A child’s curiosity and natural desire to learn are like a tiny flame, easily extinguished unless it’s protected and given fuel. This book will help you as a parent both protect that flame of curiosity and supply it with the fuel necessary to make it burn bright throughout your child’s life. Let’s ignite our children’s natural love of learning!
September 27th, 2012
Why an Obama Re-Election May Be Best for the Cause of Liberty
In a previous post, I described why Ron Paul Republicans won’t be voting for Mitt Romney. The rebuttals received, whether on this blog, Facebook, via email, or in person, shared a common argument I’d like to explore. The argument goes as follows:
With a President Mitt Romney, libertarians at least have somebody in office who is somewhat agreeable to their positions, unlike Obama who is completely hostile to them. So why not support the candidate who is closer to your views, so that you can hopefully continue to pull him in your direction?
Those who read the Breitbart op-ed I referenced in my article will recognize this as the central argument made by its author. He writes:
Romney and Ryan need to reach out to libertarians over their common ground. Fortunately, there is lots of common ground.
No, the Republican Party is not a libertarian party, but it is the only party with any libertarian element. It’s the only place you have any chance of being heard. And with guys like Rand Paul and the libertarian-friendly Tea Party elements, you can be in the GOP.
The Ron Paul wing of the GOP, along with unaffiliated libertarians and independents, are being asked to vote for the lesser of two evils simply because he is less evil, and thus a smidgen closer to our position. This guilt trip-induced plea is predicated on the assumption that a Romney presidency would be better for the cause of liberty in both the short and long terms than four more years of an Obama presidency.
This plea has been the unanimous outcry of Romney supporters desperate for additional votes to see him succeed. “Support and vote for Mitt Romney,” writes the op-ed’s author, “or help Obama complete his transformation of America into a nation that violates every principle you claim you embrace.” Or, as one Facebook commenter said, “How does voting for someone who can’t possibly win actually help the cause of liberty?”
There is an assumption in these comments that a Romney presidency would be better for the cause of liberty than an Obama presidency. I’m going to argue the opposite. In other words, I’m going to now suggest why an Obama re-election may be the better option, in the presidential race, for the overall long-term success of the cause of liberty.
To understand my position, consider the eight years under President George W. Bush. For four of those eight years, the Republican Party had control of both the executive and legislative branches of government. Was this period of time a beacon of limited government and liberty-friendly legislation?
Hardly. In fact, quite the opposite. A Republican president gave us such expensive, big government boondoggles as No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, PATRIOT Act, TARP, bailouts, stimuli, massive military intervention, NSA wiretapping and other egregious civil liberties violations, and on and on and on and on. Simply having a president with an ‘R’ after his name does not mean he will help the cause of liberty in any way, shape, or form.
“But wait!” the detractors are preparing to say. “While that all may be true, imagine how much worse the next four years will be under Obama than they would be under Romney.”
Okay, perhaps that’s true. In fact, I’ll venture to say that it’s almost 100% true that an Obama presidency would be worse for Americans than a Romney one. Why, then, would Obama in office be a better thing for the cause of liberty?
The answer to this question lies in the answer to a different question. Where were all the jealous guardians of freedom during the Bush years? Where was the enraged right—the Constitution-loving conservatives who opposed Bush’s policies as much as they do Obama’s now, which are largely an extension of everything Bush did during his presidency?
The answer? They were almost entirely silent, content to go on with their daily lives confident that because a Republican was in control, they need not pay much attention. Still worse, many praised Bush for his efforts, calling him a man of God, a prayerful individual, the “Commander in Chief” looking out in all cases, and at all times, for America’s best interest!
If Romney is elected, I predict that much of the tea-party faction in American politics will once again grow silent. These same individuals who praised Bush, and who now have boiling blood when talking about what Obama is doing, are praising Romney as a man who can “fix” Washington and upon whom the future success of America now solely depends. So, imagine the next eight years of more big government Republicanism with a silent conservative base largely ignoring the continual constitutional atrocities inflicted by one of their own.
When you factor in financial and geopolitical issues, the scenario grows even more grim. Despite (or, rather, because of) whatever Romney might do, the market will continue to sag, the debt (and interest) will continue to soar, and some sort of default or collapse will occur. One can easily envision the degree to which the political “left,” along with the media, will use this to whip up the progressive Democrat base and show how capitalism allegedly failed, how state ownership of core sectors of the market is needed to ensure nothing like this ever happens again, etc. Atlas Shrugged becomes real life, as the entitlement-dependent masses are convinced that more government control is needed, and that the next Democrat candidate is the way to achieve it. This is a negative for the cause of liberty during Romney’s presidency, and a negative in the ensuing progressive centralization of power within the federal government in the years following.
Consider the alternative, though. Let’s say that Obama is re-elected for four years. The conservative base remains enraged with blood boiling, recognizing that in order to combat the popular progressivism they’ll need to field a far better candidate in 2016 to ensure that nobody like Obama ever has another chance to impose the evil that he has during his two terms. Along the way, new media educational initiatives have found fertile ground in this active, angry, aware group of citizens, who over the four years realize the inconsistency of conservatism and embrace libertarianism. They stand better prepared, ready, and willing to ensure that the next nominee for the Republican party is one worthy of support, both by general Republican voters and the libertarian/independent wings as well. They swoop into 2016 with a strong candidate, strong principles, and a platform worthy of support. They have plenty of material to use as contrast to show why their vision is far, far better than what the previous eight years has brought, and they achieve electoral success.
So in the mean time, an active conservative citizenry has willingly sought after ideas and principles which bring it closer (and more consistently) to liberty. Educationally, the cause of liberty has succeeded, unlike under a Romney presidency where conservative voters shrug off any worry and go on their merry way. And politically, liberty-loving candidates stand a better chance in the long term if they don’t continue the two-party ruse by electing Romney (who may achieve a second term), and then potentially have the political pendulum swing back into the Democrat camp for a while. The adversity during a second Obama term can strengthen the intellectual and political muscles of this voting bloc, which under a Republican presidency would likely atrophy into near uselessness.
Whether the cause of liberty will actually be better under an Obama or Romney presidency is ultimately unknown. We simply don’t know what the future holds. Despite this uncertainty, the present reality is one in which Romney Republicans are asking us independent/libertarian folk to sell our princples for a mess of political pottage. But why would we settle for a bowl of luke-warm mush when holding out just a little longer, and refusing to sell out on our convictions, might mean that a three course meal soon awaits us?
151 Responses to “Why an Obama Re-Election May Be Best for the Cause of Liberty”
October 22, 2012
[…] Read the article here. […]
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
My biggest concern about the Obama-might-be-better option centers around what may be the only major difference between Romney and Obama, namely the Supreme Court. Both Romney and Obama have shown themselves ready to start more wars, esp. in Iran. Neither has proposed to fix the country’s finances in any meaningful way. Neither suggests a real end to the welfare state, or a return of decent civil liberties. But Romney would almost surely nominate more conservative, liberty-minded, and/or constructionist Supreme Court judges.
That same argument has been used since as long as I can remember. We can thank the “conservative,” “liberty-minded,” judges nominated by George W. Bush for upholding all of the unconstitutional legislation in all of their major decisions recently.
The Supreme Court is no more liberty-minded than the other two branches of the government: All-too eager to never let go of the chance to give themselves more power and too weak-willed to actually check and balance the others.
Dave P., I realize that it’s no new argument, and that the Supreme Court is isn’t any more willing to protect liberty than any other branch. My worry is that an additional, lifetime-tenured Justice Kagan could do far more damage overall than another Obama term, and that that extra damage is too much to sacrifice. Now that you’ve forced me to verbalize my concern, though, I’ll agree it sounds awfully wimpy.
That is what gives me pause as well. I understand what Dave P. is saying, but I think the judges nominated by Romney would be better (if only slightly). That being said, I think the court has already expanded federal limits to a point where there isn’t much left in the way of limited roles. Limited roles has been subbed for narrowly defined restrictions. After ACA, I’m not sure what’s left. So I don’t feel bad about voting Gary Johnson.
The time for a political solution is far past. We would do better for the liberty movement by opt out of government programs, showing them that we do not need them. By not putting our kids in government schools so they can get a true education instead of a government indoctrination.
The left right paradigm is so strong I doubt having Obama in office for another four years matters will make any difference. It is time to free minds with truth, even if the truth goes beyond the constitution in the direction of freedom and liberty.
Romney is probably slightly more inclined towards war–
he’s more aggressive; I’m not saying Obama is not cunning and calculated–
honestly, they are both bad men–
I read so much of what people say about Romney having a good character–
well, he’s probably been faithful to Ann, and that is very good–
he probably doesn’t drink or smoke–
but he’s been very heartless in his business ventures–
Obama hasn’t made temple covenants, and so he won’t be held to such a high standard–
The man astounds me–
how he can justify the things he has done to earn his money is . . . staggering–
I have decided that he must be one of those very compartmentalized people who say that business is business and church is church–
There are people who are good church members who somehow manage to stay away from having a personal relationship with deity—
they talk the talk and do the service and look good–
but when it comes to being spiritual-minded, they simply aren’t–
I’ve met stake presidents like that; I’ve known bishops like that–
really worldly-minded men, but faithful to their wives–
cut-throat businessmen who don’t drink and smoke but who avoid talking about Jesus Christ–
I know men like this, and I have known men like this my entire life–
many LDS leaders aren’t like this, but some are–
they look good; they smile; they are ‘clean’ living, but they aren’t spiritual people–
and they can stab a person in the back while smiling better than some who aren’t as ‘clean’–
I knew a stake president who did this; he was a monster–
a person who tormented those he deemed below him–
he was a ‘successful’ stake president and received much praise from a well-known apostle, and yet I knew several people whose lives he had damaged terribly–
How’d that work out with Bush’s chief justice and the Obamacare ruling?
For all the legitimate criticisms of Romney, I’ve never found a compelling argument about how he made money. If you’re referring to venture capitalists, they use their own money or money of investors, whereas the banking industry charges interest on money that doesn’t even exist based on a fraudulent Federal Reserve system. Also, least he didn’t take his money from others by gunpoint like anybody else that gets money from the government directly or indirectly.
That all said, I felt the same sentiments about Obama winning over the progressive McCain last year.
However, I can’t help but think there is no way in the world the media/the public would let a Republican candidate get away with the kinds of things that so-called pro civil liberties democrats used to oppose. Bush/McCain/Romney would be so flagellated by the media that they would never get away with things like assassinating an American citizen.
Of course, I would never be able to vote for Obama or Romney with a clear conscience.
eggyknap, That is the best argument for wanting Romney to win that I’ve seen. However, I think the same general argument that Connor is making in this post can be applied to this point as well.
I think that it’s almost certain that Romney’s SCOTUS appointments would be better than Obama’s, but right now people are starting to realize that we shouldn’t always look to the Supreme Court to have the final say what’s constitutional. People are thinking and talking about state nullification. The states gave the Federal Government its power and they can take it away. I fear that if enough mediocre conservative justices are appointed then many conservatives will stop watching the court critically, become too complacent and nothing will significantly change. The court has already veered so far from the Constitution that minor course adjustments aren’t going to help, so people need to be fired up enough to make a drastic course correction.
I couldn’t disagree with you more. Obama is evil without a doubt. He supports the slaughter of unborn innocent babies. He supports partial birth abortion of those same innocent children. He also refused to sign a bill that would allow doctors and nurses to render aid to babies that have survived abortions. Obama is also anti-second amendment and will have more opportunity to appoint more far-left judges. If you want to assist in the continued slaughter of innocent children in America which is now over 54 million, then don’t do anything. Obama is not a Christian, he is in fact Muslim as is evidenced by his own remarks and his actions. Romney is not a Christian either but he is pro-life and supports the 2nd amendment. Those issues alone should make any Christian run to help Romney & Ryan defeat the most evil guy to every occupy the white house. Obama support homosexual marriage for goodness sakes. Romney and Ryan support traditional marriage. Yet, you want to lay down and hope that Obama wins? You now are part of the problem. As a Christian I am to be salt and light and to be that watchman on the wall, not some coward that sits idly by and does nothing when these things are happening. I know that God is in control and that all things either are allowed or caused by God. But if you think He is going to take care of you then why do you even get out of bed in the morning. He will bring you your food and pay your bills so you don’t have to work. America has become a country of apathetic wimps both in and out of Church. The pastors have been as responsible for the moral and ethical decline in this nation as anyone. They have not stood up and talked about the evils of abortion and homosexuality for fear of losing members of their congregation and consequently money in the collection plate. Your arguments about the Tea Party not being involved if Romeny gets elected are faulty on so many counts. Again, if you want to sit back, do nothing and watch the carnage, then you can explain that to the Lord when you see Him.
Ken, your allegation that I am “doing nothing” cannot be more inaccurate. To claim that by not supporting Romney I am “not doing something” to stop “the carnage” is similarly misguided. You obviously don’t know me, what I do, and how I’m involved, so to make such allegations based on ignorance is extremely problematic. FYI.
Ken, you’re looking at the short term. In the long run another term of Obama might actually lead to less babies killed. If you don’t see that then you didn’t understand Connor’s point.
If Obama’s Wild Leftist national Democrat Party is returned to federal power and the White House, we will not recognize these United States in 4 years. That is the reason to vote for Romney, not because he is the best liberty-minded, constitutional conservative candidate, because he isn’t.
We in Michigan have already experienced this, as we replaced Obama-lite Gov. Jennifer Granholm with a less-than-conservative RINO in Gov. Rick Snyder. Another term of Democrats in Lansing would have finished off our state economically.
However, the Tea Party movement is an essential and continually active part of “helping” Rick Snyder follow a more conservative course, by keeping the pressure on, opposing Big Government proclivities, and backing up conservative legislative initiatives.
The same will be a necessary part of “helping” Pres. Mitt Romney be successful in staying on a constitutional conservative path. The Tea Party movement is not going away, at least in the battleground states. It is stronger than ever, and ever more infiltrated and ensconced into the county and state republican organizations.
I disagree with the thought that the Tea Party movement would go silent under a republican President.
Following Connor’s logic and points we are looking through the lens of going into years 13-16 of GW Bush policies. I am disappointed that none of the Republican related leaders, i.e. traditional party leadership, tea party leadership, religious right, conservative talk show hosts, Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates etc, have been willing to speak as though they look through that lens of a fourth term of GW Bush, probably because they don’t.
I think that a near revolution for freedom and liberty would already be steamrolling across the country if Romney/Ryan or any of the rest of the conservative community would step up and proclaim:
*That the last 12 years, not just the last 4, have been the wrong direction in terms of government expansion, intervention, and deterioration of civil liberties;
* That we need to repair the checks and balances that have been diluted through increased centralized powers in the Presidency and the political positioning of the SCOTUS during the last 12 years;
*Obama has really mostly continued, extended and/or accelerated policies put in place in years 1-8;
*That it is time to reverse the damage done by both GW Bush and Obama over the last 12 years.
Connor accepts in his post that the future is unknown and his scenario might not happen.
So, what if there was a different angle?
I think there is another possibility of future outcomes. In Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” he suggests that it is always the worst elements of society that rise to the top in a socialist system because “socialism can be put into practice only by methods which most socialists disapprove”. At some point the well intentioned central planners have always given way to leaders willing to exercise central powers to their own ambitious ends. Therefore, Hayek suggests, totalitarianism is a inevitable destination of the socialist state. He cites several 20th century manifestations of that point.
What if years 13-16 of GW Bush under Obama are just the closing scenes of that shift to a collective society?
Isn’t it possible that the current party system would be weakened, and the collective voice of the masses demanding a change from the old fashioned two party system to control by the only true party, death to capitalism, and up with the freedom of fairness that the state can offer?
In the last 12 years we have done some of the biggest trades of freedom for security in our nation’s history.
We could be so far down the road to serfdom that basically freedom fighters will have to rise up to physically fight to restore personal liberty.
I think Connor is arguing to that point that perhaps that scenario is better for liberty than kicking the can down the road with a Republican administration that only treats a few of the symptoms of the problem.
I am concerned that either scenario is scary. One because years 13-16 may be enough to really seal the socialist deal and make it too late to change course within the system, but maybe it won’t be too late after 4 more years. The other because the problem may not get fully addressed and we are postponing the inevitable, but maybe Romney will really focus on the freedom without which other freedoms cannot be enjoyed, economic freedom.
I know this is articulating the lesser of two evils battle. However, I think there is legitimate logic to view the uncertain future of a Romney administration as taking a shot at turning the tide from the last 12 years.
We know that Obama represents years 13-16 of a bad direction, and probably acceleration.
Is there a chance that Romney/Ryan at least step in and put the brakes on and are not just a lesser evil?
I realize that most of the readers here have probably already made up their minds that the answer to that last question is no.
I just haven’t made up my mind on that yet, so I am just asking.
I can’t quite fit my personal views into this whole argument of who would be a better choice – and this is why.
The Office of the President is merely a bought and paid for position, meant to be an empty suit to be used as a tool and scapegoat by the Secret Combinations who really run this world. Do we actually really want that empty suit that is used by the Secret Combinations of the Powers That Be to be a Mormon??
This leads me to believe those people who are making the point of someone who has taken upon himself Temple covenants and then using his priesthood for the praise of man and to exercise unrighteous dominion over others really have a valid point. One such cannot be a son of perdition or anti-Christ unless he has at one time in his life received the testimony and made covenants and then later turned against these principles.
anyone who believes Romney is truly pro-life–
Do you believe this report or this one:
or this one:
or this more Romney-friendly version:
The ‘bottom line’ is that Romney earned money from many dubious sources–
a company that would do this sort of thing, even just a few minutes after the ‘owner’ leaves–
is a vulture company–
Romney SAYS he is pro-life, and because he is a Mormon, *we* want to believe him?
What is the truth?
I want to know the truth, even if it doesn’t help Romney become the president–
Obama doesn’t have the ‘fullness’ of the gospel; Romney does–
who will be held more accountable?
your points are valid, IMO–
Just to give the opinion from the other side here, I feel the same way. In many ways, Obama has been and will continue to be (assuming re-election) a more effective President for the corporate, military, neo-conservative, and “homeland security” interests than any Republican could be.
When a Democrat is in the White House, regardless of his political philosophy, his efforts in a centrist or liberal direction are totally stifled by the Republicans in Congress. When a Republican is in the White House, Democrats in Congress rally together and stifle his most conservative policies. Obama has shown that on most every serious issue, he advocates policies that are to the right of his Republican predecessor and is able to carry most of the Democrats in Congress along with him. The only real exceptions have been in the so-called social issues (gay marriage, abortion, et.al.) where many libertarians would agree.
Our political system is incapable of addressing the serious issues before the nation in a way that benefits the vast majority of Americans, and it is incapable of self-correction. Electing one of the two shills for the corporate ruling class will make little difference in foreign policy, military intervention, economic policy, or any renewed concern for the niceties of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. We can only decide which of the two will be more effective in pursuing a failed agenda.
and my personal opinion?
Whether Romney or Obama ‘get’ in–
the outcome cannot be good.
Under Romney’s direction, the GOP completely hijacked the liberty movement both in state caucuses/primaries and at the RNC–
liberty was stomped on completely and . . .–
there are a few sparks in the ashes, but many discovered that the heavy hand of–
is indeed heavy–
many are left wondering WHAT happened!?
Liberty is dead–
in the nation, but it is not dead in the hearts of those who foster liberty–
and it is up to *us* to keep it alive, mostly on the local level–
which is the direction *we* (spouse and I) are taking–
we are doing everything we can to foster liberty in our community (and of course in our home)–
in our ward the battle is lost–
but whichever of these men becomes the POTUS–
there will be more war; there will be less freedom–
the powers that be (the secret combinations) know this and are now laughing at *us* for arguing which color would be best to wear to our death sentencing–
Romney is an insider; he will not do anything that will displease his masters–
his being LDS only heightens the evil–
George Bush was 99% Democrat, yet the liberals only whined. He failed to fix inheritance taxation. He failed to make the capital gains tax cuts permanent. He increased entitlements. He vetoed almost nothing. He allowed home borrowers to walk on their house flipping mortgages. He did nothing to fix his father’s Mexican deluge.
