to frequent the forum during normal working hours. In fact, I often get interrupted and lose my train of thought.

"In Lundbeck land, how is the church NOT failing if these things are so vitally important, but the CURRENT PROPHET (not the prophets of yesteryear) is saying ZIP, ZERO, NADA about them? Current prophets still talk about every single commandment that is still important for us, from family home evening to preparedness to the word of wisdom. So to say that "past prophets have said all that needs to be said about it" is demonstrably false. If a commandment or an issue is important for us, they keep saying it. Period."

I have discussed this with many other concerened LDSs as well as with some non-LDSs, including an emeritus 70, and the son of another deceased 70, both of whom have been active in preaching the importance of saving the Constitution. The concensus is that the"murderous combinations" spoken of in Ether 8: 23 (See 22-25) have already gotten "above us", and if the Church were to resume the preachings of past Prophets and Apostles, those Latter day Gadiantons could and would greatly disrupt important church activities. The failure occurred years ago when we let the Latter Day Gadiantons get above us. I've said all this before somewhere on this forum, I'm sure.

It may seem unthinkable that the Church would need to be careful about tweaking the tail of the beast. But in 73 or 74 an employee of the Church in W. Germany told me that a member speaking in a sacrament meeting in West Germany made some disparaging remarks about communism and the East German government, and later that very week the East German Mission President was called into some government office and asked to explain those remarks. The reason he told me about it is that I was in a position to smuggle church books and Tabernacle Choir records etc. into East Germany, and he was asking that I not do so because of the danger it could pose to church operations in E. Germany.

I hope that clears up that question. Simply put, it would not do well for the Church to be implicated in tweaking the tail of the beast. This is not easy for me to write about. I'm sorry we cannot discuss it over pizza and root beer somewhere, but that's a luxury we don't have on a forum.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

Responses to replies to my posts:

"And Lund, you believe Mitt's a part of that conspiracy?" (If one is really concerned or wonders about what I believe on that subject, the question could be posed less sarcastically. I don't believe he is, but his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations causes many folks, including some LDSs, to wonder about this.)

"I guess the church leaders just aren't living up to your standards, Lund." (Kind of sarcastic again.

"The implication is that the church is failing in helping members of the church make the correct choice in the voting booth." (I did not intend any such implication. The Church has done all it can for now. It is now up to us alone. But I believe the scriptures can lead us to those choices.)

"but to make one Gospel principle or one quote from one GA or one section in the doctrine and covenants more important than all others, imo, is to place the cart before the horse... " ( If I implied that any one Gospel principle is more important than another, it was a goof on my part.)

I'll try to answer any other concerns about what I've posted here, but plelase use PM, as my PC is messed up and will permit PMs but does not allow me to post on the forum. And I cannot keep doing this from work.

Pt314 · Senior Member

I have been reading a book called "Shadow Warriors" recently. It makes the case that there is a conspiracy in the state department and CIA to bring down President Bush politically.

There are plenty of different candidates for secret combinations. Just because I take The Book of Mormon seriously doesn't mean I believe that some super secret, super powerful conspiracy is behind this or that.

hiddentreasuredotws · Senior Member

We do not need to guess. We simply support the candidate that stands up for constitutional principles. It soesnt mtter if the others are intentionally or ignorantly support the gadiantons.

hiddentreasuredotws · Senior Member

Roper wrote:

When it comes to the issues Christians care about, Romney is on the same page, even with Evangelicals. That's why I don't understand the animosity.

Maybe it's like ya'll have said: Anyone but a Mormon. Which I guess I can understand, in part--anyone but Hillary. And Obama.

People who vote for Romney simply because he is LDS are not as misguided as those who will not vote for him for the same reasons.

hiddentreasuredotws · Senior Member

He who waits to be commanded in all things is a slothfull servant.

Socialism is a form of unrighteous dominion that takes away free agency. In my opiniont is more in line with Satans plan. The curent church leadership has counseled us of theese things as they have repeatedly prompted us to read the BOM which commands us to uphold the constitution and not allow secret combinations to get above us. We should not simply ignore evil and continued progressive attacks against free agency simply because we werent counseled today to do so. The Book OF Mormon has never been denounced and obsolete.

hiddentreasuredotws · Senior Member

Roper wrote:

I don't believe the WTC attacks were any kind of conspiracy involving our own government.

I do

What is the explanation of the 9/11 omissions report, the failure and unwillingness to release video evidence and the many pieces of the official theory that contradict the evidence. Additionally there is failure to seek the truth and continue to allow official ommisions to be the end of it.

alabamabelle · Senior Member

most of what people believe regarding political leanings comes from a combination of family history and opinion mingled with personal understandings as we become adults and participate in the processes that we are offered in our respective nations. people tend to change their own minds and perspectives as their understanding of what they believe to be relevant and true develops.

we all walk this process within the political system of trying to define a candidates values and juxtapose them with ours so that we (hopefully) find a candidate to vote for who shares our personal core beliefs. do we all have the same beliefs? should we? are we less LDS if we don't?