There is a historical nugget that teaches us the power of trajectory and momentum that a president can impart to America from his office. In 1912, Woodrow Wilson’s win set us on a path from which we have never recovered. Whatever trickery or secret combinations it was that got him there aside, Wilson destroyed the checks and balances on presidential power and turned the executive functions of the president into that of a legislator. Our presidency was never meant to be like the European prime ministers–but it turned into that.
The point being, anyone who thinks the damage obama is certain to do–including the full implementation of obamacare can be undone by an even more angry contingent of Liberty loving souls is specious at best. They are not called the “Chains of Tyranny” for nothing. Once the majority of people are absolutely dependent on the state, no rag tag bunch of patriots will exist with enough critical mass to turn it back.
So the argument Connor is making really becomes, “the more chains we are wrapped in, the harder we’ll fight.” I don’t know about y’all, but I love Liberty, and would prefer to fight for it with the least possible amount of chains shackled to me. Conservatives don’t sit back in apathetic stupor when they have an R in office for the sake of apathetic stupor. Liberty loving souls tend to be busy about the productive work of life–which explains far better their absence from the arenas of central planners.
There will be no do-overs if obama wins. In that ancient war between good and evil there was a line. It wasn’t a line between perfect and evil (or none of us would be here). I wonder if some need to re-evaluate where they are drawing the line.
whenever I hear the ‘conservatives’ mentioned . . .
I know what is going to be said–
I have asked before and ask again, what does ‘conservative’ mean–
and why is Romney (or how is Romney) conservative?
Was Bush a ‘conservative’? Why did he pass NDAA?
Why did Romney say he would support it?
What are the differences between Obama and Romney–
besides the fact that one is richer and white and Mormon, and the other is not as rich and half black–
and not Mormon–
both are lawyers–
what is the basic difference?
Both are married, and there have been rumors about Obama’s s#xual orientation, but then there have been rumors that Romney persecuted and harassed people and dressed in a trooper’s uniform and put a red light on his car–
Romney is openly a warmonger; Romney instigated the rise of GMOs–
Obama is merely doing what his ‘mangers’ tell him to do–
Romney will do no differently–
both are supported by Goldman Sachs–
I ask for an honest answer; what is the difference?
The difference is obama is in open rebellion. He is actively deconstructing our Constitution and fomenting communist revolution. If you know your history, you will see it.
Romney at least has the tools and framework to understand the principles of agency. So while he may be manipulatable, it is not a given that Romney will strive to govern like a tyrant.
That is a substantive difference.
I guess part of the rub for me is this narrative that it doesn’t matter which one of them is in power, because the puppetmasters call all the shots. But saying the outcome is certain requires that both actors are automatons without their own free will…
Central planning in politics doesn’t work any better than it does in economics. No body is smart enough to understand every possible contingency. So central political planners can manipulate all they want, but the nature of the President still matters, and the trajectory we follow is directly related to his temperament and desires toward right and wrong.
Romney may be an agent, true–
but he’s used his agency in very freedom-destroying ways up to now; why would he change?
He keeps talking about having been in the ‘private’ sphere–
well, his private business ventures have been brutal and vulturistic; why would his governing practices be any different?
I have to realize that many people who support Romney don’t really understand how he has earned his money.
Or believe that it is all right to earn money by working for a company that is as life-destroying as Monsanto–
What ‘tools’ does Romney have that Obama doesn’t have? He has rejected the constitution and for the most part the real ‘gospel’–
he goes to church, pays some kind of tithing, ‘obeys’ the Word of Wisdom, is faithful to his wife, ‘serves’ in the church–and doesn’t swear–
but he is a warmonger, a racist and has little to no compassion for anyone outside his narrow reality–
he believes in the NDAA, for crying out loud; how is that having ‘tools’?
I am more concerned about the damage Romney could do, because I see him as a politically apostate “Nephite” (such as the priests of Noah and the Zoramites who became so ruthless), whereas I see Obama as a Lamanite–
The Nephites did much more damage–
The Nephites who went ‘wrong’ were the anti-Christs–
but this is how I see things, and 90% or more of the Mormons I know see Romney as someone who will ‘save’ the U.S.
How can someone who has destroyed so many things save anyone?
Quoting: “I have to realize that many people who support Romney don’t really understand how he has earned his money.
Or believe that it is all right to earn money by working for a company that is as life-destroying as Monsanto–”
By that logic, anybody with any sort of money in the market is equally guilty, including the church, and anyone with a 401K. If I have to be morally responsible for every diversified company in my portfolio, then I might as well live a hermits life in a cave. So capitalism is evil then, I think I hear you saying?
I have no idea if Romney can save America. Frankly, I’m praying and hoping for a miracle. But I will not knowingly assist obama on some strange logic wrenched from the Book of Mormon that tries to make the claim that the Lord will give obama a mulligan because he grew up like a Lamanite; or on the claim that righteous people fight harder for their liberty under more wicked rulers, therefore it is better to have wicked rulers.
Twisting scripture is a dangerous hobby…
All of these arguments, passionate ones and logical ones – and even the strident ones – seem to all assume that things will be better, one way or another, in the NEXT election or two.
And this assumes that, after the Church of Obama gets its way for another few years, there will ever BE another election in what was the United States of America.
*jeep! & God Bless!
Everybody’s got an axe to grind against Romney when he’s being just plain awesome. Guy can’t get a break, unless he makes one himself. Which he has been doing. He’s definitely going to earn it.
Ron Paul has no leadership skills. Likeable enough. He has no leadership skills, and he’s spiritually immature. He’s kind of a moral relativist, as are many college age Libertarians that follow him. He couldn’t make the cut – because he makes his stand, but he makes it alone, and his simplistic arguments appeal mostly to a smallish group of the restless young. He did run a debt-free campaign which I respect. Romney does too.
Vote for Obama if your conscience allows, but it won’t make the magic happen for Ron Paul who has been on the public payroll for a couple of decades now, and campaigning for president about the same length of time.
Paul, you really stretched my points–
to say that I believe capitalism is evil. Well, I believe in consecration, not communism or capitalism. True capitalism would work in a righteous society, but obviously there is no righteous society; what the U.S./world experiences today is corporatism.
And I believe the scriptures will back me up on that, that the Lord’s way is consecration. However, real capitalism (not vulture/crony corporatism) has never been allowed to succeed, because of the Federal Reserve and those who benefit from it.
When Babylon falls, all of this will become quite apparent. And Babylon will fall.
And, yes, the church will have to account for how its money has been spent and invested; I believe that. And, yes, some of us “live like hermits” in order not to earn money by spilling the blood of other people–or causing suffering. There are people who think about those things, also knowing that it is hard to live in a sewer without some stink–
Liz, I’ve learned after a couple of years on here–
that, if you are LDS, and since I know that I am, you and I are about as poles apart in beliefs as a Hindu and a Baptist. LOL!
But you have no substantiation for Ron Paul being ‘spiritually immature’–
or for Mitt Romney being spiritually mature. Romney has been in ecclesiastical positions; that does not equate spiritual maturity. But, if you believe that church positions equal spiritual maturity, then I can see why we don’t share the same beliefs. You get to pick whether you are the Baptist or the Hindu; I’ll take the other! 🙂
I appreciate the compliment. I am the ‘restless young’–
Hey, that’s great! In my 60s, restless and young–
You made my day!
I’ve been supporting Ron Paul since 1986!
Do you listen to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or one of the others?
and P.S. to Paul–
it’s in the D&C–
section 82, verse 3–
Romney has been given greater light than Obama–
that would be quite obvious, as he is temple endowed–
Also it is made clear throughout the Book of Mormon by many of the writers/prophets there . . .
that the Lamanites were spared, because they were not held to the high level of accountability to which the Nephites were held–
it’s quite general; I’m sure you’ve read it.
That principle can be applied to the two candidates for president–
Obama has done horrific things, but he knows nothing of the temple or the priesthood–
Romney has made most of his $ with the help of a company that maimed thousands (or tens of thousands or more) American military members and Southeast Asians with Agent Orange–
and he is the one who got Monsanto on the GMO track; he claims that he left Bain before Bain worked with Stericycle (the company that disposed of unborn baby bodies)–
but there are records that show that he still had a heavy influence on the company after that time–
It depends upon which source *you* choose to believe–
Most LDS want to believe that Romney would not be involved in anything that made money from abortion–
so they choose to believe that Romney is telling the truth when he says he left the company the day before Bain took Stericycle on–
but other sources bely his claim–
and, of course (*sarcasm alert*) only infidels and Jack Mormons will believe those other sources–LOL! (*sarcastic*)–
But, the fact is that Monsanto is doing a tremendous amount of damage in the world, like it or not, and Romney is supported by, funded by and has been a huge ‘mover and shaker’ in the Monsanto world–
As I read the lengthy comments posted, I couldn’t help ask myself why the debate always comes down to “It’s either ‘A’ or ‘B'”. If you don’t believe in Romney or Obama, your choices do not end there. If you believe that we must continue the system “as-is”, then yes, you must vote for Romney or Obama, even if you don’t like either of them.
If you subscribe to this kind of thinking, you either really do see some kind of ultimate goodness in the current system, or you have already been defeated. I for one do not see any goodness in the current system. My entire life, I”ve been watching the system get worse and worse at the hands of both parties. Not once has there been a federal government in my lifetime that has left a “net positive” position. We’ve always been worse off.
So, why limit yourselves to this style of thinking? There is another choice. It BEGINS with opting out of the system, and throwing your support towards the system that you see as being right… even if the “right” system is unsupported by the masses. It may be as tiny as a mustard seed in terms of its support. But, it will not grow, until you support it.
One thing is for sure. The system that has not been serving you (the two-party nightmare that we have) will NEVER… EVER… get better as long as good people vote the “lesser of two evils”.
This is what we will be getting if we vote for Obama or Romney:
War baby, war. More killing of innocents in foreign countries through drone strikes and US government backed terrorism. More children with their arms, jaws, legs, and backs blown off.
Killing innocents in foreign lands is akin to abortion. Are you pro abortion? If you are pro war in foreign lands, then you might as well be.
MuchoBrento, I do agree with you, and that is how we are ‘living’–
the two party system is definitely corrupt–
and there are those who have tried to make big changes, but the PTB are too powerful–
I will not be voting for either Obama or Romney, but the truth is that one of them will be the president, whether those of us who have not supported either of them like it or not–
it’s a guessing game and a time waster, I suppose, and a distraction to ask *ourselves* which one would be better or worse; that’s all–
because some of us, in spite of our beliefs, in spite of our best efforts, have found ourselves on a spinning wheel–
there are moments when it is hard not to be discouraged–
I don’t know what *your* ward(s) is/are like–
but ours is hostile towards anyone who is not pro-Romney; it is not easy to be in the building, and this is because we keep our mouths closed and don’t praise Romney along with everyone else–
our silence has been noted–
and it’s been really hard. We do have a few friends who leave us alone and remain our friends, then we have people whom we thought were are friends who leave us alone and do not remain our friends–
I’ll give out more information than I ought–
my husband is our ward’s HPGL–
on Sunday he encouraged the brethren to read the political neutrality statement in the Ensign, because he was weary of the Romney love fests that were being held in the High Priests; he could not get a word in edgewise about Jesus Christ or even the lesson material–
one brother, a former bishop and a high councilor said, “well, there’s not need for political neutrality when here is a high priest in good standing with good moral character running for president; there is no question about it; we don’t need political neutrality statements”–
my husband wearily turned to the teacher and said, “please begin”–
he has made this attempt several times and been confounded each time–
There is one other man in the HP group who does not support Romney; we suspect him of being a Democrat, and we feel an affinity for him (he’s a good man and a fair man)–
we support neither; we worked on RP’s campaign–
but the fact is that if other wards in the church are experiencing this . . . this is a very divisive thing–
I almost feel like embracing those LDS who like Obama (I do not like him; I think he’s a ‘plant’)–
because the Romney love fest has become so difficult to bear–
I looked at ‘breaking down the hedge . . .’–
I’m waiting to read what you have to say about Romney–
his economic ‘past’ is an untapped gold mine of wickedness–
In this narrative that is being spun here, that the best choice in this election is to “not participate” or to “choose the obscure candidate” that best represents political perfection to you, something is missing. Political Agorism in the context of this election is missing some profound element that has been a challenge for me personally to put my finger on. For one, my gut check says it is a violation of the doctrine of opposition in all things in the sense that God doesn’t intend to give us murky choices or trick questions.
But more than that, the concept that America is a Covenant nation carries with it layers and layers truth that begs for our participation in THIS choice that has been laid out before us. And the stories of how God worked with imperfect leaders through our history, in the context of the National Covenant, teaches us the importance of having prayerful, honorable men at the helm.
Timothy Ballard has offered some profound insights in his work “The Covenant. One Nation Under God” that shows America in its true light. I have to say, I am very moved by what I am reading. Miracles are coming…
Latter-day Saints have been repeatedly encouraged and commanded to uphold the Constitution.
Presidents, once assuming office, take an oath of office to adhere to that document.
It therefore follows that Latter-day Saints should not support candidates who will not take that oath seriously, and show no fidelity to the Constitution.
This applies to Mitt Romney; he supports a long list of unconstitutional activities. Latter-day Saints therefore, in my view, should not support him.
I don’t know…
Matthew 12 comes to mind.
So Connor, in the spirit of respect, I wonder how you would respond to the following question. In light of the desire to vote in a way that squares with the Lord–in the way that gives each of us the best ability to stand blameless before God:
Why not write in President Monson? There could be no one more righteous than the prophet, as a personal choice at the ballot box. Wouldn’t those of us who took that approach be the most qualified of all?
Matthew 12 has a lot of stuff in it, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
I wrote in President Hinckley’s name in 2004.
Paul, I know you didn’t ask me a question.
I once voted for President Hinckley–
I have voted for other prophets as well–
This present election (with its campaigns and its RNC/DNC shenanigans)–
is like offering two meals to hungry people–
These hungry people remember having eaten fresh salads from organic gardens–
They know that salads exist somewhere, fresh salads filled with many wonderful vegetables–and topped with the best olive oil, etc.–
but when they sit down in a ‘cafe’ to eat they are told that there are no salads, only:
canned peas or canned green beans; take your choice–
do you stay and decide whether to have the canned peas or canned green beans, or do you get up and leave and try to find a place that has fresh salads (assuming you prefer fresh garden greens to canned vegetables)–?
As you eat your peas or your beans, if that is what you choose, do you mock the people at the next people who ask, “do you have salad?” and when, being told there are no fresh vegetables–
get up and leave to go to another restaurant–
Do you call after them, “what’s the matter with you? I don’t like peas; if you don’t order the green beans along with me, they will no longer be available, and we’ll ALL have to have peas next time?”–
No, you respect their right to leave a place that has no fresh food–
Some of *us*, LDS and Americans back to the Mayflower–
find ourselves praying and asking Father in Heaven if it’s time to leave this sinking ship?
I know people who are leaving America. My husband and I have chosen not to (for many reasons, not the least of which is that we don’t have the resources to uproot)–
We left a more populated area 10 years ago to come to a rural area; we felt ‘led’ here–and at the time that decision came with a feeling that it would be for the greater safety of our family; whether that is spiritual or physical, I don’t know at this time–
This is the promised land, and it’s been over-run with Gadiantons–
I’ll look at that book, too, by the way–
Some of the things that ‘other’ Christians say are consistent with the Book of Mormon; some are not–
Actually, Tim Ballard is LDS. He has two versions of the book, one for an LDS audience, and one for a general audience (that is the one pictured at the link).
It is not directed to this election cycle in any specific way, but the concept of America being a Covenant nation and the historical memory of the miracles that attended America’s birth that has been lost to us are instructive for our moment.
A lot of people wanted to get off Washington’s sinking ship too. The revolutionary war was a lost cause. The odds of a win were impossible–many times along the way. But there was this Covenant thing… and God went before us and fought the battles for a reason.
So is God’s work finished? If not, take care with the idea that we are doomed. There will be some rough times, no doubt, but America’s Covenant is still valid and accessible to us as long as God’s work is still unfinished.
This is the second time you’ve given *me* a warning–LOL!
“take care with the idea that we are doomed”–
You’ve also warned me about ‘twisting’ scriptures, something like that–!
All I did was quote some scriptures–
and I am quite sure that Ballard (and many others who have opinions) have used scriptures to confirm their ideas and opinions; do you warn everyone this way? 🙂
I’m not a collectivist, though I realize that the Book of Mormon heavily collectivizes–
One of the reasons *we* have the Book of Mormon now is because of individuals who went against the collective–
who went against the majority in righteousness–
who called out those who were steeped in false doctrines, etc.–
And yet there is always much talk of the destruction of the Nephites (at least one was not destroyed, but he spent many years alone)–
The Nephites also did not believe they could be destroyed–
Many of the warnings in the Book of Mormon are definitely for *our* day–
If we don’t heed them, are we also flirting with destruction? I think *we* could be, but I do believe individuals will be preserved–
The idea that other nations are “fodder” (except for modern Israel) is one that I find particularly disturbing; the idea that only America is ‘special’ only invites arrogance from Americans–
*We* don’t know God’s dealings with other nations, so–
I think *we* should be careful there–
I wont’ tell *you* to be careful; I think all of America should beware of thinking that she/they/we are, somehow, more important–
One of the advantages that *we* in the church today have is that we have not only the Bible, but the Book of Mormon, so we can see the entire picture–
*I* believe that Father in Heaven is faithful to people, not to nations–
Yes, I believe the founding of America was a miracle, and I know God’s Hand was in it–
so, perhaps we are not discussing the same thing–
Lehi was directed to take his family into the wilderness; he was just one man, not a nation (though a nation came out of him, two nations, really)–
so I believe in the individual and the individual liberty that leads to individual choices for righteousness (or the opposite)–
I don’t connect myself in to an unrighteous nation–
Yes, though there are some on here who think I should not, I do still pay taxes; I do still live here–on this land . . .–
I try to be an influence for good–
but I don’t think of myself as an American first; I think of myself as a child of God first, a family member second, a Mormon third, an American last–
Covenants can be personal and familial as well–
I did look at the link, and I am curious when he uses the term “ancient Israel” what he is really saying?
I do believe that this nation, right now, is on a fast downward spiral–
this nation or the government of this nation, has waged entirely too many unrighteous wars not to be–
and has endured too many Gadiantons without even attempting to identify or reform them–
not to be–
What happens to a majority of those in America who refuse to see the truth of America’s situation? I don’t know; I won’t collectivize them either–
but I do know that individuals can come out of Babylon–
spiritually, if not geographically–
God’s work finished? Goodness, where did I ever say that?
As for America–
well, if America continues to ignore God (in more ways than social/moral sins) and if the church itself remains under condemnation (as a group, not individuals) for not taking the Book of Mormon seriously–
then Father in Heaven and Jesus Christ will find others willing and ready–
what national ‘label’ they have probably doesn’t matter very much to Them, as They look on the heart–
LOL! I don’t mean to chastise. In more of a general way, I’m asking how you can be so certain about what God is up to?
To me, when I look at history, I see many examples during critical times of our history where God had something to accomplish and he went about it in spite of those that fought against it –on principle. (That was the idea behind my oblique reference to Matthew 12, when the pharisees were so high on their principles, that they got after Christ for gathering grain on the Sabbath)
How do you know that God isn’t trying to take an imperfect, but decent, prayerful man and use him to accomplish His purposes? You seem to have absolute conviction that Romney is all about pure destruction for our future.