No. Even within the LDS church, we represent every political party for a variety of reasons.

the fact that there is enough room for people to chose is A GOD ORDAINED PROCESS.
That is the very reason that the Leadership of the Church do NOT endorse particular candidates. Even if they happen to be LDS, we aren't supposed to support them on the basis of that fact alone! It goes back to the thread of the temple worker using a TR to get out of a ticket - LDS doesn't mean perfection.

And just because a person is LDS doesn't mean they will be good, bad or awful as the president of this particular country. It just means they are a member of this church. . .

There are some very good people out there in all of the parties. Do we really want to get into the habit of deciding whom we will support based on religion only? I can't speak for other people, countries or circumstances, but we have had some church members who have run for positions locally that I couldn't vote for because of who they are as individuals and their personal actions.

That doesn't mean they weren't trying to do the best they could to progress along in this life.

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

hiddentreasuredotws wrote:

He who waits to be commanded in all things is a slothfull servant.

Ah, that old chestnut. It covers a multitude of gospel hobbies. He who gives more creedence to dead prophets than to living ones is on the high road to apostacy.

... read the BOM which commands us to uphold the constitution

Where? While I love the constitution as much as the next guy, it is NOT something to be worshipped.

and not allow secret combinations to get above us.

THAT is in there.

We should not simply ignore evil and continued progressive attacks against free agency simply because we werent counseled today to do so.

No one is ignoring evil. Our current leadership has instructed us on what are the MOST IMPORTANT evils for our generation to focus on. Your hobby horse is further down the list.

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

My wife started a fast for Mitt today. I pray that he will be led by the Spirit of the Lord so that those who are truly honest in heart can see him for what he really is, and perhaps gain a better understanding of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

On the way home from work, I listened to at least four or five of what I would term Satan's minions. The adversary is working overtime on the campaign. The very last thing he would want is a Latter-day Saint in the Oval Office. What I heard today is frightening to say the least. One fellow from England continued to refer to him as a member of a family who is part of the dynastic aristocracy of the Joseph Smith Cult. He continued to call upon Mitt to tell us how it felt to be a member of such a racist cult. He assured the listeners that if Mitt were to become president that he would be taking his marching orders from the cult prophet in Salt Lake City. This was on a nationally syndicated show! (Micheal Medved)... the host did try to help him understand that he was incorrect in most of what he was saying, but the problem is, he gave him a soap box to speak to millions of Americans, many of whom already have grossly incorrect predjudices.

I'm almost to the point where I'm ready for Mitt to drop out. If were actually to become the nominee we would seriously see all hell break loose.

If he does, I seriously can't see me voting for any other republican other than Duncan Hunter.

While at one time I thought that perhaps I could vote for Ron Paul, the more I have listened to him, the more he scares me. Ron Paul reminds me a lot of Dennis Kusinich.... they both are seriously so far out into the stratosphere of non-reality that I can't believe there are actually folks who are going to vote for either of them.

Organist: I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Lundbeak: I believe that I understand you now and I so very much appreciate you clarifying for us. I would really love to go out to lunch with you sometime. When do you finish up in SLC and come back to AZ?

Randy · Senior Member

In response to the title of this thread:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23830

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

In response to Mitt's speech "Faith In America" given this morning...

This is indeed a man worthy of rallying around! I came away from watching that speech thinking "Wow! How much more need he say to sound like a modern day Captain Moroni! His concerns are genuinely for the welfare of the nation and the peace and liberty of his fellow beings!"

I doubt any of the other candidates will ever be able to come off as openly honest and sincere as Mitt Romney did in that speech!

Randy · Senior Member

I only had the text, but based on that I think it's far better than JFK's speech.

dianoia · Senior Member

I was very impressed.

Pt314 · Senior Member

Mahonri wrote:
One fellow from England continued to refer to him as a member of a family who is part of the dynastic aristocracy of the Joseph Smith Cult. He continued to call upon Mitt to tell us how it felt to be a member of such a racist cult. He assured the listeners that if Mitt were to become president that he would be taking his marching orders from the cult prophet in Salt Lake City. This was on a nationally syndicated show! (Micheal Medved)... the host did try to help him understand that he was incorrect in most of what he was saying, but the problem is, he gave him a soap box to speak to millions of Americans, many of whom already have grossly incorrect predjudices.

I believe that would be the Hugh Hewitt Show. I listened to both Medved's and Hewitt's shows. Both talk show hosts have denouced antimormonism (In fact Hugh has been accused of being so pro-romney that he accuses anti-Romney people of being bigots)

The english guy (His name eludes me) is some conservative columnist that is invited on Hewitt's show quite often. However he is quite anti-religion, and even more anti-mormon, I just ignore what he says.

Pt314 · Senior Member

I was very impressed with Mitt Romney's speech.

arbilad · Head Chef

I don't have a major problem with the speech (he makes several mistakes that are common, for instance, perpetuating the belief that the constitution enshrines a separation of church and state), but by and large I think he approached the religion angle beautifully.
I still wouldn't vote for him even if you held a gun to my head because of the man's character and his politics.

Pt314 · Senior Member

The problem isn't the separation of church and state, it's the perception that it also means separation of religion and state.

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

Liked it muchly. Also liked the discussion on Fox News afterward.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Loved his speech. I thought he actually did make something of a distinction between religion and church and state in his speech... I also thought he explained the aspects of religious persection well from a historical perspective but in a way that left everyone feeling uplifted, and his comments about how religion and freedom are correlated were really thought provoking.

Go Mitt!!

--Ray

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

Go Mitt!!!

I loved it!!!

Some responses from folks I usually don't agree with...

"Mitt Romney, who sure looked presidential, explained effectively that he is a man of faith who is committed to America's values."
-- Kate OBeirne - National Reviews The Corner

"For the first time in this campaign and it has been long already, I heard greatness this morning."
-- Chris Matthews - MSNBC

"It was a magnificent speech, splendidly delivered, it was moving I don't know how he could have done it better. I mean I was very moved."
-- Pat Buchanan - MSNBC

Captain Moroni is right... but remember, there were Nephites who didn't want to follow him.

alabamabelle · Senior Member

arbilad wrote:
I still wouldn't vote for him even if you held a gun to my head because of the man's character and his politics.

how fortunate for us that we don't live in a society where that is a danger, COMRADE.

-- Edited by alabamabelle at 18:14, 2007-12-06

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Well, Mahonri, the original Captain Moroni had a situation hopefully will not be a type for us... that being things eventually ended up under martial law... that meant if folks chose not to follow the government, they could choose between being charged with treason or run off and join the Lamanites...

alabamabelle · Senior Member

well said, Cat.

I do worry that we are sorting out the factions more than we ever have. And the publicity is certainly better for pet agendas now than at any other time in our history.

whispering campaigns by Satan and his minions will persist until the Savior returns, so we are left to make choices as we learn.

I am SO thankful that we do have the types in the Book of Mormon to search so that we can hopefully prepare ourselves and be wise.

Creeping socialism, communism, apathy and an unwillingness to accept personal responsibility are really becoming the hidden agenda for very public feel good policies.

Sort of like those nice little Kingmen and those lovely Zoramites.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Kingmen, Kingmen,
Roly Poly Kingmen
Kingmen, Kingmen
Kick them out
Yay!

Organist · Senior Member

Poor Moroni had to force the people 3 separate times to take up arms in defense of their current government. 3 times he said and carried forth, "join or die" (or be jailed). It wasn't a very effective policy.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

There are a few things Mitt needs to say.

He needs to explain why, when asked if the president needs authorization to go to war, he ignored the Constitution, which assigns to Congress the power to declare war, and advocated letting the lawyers sort [it] out.

There can be no doubt about former Governor Mitt Romneys current stance on issues considered family values chiefly abortion and homosexual rights. Hes against both. But he admits to having previously been a supporter of both.

He needs to convincingly explain why, during his 1994 Senate race he promoted safe abortion and stated You will not see me wavering on this issue.

He needs to explain why, in 1994, he wrote a letter seeking the endorsement of the pro-homosexual Log Cabin Republican group based on the values and vision of government we share.

He needs to explain why he also agreed that homosexuals should not be excluded as Boy Scout leaders.

Ref.: http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/6425

Mahonri · Senior Bucketkeeper

Lundbaek,

I feel he has explained all of those items... OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

There are some who will not listen, nor search no matter what anyone says.

Go to his website.

Ask the questions yourself... you'll be directed.

Even our Apostles and Prophets support abortion in rare circumstances... rape, incest and to save the life of the mother... would we not want to protect that rare right?

Those are the rights he was supporting and he would tell you so. (period)

He has publicly apologized for the stupid lawyer remark.... no one looks for that... he knows like every American knows that only Congress can declare war... unfortunately the wrong precedent started with FDR after Pearl Harbor.

He is NOT a bigot like some folks when it comes to folks that make the unfortunate choice of an alternative lifestyle. He and we may not like their choices, but they are citizens that should be afforded basic liberty nonetheless. He is as anti gay marriage as any candidate.

He no longer supports homosexuals as boy scout leaders.

H

hiddentreasuredotws · Senior Member

Mahonri wrote:

Lundbaek,

I feel he has explained all of those items... OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

There are some who will not listen, nor search no matter what anyone says.