My tongue-in-cheek question to Connor about voting for the prophet, and his answer is interesting because it suggests the purpose for voting is a religious rite designed to gain spiritual favor. I realize that saying such is a strong assertion, but if the reason for voting is heavenly brownie points, then we should all be writing in the prophet (never mind he can’t win).
I think the harsh reality is…political agorism is an abdication of responsibility. I’m not arguing that Mitt is a perfect choice. I just think the choice is what it is–no matter how you cut it, you are choosing between these two men by affecting the outcome of the election for one or the other by your actions. Stay home. Vote third party. Write in the prophet. Depending on your location, you have the potential for affecting the outcome no matter how you go. And as such, should assume responsibility for it.
Its like your kid telling you he WON’T choose between eating dinner and not eating dinner. You cannot NOT select that sort of choice, because there is no third option. If you understand the doctrine of opposition in all things, you find the same conundrum. You cannot NOT choose. And the line between good and evil was not meant to be so mysterious in the general war between good and evil, that no one but a few obscure politically enlightened souls can find it.
You’re blaming the victim. It isn’t the victim you should blame it is the perpetrator of violence known as the state. Should one choose death by the sword or the axe? I see no reason that we should choose death, I choose freedom and liberty and that path is by not voting for anyone that portends to be my ruler and master. Both candidates for presidents has shown this is their desire, to rule over others, to tell them how to live their peaceful lives. No, neither is for me and the horizontal enslavement by those who love it will not change my mind.
Was it the comment about being responsible for the outcome of your actions that prompted the assertion that I am blaming the victim? Or something else? You sort of lost me there…
I have some in my family who take the stance promoted here, and I have really tried to understand it. But I can not wrap my mind around the idea that political perfection could be available to us any time prior to the Millennial reign of the Savior–therefore, every single choice we are faced with in this political world is a “lesser of evils.” Even writing in the prophet is a lesser evil since he is not perfect either. How often have we heard the defiant, self righteous assertion that “I WILL NOT vote for the lesser of two evils?” as if it is some self evident truth.
I believe that it is possible for the perfect to become the enemy of the good in some cases (like this election cycle). And I think the lessons taught in Jacob 5 regarding the speed of removing the bad branches from the natural root at the last day supports that view. The master of the vineyard told his servants in the allegory, that it is possible for the natural root to overpower the tree. You can take what you want from that… but it tells me that the Lord is carefully pruning and gathering for the final time, and He is doing it in the context of a less than perfect world.
So to say that those of us who love Liberty and love the Master of our Agency are horizontally enslaved? (whatever that means) because we see this battle in a broader sense of a fight between good and evil (not perfect and evil) seems short sighted.
I think this is the problem with those of us who believe truth and principle actually matter. We see the imperfections of our team mates and we waste our ammunition on them, instead of the true enemy.
As for me, I will not leave the battlefield in protest and let my fellow soldiers shoulder the burden–or sling arrows at them on the way out. This war, the one over Agency that was started before the world was created, is in full force, and the battle lines are not between the whole of creation and a few obscure groups of scattered perfectionists. It seems that would be counter to Nephi’s description of the “great division” in the last days.
Paul, your last line on #44–
“no one but a few obscure politically enlightened souls can find it”–
that’s good writing, by the way–
(a real compliment, before I draw my bow–LOL!)
So, you believe that some of us on here think that that is what we are?
I remember when I ‘woke up’–politically; it was one of the most painful things that ever happened to me, and it was close to 40 years ago–
when I began to realize that the world was run by shadow governments–
I keep thinking about that scripture (and I don’t have the exact quote) about how even the very elect will be deceived or almost deceived, something like that–
the very elect–
so it fits my paradigm, as I have pondered that scripture, to believe that most LDS who are truly good people–
will be deceived in some way; goodness, all of us will be, in some way–
The fact is that at one crucial point our belief systems vary so widely that–
we can’t agree on these things:
–the election system; I believe it is totally broken, completely corrupted, completed rigged; voting machines manufactured in countries that don’t necessarily have the best interests of ‘true’ Americans at heart–computer programs that make them VERY easily manipulated (votes); votes not counted; GOP manipulations that shut out many voices and pushed through the desires and aims of the “POWERS THAT BE”–
etc., etc., etc.–a crooked GOP, a rigged RNC–
So, you see, I don’t really see myself as having a voice at all–
And, to be fair to everyone on here, I will say this much: I live in a state that will go to Obama, no matter for whom I vote–
Many LDS believe Mitt Romney is a righteous man. I do not believe that. I believe he is a Gadianton and needs to be called out on it, but nobody will, because he owns all of us–
his business dealings have been so malevolent, so twisted, so completely evil for so many decades–
I have done some extensive research on this; I have tried to be fair; I really have–
but his business dealings have been Gadianton to the extreme, and, yes, it has all been covered up very well–
but some of that information is out there, if you want to get it–
the truth: LDS don’t want to see it–those who support Romney; they want/need to believe he is a good guy–
that he’s just a regular Mormon–
Well, he’s not–
I actually fear for him; I actually feel sorry for him; I don’t know how he has been able to compartmentalize his life in this way–
and I fear a little for myself even to say these things; I can’t among my family and LDS friends–I am afraid they would stone me–
but I have done the research; the information is out there, and someday it will come out–
someday the truth will be known–
Would it be better for people to know now, if they would listen, or would it be better for them to know after church members/the church/the image/the missionary work–
is devastated by the truth after Romney makes his first mistake as a president–
I believe the Book of Mormon is correct about the last days being full of apostasy (the gentile church, US, we LDS)–
I believe those prophets–
I could give you many, many links–
to information about Romney’s business dealings–
a ‘praying’ man–
*shaking my head*
I won’t go into the area that should be private between any man/woman and his/her God–
but it’s hard for me to imagine–
I think he believes in Mitt, and I think he believes in money–
and I could be accused of slander, but I do believe the things I have read–
I also know someone who was in his stake–
there’s a wealth of information there, as well–
if you were wealthy in his stake, you were . . . well-treated–
if you were not . . .–
I really don’t feel I should say anything more, but I think that it is important to know what sorts of business dealings people who run for president . . .
If more people had known that the Bush family was heavily involved in the CIA and that their grandfather was a ‘friend’ to Hitler and prospered from WWII—
it might have made a difference–
if more people knew that Obama’s mother and grandfather were heavily involved in the CIA–
and . . . I am suspicious of the CIA; yes, I am–
I was a little spooked when I saw that man, Ballard, who wrote the book about the covenant America–
(has with ancient Israel from Northern Europe, white supremacy, anyone?)–
worked for the CIA–
I’m a Mormon conspiracy theorist, but I can blame it on the Book of Mormon; there were conspiracies all over the place in that place–
and we think only the . . . Muslims do it now?
So, you think I’m wasting ammunition on my teammates–
I am HEAVILY outnumbered here–
and I’m not throwing darts at anyone for adoring Romney and wanting to vote for him and wanting to make me feel miserable and outcast, because I’m not–
I just want to know the truth, even if it’s about a fellow Mormon, even if it hurts–
even if it makes me look inside myself and say, “I don’t want to hurt ANYone to make money, ever, ever, EVER again”–
in my husband’s HP group (he’s the leader)–
there are two men not voting for Romney; neither have said they aren’t–
one is a political science professor and might be an Obama supporter, based upon his lack of adoration of Romney–
and my husband, who has also said nothing–
The political science professor, a very devoted LDS with a wonderful family, is a spiritual teacher in the quorum who–
loves the Book of Mormon and tries to do things right–
but we suspect him of being a non-Romney supporter, because he was asked to share an experience he had at a conference of academics, where he was asked, as an LDS, whether he thought Romney, as an LDS, becoming president, would be good for “your church”–
He responded, “no, I don’t–if he makes any mistakes, it will come down upon the heads of us Mormons”–
the rest of the brethren (besides my husband) GASPED–
and began to talk loudly about how WONDERFUL it was that Romney was running, etc., how GREAT he was–
my husband’s complete silence was noted–
and he has been hounded since–
we supported Ron Paul for decades–
now we may . . . write in the prophet; I don’t know–
and I’ve already told you that I believe the elections are rigged and that this last few weeks is just entertainment for the American people who think it means something–
But, in the meantime, this has created huge rifts in one little ward out in the middle of nowhere, far from the Mormon corridor–
and some of *us*, while being ‘accused’ of shooting our teammates, are feeling terribly alone–
my husband can’t wait ’til the election is over, so that HPs can get back to ‘normal’, whatever that is–
And I have lost at least one ward friend, and I haven’t even spoken out–
just because she knows I worked on the RP campaign–
so who is shooting whom?
Our home teacher won’t come to our home until after the election (we love him), because when he tried to talk about how wonderful Romney is, we got quiet–
we said nothing–but we got quiet . . .
so he told my husband, “I’ll come the second week of November, if that is all right”–
Who is suffering?
I wish I could go back in time and walk with Moroni–
he could tell me how it feels to be alone, and I would listen–
Paul or anyone–
just in case you don’t believe me (and I realize that conservatives don’t read Mother Jones, but conservatives at present, and I used to be one, still am in many ways, are ‘owned’ by those who want Romney to be the POTUS, and they do control what they want to be known about him)–
here is one simple example:
If you want me to continue, I can–
these are the most easily found links; I am not as computer savvy as many, and my research has gone deeper than this, deeper than one link–
Most LDS won’t listen to Huffington either (too liberal)–
but none of the conservative sources will question Romney–
anyone who can’t be questioned is–
This is the tip of the iceberg–
Where is Captain Moroni when we need him? He was not afraid to accuse anyone of being a king man/Gadianton!
“political agorism is an abdication of responsibility”
Is what I was referring to when I mentioned blaming the victim. Someone choosing not to participate in a system that is obviously corrupt to its core is not abdicating one’s responsibility, it is seeing reality for what it is and choosing to focus on things that truly matter that you can actually make real life changes.
Horizontal enslavement refers to the mindset of others telling people that have seen the light of what freedom and liberty are that they shouldn’t think that way and that is bad to do X and Y even though there is no harm in X and Y.
It’s one thing to vote for someone that isn’t perfect and it is whole other thing to vote for someone that has promised to wreak havoc on innocent people around the world and at home. Both presidential candidates have promised to kill and maim innocent children in other countries with their foreign policy. If that isn’t enough to cause one to opt out I don’t know what would be, where is the humanity?
So, since the people are so wicked that they are willing to uphold unrighteous men to reign over them it is time to try and do things that actually make us more free. What are those?
1. Understand freedom and liberty in one’s own life (i.e., study).
2. Teach this to one’s family (i.e., don’t put your kids in government indoctrination camps – how many people leave school denying the existence of natural law – it seems like everyone I chat with over the internet and real life people too, it is quite amazing).
3. Implement the principles of freedom and liberty in one’s own life, doing as much as possible to not accept stolen funds from the government.
4. Share this knowledge with those around you.
5. Try to make your local governments less fascistic/socialistic.
In that order is the most we can do to effect a free and liberty minded people. Everything else is just a distraction. The only good thing these debates about presidential candidates is to help people see what is going on and to take the red pill.
outside the corridor,
I’ve heard about Obama and the CIA but have never seen any credible sources on it. Do you have any links that would actually show his ties to the CIA?
My liberal, Democrat, non-Mormon friends think that the Latter Day Saints all live in Utah (or should), all vote Republican, and all support Mitt Romney for President.
As an example, one of these folks counted the Salt Lake Tribune’s endorsement of Obama 2012 as a big deal. They simply didn’t believe me when I responded that I read the SLCTrib online when I want to know what the opposition thinks of anything the church is doing.
As a non-Utah Latter Day Saint who has gingerly discussed political topics with some fellow ward members, I can also report that none of what my non-Mormon friends believe (above) is true – at least out in what some Utah LDS continues to call “the mission field.”
I don’t know any of you personally, so I take a risk by generalizing here. As I have watched the conversation surrounding this election (I watch it very closely), the vitriol I have witnessed from Ron Paul supporters is second only to the obama supporters who are starting to worry about their messiah.
You may not be guilty individually, but as a group of Liberty loving Americans, RP supporters surprised me with their contentious approach. It was palpable. So slinging arrows? If you feel a twinge of guilt–accept your role. If not, then I’m not talking about you directly.
Perhaps the real question at this point is whether America is still under covenant, and whether God is still in the process of grafting Israel back into the natural root, or not. If She is, then we can expect Him to go before us and fight our enemies–we still have access to the covenant. If not, then hang on because it is time for the fire.
And BTW, Ballard does work for the CIA–he fights child slavery whenever it involves American citizens. If you let his job dissuade you from reading his work, you may miss a priceless look at America’s purpose for existing as a nation.
My own outlook has been refreshed by understanding the historical patterns which reveal God’s relationship with the nation of Israel. Think of the doom and fear that the Israelites felt when their backs were up against the Red Sea–HOPELESS! Are we not there today?
As Mormon’s, we get that America is the “New Jerusalem” but how well do we really know what that means? Ballard crystalizes the concept pretty well–and he can converse with Mormons or evangelicals to make the point. When you see how well our Founders recognized America’s Covenant with God–from Columbus, to the authors of our revolution, to Lincoln at the close of the Civil War–it is PROFOUND, because the implications for our moment are so grand. I don’t pretend to know what the miracles are or will be–nor do I pretend that Romney is the primary vehicle for them. But I have every reason to believe they are coming and that it is going to be very very good.
In my personal experience here in Utah, I watch some of the good citizens who are rising to positions of political influence who could very well be the fulfillment of the well known prophecy regarding the rescue of the Constitution. Whoever the people are that will carry that distinction HAVE to come out from us. Who are they? Where are they?
I would like to know what you think about supporting people that are willing to kill innocent children in foreign lands? I don’t know how anyone could support such a thing. People always say they won’t vote for someone that supports abortion, well, killing innocents in foreign lands is the same thing, practically speaking. This is taught against heavily in the BoM.
Also, Romney has said that he will not follow the constitution (by outlining his ideas, which happen to be contra the constitution), so I don’t know how he is supposed to save it when he refuses to recognize it.
I’m really confused by your position and all those that support Romney or Obama. I really think it is the power of belief that makes people desire something so much they will excuse just about anything to believe it. I’m not saying anything bad about you, Paul, I’m just saying this is a human nature thing and that the power of belief is so strong people are willing to believe even if it is contrary to facts and reason, which I’m guilty of too, by the way.
Glad you weren’t talking about me when it comes to vitriol, since I’m not a Ron Paul “supporter.” 🙂 I don’t think it is possible to change things around from the top, history shows it is more of something that comes from the ground up. That is why I put together my plan for liberty and it doesn’t start at the top.
Jon, your question is loaded to presuppose the facts and represents a logical fallacy. Can I ask you if you have stopped beating your wife?
I thought Romney was pretty clear last night that he wants peace, not war. I think it is a leap to try and assert, like you KNOW beyond doubt that he wants to take us to war. It has nothing to do with belief or faith in the man. I have faith in our National Covenant. I have faith in America’s purposes which are wrapped up in the restoration of the gospel and Israel in the last days. God told JS that Israel wouldn’t be scattered ever again before the Millennial reign. For this reason, I do not think the top-down fix, if it in fact exists, will work out for the bad guys.
Even if you want to skip the faith aspect of this, top down fixes are doomed to failure anyway for the logical reasons that Hayek outlined. Nobody is that smart, and humans are contrarians. Hard as they try, central planners fail, predictably. That isn’t to say manipulators don’t exist…of course they do. But to prophecy that the end is fixed is not possible to know, unless you are a prophet?
What does happen though, is the President can set a trajectory that defines the future. I think I’m repeating myself, but just look at the way Woodrow Wilson changed us as a nation. We have never recovered from the loss of constitutional integrity since then. The man who wins the presidency MATTERS.
I don’t think my question is fallacious. It is one that everyone needs to ponder if they are voting. If Romney wants peace (something he has said he didn’t want before, or at least pointed in the opposite direction) then he would need to stop all the economic sanctions around the world, since economic sanctions are, by their very nature, acts of war and also hurt the poor and needy the most. Romney would need to end the [un]Patriot Act, NDAA, etc, all things he has said that he supports (and which are unconstitutional). He may use his lips to say he wants peace but what he has already talked about shows that is a bold face lie.
I cannot accept someone that wants to hurt innocent people. Romney, by his record, and by his rhetoric has shown he wants to hurt innocent people. I can’t vote for someone like that.
So, you may say it is a loaded question, it is a very direct question of the consequences of putting someone like Romney or Obama in office.
So, I hope you can understand why I won’t be voting for either of the top candidates for president. If it doesn’t make sense now, I don’t know what else I could say. If we had someone up there that would actually be willing to be pro peace I would vote for that person, even if they wanted big government (which is actually not pro peace, but that is another conversation).
Presupposing the facts is a fallacy. You may legitimately quibble over the conditions over which Romney would defend the USA (i.e. preemptive defense vs wait til they hit the homeland first,) but you pre-suppose that Romney wants war. How can you know that?
You also pre-suppose that Romney wants to use the NDAA to detain US citizens. I hate that abuse of Constitutional law and think it needs to go away as much as you do, but how can you be so certain that Romney won’t fix that? You pre-suppose that Romney won’t rise to the occasion and do the right thing as if you know the future. obama is a much more known quantity. He will surely do all of the things we despise.
This is what is so crazy about this line of reasoning! Pick your historical figure that was part of America’s amazing birth. Doesn’t matter which one. Columbus to Lincoln. You can pick out the personal failings and political imperfections of each and every player. But the good guys were still inspired in their actions in spite of their weaknesses. How can God work America’s purpose with someone who acts in open rebellion like obama? Yet history shows He can work with imperfect men if they are good in general, and willing to hit their knees. I think we all instinctively know this, so some of us go to great lengths to try and prove that Mitt is evil. His imperfections are self-evident. But evil? Comparing Mitt to obama should reveal the good/evil dichotomy between the two the way any good contrast reveals the true nature of opposites.
To the question of war and when to wage it, it probably isn’t as tidy as you want to make it. I can think of at least one righteous war that was instigated by us… Who started the revolutionary war? We did! It wasn’t a defensive action against a first strike by the Brits. We started it because we wanted to be free. And many innocents died during the war that WE started.
I’m not saying that war in the middle east is akin to the revolutionary war… but I am making the point that I wouldn’t dare claim to know how God would deal with Satan’s bought and paid for armies and navies as He tries to keep the US stable enough for Him to finish storing up fruit. Are there NO conditions where a pre-emptive strike is warranted? Historians say Hitler could have been stopped early and millions could have been saved. But we waited until the war was pretty entrenched before we jumped in.
Part of what bothers me with the underlying narrative is that America is a force for evil in the world and that if we’d just mind our business, the world would be in harmony and love each other. Since we use the words of prophets–ancient and modern to help make the argument that we deserve calamity for bullying the world, perhaps we should remember Harold B Lee’s admonition with all the rest. He understood the “National Covenant” that Ballard writes about.
“Men may fail in this country, earthquakes may come, seas may heave beyond their bounds, there may be great drought, disaster, and hardship, but this nation, founded on principles laid down by men whom God raised up, will never fail. This is the cradle of humanity, where life on this earth began in the Garden of Eden. This is the place of the new Jerusalem. This is the place that the Lord said is favored above all other nations in all the world. This is the place where the Savior will come to His temple. This is the favored land in all the world. Yes, I repeat, men may fail, but this nation won’t fail. I have faith in America ; you and I must have faith in America , if we understand the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We are living in a day when we must pay heed to these challenges.