Go to his website.

It is beside the point, his position may have changed, but past action speak louder than current campaign words. Although I believe he is generally agood man, he clearly does not have the principled record of candidate Ron Paul regarding, Abortion, Gay marriage, and nearly as big of an issue as any Romneys support of Plunder (socialism and socialist programs) aside from that I do applaud him for his speaking up for religious unity and as I have stated previously I feel it more ignorant not to vote for him because he is lds than it is to simply vote for him soley because he is lds.

Ask the questions yourself... you'll be directed.

Even our Apostles and Prophets support abortion in rare circumstances... rape, incest and to save the life of the mother... would we not want to protect that rare right?

Those are the rights he was supporting and he would tell you so. (period)

He has publicly apologized for the stupid lawyer remark.... no one looks for that... he knows like every American knows that only Congress can declare war... unfortunately the wrong precedent started with FDR after Pearl Harbor.

He is NOT a bigot like some folks when it comes to folks that make the unfortunate choice of an alternative lifestyle. He and we may not like their choices, but they are citizens that should be afforded basic liberty nonetheless. He is as anti gay marriage as any candidate.

He no longer supports homosexuals as boy scout leaders.
GOOD! BUT I am entitled to a legitimate concern of anyone who evr did, especially someone that is LDS.
H

-- Edited by hiddentreasuredotws at 21:36, 2007-12-06

-- Edited by hiddentreasuredotws at 21:39, 2007-12-06

hiddentreasuredotws · Senior Member

Hoss Cartwright wrote:

hiddentreasuredotws wrote:

He who waits to be commanded in all things is a slothfull servant.

Ah, that old chestnut. It covers a multitude of gospel hobbies. He who gives more creedence to dead prophets than to living ones is on the high road to apostacy. I guess with that said we can throw out the scriptures now because we have a current prophet to give us every detail. Previous commandments such as D&C 98 have no current meaning and were not written for our day.

... read the BOM which commands us to uphold the constitution

Where? While I love the constitution as much as the next guy, it is NOT something to be worshipped.

Well if you want specifics its in D&C 98 which most of us believe is a message from God and many also believe the Constitution to be inspired word of God and that anything more or less comes of evil, therefore in my belief unconstitutional socialist healthcare plans and other unconstitutional policy is not in accordance to the inspired and written word..

and not allow secret combinations to get above us.

THAT is in there.

We should not simply ignore evil and continued progressive attacks against free agency simply because we werent counseled today to do so.

No one is ignoring evil. Yes a lot of people are indifferent and apathetic to forms of evil, I am sure we all have weaknesses to some form of it.Our current leadership has instructed us on what are the MOST IMPORTANT evils for our generation to focus on. Your hobby horse is further down the list. THE WORD OF GOD and rights of my fellow men, the future generations are much more than a hobby horse to me.

-- Edited by hiddentreasuredotws at 21:44, 2007-12-06

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

I feel passionately about the Constitution and the aforementioned passages in the D&C. I also feel passionately about following the counsel of prophets. I can easily see that ya'll feel the same way.

One can passionately advocate for one's own position in a principled and respectful way. Some of the statements in the above post, particularly those in red and blue, seem unnecessarily combative.

Speaking as a fellow member and not as a moderator, I ask you to exercise a little more consideration in your exchanges. I'm learning a lot from this discussion, and I don't want to see the thread closed because the language escaltes into deliberate contention.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Yes, I agree Roper.

I can't help but be reminded, about some of Pres. Hinckley's subtle reminders in comments and conference addresses concerning a couple things:

The need to not become disagreeable as we talk of differences, be they doctrinal or in this case political. He has repeatedly told us there is no room for acrimony.

He has also warned us not to go to extremes or to panic.

The Times in Which We Live

alabamabelle · Senior Member

while I am still prayerfully considering the casting of my ballot for the office of president (and whomever might be named vice president), I believe that Mr. Romney did a very good job in his speech.

It was interesting to note that Mr. Thompson indicated today in a sound bite that he didn't understand why Mr. Romney felt the need to give such a speech.

Oh really?

The Conservative Christian movement and people of faith, particularly those in the Bible Belt, only know of Mormons what their particular preacher tells them to believe.

Otherwise erudite and intelligent people spout some of the most ridiculous statements regarding Mormons simply because "that's what my preacher said, and he/she wouldn't lie".

All things considered, Mr. Romney DID need to let the average Joe know that WE DO believe in Jesus Christ.

I have had the opportunity to talk to people about matters of faith due to his candidacy. And these are people before now who demurred on having any type of conversation about religious topics.

It's a 60 yard field goal as far as I can see. Whether he wins the day or not isn't the issue, it's that Mr. Romney is opening some doors. . .
wink