I plead with you not to preach pessimism. Preach that this is the greatest country in all the world. This is the favored land. This is the land of our forefathers. It is the nation that will stand despite whatever trials or crises it may yet have to pass through.”
A covenant is binding only in cases of righteousness. Both parties must adhere to its terms for it to be efficacious.
The Harold B. Lee quote is a good one to ponder, but it does not exist in a vacuum. I have a lengthy list of other GA quotes that condemn the government for its immorality, its evil wars, its unconstitutional deviations. It is not “pessimism” to point out these flaws and encourage their correction.
And that’s what I’m doing with Obama and Romney. Neither is worthy of support. Voting is an affirmation and should therefore be reserved for those who are good, honest, and wise—all three. At a very minimum, it should be reserved not for whoever will do the least bad things, but for those who will actually adhere to their oath of office.
Romney has made it repeatedly clear that he has no intention of doing so. He has no understanding of constitutional concepts. This was semi-humorously made clear during one of the early GOP debates when he deferred a Constitution-related question to Ron Paul, suggesting that Romney was ignorant of the answer. The same was made clear in the last presidential cycle when he said he would have to consult with his lawyers on a question that is clearly and explicitly answered in the Constitution. It is made even more clear when reviewing the recent “debates” and observing how the Constitution was referenced when discussing any of the many policies each candidate was promoting.
Remember that Christ told us to look at people’s fruits—not their words. You say that Romney was “pretty clear he wants peace, not war” but rely only on his words. You don’t reference his policy statements, where the actual action is being advocated—where we are being told what he would do as President. And so you ignore the fruits (or the intended fruits) and rely only on words—words which Romney has continually changed depending on the audience to which he is speaking.
I have a moral obligation to uphold righteousness and defend liberty. I find in neither leading candidate an understanding of the constitutional limits which must be imposed upon the federal government, let alone a willingness to execute such. I therefore refuse to support either, not wanting to be in any way accountable for having placed into power somebody who will violate their oath of office, kill innocent people, and further run roughshod over the Constitution.
I met Tim Ballard a few weeks ago and he was kind enough to give me a copy of the books you reference. I plan to read them. I agree that America is “special” and that God has made covenants with his people, to which he is willing to adhere if we are. But we’ve shown that we are not. We are wicked. We have let the Gadiantons take over, again. We have embraced a government that rules based on the laws of wickedness, as happened in the Book of Mormon. And sadly, a member of my church, Mitt Romney, shows no intention of doing anything substantive to move things in the opposite direction.
As for me and my house, then, we will offer our support elsewhere.
It is a great conversation…
No quote ought to be considered in a vacuum. But this prophet’s assertion, “Yes, I repeat, men may fail, but this nation won’t fail.” is pretty strong. What context can you come up with to parse such a declaration into meaning something other than what it says? And if it is true, how does it square with your worldview of America’s sin.
Of course covenants are based upon our righteous input, but whose righteousness? Must it be perfect leaders, or might it be a righteous remnant? Lee isn’t the only one who makes the case for America not failing. There will be calamities for sure, but Israel won’t be scattered again before the second coming.
Ballard’s view of the civil war as the result of our violating the National Covenant is pretty interesting. It seems that Lincoln didn’t recognize the civil war for what it really was until some sort of spiritual experience set him straight. The way Lincoln described things changed dramatically afterward when he decided, against tremendous pressure from his puppet masters, to emancipate the slaves. Why do I think this is relevant to the subject? Because Lincoln was no political saint. Once he got on his knees, humbled, Providence came to our aid.
In my view, the err in judgment is to say that Romney is beyond redemption. Even obama isn’t beyond redemption, but the likelihood of that is scenario is next to zero compared to Romney given Romney’s spiritual background and obama’s complete lack thereof. Why is it therefore impossible to think that the tides of History, and Providence (Who has every interest in keeping America viable until He is finished) cannot work with Romney the way He did with Lincoln?
I think you’ll really enjoy the whole of Ballard’s books–he gave a spell-binding presentation where I live this past week. I don’t expect our future to be without pain, but I fully expect to see God come out of his hiding place and show His hand.
But this prophet’s assertion, “Yes, I repeat, men may fail, but this nation won’t fail.” is pretty strong. What context can you come up with to parse such a declaration into meaning something other than what it says?
I haven’t claimed that America “will fail.” Though I’m not even sure what that means, so…
And if it is true, how does it square with your worldview of America’s sin.
I’m confused. Are you alleging that the federal government has done no wrong, or that Americans generally are abiding by this covenant to which you repeatedly refer?
Once he got on his knees, humbled, Providence came to our aid.
And yet he was a tyrant who egregiously violated the Constitution a large number of times and helped establish a precedent for the massive centralization of political power within the federal government that exists today. So there’s that.
Sure, “Providence” can come to our aid at any time. God can turn the worst of messes into a situation where His will may still be carried out. That doesn’t bind us to support bad politicians or policies, merely because God is still able to save the day.
In my view, the err in judgment is to say that Romney is beyond redemption.
Who has claimed that he is? I haven’t. If he wins, I’d love to see him persuaded to embrace liberty. But the deck would be stacked against him. Powerful forces have controlled the federal government for decades, beyond even the power of the Presidency. And Romney’s own policy advocacy betrays any understanding of or desire for constitutional government. So, redemption is possible, sure, but that whole line upon line, precept upon precept thing suggests that Romney is a long ways away from getting close to where he should be.
You know… something strikes me as I continue to try and put my finger on the nut of “the lesser of evils argument” so common to this narrative. This is reverse moral relativism. When the case is made that Romney is essentially as bad as obama–(therefore it doesn’t matter who wins; therefore the illusion of opting out of the choice isn’t a moral hazard) we have to overlook a very critical difference between the two candidates to declare them equally evil.
It is pretty easy to make the case that obama is in open rebellion. I would go so far as to say he has made personal covenants with the adversary. Look at the fruits as you say. Every action and every word emanating from that man over the last 4 years causes contention and division–not haphazardly, but willfully. There are no exceptions to this rule of which I’m aware. His love of satan’s socialist ideology is well documented. His adherence to Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, which is dedicated to Lucifer (check the title page,) is not contested.
Romney’s fruits? Mortal folly? of course. But certainly I have never seen him agitate, cause contention willfully, or intentionally promote socialism for the love of promoting socialism. His ecumenical and personal life are exemplary compared to obama’s. And Romney’s covenants? Anyone prepared to show that he is in open rebellion? The litany of Romney’s business investments and political history just tell me that we are dealing with someone who is human.
Putting an equal sign between Romney and obama (negative moral relativism, or promoting equivalent evil) is the equivalent of putting an equal sign between gay marriage and traditional marriage (positive moral relativism, or promoting equivalence in moral goodness).
Romney’s fruits? Mortal folly? of course. But certainly I have never seen him agitate, cause contention willfully, or intentionally promote socialism for the love of promoting socialism.
When it comes to electing the President, I am 100% unconcerned if the individual “agitates” (?), “causes contention willfully,” or “intentionally promotes socialism.” If he promotes socialism at all, intentionally or not, then I must oppose him. And adhering to the Constitution can be done by somebody who is contentious or not. All I really carry about is if the candidate will enforce the Constitution. If he will not, then I don’t care if he’s contentious or anti-family or anti-business or Satanic or whatever. He opposes the Constitution, and that is that. So I don’t support him.
His ecumenical and personal life are exemplary compared to obama’s.
This has nothing to do with upholding the Constitution. I’m sure he’s a great guy in person, and a wonderful family man. All signs point to this being the case. But when it comes to sanctions in Iran, or the war on drugs, or using drones, or propping up the welfare system, etc., having an exemplary family live is irrelevant. A bomb dropped on an innocent person does not become more justified when the person who ordered it loves his wife and goes to church.
Did I understand you correctly? A leader could be Satanic, but dedicated to constitutional enforcement and you would support him?
Matthew 7:16-18 comes to mind:
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Uh, I was referring to contention, and not Satanism, so… not sure how you made the leap.
But yes, I would support a “Satanic” candidate who would rigidly adhere to the Constitution over a “Christian” candidate who showed no such constitutional fidelity, yes.
Note that I said “over”; given the option of only these two, I would rather see the constitutional adherent in office. But I don’t imagine I would ever support a Satanic individual for office anyway, so I don’t see the scenario ever playing out.
You’ve talked a lot about covenants, redemption, etc. Do you or do you not believe that we should oppose candidates who show no constitutional understanding or fidelity? Are we to look past political problems and immoral policies simply out of a (false?) hope for potential change in the future?
I think I finally have my answer. I am sorry to say, but I have felt very intense discomfort over the line of reasoning you and others like you have been promoting for a long time, but until now, I didn’t know why. Your ideology is tightly dressed in righteousness. And you are well respected by many.
We are very clearly told in 3rd Nephi that contention is of the devil. You speak of measuring by fruits, but are willing to overlook very distinct evil fruit in your quest for political perfection–specifically, you said in your own words that contention, anti-family values, anti-business values, or Satanic values wouldn’t stop you from supporting a Constitutional adherent. Of course it is an impossible hypothetical because someone who is decent would never produce that kind of fruit, but your admission is instructive to me and I hope others. (that is if you are brave enough to leave this conversation intact)
I have spoken of Covenants and redemption. And yes I believe we have to overlook past political problems in our political leaders or we would could never settle on any, because no human soul can achieve perfection in Constitutional ideology or adherence. Christ will be the only one with that distinction, when He finally returns. Until then, even a Thomas Monson, should he garner 50+ percent of the vote, would be a Constitutionally imperfect leader.
You’re perhaps not understanding what I am saying. I am not talking about overlooking past political problems. I’m okay with that, in some circumstances, and with certain reassurances. We all make mistakes, we all progress and learn.
I am talking about future political problems, or in other words, when a candidate advocates policies that are unconstitutional.
This is different than candidate X having supported bad policy A in the past, but who shows now that he will in the future support (constitutional) policy B.
Romney is promising to violate the Constitution in the future. As president, he will enact policies that are unconstitutional. He has loudly, widely, and repeatedly advocated as much on the campaign trail.
Why, then, should any supporter of the Constitution support him? What is the point of even having an oath of office if we are willingly electing people who show an utter disregard for what it is supposed to mean?
My “admission,” as you call it, is simply this:
We should support candidates who will adhere to the Constitution at a minimum, and then once that benchmark is achieved, we should support “good, honest, and wise” individuals for public office. (This disqualifies your “Satanic” example.) Family values, Christian morals, good business ethic, etc.—these and a host of other factors are not at all relevant unless and until the first, most basic criteria has been met, namely, whether the candidate will uphold the Constitution.
Romney does not meet that basic criteria.
you pre-suppose that Romney wants war. How can you know that?
From Mitt Romney’s election web page:
Mitt Romney will therefore exercise leadership in working with both Congress and our international partners to implement newer and broader economic sanctions to increase pressure on the Iranian regime.
So, yes, he wants war, economic sanctions are an act of war.
But let me tell you, people who join Al Qaeda are not entitled to the rights of due process under our normal legal code. They are entitled instead to be treated as enemy combatants.
So Romney says that people who commit treason should not get due process, which it says in the constitution they should receive due process.
We was absolutely evil. Remember the scripture the “wicked destroy the wicked?” What does that make Lincoln? The southern states had a right to secede (according to promises made when they signed the constitution and according to the US Declaration of Independence), Lincoln changed that and put those people in bondage. Lincoln only freed the slaves to get them to join his side, note that the emancipation didn’t include states that were on the side of the north.
That was defensive and, therefore, OK according to the scriptures. The wars we are fighting today are offensive and are contrary to D&C 98.
Are there NO conditions where a pre-emptive strike is warranted?
Not according to D&C 98.
Part of what bothers me with the underlying narrative is that America is a force for evil in the world and that if we’d just mind our business, the world would be in harmony and love each other.
I don’t believe that is true. There would still be problems and if people want to use their money or talents to voluntarily help I would be OK with that, but government’s job is to defend its people not other peoples.
Your Harold B Lee quote is wrong. Why? Because the scriptures (BoM) talk about how the US can become corrupt and have to be over run. The presidents of the church are not infallible men and the quote you quoted demonstrates that. There is no guarantee that we will prevail. The scriptures speak to that. When we reach the peak of our sinfulness is when the country need fear that it can be cleansed of its wickedness. The scriptures speak to that, we should listen.
To Connor, I think you are putting the cart before the horse. Constitutional fidelity would more likely be the fruit of righteousness and love for the Plan of Happiness…not the other way around.
To Jon, I don’t even know where to begin.
The revolutionary war was offensive on our part. The brits weren’t coming to kill us… if we had backed off, they would have gone home and left things the way they were. In fact they had planned to offer complete amnesty to us if we stopped our offense. We took the first action at Ticonderoga. Know your history.
And Lincoln? Joseph Smith said this of States Rights: “The State rights doctrines are what feed mobs. They are a dead carcass –a stink, and they shall ascend up as a stink offering in the nose of the Almighty.
HIstory of the Church, Vol. 6 p. 95. You have to understand the context of the National Covenant to get that we would have never had peace enough to establish our temples without the 14th amendment or do away with slavery. Joseph Smith was in Lincoln’s camp on strengthening the fed. And no, it doesn’t justify todays federal over reach.
And if you will only accept some prophets words, and not HBLee’s? Well… what does that say?
Constitutional fidelity would more likely be the fruit of righteousness and love for the Plan of Happiness…not the other way around.
This makes no sense.
Constitutional fidelity is the fruit of advocating policies which are constitutional. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with personal righteousness and love. It has everything to do with only supporting policies which are authorized by the Constitution.
No. It has everything to do with personal righteousness and understanding the principles of Agency upon which it was founded. The Constitution is the mortal codification of the ideology we fought for in the War in Heaven in imperfect law form–in fact, it is the National Covenant for modern Israel. To the degree that a person’s native love for Agency is part of his or her spiritual makeup, they will manifest that love for Liberty be they Mormon or not.
I think it has something to do with “My sheep hear my voice.” I’m lost how you can think Constitutional fidelity is independent of one’s love for God’s plan for us.
Just like in the BoM where the Lamanites had the Nephites surrounded and said they had to pay them (onerous) taxes. So the Nephites escaped, contrary to the Lamanite law. Likewise, the American revolutionaries were being burdened by the British. They could have gone west but the land was theirs, not the British and they chose to overthrow their oppressor, which is their right, according to natural law (as outlined in the Declaration of Independence). So, yes, it was defensive.
All other nations in the Western hemisphere ended slavery without bloodshed. Why couldn’t the US do it? Because we were wicked.
As for the infallibility of the prophets, where does scripture support this? This is a false doctrine started by one of the presidents of the church (can’t think of his name right now) and perpetuated. As the saying goes, “Catholic theology states that the pope is infallible, but the catholics don’t believe it. Mormons believe the prophet is fallible but mormons don’t believe it.”
Without state rights there is no law but chaos, since then the federal government could do what it willed. The context of the JS quote was from the federal government not protecting the saints from state/mob tyranny. Really, the real problem is people not living up to the standard of the non-aggression principle or love your neighbor as yourself (which assumes that you love yourself as Christ loves you).
So, really these are just side issues. They don’t change my points on why Romney has shown he is not for peace but for war and, consequently, for blowing little kids up in foreign lands.
What does not believing every word of every president of the church say about me? It says that I am not a slave to others, as oft quoted from Brigham Young. I can get you the quote if you ask.
Jon, with regards to the Revolutionary war, history doesn’t really support your little twist. We were very much the aggressors, and the British thumb was very light compared to the stories you reference in the BOM. The Brits came not so much to enslave us they way the stories go in the BOM, but to enforce British law (yes, unjust). You and I agree that our cause was righteous, but we were very much the aggressors. One proof of that is that the Brits would have offered every single American amnesty and left things the way they were if we had just backed off. This is an important distinction, not some peripheral issue, because it threatens your narrative.
The JS quote is exactly the point on Lincoln as well. The Constitution was being violated by the states in both slavery and religious freedom. Today the feds have too much power, but pre-14th amendment, they didn’t have enough power to protect individual liberty. Lincoln restored the National Covenant when he freed the slaves and gave the fed enough power to guarantee our God given rights.
And I never said Prophets were infallible. But did someone declare HBLee’s quote to be false doctrine? Somewhere I missed that.
So, if your master tells you to behave and he’ll forgive you that means you have to obey? The grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence are pretty clear. It is man’s right to have liberty and freedom, when any entity takes that right away the people and the individual have a right and a duty to shake off the oppressor. Who was telling who to do things that were contrary to natural law? The British were, therefore, the colonies had a right to rebel. The aggressor is the person/people trying to rule over others. No one has a right to rule over others, some people may have a right to lead people, but the interaction must be voluntary. The interaction was not voluntary with the British government, therefore, the oppressors were the British. I don’t know how I can be more clear.
Also, I’ve shown you that Romney wants war. You have not refuted it. Does that mean you concede the point?
I declared Lee’s quote to be false doctrine. The scriptures don’t support such a view. Look up 3 Ne. 16:10. I would like to point out this also:
shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth
This is what Romney has said he believes. He said he believes it is OK for us to tell other governments how to act and behave, even what forms of governments they have. It doesn’t get much worse than that. Direct contradiction to what Christ taught us.
This is becoming very interesting.
1–My husband and I have ‘supported’ Ron Paul since 1988 when we first voted for him; we don’t idolize him; we don’t reverence him; we don’t ‘follow’ him. We have never met anyone LDS who supports him (besides some family members of ours who live four states away)–
You are reading a different book. You live in a different world. Yes, you are troubled by the paradigm that some of *us* who speak a different liberty language (obviously) present–because it’s not yours; that’s a very simple thing.
The fact is that there probably are Ron Paul supporters who are very angry, because the GOP trod heavily upon anyone who was not supporting Romney. There were unjust, illegal things done all over the country in order to make certain that Romney had the nomination.
You read a book by a man named Ballard, who is probably a ‘nice’ man, though he works for the CIA, which you must think is at least a neutral organization–
I have studied conspiracies, yes, conspiracies, for almost 40 years. I saw a video and heard Romney speaking to a group of wealthy supporters about how he had gotten the most experienced people in the world to help him with his campaign, and “they always win their elections”–
That doesn’t bother you? It doesn’t bother you that he made money disposing of unborn babies? It doesn’t bother you that he destroyed companies and that thousands upon thousands of Americans lost their livelihood? It doesn’t bother you that he is ‘best buddies’ with Benjamin Netanyahu whose nation is not officially in any way an ally to the U.S.? It doesn’t bother you that while Israel has many nuclear weapons and Iran (under sanctions for years from the U.S.) can’t even use nuclear for energy? None of this bothers you?
Yes, we are reading out of different books. Harold B. Lee’s quote is very ‘nice’; it is–
was it prophetic or a personal opinion; who knows? I don’t. The fact is that God cares about all of His people, all of His children, the world over, not just the people who live in the geographical boundaries (or carry the passports) of the United States of America. No matter what any prophet says.
Which prophets trump which prophets? The Book of Mormon and the Bible both are clear that God is no respecter of persons. What good does it do for any human being to continually tell him/herself that he/she or his/her nation is all right, will be fine, no need to worry–
This is the standard talk that Nephi condemned in chapter 28 (of 2 Nephi)–that people can cheat a little, lie a little, etc.–eat, drink, and be merry–
So, how do you ‘square’ that with this idealism about America, which is, in my opinion, rotten to the core?
How do you square the scripture about those who receive the greater light receiving the greater condemnation.
Romney just about IS Monsanto; Bain was formed by the CEO of Monsanto in gratitude to him for having saved Monsanto when it got such bad press over agent orange.
Agent orange, responsible for the suffering and death of so many human beings from Asia to America–
So, Romney turned them in the direction of GMOs, and who knows what kind of suffering that will bring?
Mortal folly? This man has made temple covenants (I assume)–
Obama doesn’t have the full truth–
So which man is at the greater risk?
Would you like me to give you the links about Romney’s involvement with the wealthy Central American families/investors–
whose actions caused the death of so many innocent El Salvadorans (and others)?
We’re not reading out of the same book, and, yes, I can see why you would be uncomfortable. The truth is hard to take–
You see, Paul, one of the things that waking up politically has done for *me*, personally, is to help me to see what great peril I am in, if I don’t repent constantly–
I question all my actions, as to what impact they have on anyone else in the world (not to mention my family, my ward members, my friends, my neighbors)–
Being awake is important–
If we sleep . . . if we are lulled to sleep . . . we are in great danger–
‘all is well in Zion’ is what I am hearing. Romney is a Mormon, so all will be well.
You need to study the history of the world as it REALLY has happened. You need to study what the CIA did in Iran back in 1953 to understand completely what is happening.
And you need to ask yourself if the things you are reading ‘fit’ with the Book of Mormon.
Conspiracies are at the root of all the evil and corruption in the Book of Mormon (and the Bible, probably)–
Evil and conspiring men destroyed the Nephite civilization–
but no ‘active’ LDS could ever be involved in a conspiracy?
If you believe that, I can see why the words of those of *us* who do not believe that–
would make you uncomfortable.
And, yes, I’ve been called a conspiracy nut–
But if you are uncomfortable talking to people who believe that Romney would not be a good president (I believe he would not honor the constitution; why should he; he hasn’t honored complete integrity in his business dealings)
and that Obama is no worse–and possibly not in as great peril, because he doesn’t have the ‘fullness’ of the gospel–
then just vote for Romney and stop worrying about *us*–
Your man will probably win anyway–
Why is it so important to try to convince people who obviously don’t see things the way you do–
that you are right, and that we need to vote as you believe *we* should?
Sorry about the *we*–
Those who believe as *I* do (backing away from the *we*)–
are in a minority–
why am *I* a threat to you–
I have never attacked anyone who didn’t support Ron Paul–
but I have been marginalized in my own ward, because I don’t support Romney.
If I believe as you (Paul) believe, then that is because I need to repent and support Romney?
So I should be marginalized?
We all believe as we believe—
and I am beginning to realize that I am wasting my time–
but I’ve said what I’ve said; it’s out there–
2–I guess we shall see . . . time will tell which one of us had the more correct way of viewing things–
but . . .
you keep speaking of ‘modern’ Israel–
The largest group of Jews in the world outside Israel is found in Iran. They (most of them) are very devoted Jews, by the way. Most of them have turned down offers to emigrate to Israel–
Why? They are afraid their children will find it hard to be ‘true’ to the faith in Israel, because Israel is so permissive–
These people would be some of the hardest hit if either America or Israel decided to ‘hit’ Iran because Iran has talked about developing nuclear power plants–
(no weapons yet, not even on the table, by an independent international nuclear watch group)–
Yet Romney keeps bringing up Iran? Who cares most about those who have been faithful to their covenants (again, I remind *you*, Iranian Jews are among some of the most faithful, and there is a Jewish member of the Iranian parliament)–
People are already leaving Iran, because of the suffering from America’s economic sanctions?
There is a huge grass-roots movement in Israel, by the way, of people who are ‘concerned’ about the direction the leaders of Israel are taking it (sound familiar?) who are deeply concerned about the threat to all Iranians (not just the Jews) if Netanyahu and his American buddy Romney and their banks are successful in starting a war–
What has Iran done wrong?
–they have resisted world banking
–their political leader (name starts with an “A”, can’t remember how to spell it) was misquoted; he never said that anyone wanted to wipe Israel off the ‘map’–
he was critical of some of those who have supported Israel–so . . . a leader of one nation can’t be critical of the actions of the leaders of another nation now? Without some pampered, narrow-minded (yes, I said that) American like Romney turning the conversation to starting a war with them?
If Iran gets hit, some of the most faithful Jews in the world will suffer, and many will likely die–
Iran hasn’t threatened Romney or America or even Israel–
so what has gotten into Romney? He is being ‘managed’ by the huge international banks that donate so much to his campaign . . .
and to Obama in the past–
Look at one source:
They are backing away from Obama, which implies that probably Romney will be elected–
These banks are very powerful all over the world, but they don’t like regimes that won’t let them control things–
Iran is one of them . . .
Iran poses no threat to Israel–
Iran poses a threat to Goldman-Sachs and other huge banks–
which were bailed out by Bush (with Obama’s blessing)–
and Romney supported those bailouts–
just for fun–
While *we* are talking about Romney, Obama and . . .
the ‘no-name’ candidates–
Who is running things?
And what does this sort of thing mean for the future of America/the world?
Is this sort of the thing the fulfilling of covenants?
Just throwing this out there–
Look, I’m getting sucked into a conversation that is going a hundred directions. I don’t disagree with the list of grievances against the Brits that started the Revolutionary War. I’m just pointing out that your narrative that we only go to war defensively is flawed. If we were purely on defense against the Brits per their oppression of us, then by all means, are you advocating civil war here in America today? Good grief, we are FAR more oppressed by our Govt today than the colonialists were by the Brits. Should WE go on the offense in defense of their oppression of us? Take up our guns and start killing the statists that rule over us? Talk is so cheap…
I think you and Romney disagree on the conditions for War–that is the only thing I will concede, but I think it is hogwash to say he WANTS war–that is some sort of strawman argument. I don’t want war either–my wife has lived through war, and I know of its horrors through her in very real ways. So if I am responsible for war by voting for Mitt as the consequence of my actions at the voting booth–then so are each of you responsible for the consequence of your actions at the voting booth. I’m not talking about the lofty blue sky of where your voting lever points…I’m talking about the actual consequence of your vote. You hate war, but advocate that obama might be better for us because it will wake us up more? (per the original post we are commenting on) Lets have more tyranny and more war so we will be more awake? This is like a dog chasing its tail!
I’m not saying all is well in Zion either. But how is having faith in America’s mission and covenant in a positive way; and recognizing the potential for God to fight our battles making me oblivious to secret combinations?
Who do you think the brethren will be voting for? They won’t tell us, but do you think they’ll be writing each other in, or voting for Gary Johnson? Are the ones that vote for Romney apostate? I’m glad Jon feels comfortable that he knows enough to parse through a prophets statements and declare which are legitimate and which are false doctrine. I don’t know that much.
I am not marginalizing anyone for who they support. I don’t ridicule you for it or dare to claim you need repentance for it. I honor your freedom to think and vote your conscience. The paradigm I’m framing my argument around…the one that seems to be so different from yours, is the war in heaven–which rages today. I think very little has changed between there and here.
So, no doubt I have come to the point where I have said too much… but I think Connor revealed the err in judgment for this line of thinking when he described his take on Constitutional fidelity, to which he articulated, essentially, that one could be true to the constitution and hate righteousness.
I think the constitution and the Plan of Salvation are inextricably linked–you cannot love the one and hate the other. Any righteous man will come to love the principles of the Constitution as they are opened to him because they tickle our spiritual memory of what we fought for in the first estate. It is that simple.
You may all have the last word. 🙂 Long live the boisterous sea of liberty! May its Author always protect it from its enemies.
We probably agree on more things than this discussion shows and who ends up being president doesn’t really matter, all that matters is that we find and act with liberty and freedom in our own lives.
As for the revolutionary war and today. Yes, people have the right to throw off their oppressors. I don’t advocate that we get our guns (especially since I don’t own any). I think it can be done through the free market, i.e., just ignore as much as possible. Eventually, we would need to act the part, like stop using licenses, etc. Simple and minor things. Probably the most important is to stop putting our kids in government schools.
Like I said, if Romney doesn’t want war then he would advocate the end of economic sanctions, otherwise he wants war.
Personally I don’t think Obama winning will wake people up, per this conversation it should be obvious that most people have their opinions and are unlikely to change them. We have Argentina as a great example on how corrupt government doesn’t wake the people up, just impoverishes them more, hence the reason it is so important to take your kids out of government schools, so they don’t learn that the government is what should rule our lives.
There are general authorities that are democrats (and apostles that have been liberal) so does that mean people should split their vote by how many of the brethren are liberal vs conservative? By your logic that would seem so.
As for me being able to look at statements and figure out truth, well, if you don’t do that then you have abdicated your spiritual liberty and truly believe that they are infallible. The scriptures warn against that too.
I love the true principles of the constitution, not necessarily the constitution itself, does that make me wicked? Romney doesn’t like either, from what he has said. The constitution is just a stepping stone on the path to learn to become a freer people to say otherwise is to say that the founders didn’t want us to continue to innovate and become a freer people.
Well, have fun voting! I haven’t decided if I’ll even bother showing up or use the time to bond with my kids instead, it would probably be a better use of my time.
Scott Pelley: And that is time. Thank you, sir. Governor Romney. Governor Romney, recently President Obama ordered the death of an American citizen who was suspected of terrorist activity overseas. Is it appropriate for the American president on the president’s say-so alone to order the death of an American citizen suspected of terrorism?
Mitt Romney: Absolutely.
presidential debate, November 2012–
There it is, from his own mouth–
Jon, I apologize for not having the CIA information on Obama’s mother handy–
it was something I read in passing–
Paul, I am sorry if you have felt . . . ‘ganged up on’ (a phrase my parents used when I was young)–
I agree that those of *us* (some of *us*) who frequent this site are a passionate and possibly eccentric group.
I am sorry your wife experienced war; that is horrific–
My father fought in WWII, and then I served a mission in that same country (which was a unique experience and has changed my own paradigm)–
and my father was deeply damaged by that war–
so I am as close to a Mormon pacifist as someone can get–
I think, perhaps, what I am trying to say in a nutshell, and I don’t have to have the ‘last word’ is:
I don’t have faith in America’s future; I have faith in the God of America (and the world); I have faith in Jesus Christ; that is where I place my trust and my faith–
When it’s all sorted out I doubt very much if it will matter where any of us were born (or died)–
This could be, in part, because some of my children were born in other countries into terrible circumstances–
poverty beyond comprehension–
but have brought with them spirits capable of so much more than being typical American youth–
the ingratitude and arrogance that attends so many of the American peers with whom they associate . . .
So, you see, our personal experiences do shape us.
I have a passion for the countries from which my children came–though those same countries are not especially appreciated by most Americans–
because my children brought with them unique grace and refinement and courage–
perhaps it’s the orphan experience; maybe that’s all it is–
but I don’t want to discount their cultures, their ancestors–
Being an international family does make things interesting–
both ways–as you can see. *wink*
Jon, I’m with you on home education–
been at it almost 20 years! 🙂
And the free market can work; I just strenuously avoid GMOs and try to support everyone who avoids them–
it is, however, very expensive for someone/a family who has an upper lower class income and refuses to use government assistance–
to have the money to avoid cheap food–
Life is certainly an interesting challenge–
Yeah, we avoid that also. I have a bit of a black thumb, I keep trying to get better at it. Part it is I like to experiment quite a bit, so the learning experience is a bit slower. We use the CSA mostly during the summer months. But, I don’t have to worry about money quite as much, thank goodness, although I’m in the middle of a career change, hoping that doesn’t make me poor, but we live pretty cheaply as it is.
In spite of, or because of its impassioned arguments, it has been a good conversation. Just so there is no mistake, I don’t feel ganged upon or picked upon. And I bear no malice for any of you who have engaged me.
I do feel somewhat compelled to leave you with some thought questions. They go to the heart of America’s purpose. And they are all related.
1. What does it mean to you to be an Ephraimite? (Most of us are declared to be that). Is it religious window dressing? Does it affect anything in your life? When is the last time you even let the thought cross your mind?(my understanding is starting to crystalize, but it has been an un-articulatable mystery for me until recently as I am awakened by our troubled state. It so happens to be commanded of me to learn it in my PB…and here I am at middle age finally starting.)
2. Do you know which part of the Bible our founding fathers quoted most in relation to our founding? Even more specific, do you know which book in that part of the bible they quoted most?
3. WHY did George Washington place his hand where he did when he was inaugurated? Not on a closed bible, but opened to Genesis 49? (Historians say it was random, but the significance can be found in Joseph’s blessing–that which was to befall him in the last days.)
My assertion is that NONE of us will have a very clear understanding of America’s politics, or how the minutia of personalities and policies over which we argue, affects us without restoring our historical memory along with the understanding of the Abrahamic Covenant’s role in America’s politics. Our individual righteousness does not exist in isolation. The national covenant. It is actually very very cool.
Your PB talking about learning what it means to be an Ephraimite is interesting, because many people have PBs that have some kind of unique instruction in them, that is specific to the person being given the blessing.
I have a friend who has used her descendancy from Ephraim as a springboard to justify supporting and voting for people who believe that being a good American means sending troops to places like Aghanistan and Iraq and destroying people who are not ‘like us’–
My friend has very specifically said that, as an Israelite through Ephraim, she has a responsibility to place the nation of Israel first–and make sure it is defended, even though–
defended from what?
This person is our ward’s gospel doctrine teacher–
What does it mean to be an Ephraimite? I don’t know; I am one, and I don’t think it means that I have to support people being killed in the middle east who might be something else–
I guess some of us, perhaps I am unique in this, as an adoptive parent, don’t place as much emphasis on the genetics as we do on the spiritual lineage.
You are correct. Individual righteousness does not exist in isolation, or very rarely does it. Abraham was righteous in spite of a very unrighteous father (nobody knows what his mother was like)–
but even those of us who know that *we* (there I go again) owe many or most of our blessings to our righteous ancestors–
have had to sort through and take out of the chaff–
I also know that before, during, and after the time of Joseph Smith many in America and England talked about the lost tribes of Israel and Israel being in northern Europe, etc.–
It’s not a new idea–
but if those ideas empower people to oppress others, then–
that is a deep concern to me. Many in modern Israel today fear that leaders of Israel and supporters (whatever their religious beliefs) of the state of Israel from outside Israel–
have taken their interpretations of Israel and used it them to justify things that should not be justified.
There are many in Israel, yes, Jews, who are not happy with how Palestinians are treated–
and many other good Jews who question the things that Israel and ‘her’ founders have done–
Is there a place for them? Is there a place for those of us who worry that Romney will go too far, because he is very much what some in the liberty community call an “israel-firster”–
I am very concerned about what has become of Mormons and *our* culture. *We* seem to have become very centered on Babylon and Babylonian things–
which is why I was so pleased when Connor posted his new blog essay on Zion–
To me (finally using the correct pronoun) working to achieve Zion is the most important thing, and I am sure that injunction to achieve Zion rings deeply into the hearts of all Godly people who are aware of the existence of the possibility of Zion–
anywhere/everywhere in the world–
How fascinating… some people use their understanding of Israel’s promises and blessings to oppress the peoples of the world? I guess any concept can be abused. But its almost like saying Christianity is false because of the crusades, or like saying the Mormon church is false because of the actions of some of its members.
I stand by my statement that no one can fully understand American politics without understanding the Abrahamic Covenant and the patriarchal blessings given to Jacob’s sons. I realize that many in the world resent the apparent ethnocentrism that comes with it, but anyone who does, misunderstands. There is nothing in the application of the National Covenants, where ever they have existed through history, that is racist, or that takes away from the goodness of individuals that live outside those nations.
In fact, if you really understand the scattering/gathering process, you know that natural branches have been scattered all over the world. But the gathering and grafting to the natural root in the last days (Jacob 5) could never happen without an exceptional nation–a place that has gone beyond the individual covenant and made a collective agreement on the national level.
Look at the blessing Jacob gave to Joseph relative to the land that would be for his inheritance. (Genesis 49) Of all the blessings given to his sons, the one he gave to Joseph was extraordinary. Was the prophetic description of America an “oops” on the Lord’s part?
Ignoring the spiritual role of America in the life of Israel and taking the view that all nations are equally valid in their contributions to mans’ salvation truly misses the mark. I’m not accusing you of such… but when you accuse America of arrogance (which no doubt exists among some Americans) it comes off like you see America’s affect on the world as primarily bad.
So perhaps, I am suggesting that America is primarily a force for good in the world–in fact is under a covenant obligation to be a light and a Godly lawgiver to the world’s people; and secondarily has done some bad things because of Satan’s influence among us. I sense that America’s imperfections have caused some to lose faith in her mission and take the anti-colonialist view that we rose to power by pillaging the rest of the world.
If you are right about America’s non-exceptionalism, then God, Abraham, Jacob, Nephi, Isaiah et al, were all blowing smoke.
Here is Christ accusing the US of exceptionalism and saying it is wicked:
3 Ne. 16:10
shall be lifted up in the pride of their hearts above all nations, and above all the people of the whole earth
Lead by kindness and love using only persuasion. A good leader is a good example.
An analysis of the scriptures that talk about Israel and the US in the BoM
Nope, doesn’t mean we should fight for them, it means that we should gather them by teaching the gospel.
I’m not referring to pride or war. I’m referring to the exceptional ways that the world has been blessed by our systemic goodness–which is our PRIMARY contribution to the world.
I think they have an idiom for it… “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” It is possible to focus too much on the negative. The 13th article of faith after all teaches us to look for the good in this world and make note of it.
Sadly, Paul, I think too many of the nations ‘of the world’ are too busy being afraid of or ashamed of Americans (100,000 innocent people dead by sanctions alone before America even invaded Iraq)–
to feel *our* “goodness”.
There are other nations who ‘top’ *us* in humanitarian aid. There are other nations who have fewer people in their prisons (even Russia has fewer in her/its prisons)–
I’m afraid our record for ‘goodness’ is quite tarnished right now–
It’s sad, but to deny it isn’t helping America or helping ancient blessings come–
Those blessings will come to the righteous; I have no doubt of it–
but first hearts of LDS and Christians must be softened to realize that aggressing against people about whom we have been propagandized . . .
isn’t pleasing the Lord and won’t fulfill any promises–
Besides, who is throwing the baby out? Or the bathwater? By saying that America needs to repent (especially Mormons and Christians who should know better) am *I* (or the Book of Mormon prophets) negating any covenants (Abrahamic, which I do believe is in existence throughout the world today; there is at least one African tribe that asserted itself to be Jewish descended from ancient Jews, very black, that was proven to have DNA that matched known Levites–
however modern Israel hasn’t taken too kindly to their immigrating into that nation)
I don’t understand. Did I suggest, ever, that America be destroyed? Or . . . that constitutional principles should be abandoned, because they haven’t worked?
I’m not asking for/praying for America’s destruction. I am praying that Americans will wake up–
as the Book of Mormon prophets hoped, I am sure–
To the contrary, I believe those who give up on that inspired document are those who are throwing the baby out with the bath–
those who settle for less are selling America down the river–
oh well; we won’t agree–
but I appreciate your passion–
Funny. I think we agree that repentance and righteous living is needed. It is the approach that differs. It seems that yours is, “repent you big bully.”
Perhaps, “repent. You are supposed to be a shining city upon the hill. You have blessed the world in these specific ways and your salt is in danger of losing its savor. Remember the miracles bought your freedom, and remember the prosperity that has come as a result of your freedom!” is a much more positive way.
I think the reportedly false doctrine that HBLee preached was more along that line of Article of Faith 13 thinking.
There may be a time for the “you deserve to suffer hellfire and damnation for your wickedness” kind of call to repentance. But usually it is more along the lines of “how often have I gathered you like a hen gathers her chicks” kind of positive invitation.
I really think so much of what you guys are saying is kind of bitter rancor. Not uplifting.
I guess it is not lost on some of us that your arguments against American exceptionalism sound a lot like obama’s when obama said in April 2009. “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”
And then you make oblique arguments that it would somehow be better to have him as president than Romney “to further awaken us” or because “more will be expected of Romney because of his gospel knowledge–so God will be more merciful to obama who is ignorant.”
Is the irony of that lost on any of you? The fact that you find your worldview, as it relates to America’s role, lined up with the most satanic ruler American has ever known?
It just does not square with the “exceptional” blessing given to Joseph which I will quote here: From Genesis 49
22 Joseph is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well; whose branches run over the wall:
23 The archers have sorely grieved him, and shot at him, and hated him:
24 But his bow abode in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the mighty God of Jacob; (from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel:)
25 Even by the God of thy father, who shall help thee; and by the Almighty, who shall bless thee with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that lieth under, blessings of the breasts, and of the womb:
26 The blessings of thy father have prevailed above the blessings of my progenitors unto the utmost bound of the everlasting hills: they shall be on the head of Joseph, and on the crown of the head of him that was separate from his brethren.
BTW… (I know, I should have shut up a long time ago) but can the line between good and evil be any clearer?
obama releases an add comparing voting for him the first time to losing one’s virginity. Oh… and so does putin.
Sure. obama for another 4 might just be what America needs.
It was amply shown that Romney does want to go to war, that he doesn’t care about the 4th amendment. Two things you said that he didn’t believe, but we showed it with his own words. Both candidates are disgusting and revolting to a freedom loving mind. No more to blowing up little children in foreign lands. That right there is enough for me to despise both candidates. If Romney changes his mind to be not a lover of war then I’ll change my mind. But I think a destroying angel would have to visit him first to change his mind. If Romney or Obama wins, let us pray that such an angel will visit them.
At this point it is more important to find freedom and liberty in our own lives. Let us take the example of Mormon and not join the military. Let us look at the true heroes of our day that are truly fighting tyranny, some who are being put in cages for this struggle.
Paul, I’m sorry you believe that my desire to be a repentant American is ‘bitter rancour’–
I don’t listen to Obama or Romney; I’ve read enough about both of them to believe they are both, probably equally, evil men–
the difference is that Romney has received the greater light–
I don’t think Father in Heaven and Jesus Christ have ever in any scripture admonished those children who have made covenants with Them to . . .
rejoice in their own righteousness, and that is what I feel is happening in the things that you are saying about America’s ‘possibilities’–
I think there is always greater danger that people will be self-satisfied and not repent than that they will feel worse about having done bad things–
I would rather err on the side of feeling worse about my sins that trying to show people how good I am–
why is it different with nations?
Pride in a nation is no better than pride in a person–
both are not things God loves–
what He wants is for His children to repent and come to Him, not to talk about how wonderful they are–
it’s all in a day’s work here at libertyville–
Jon, I agree; it is time to find liberty/truth/righteousness in the personal/family life–
*working hard on it*
It is past time to depend upon wards/leaders whether in the church or in the nation or world and lean on the scriptures and the Holy Ghost–
Paul, why would you think that those of us who don’t think either Romney or Obama are men of good will–
don’t follow Paul’s admonition?
Oh, NO, I got the joke–
admonition of Paul! 🙂
I just got it–
I believe that seeking for all things that are good and virtuous does not mean that we deny evil when we see it–
and it’s all right that Harold B. Lee waxed hopeful and expansive about America; I wonder what he thinks about it now–
Harold B. Lee was a good man and . . . believe it or not . . . a family friend–
I get it.
Pick which latter day prophets you will follow.
Advocate abandoning wards and Church leaders.
Self flagellation Opus Dei-Monk style.
Constitutional fidelity trumps (and is completely independent of virtue).
Your own ward is corrupt to the point that you are alone in your righteous political beliefs.
AoF 13 is pride if applied to American goodness.
Joseph Smith’s comments on States Rights don’t count.
Arguments ALL wrapped up in the robes of righteousness to boot. I might be melting the ideology of Connor/Jon/anonymous all into one, but did I miss any?
Drones, death, economic sanctions. Romney has shown he is a wicked man in his political life. He might be good in his family life, but it doesn’t matter. Killing innocents is wicked period. We’ve shown that Romney has such a desire. You have chosen not to see it, “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.” But there is great evil.
In the end it really doesn’t matter. What matters is that people finally awaken to the bloodlust of this nation and decide that they will stop it. That’s all I desire. Neither Romney nor Obama have promised to stop the shedding of innocent blood, so I cannot support either. If you can show me otherwise maybe I’ll actually vote in the national elections. Otherwise, it isn’t worth my time to check a box for either of these monsters.
Even if Romney chose peace, if he were elected he would be put 6 feet down, just like JFK was. That is a scenario that I would actually like, not that Romney would be harmed, but that he would choose peace.
I know it is a very uncomfortable choice.
There was a time in the process when voting for a favorite individual made sense. But at this stage, every single action you can take affects the outcome for the one candidate or for the other. And as hard as some of us want to hunt a political hole to hide in, you are choosing. You choose when you promote, or are party to the idea that obama may be a better choice for the reason x,y, or z (which is a tacit admission that the action you are taking may lead to that outcome.) You also choose when you take what you know to the couch on election day, or to the ballot box as you select an impossible candidate like writing in a prophet or somesuch.
You think not voting in the national election is a choice. It is. But insofar as you can expect to know the actual consequence of your action, you are responsible for it. Funny thing, this great divide we are experiencing… this very general war between good and evil. The line between them isn’t as blurry as “They all stink…I’m staying home” indicates. Satan is the only one who wants to blur the lines between good and evil for the purpose of tripping us–doubtful that God wants to face the accusation that he handed us a trick question.
I hope Romney chooses peace too–I desire that too. I don’t think he has the bloodlust you are attributing to him, and I see no reason, if he stays on his knees, that he can’t be persuaded to do right. Nobody can make that claim of obama.
Don’t blame the victim.
Murray Rothbard said it best in his book, “The Ethics of Liberty”:
It is also contended that, in democratic governments, the act of voting makes the government and all its works and powers truly “voluntary.” Again, there are many fallacies with this popular argument. In the first place, even if the majority of the public specifically endorsed each and every particular act of the government, this would simply be majority tyranny rather than a voluntary act undergone by every person in the country. Murder is murder, theft is theft, whether undertaken by one man against another, or by a group, or even by the majority of people within a given territorial area. The fact that a majority might support or condone an act of theft does not diminish the criminal essence of the act or its grave injustice. Otherwise, we would have to say, for example, that any Jews murdered by the democratically elected Nazi government were not murdered, but only “voluntarily committed suicide”—surely, the grotesque but logical implication of the “democracy as voluntary” doctrine. Secondly, in a republic as contrasted to a direct democracy, people vote not for specific measures but for “representatives” in a package deal; the representatives then wreak their will for a fixed length of time. In no legal sense, of course, are they truly “representatives” since, in a free society, the principal hires his agent or representative individually and can fire him at will.
Paul, I was not being sarcastic; I’m sorry you felt you had to be.
I don’t think you are showing enough respect for my right to have opinions for me to be able to say anything.
As LDS *we* are not commanded to depend upon our wards. Wards are for serving and for becoming more Christlike, not for learning to obey other humans or relying upon the arm of flesh–
I guess that is something I thought all LDS understood or believed. Yes, I am alone (with my husband and the children who are still in our home) in *my* ward politically, and some have not been kind to me. Are you implying that that is my fault, somehow?
Indeed, blame the victim. And you’re making too many assumptions about which prophet(s) to heed; I heed them all–
I didn’t find that President Lee said anything in that quote you gave that I haven’t followed. Perhaps he knew something that the rest of us didn’t, at that time, know–and was mourning and admonishing a return to virtue as LDS Americans; that’s how I read the things he said–
I have never believed, ever, that any man of God would admonish a people to love themselves and place themselves as a nation or a people above any other nation or people–
I can find no scriptural proof for it; the scriptures I read daily all talk about constant repentance and humility, not above setting ourselves up above others, as nations or individuals–
I can tell you that I don’t start political discussions in my ward; those who follow Romney do, and they, to use a softer word, “tease” those of us who don’t agree with them–
sounds a bit like persecution; members of the church began to persecute each other in the Book of Mormon.
Why, when you are obviously in the majority in the church (I read all over the internet and see in my congregation the devotion most LDS have to Romney) do you feel the need to find those few of *us* who do not trust in Romney–
and ‘tease’ *us* about it?
I have never read or heard the words of any prophet who admonishes us not to sorrow over our sins and try to repent of them.
I really have to say that I don’t what it is you are saying anymore. I thought we were having a friendly discussion, and it turned hostile–
and there was no hostility intended from me–
but you will choose to believe that or not–
I don’t know what makes you think that I was belittling Elder Lee; I could tell you things about him that would make you realize that he was a greater man than even you think he was–
but I won’t.
I am accountable for how I vote, not for who you all elect.
Both Romney and Obama have shown their disdain for our unalienable liberties. I will not vote FOR any such person.
I haven’t read all of the comments, as that would take far too long, but I have to agree with Designated Conservative. Connor, it seems you assume that in four years, the country will still look pretty much the same as it is now, and you HOPE (because that’s all you can really do; you don’t know that that will be the case) that people will get to the point that they will demand a better candidate. One thing that you may be overlooking is how Obama has granted himself unprecedented power. He has bypassed congress when he hasn’t been able to work with them. He’s done this with the Dream Act, medical marijuana, DOMA, welfare reform, Cap and Trade, card check, recess appointments, executive privilege, and others. Obama has demonstrated that he is no above subverting the law to accomplish his ends. He told Medvedev to tell Putin that after the election he would have more flexibility. He won’t be running again after this, so he doesn’t have to worry about what people think of him. This man is so radical that these last four years are going to look like a cake walk compared with the next four.
Have you heard of the Cloward-Piven strategy? It is a strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. You should really look into it if you haven’t already. The strategy seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the system with impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse. This collapse will open the way for communism. If you look at what Obama has done thus far, you know that he is overloading the system. The welfare and food stamp programs have exploded under Obama. They are even running commercials in Mexico for people to come to America to get food stamps. Then there’s Obamacare. I don’t need to list all of the ways in which this president is spending us wastefully into oblivion, as I’m sure you’re aware, but it’s clear that it will lead us to crisis if it continues.
So your theory is an interesting one, but it’s just a theory. There is no guarantee that the electorate will prefer a more conservative candidate, and even if they do, there is no guarantee that the country won’t have already collapsed. That may be an overly dramatic prospect. I hope that it is. But we seriously don’t have any idea what the next four years will hold. We can prepare for the worst or hope for the best. I will be doing both and voting for Romney. He may not be a perfect candidate, but for all of his imperfections, I believe he is a man of honesty and integrity, and that he does and will continue to seek the guidance of the Lord.
One last thought. It is possible that Romney will be little or no better than Obama, as some have suggested. I do not buy into that, but let’s just assume that you and others are right about that. At least with Romney and a Republican-controlled Senate (if we are able to achieve that) we have a chance to repeal Obamacare. Romney has promised to do that. Of course, he’s also said he would replace it, which may not be much better. But, with Obama we have the promise that Obamacare WILL NOT be repealed. We have ZERO chance if he is re-elected. With Romney, we at least have a chance to repeal Obamacare, and we can try to prevent it from being replaced with some other monstrosity.
I find it interesting to read how easy it is for those who oppose Obama to ignore the same characteristics in Romney.
Romney initiated the first Obamacare.
And Bush also took many privileges that were not given to him as POTUS–
he began it; he began the wars without end; it was during his administration that that the Patriot Act and the baillouts of the big banks occurred.
Why is it so hard to see that there are no choices this election time? Why is it so hard to see that, in spite of the fact that Romney, being Mormon, ‘feels’ familiar to many of *us*, he is no different–
This will be seen in time.
Obama has been responsible for outrageous attacks on human liberties by drones and torture, and Romney has promised not to change that.
He also promised not to threaten the existing abortion culture–
there will be no change under Romney–
I feel quite certain that no matter which of these men become the next POTUS–
the country will dissolve at the same rate–
If Romney becomes president, and the country dissolves, then there could be a terrible retribution upon the heads of the LDS–
if Obama becomes the president, those LDS who supported Romney will blame those of us who supported neither man–
either way I see division and sadness ahead for the church AND the nation–
even if there are some who visit this site who have not, yet, ‘awakened’ to the awful situation in which this nation finds itself–
and who see a ‘savior’ in Mitt Romney (who has done nothing to save anyone/anything)–
there is a revolution fomenting. People in the U.S. are waking up, are seeing that these two men are simply two sides of the same coin–
that neither offers a return to the constitution or to liberty–
This awakening will happen. Connor’s surmise that it might happen more quickly if socialism escalates under Obama–
is probably more of a hope that he has (which I have entertained myself) that the blame for the collapse will not come upon the heads of members of the church–
because Romney will be seen for what he is . . .
just another self-serving politician–
I can’t speak for Connor on this, but I think there will be less harm done to the church if Obama continues–
I won’t vote for him, but I think that there will be less fallout for LDS–
I have read the accounts of my ancestors being kicked out of Missouri–
if Romney becomes president, and things escalate into war and destruction (he is very much a warmonger)–
and those who have seen the political light need scapegoats–
LDS will be easy prey–
Just because I am supporting Romney does not mean that I am ignoring anything. Romney is not perfect, as I stated. But neither is he Obama or Bush. Romneycare is a problem and I haven’t ignored it nor excused it. That is a big reason I did not support Romney in the primary. But Romney at least stated that he believed that healthcare should be a state issue rather than a federal issue. He is right about that. It is a mistake, in my opinion, for a state to create a healthcare mandate, but it should be left to the states to decide for themselves.
We will disagree on foreign policy and issues such as the Patriot Act and enhanced interrogation (which isn’t torture). There are very many people who are conservative who will disagree with your views on these issues and that is in large part why Ron Paul did not gain more support in the party.
I am not voting for Romney because he is a Mormon. I am all too aware of the fact that being a Mormon does not make you a righteous person. It doesn’t even mean that you don’t hold mistaken political views. Harry Reid is a proof positive of that.
We’re not looking for Romney to be our “Savior.” We are confident, however, that he will work to help our economy to grow and will help to restore some fiscal sanity to the mess that we face. He’s done it in all aspects of his career, both private sector and public.
I have no idea why you think that the LDS would face retribution over Romney as president. That sounds like pure conjecture, and it would be foolish to base one’s vote that. If Obama is re-elected, I do not plan on blaming you for not voting for Romney. But even if I did, it’s not like I’m going to seek retribution against you or others like you. These fears just seem irrational.
I see the awful situation that we are in. So, yes, I’m awake, but that doesn’t mean that we see the same problems or that we see those problems in the same way.
Now this is just crazy talk. I know this can’t be what you are saying, but it sounds like you are hoping for a revolution and you are making yourself complicit in a revolution, that could cost many lives, by not voting and hoping that Obama wins so that he can help accelerate things to that point. There is a possibility that a revolution could be avoided. You eliminate the possibility, but Romney is that possibility.
I know that the revelation by Joseph Smith was never canonized, but he did reveal that the Elders of the church would help to save the Constitution. Have you ever considered that Romney being in the presidency could very well help facilitate that effort, however it may come about? I haven’t made my decision to support Romney on that basis, but it is a possibility that I have pondered. Have you pondered how a Romney presidency could be a powerful influence for good for the LDS and for the country? You have made clear that you fear there will be negative repercussions. What about the positive? Should we rule out the possible positive because of the potential negative? Should we allow this potential to cause us to shrink from our responsibilities?
Romney a warmonger? Seriously? Romney has never been in a position to prove whether he is a warmonger or not, and I think you probably don’t even really know how to properly use the word “warmonger.” You use it as a pejorative to demonize and attack. That’s what homosexuals have done with the word “bigot” to describe those of us who oppose same sex marriage on a religious basis. Why don’t you allow Romney the chance to prove whether or not he is a warmonger before you judge him unrighteously?
@outside the corridor,
Don’t hold your breath. When it comes to belief people will excuse anything to believe in what they will.
I don’t remember where I heard it but they did interviews with some democrats about all these horrible things this republican did. The democrats were furious and didn’t like this guy at all. Then interviewer told them it was really Obama. Well, the democrats started excusing him right away. Likewise, if Romney wins, they will excuse him for the exact same things that Obama did and what they accused Obama for.
The main thing we need to do is home educate our children and teach them logic and reasoning skills. Something not taught in government schools. Until then, this nation has no hope. Well, education programs like Connor Boyack’s site and Mises.org help also.
Now this is just crazy talk. I know this can’t be what you are saying, but it sounds like you are hoping for a revolution and you are making yourself complicit in a revolution, that could cost many lives, by not voting and hoping that Obama wins so that he can help accelerate things to that point. There is a possibility that a revolution could be avoided. You eliminate the possibility, but Romney is that possibility.
If you think that this is ‘crazy talk’, then there is little I can say to which you could listen?
I wanted to post this–
from Chuck Baldwin. People who love liberty will know who Chuck Baldwin is (not LDS, a minister, friendly to LDS)–
You say that you are not voting for Romney, because he is LDS, and then you say that he might (as the elders of Israel) save America?
I am afraid you will be stuck with your conclusions as I will be with mine–
we will not convince each other of anything–
but do you know about Romney’s business activities? Do you know that he profited from the abortion industry as well as from corporate welfare.
Do you know that he supports Israel and receives support from the same big banks that support Obama?
He has spoken out strongly about measures against Iran, and Iran is not a threat to America or to Israel.
Iran has no nuclear weapons (Israel has many)–
as an “Israel firster” he is most definitely a warmonger–
and I do know the meaning of the term.
You must be a supporter of these never-ending, unconsitutional wars in the middle east begun by Bush and continued by Obama and supported at least in word publicly by Romney . . .
in order to believe that I don’t know the meaning of the word ‘warmonger’–
and if that is the case, then I’m afraid we won’t be able to come to any peaceable agreement on anything–
I wish you the best–
I have seen Romney’s record; I have researched heavily into his past business activities, and that is enough for me to believe that Joseph Smith could never have had Willard Mitt Romney in mind when/if he made such a declaration.
He could, perhaps, have had Connor Boyack in mind–
there is a revolution taking place in the minds of men and women around the country–
there are quite a few LDS who still believe that the teachings of Ron Paul and the constitution are valid–
there are many young and old “Connor Boyacks” in the church–
certainly *we* are still a minority–
and the ‘revolution’ of which I speak is a revolution of mind and heart . . . turning towards liberty and with a passion for the constitution–
I guess that if you don’t understand that, then we are not speaking the same language–
why would I give Romney a ‘chance’ with his record? He is a self-serving politician who has gained tremendous wealth through very questionable means–
I think you probably don’t even really know how to properly use the word “warmonger.”
I could say the same, but it seems to be a personal attack–
and I don’t feel like attacking you personally–
I just don’t agree with you; you are probably a VERY nice person–
I hope things go well for you, no matter the outcome of this election–
To everyone who cares (Tara, you can read it, but it’s not really to you, though it concerns something you said and that has been said before many times)
and if Joseph Smith said that the ‘elders’ would say the constitution, he said “elders”–
he didn’t say “a wealthy LDS businessman who was a bishop and stake president and who has received huge donations from corrupt bankers and has fiddled with the political system enough to become the Republican nominee–”
Romney is one man and represents no “elders”–
Now, I think Joseph Smith MIGHT have been thinking of a collection of more obscure young “elders”; Connor Boyack is an ‘elder’–
because he said “elders”–
Sorry, Connor; I’m not setting YOU up here–
But you are one of many; your name is known, and I’m not calling you a leader, as such, though your influence has been good.
I am making the point that one man as a president won’t save the constitution, especially if he is anti-constitution (as Romney has shown himself to be)–
I am making the point that ‘elders’ stands for a group of LDS men/women who believe in liberty and continue to support the constitution when others in the church and nation have forgotten about it–
so Connor is a symbol–
I believe it WILL happen; I believe the ‘elders’ will be joined by righteous lovers of liberty of ALL faiths–
I have “met” them: Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Bhuddists, even a few Mormons–
but I do believe that the LDS have a good organization for this–
and are there, waiting–
quietly . . .
and Connor will be one of them, as will I and my husband and others on here–
and we are trying to wake up others who are members of the restored church–
we are a quiet group–
but we are here, studying, waiting for the time when we are needed–
so . . . don’t panic, Connor; I’m not endorsing you for POTUS–
why would you accuse me of wanting violence and bloodshed? I am against these pre-emptive wars that have been causing massive destruction and loss of life in the middle east–
unlike Romney, who has supported them verbally and promises to be ‘stronger’ than Obama–
I want the bloodshed to stop–
without a change of the hearts of the people of this nation away from war . . .
there will not be an end to the bloodshed–
hence the need for a revolution–
you do realize that revolution can be ideological, correct?
I did not say that Romney would necessarily be solely responsible for saving the Constitution. What I said that he could “facilitate” a way for it to be saved by the Elders of the church. I don’t believe there is any indication in the revelation that it will be one man who saves the Constitution. Even before I ever knew about Romney, I had always wondered, if the church was to play a part in the saving of the Constitution, how would the church be able to gain the access and trust they would need to accomplish this. I am only saying that it is possible that Romney may be able to facilitate or use his influence to this end. It is purely speculation. I don’t even put a lot of hope in this. It either will be or it won’t. I just think it is something to consider and not dismiss out of hand. It is a reason that we should not shrink from fellow church members serving in high positions, even the highest of positions in our government out of fear of potential negative consequences.
Nor did he say that it couldn’t be a man such as Romney, who is not the villain you try to make him out to be. And Romney is not just a wealthy businessman. He is also a member of the holy priesthood, whether you like it or not. Apparently he has been found worthy of that priesthood by his leaders.
Romney profited from abortion? Did you know that Romney was not an active member of his company when this occurred? Did you know that it was a medical waste company which disposes of all sorts of medical waste including, but not limited to, aborted fetuses? What should we do with medical waste? Is a medical waste company something that could be considered necessary, and not evil because they dispose of things that need disposal?
Did you know that Joseph Smith profited from the sale of alcohol in Nauvoo? Are you so narrow-minded to think that there aren’t valid reasons for one’s involvement in things that may be unseemly, and it doesn’t make you complicit or evil for doing so?
As for corporate welfare, if he is obtained it legally, then what’s the problem? Ron Paul also used the system of pork barrel spending to his advantage as well. But he is excused because he says it’s constitutional and is, in fact, his responsibility, even though he votes against his so-called responsibility. But Ron Paul can do no wrong, right?
Corporate welfare is something that needs to be corrected, but why condemn a man for taking what he is legally able to receive? How does that make him evil?
I’m very glad that Romney supports Israel. I think Ron Paul is wrong on the issue of Israel and terrorism. But Romney’s support of Israel does not make him a warmonger. I do not support unending wars or unconstitutional wars. Never have, but I supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Did you know that President Hinckley also supported the war on terrorism when he said, “Those of us who are American citizens stand solidly with the president of our nation. The terrible forces of evil must be confronted and held accountable for their actions…It is the terrorist organizations that must be ferreted out and brought down.” http://www.lds.org/liahona/2002/01/the-times-in-which-we-live?lang=eng&query=terrorists
I had hoped that you were not hoping for a violent revolution, but I can’t imagine that an ideological revolution is really a very realistic idea. Particularly with how divided we already are. A radical slide to the right by at least half of the country (which is probably a bit unrealistic) would only result in a greater divide, possibly even violence. There are already threats of violence if the election doesn’t produce the desired results by some. I just don’t see a real and dramatic revolution in the next 4 years being brought about by any other way than by violence. I may be wrong, and I hope that I am. But I am just looking at history and the conditions we face right now.
Nor did he say that it couldn’t be a man such as Romney, who is not the villain you try to make him out to be. And Romney is not just a wealthy businessman. He is also a member of the holy priesthood, whether you like it or not. Apparently he has been found worthy of that priesthood by his leaders.
Romney profited from abortion? Did you know that Romney was not an active member of his company when this occurred? Did you know that it was a medical waste company which disposes of all sorts of medical waste including, but not limited to, aborted fetuses? What should we do with medical waste? Is a medical waste company something that could be considered necessary, and not evil because they dispose of things that need disposal?
the above written by Tara–
responding to: (why? LOL! Must have time on my hands!)
a member of the ‘holy priesthood’–yes, Romney is ‘worthy’ in the temple recommend sense–
He must have a very liberal interpretation of being honest with this fellow men; there have been plenty of scoundrels who have held the priesthood, plenty of them–
There are some human beings who are capable of compartmentalizing, capable of having their ‘church’ lives and their ‘business’ lives who have been ruthless, calculating and lacking in integrity. The Book of Mormon talks a lot about that, about how so many of the apparently righteous Nephites began to accept the ways of the Gadiantons.
Tara, yes, Romney had power of decision during the time that Bain took over Stericycle, and there are documents that prove that; he is a master of ‘spin’ and has tried to cover his tracks. Mormons who are eager to believe one of “their own” could not be that bad . . . will repeat the lie, innocently perhaps. There are those who believe that Romney could, possibly, have a Saul to Paul moment or an Alma moment, where his heart is changed, he confesses to the terrible things he has done (in business and politics) and saves the day–
but why hasn’t he done that up to now? It is very hard to repent, and often it is a humbling experience that causes such a change. Romney has everything ‘going’ for him; why would he lose all that. He’s been able to live this ‘double’ life up to now; why change that?
Did you know that Joseph Smith profited from the sale of alcohol in Nauvoo? Are you so narrow-minded to think that there aren’t valid reasons for one’s involvement in things that may be unseemly, and it doesn’t make you complicit or evil for doing so?
As for corporate welfare, if he is obtained it legally, then what’s the problem? Ron Paul also used the system of pork barrel spending to his advantage as well. But he is excused because he says it’s constitutional and is, in fact, his responsibility, even though he votes against his so-called responsibility. But Ron Paul can do no wrong, right?
Tara’s words above; Tara, you are getting personal. Narrow minded? I’ve read the same arguments you make about Romney and Ron Paul in many places, but even many Ron Paul supporters I know won’t attack Mitt Romney’s business dealings, because many of them find capitalism to be too much of a sacred cow.
I know that Joseph Smith never intended the Word of Wisdom to be a commandment, and you’re using too broad of a brush in speaking of him profiting from alcohol; he helped produce it and even drank it–his greatest concern was that it NOT be procured from ‘enemies’, and he had many of those–
I never claimed that Ron Paul was perfect; I never believed he could become POTUS; he’s not the image that most Americans want in a president; he used his congressional office to help his district; I know that–and those who want to belittle him will point that out–but he also stood for principle; he stood against foreign intervention and illegal/unconstitutional wars, and he stood for sound economy and against the federal reserve and never, EVER took money from the big banks (which have funded both Obama and Romney)–
It’s all right for you to defend Mitt Romney. It’s also all right for me to say what I believe.
Medical waste? Yes, there is too much of that; most surgery is unnecessary; it’s all a crying shame–
but that doesn’t exempt Romney from being truly a vulture capitalist, in more ways than one; his ways of becoming enormously wealthy are not things that I feel befits a man of God–
they are not things I would ever do, so I remain poor–
Most people who get into high positions who are LDS have lost all ability to discern and be wise in spiritual things by the time they get there by compromising so many principles . . . that they are no longer capable of doing any good, which is why I knew long ago that Ron Paul had too much integrity to become the POTUS, but he woke a lot of people up, and that was his intent–
all along. I know he is just a man, but he is a good man, and he hasn’t profited from suffering–unless you can claim that his delivering babies caused the mothers to suffer–LOL! I’m a pro-home birth person, so I’m not all that excited about the idea of men delivering babies, and I still respect Ron Paul.
I answer to something you said that I didn’t quote–
Romney has managed to make a lot of things that are unethical and unconstitutional . . . to be ‘legal’; he’s lived that way for decades; he’s a lawyer; some of the Book of Mormon prophets didn’t think much of lawyers–I am not sure they would have thought much of Romney’s ‘legalities’; I don’t.
Why would an American citizen support Israel? Even Bruce R. McConkie was able to see the difference between those who pushed for a political Israel and those who supported the return of the people of Israel to righteousness and ultimately to Jesus Christ. There is a difference between Zionism (which many Mormons, out of ignorance, I believe, support) and Judaism. There are plenty of Jews who know the difference and don’t appreciate the direction in which Israel is headed. Romney is an American and should be for America first–
You disagree with Ron Paul about terrorism. Then obviously you accept the mainstream media’s interpretation of who the terrorists are and where they come from, etc.
That being the case, I am afraid, again, we really can’t communicate on this–
I don’t believe that terrorists are Muslims; I believe that sometimes the terrorists use Muslims (and Jews and others)–
if you don’t understand the principle of blowback, and if you don’t know the history of American relations in the middle east for the past 60 years–
then obviously you would think Romney was being a righteous man to support the political state of Israel. The political state of Israel is a counterfeit–
Yes, President Hinckley had his opinions; I don’t know why he said the things he did; I have interpreted him liberally and tried to tell myself that he didn’t mean what many members said he meant, because I can’t believe that he felt that America was right to kill all those innocent people in the middle east; if he believed that Bush was doing the right thing, perhaps he didn’t see the entire picture or hadn’t, yet; he, too, is only human; I still believed he held the keys and was, even, a prophet–
There are those, however, who believe that President Hinckley knew that the terrorists were not “Arabs” but were evil and designing men using them–
he did say a few things that implied that he knew more–
perhaps he believed the real villains would be found; they were not, obviously, and perhaps he believed better of Bush than Bush deserved–
President Hinckley was a trusting man–
Now, Tara, Paul would not answer my question; I hope you will.
Why, when there are SO many LDS who support Mitt Romney . . . do you and others come on one of the VERY few sites that don’t see him as the ‘good guy’ that other LDS see him as . . . who don’t support the unconstitutional wars, who don’t believe in the federal reserve (and in Romney’s buddies, Goldman Sachs), etc.–
and try to ‘convert’ *us* to Romney? You have plenty of support outside of a site that is obviously not especially friendly to Romney.
Could it be that you want to know the truth?
Do you honestly believe that you can ‘convert’ someone who is the same age as Romney and watched him support the Viet Nam war when he could afford not to be sent to Viet Nam . . . —
when we watched those LDS kids who didn’t have his money and privilege . . . go over there and come home broken–
who (myself and spouse) have read the constitution and studied liberty for 40 years, while Romney was getting rich by . . . taking being a scavenger in every sense of the word–
and began voting for Ron Paul in 1988–
that a man whom every evidence has taught us is a self-seeking, spiritually superficial person–
can help this nation, this world, this church by becoming POTUS?
I have made study of the Book of Mormon a priority in my life, and I read it from the perspective of believing that there are evil and conspiring men/women in this government and even in this church (because that is what the Book of Mormon warned about)–
and I believe Mitt Romney is one of those. If I ever met him (which I doubt would ever happen; I don’t even live anywhere near Utah)—
I would challenge him with that. I would ask him to justify the way he has lived, governed, etc.–
based upon the Book of Mormon. Yes, I know he was a SP and a bishop; I have known a few villains who were bishops and stake presidents–
even some who ended up in prison (who were found out)–
I would challenge him. But I doubt very much he would speak to me; I am quite sure he would run away from this old, poor person . . .
who attended the same BYU–
and took a completely different path in life–
but I don’t have to think about the lives I’ve ruined–
that’s why I’m not a partisan. I know Ron Paul has made plenty of mistakes; I know that prophets make mistakes.
I have wept many times when my illusions have been shattered–
I hang on to the Book of Mormon, and God BLESS you for homeschooling–
I’m on year #21 now–
we started our family VERY late–
senior citizens with children still at home (AND grandchildren far away)–
Yes, truth will set us free. Knowledge is power. His burden is light–
light and truth–
Joseph Smith was ‘onto’ something there– 🙂
I chuckle when I think of Mitt Romney meeting Joseph Smith–
I think Tara’s arguments are quite reasonable.
The reason for this conversation is that those of you who think like Connor, depending on where you live, could hand the election to obama. Again… results of action should count for something? But we have hashed that to death, without answer. The come back is that “I’m only responsible for whom I pull the voting lever, not the actual results of my action.”
The big picture here, which hasn’t really been intelligently articulated beyond Connors hypothetical “let us hope for more evil so people will be even more awake next time” is how do you actually get to the political perfection you seek by abstaining from the choice at hand?
How does writing in Monson, or Paul, or voting Johnson improve our lot? This question just leads to self righteous declarations that our vote is sacred–as if those of us who will vote for Romney don’t think our vote is.
You are trying to convince the world that your way is better–that is why you spend so much energy trying to state why. But NO ONE adhering to Connor’s ideas is explaining how scattering your vote to the wind improves our Agency. YET, we have explained in reasonable detail how obama’s 2nd term could destroy your future chances to continue your fight for liberty.
The burden of proof is on you…
We already showed that Romney wants ungodly war, and, hence, kill innocent people, including children (like Obama is currently doing). The proof was made. You can choose to ignore it if you like. But we have already shown our case.
Killing innocents in war == killing fetuses (AKA abortion).
The burden of proof is on you…
No it avoids the question. How does abstaining from the choice get us less of what we don’t want?
No one has proven that Romney wants unjustifiable war. No one CAN prove that–you can assume it based on your reading of the tea leaves, but you cannot prove it.
And further more, you haven’t shown why it is OK for you to cause more ungodly war by aiding obama (per your tacit approval of his re-election as stated in Connors article, and your voter-abstinance).
I’m not abstaining from any choice. I’ve made mine. I won’t vote for anyone in the presidential elections. I’ve made my choice to focus on what really matters; My family and friends.
I’ve shown through statements that Romney has made that he wants to hurt people in the middle east (even on his website). If he doesn’t want that then he needs to renounce his previous statements and say that he truly wants peace and how he will bring that peace about. I admit, until and if he takes office is when we would really know but until then we have to go off of his actual statements beyond the statement “I want peace.” Even Obama says that I’m sure.
And, finally, whatever the “dear” leaders do it is not my approval nor the cause of me that causes these wars. The only way I would be responsible is if I enlisted in the military or in any other way aided the military. Yes, you can say I pay taxes, but that wasn’t voluntary on my part.
What does this mean? Is the priesthood required to meet another standard of worthiness that I am unaware of? It just sounds as though you are saying that being temple worthy doesn’t count for much. It also sounds like you are going a bit far in your judgement of Romney’s personal worthiness. You are judging him by things that you have read about him; things that have been written by people who probably don’t like him, people who would like to destroy his reputation, but you don’t know him personally, and you don’t know what is in his heart. Yet you demonize him in a way that is almost disturbing. Have you studied him in depth from a friendly point of view, or have you primarily focused on the negative? Because I’ve read many things which lead me to believe that Romney is a very good and righteous man.
I am painfully aware of members of the church in high positions, including stake presidents, who have done great evil, even while serving in those positions. So I am not in denial. I’ve just seen no convincing evidence that Romney is the master of deceit that you say he is. I’ve seen people try to dig up every scrap of possible dirt that they could on Romney in a desperate attempt to find something, anything to hang him with, and I’ve seen it all unravel as we learn more of the truth.
I apologize for the narrow-minded remark. That was not intended to be a personal attack, but, for lack of a better way to make my point, was more of a general characterization for anyone who would go so far as to call someone evil for taking out the _literal_ trash of someone who is doing evil. Regardless of whether Romney knew or had any control over the investment in Stericycle, there is nothing wrong or immoral about the business they were in, so why do you want to turn this into something it isn’t? Why is Romney evil for his company’s involvement there?
But for all the evil that you claim Romney is guilty of, it is curious that of all the serious examples of duplicity you could choose from to bring to my attention, you give me Stericycle? Did you intentionally not lead with the worst atrocities for a reason, or is this it?
And you know this, how? Do you personally know a lot of LDS people in high positions to be able to pass judgement on them?
There it is. I knew it was coming. The Ron Paul hero worship. I’m sorry, yes that’s rude, but it’s soooooooo very hard not to point it out when I see it.
So you oppose Israel having its own state? Yes, well that would be such a horrible thing. Nothing more than selfish Colonialism. And that would make all the Arabs mad. Well, whatever McConkie’s views, here is what President Heber J. Grant had to say about Israel: “Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ have been to the Holy Land and have dedicated that country for the return of the Jews; and we believe that in the due time of the Lord they shall be in the favor of God again. And let no Latter-day Saint be guilty of taking any part in any crusade against these people.” (GC April 1921, republished in May 1972 Ensign)
Yes, those opinions are stubborn things, especially when they come from prophets. What to do with them? You know, war is a terrible thing. But sometimes it is a necessary thing. And sometimes in war, innocent people die. It is a sad fact, but it is a fact. But I don’t know why you find it so hard to believe that a prophet could support a war when he believed the cause was just. Surely you know that God himself, through Moses, specifically ordered the murder of innocents, even babies and animals. Maybe you need to reconsider your position. Maybe you are the one who is wrong. Why must you assume that President Hinckley was misguided or confused?
So you think it was wrong of Romney to go on a mission for the church rather than serve in the war? As far as his support of the war, prior to and during his mission, he did defend the US position. He was a kid. But at some point after his mission, his views changed. This will probably disappoint you, but here is what he said, “If it wasn’t a political blunder to move into Vietnam, I don’t know what is.” http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1955&dat=19700604&id=SSIrAAAAIBAJ&sjid=558FAAAAIBAJ&pg=3426,2026569
I came here because a Facebook link from a friend led me here. The link was to another article, but I found this one and was pretty astounded at Connor’s suggestion, and I love how Paul puts it, that we should “hope for more evil so people will be even more awake next time.” I just felt the need to comment. I knew what I was likely up against. I’ve lurked here in the past.
Did I come here for “truth.” No.
Wow, I think this guy must be following the conversation here: http://redflagnews.com/opinion/libertarians-say-no-to-obama-by-carl-baumeister
Jon, if you approve of Connors message that it would be better for American to have 4 more years of obama, you are supporting obama by default –both by influencing others, and by helping obama to pick up the EC votes if you live in a battle ground state.
How is the logic of this lost on anybody?
My withdrawing consent doesn’t mean it is my responsibility what the whores do. The greatest change we can make is through voluntary means. Voting, rarely protects freedom when the people are wicked. We need to focus on things that actually work. Like, educating our kids at home with love (i.e., no yelling at them nor spanking or any other type of abuse).
Jon, by not voting, you are responsible for the outcome. You are allowing others to make the decision for you, which is a form of consent. We are all responsible for what we do or don’t do with our vote.
Your argument assumes that I am not doing anything in the name of freedom and liberty. What I do is far more important than voting could ever be. If people lived free in their own lives then voting becomes null and void because, no matter what laws of men are enacted the people will just ignore them as unrightful rulers. This is far more important than voting will ever be. Tara, you’re focusing your energy on things that truly do not matter in the long run.
These people are wicked and wish to rule over us. I will not give my consent to people that wish to be my lords, I have only one Lord and he is not a politician.
Jon, my argument makes no assumptions. Fact is, whether we like it or not, we are subject to the government chosen by the electorate. Your non-vote is not a voice. No one hears you because the rest of us will happily make the decision for you should you choose to let us. Again, not voting is a form of consent. A consent to whatever the outcome may be.
I find it amusing that I am told that I am judging Romney’s worthiness by his ‘business’ choices/actions when I am judged for not voting (or for writing in Ron Paul, etc.) and told that I am harming the outcome.
What is the difference?
I don’t have the time to go into it all–
Those servicemen/women/inhabitants of Southeast Asia who have suffered untold horrors from agent orange–
thanks to the Monsanto Company. Mitt Romney IS Monsanto–
he realized that Monsanto had suffered, because of all the horrific chemical warfare they had imposed on hundreds of thousands of human beings, so he switched to GMOs–
but then you probably think GMOs are innocent, as well–
GMO cotton has caused the suicide deaths of many thousands of Indian (East) cotton farmers and has crushed many small farmers in the U.S.
not to mention the many, many thousands of people who lost their jobs because of the unethical (but legal, because he had the money to make it legal) methods Bain (Romney) used to destroy companies that were actually making profits–
Tara (and Paul), prophets and apostles don’t always agree; you can always find a quote for your position, which is why–
I tend to hang on to the Book of Mormon. And prophets do have a right to their opinions.
Yes, I believe business dealings matter to worthiness, and I happen to believe that unrighteous dominion causes a man to lose his ability to use the priesthood, even if he has the label–
D&C 121, read it again.
Has Romney used unrighteous dominion. Indeed, when thousands of people have suffered from his actions–
Because I have read about, studied his business dealings, I am judging him unrighteously? How did the Book of Mormon prophets dare to ‘judge’ those members of the Nephite nation (and church) who were members of the Gadianton Band–
The bottom line here is that some of us believe the Gadiantons wear nice white shirts and ties and business suits and smile and run for POTUS–
not just Obama–
who has also received a lot of $ from Monsanto, by the way–
some of us believe that the elections have already been determined, and that this divisiveness among LDS over Romney is futile–
because there is no point anyway–
yes, some of *us* believe it has gone that far wrong–
and no matter who wins today . . .
there will be heartache–
I try to educate people; I try to wake people up–
and I have no doubt Romney changed his mind about Viet Nam; he has changed his mind/position about everything–
at one time or another–
I go to vote.
I am afraid Jon is right; I have wasted my time trying to talk to those who don’t have the same perspective I have.
If I am wrong, and someday I will find out whether or not I had the truth–
then at least God will know my heart and that my intent was to know the truth–
I have spent much time (and tears) trying to know the truth.
In the meantime, I have a family. I need to take care of my family.
God bless all of you–
It’s a heavy day–
Tara is right–I think she says it better than I do, that there is no such thing as withholding consent.
I would go a step further. If you approve of Connors message, you are campaigning for obama–even if you are doing it obliquely instead of head-on. Arguing that there is some marginal benefit to another 4 years of this dictator is aiding his re-election. So is lending support to that view.
In that sense, you are an “accessory” which is a well recognized legal relationship.
Paul, some day we’ll know the truth–
in the meantime, if you assert that I have judged Romney harshly/wrongfully–
I can say the same thing to you, that you have judged *me* harshly/wrongfully.
I have tried to reason with both you and Tara, and I have not succeeded. Let’s agree, please, to end the discussion.
I refuse to accept responsibility for where this nation is headed–
You believe what you believe; I believe what I believe. We will not agree. Apparently we can’t even be respectful.
I am not to accuse Romney, even though the records of his business activities are public (most of them)–
but you can accuse me, and that’s all right, because I refuse to vote for such a villain.
Whether Obama or Romney, this nation is headed quickly into disintegration–
I am only saddened that the divisiveness has now entered the church–
There’s two mafia lords. We get to vote for them. I have no choice to not vote for either because I believe the mafia is immoral? It doesn’t make sense to me. I choose neither. I choose to expunge the mafia through means that historically has shown to make a difference, which is very rarely through voting.
…and thanks to all for the enjoyable conversation by the way. I’m glad people are waking up.
Outside the Corridor, you have judged Romney to be a villain. I haven’t judged you for voting or not voting. I’ve only said what I believe that not voting means. It’s not a judgement of whether you are a good or bad person.
Tara, oh . . . o.k.–
Romney’s business activities have been villainous (destroyed the lives of a lot of people), but he’s not a villain.
We’re clear now–
I believe that most LDS (who support Romney) believe that a person can touch pitch and not get dirty. A person’s business dealings do not mark a person’s character. I don’t believe that. I do believe that how a person deals with his/her fellow creatures/humans/mortals . . . defines his character.
Gadiantons were businessmen; they were villains.
By their fruits ye shall know them. Romney’s fruits are a lot of hidden dead bodies (figuratively and literally)–
the fact that he has had two lives (one where he ‘served’ in church positions and was faithful to his wife and even generous with his means to particular people/places; the other where he ground the faces of the poor and put profits over human lives and supported inhumanity in various forms)—
will someday tell–
I’m willing to wait. I am sad for him, actually, because he could have done better; I have prayed for him, to be honest–
not that he become the POTUS, but that he have a change of heart and feel sorrow for the things he has done–
This is only some of the information, and I doubt you will read it–
Romney is powerful enough and wealthy enough to cover all of these accusations by whitewashing and ‘laundering’ all of the accusations–
so a person will believe what a person believes–
I have come to realize, however, that many LDS do not consider the lives of people who live in other countries (especially if they are ‘brown’ and poor) to be of value–
I have known for years that many LDS believe that ‘business is business’ and whatever a man does for business is fair–
There are others–
Have you ever seen/met a person who has been chemically damaged?
Someday LDS white Americans will understand what their naivete allowed to happen in other countries to children of the same Father–
and will weep.
I was awakened to this years ago; I have adopted from foreign orphanages–
I began to realize that ‘these people’, though differently colored, etc.–
are children and are of great value to Him. I believe one of the reasons we are here is to see how we treat people whom the world despises. The world despised the Savior of the world and still does.
So I see things differently, because I have children who were ‘thrown away’ by the world–
and in each case, those countries were impacted by blowback from America in one way or another–
subtle and largely unpublished, but the activities of the Gadiantons have hurt children everywhere–
in the latter part of the 1900s the general authorities talked a lot about this and then stopped–
It’s up to us to do the research and find out what is really happening in the world. Most LDS do not realize who the Gadiantons really are–
and what they have done–
or they would not, I believe, support them, but then the Nephites fell for the same thing–
and where there is money there is admiration–
I said I would stop; this is it–
I am quite confident that when the dust clears . . . the things I have said will mostly be found to be true–
and I’m willing to wait for that moment–
You’re judging based on very biased information. That means that you are not judging based on truth. All of your sources are extremely biased against business, against conservatism, against technological advancement, against Romney. You can’t accurately judge him based on this information. That’s like judging Mormons based solely on information from anti’s.
Wait a minute–
against ‘business’? Corrupt business, yes–
Against ‘conservativism’; please define that for me–
Against technological advancement–
Who decides whether technology is advancing mankind or not? From what scriptural/prophetic source is it determined that all technology is benign?
Again and again and again I say–
The Nephite prophets declared those who used other human beings to advance themselves to be Gadiantons and unChristlike; so it has always been–
what IS your religion?
Do you even read the Book of Mormon? Do you believe *we* are sent here to earth to gain by using other human beings?
No, I’m simply saying what Romney has done and what he is because of what he has done.
Yes, I do know that I see things very differently from what most Mormons see. I realize that. I have already acknowledged that–
Did you even read Alma 30:17?
The latter part of that verse defines Romney exactly–
You either believe the Book of Mormon or not–
there is a difference between Mormon culture (what you call ‘conservativism’, however a $ can be made is good; all business is business and is equally of value)–
and the Mormon religion that is pure–
I would strongly suggest you spend more time reading the Book of Mormon and less time studying to be a ‘conservative’ (whatever that means)–
or to succeed in business–
I am afraid that Mormon culture has declined to the point where many Mormons don’t even know what they believe anymore–
Romney is biased towards social darwinism (which is defined quite neatly in Alma 30:17)–
There are other scriptures that speak of it, but that is the best–
I used to believe as you believe; I had a change of heart–
I had a conversion, and my perspective changed. So I can understand how you believe (and how many of my LDS friends/ward members/family members believe)–
I do believe it is my responsibility to share the Book of Mormon with other LDS in hopes that they, too, can see things differently–
with a more eternal/Zion perspective–
I’ve served a full-time (foreign) mission and three ward and stake missions in my lifetime; I guess I’m not ready to give up yet–
you could look up the footnotes on Alma 30:17 for a more extensive study into why aggressive business is contrary to being Christlike–
I do believe that it is possible for people to be prosperous without hurting other people, but VERY, very difficult–
hard work on the land, growing wholesome foods, creating things that people need to have–
but if the worst that Romney has done is vulture capitalism, that wouldn’t be so bad.
Few Americans/LDS understand the complicated (and possibly destructive) nature of GMO–
I’ve been studying it for years; I did study botany and genetics somewhat in college; my husband also studied it, and the major university he attended has specialized in biotechnology.
Accepting, without thinking of the consequences, that all scientific ‘advances’ are neutral or ethical–
is not supported by scripture–but it is the way most LDS have been taught to think–
When I am ‘laughed at’ on this blog or in other places I remember this:
Ether 12:26; fools mock–
I am not mocking you for not understanding things I have come to understand–
I am just trying to be a light where I can be. I know that I am full of human frailities, but my testimony of the Book of Mormon is so powerful it is hard to contain–
I hope you will read these scriptures; here is another good one:
2 Nephi 28–
verses 8 and 9 are especially good–
Romney’s works have been in the darkness; he has shown to the world a happy, smiling, benevolent stake president and bishop who is a ‘good man’–
but his work with Monsanto alone has cost many, many innocent lives.
The fact that that doesn’t bother my fellow LDS . . . really troubles me.
I am hoping, praying that more LDS will wake up. I have taught my children the best I can; they do understand the importance of these scriptures, and I am very pleased that the work they do does not harm other people, any more than is absolutely necessary, living in Babylon–
My husband and I have chosen our life’s work based upon how little it will harm others; consequently, we are not wealthy, but we have enough, and we have miracles all the time, as we see how Father in Heaven cares for us.
I don’t envy Romney; I wouldn’t want his money, but I do fear for his soul–
unless he awakens soon. Perhaps it will be soon.
You’re not hearing me. You want to argue something that I haven’t argued. I haven’t excused immoral business practices. I’m saying that I don’t believe Romney is guilty of such. You are basing your opinions on biased propaganda. And I’m done debating you on this. It’s irrelevant anyway as Romney lost and you don’t have to worry about him bringing great evil upon the country anymore.
No kiddng! Wonderful news that we won’t have Romney’s evil to deal with!
Ooops! wait… the doc just called. He needs you to come in for the “talk.”
Hello Mr. Jones. “Results” just came in from the lab. You have stage 4 cancer. obamacare’s tendrils have begun to invade every organ in your body. Its inoperable–any attempt to remove this cancer would be immediately fatal–how do you cut metastatic tissue from, say the heart, or the pancreas. 159 new agencies (tumors) have been identified so far–some are the size of a football inside of you.
It is one of the most invasive metastasis known to science. I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, Mr Jones. I suggest you get your house in order. And find a funeral home for Liberty. Your time is measured in green bananas.
If you had detected and removed the cancer early? We would have addressed the other problems you have like emphysema and diabetes. Now? Enjoy your children while you can.
Obama was the right choice after all. The next life is much better than this one. Well done.
Interesting quote Alma 30:17, it sounds like a restatement of Aleister Crowley’s more concise statement “do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law”. I am not sure what your feelings are on libertarianism, but there are some that feel that Crowley was a major influence on that movment. Or is it libertinism? I am not sure what the difference is, if you endorse anything on this blog that would be something I would be interested in understanding.
I am a bit confused, because socialism is supposed be taking away peoples agency, and thats part of ‘satans plan’. Yet, particular forms of capitalism seem to be criticised. Further actual people involved in the occult do not endorse restrictions and social control, but rather ‘freedom’. Kind of strange.
I really don’t know the details of Romney, but my impression is he is a shrewd businessman, maybe skirting legal and ethical boundaries, but has he done anything outright illegal? He certainly has said anything to try to get elected, and changed his positions many times on several issues. I am relieved however that hes not going to take office….yet.
Jimx, I am not happy with Obama at all–
I think he is an evil man; he hasn’t been honest at all; he promised to bring the troops home, and he broke that promise. He has sent drones to Pakistan to kill civilians; he has taken powers that are not constitutionally granted to him. Possibly the constitution has suffered more under him than even under Bush or Clinton–
but I don’t think he’s as accountable as Romney for wrongdoing–
because he hasn’t had the fullness of the gospel–
One of the things that is very hard for many people to understand–
is that culture is very different from theology.
The Mormon theology actually is compassionate and calls for complete honesty in all business dealings. The Mormon theology is that when people are living righteously they have ‘all things in common’. See Connor’s recent “Zion” blog entry to illuminate that. If not living like that, then a good Mormon won’t take advantage of those who have less than he has; he will not ‘grind the faces of the poor’.
In practice, however, Mormons believe that any way that isn’t strictly illegal (even if the businessman changes the laws to suit him/herself) to earn money is fair–
In practice, Mormons are somewhat greedy. In practice, they are very socially stratified, believing that those who earn more money should have more privileges. In practice, most Mormons are more concerned with not swearing, smoking, and drinking than they are with causing heartache to those who work for them–
Though I do not, in any way, condone adultery, adultery is considered worse, in Mormon practice, than torture–
Most Mormons supported Romney knowing that he was pro-NDAA, for keeping Guantanamo Bay, etc.
But since Romney doesn’t smoke or drink or swear, allowing torture is fine–
The problem for Mormons is that some of us, sometimes, wake up and see that our religion is different from our practice–
and then we don’t get along very well with those who believe as we used to believe, or who practice as we used to practice.
Paul, that was ugly.
Paul and Tara, I tried to tell you that we wouldn’t be able to have a common enough language to discuss this civilly–
I should have stopped long ago. I stop now.
But for Jimx only (or anyone besides Paul and Tara), I know someone personally who was a poor person in Mitt Romney’s stake, and . . .
Mitt Romney doesn’t like poor people, and it showed. That person certainly did not vote for Mitt Romney. However, Mitt Romney showered the privileged people in his stake with acceptance and affection.
He also broke a lot of church rules to do what he wanted to do when he wanted to do it–
Interesting Paul. ObamaCare is based off of RomneyCare. Romney never said he would get rid of ObamaCare, only change a few things (I believe the slogan was “repeal and replace”).
Still drinking the cool aid I see. Belief is a hard thing to give up even when it contradicts reality.
Thank you for the translation, you have a way of explaining things in a way that I understand. Although about the torture and adultery comparision, really? I would have thought that torture would be the worse crime. I shouldn’t be surprised. I am still not understanding the Christian faith in general. I asked someone recently about the comments made by a politician, that ‘rape is part of gods plan’. He didn’t quite say that, but something close to it.
This woman responded by telling me a story about how a woman got raped, and got pregnant, but ‘still obeyed god’ and had the child, and adopted it out to a family that really wanted a child but couldn’t have one. From her perspective all was well and it was a happy ending. I was like ‘huh?’ Thats one reason I don’t quite understand or agree with the christian faith. Mostly because I have to understand something before agreeing. Compasion? I think the word is compliance and obendience over grace.
That woman is a christian missionary (nonlds) and is very ‘hard core’, I honestly have never met anyone so heartless and unyielding in her judgement of anyone for non-compliance to anything she thinks is right or wrong. I would be assuming alot if she has ever won over any converts. But yes, I think your observations may be correct. Technical compliance to rules are perhaps easy in a way, especially if one has a very outward faith that everyone can see on a daily basis. I regret not calling her on her stuff, but It was in a break room at a catholic hospital, home turf for this sort of thing.
Torture is definitely the worse crime. And yet Romney agreed with Bush and Obama that Guantanamo Bay (and the torture techniques being currently used there and in the middle east) should remain intact. And yet because Romney has been faithful to his wife, Ann, which I DO applaud–
that is all that Mormons require.
I do know women who have been raped and had babies and placed them; the ones I know are not like that woman–
Sometimes people are psychologically damaged and never quite ‘right’ afterwards–
It is very sad. A terrible thing. In the case of rape it is definitely a woman’s choice; some choose one way; some another, but neither should inflict her choices upon others–
The LDS church does allow for that choice in cases of rape–
No, sometimes Christians (and even we Mormons) are the exact opposite of what Christ would have us to be–
Thanks for appreciating what I have to write.
I hate presidential campaigns/elections, and I’m glad it’s over. The discussions on this particular blog have been very informative–
Like Jon, I choose to have liberty in my home; we are working hard to be a “Zion” family–
it’s not always easy when someone doesn’t want to do the dishes–LOL!
Keep telling yourself that this was a better choice Jon. 83% of docs surveyed have considered quitting. 90% have counseled their children not to go into medicine.
When the talent has fled medicine and the crucible of competition that sharpens our technical prowess is destroyed…when the weight of obamacare crushes our souls… when 160 new federal bureaus get between you and your doctor… when an 11 member panel begins deciding how to allocate the sacred taxpayer funds and suddenly your life isn’t worth improving with medical technology…
Keep telling yourself that you chose well. Keep telling yourself that obama was somehow better than Mitt because Mitt has a higher responsibility than obama based on his knowledge, ergo obama gets a pass and our suffering is to be born with thankfulness since we chose the guy with less knowledge and less responsibility because of it.
Paul, are you on something? Or do you need to be on something?
I have a health condition for which doctors can do nothing. I get help from alternative physicians to whom I pay cash. It’s not easy, but it’s the only way. Even before Obama the medical profession was staggering under the weight of insurance. Before Obama was elected a ward member of ours (who is an M.D.) was talking to us about how difficult it was to be saddled with insurance–
Do you need help?
You really do sound angry.
I know that a lot of people are disappointed today that Romney didn’t win. But the fact is that trusting in the arm of flesh to the extent of thinking that a POTUS is the most important person in the nation is not . . .
The only person who can save this nation is you. You can make a difference. Stop blaming other people. The heroes of the Book of Mormon were those who often stood alone.
Look at this:
These men (Obama/Romney) are just politicians. True, politicians have done a lot of damage in the last few decades, but God is still in charge.
What he wants is your heart, not your vote (God)–
You can make the choice to live a righteous life, no matter who is president–
You can seek for Zion. You can have hope in your life. You can lift yourself and your family–
You have more power than your one vote.
Interesting, some election analysis points to the fact that Romney supporters tended to be people with ‘wasp’ values, one of them was the idealization of individualism.
Many minorities tend to value community more than individualism. Consensus is valued in most native american cultures. People who value consensus tended to support Obama.
Wow, I feel such a warm glow from your response. I feel so very incredibly close, even though I have never met you. I feel bad that you have a health condition. I hope that it lifts and leaves you and you are restored to complete health. I started a Mars mantra chant for physical health myself. I think I have something treatable, but it does this weird resolve and reappearing thing. I just think its something thats beyond most physicians understanding. Not that I am going to completely forgo their advice, I just think that I need help from the gods for this.
I’m sure you’ll get it, Jimx; spirituality is SO important to healing!
Well, this is the problem. Individualism is often interpreted to be self-centeredness or selfishness, you know the ‘rugged individual’–
and what *I* mean when I talk about the individual is the power of one person to determine his/her destiny–
Yes, I know that sometimes communities can hold that back–
but I believe in community. What I don’t believe in are artificial collectives.
I know that *we* all need some kind of tribal connection–
but when the mainstream media or government agencies or others who have ulterior motives group people together in divisive ways:
–lower class/middle class/upper class
Such divisive labels allow dictators to gain control over populations by dividing people from people! 🙁
it’s not helpful to either communities or to individuals–
Yes, there needs to be a balance. *My* chief concern is the protection of civil liberties, and civil liberties must be protected for the individual–
If civil liberties are not protected for the individual, it does no good to any community.
I appreciate your bringing this up. I’m glad you enjoy my ramblings–