Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Article on Romney's Mormonism....not completely negative

You can be excommunicated for polygamy, how about abortion?

you've been willing to engage a serious subject.

just how many souls should be able to incarnate down here on the Earth at one time, and still manage to escape starvation?

if the Chinese love German vehicles, while the rest of us love Japanese, American, and .etc vehicles, who is more right? anyone know for sure?

polgamy, bigamy, abortion, birth control, & hot unprotected sex. how does it all fall out, anyone know for sure??

[quote=watch4bear]You can be excommunicated for polygamy, how about abortion? [/quote

Romney had an abortion? That's impressive......

George

Having an abortion, yes.

Let me do the work for you here:

"Well then why hasn't Romney been excommunicated for not pushing harder for laws against abortion?"

My answer (not official church doctrine):

The church's stance is that abortion is allowable in cases of rape. So, how would you go about legislating that? You would have to prove that every girl who wanted an abortion was raped. Which would only grow government even more. Legislating morality is a lot harder and more evil than encouraging people to have morals.

My defense for abortion in case of rape:

I am "pro-choice", meaning that women should have the choice to have sex with whomever they want. Then, they have to deal with the consequences of their actions (ie std's, pregnancies). So, in a case where consensual sex leads to a pregnancy, the woman has already made her choice. In the case of rape, the woman was not given a choice in the matter.

"Retroactive abortion for politicians"?

The "I'm a Mormon" adds are just about 20 second bits that feature someone that mentions a few of their hobbies or profession that might be just a little unique. Usually with a some sort of original twist, and then ends with the "and I'm a Mormon" line.

One lady might be an artist and run a small business. Some other guy might be a weekend biker and run a motorcycle shop. Seems like mostly just a push to protray themselves as regular folks. I did think it odd though that they surfaced with Mit and wondered if his group or the church was sponsoring the effort. One can bet though that Mit will harvest that block of votes.

I find the LDS focus on family admirable, and church youngsters seem to have better work and behavior ethics than other kids in our community. When holding positions of authority, however, a disproportionate amount of hiring seems to come from within the church. I.e. There is an effort to take care of and reward their own, sometimes even passing over superior but pagan talent.

On the downside, I have found it sad when some kid of less than stellar history is forced to hold their wedding in the church parking lot. Doesn't seem like the kind of behavior that would encourage them to stay within the ward. Along those likes, the real goal is to have sufficient standing for a wedding in one of the central Utah temples.

1minute,

Nobody is forced to have their wedding in the parking lot. I've been to weddings in the ward houses where one of the couple wasn't even a member of the church.

There are standards to be married in the Temple. The standards are well known. And by the way it isn't as if once you make a mistake you can never come back. If that was the case none of us would be in the church. A less than stellar past does not preclude anything. Bringing your life back to church standards opens up every opportunity within the church. Repentance/forgiveness are basic doctrines in the church. Even ex-communicated members are invited to return to full church membership.

off topic i know, but i like the idea that the Baptists, are allowed to have their hometown in the USA. the Catholics finds their home in Rome, Italy. the Jews finds their home in Jeruselem, Israel.

der Muslims, well, they like Mecca, right?

but, the Mormons, they found a central home in Utah. what a concept.
now, how should we best integrate the various groups, in order to face the coming of the Christos?

and in mesico, don't forget mesico.

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wAkKl3Y8xmQ[/video]

denton,

I guess my friends long ago in the Pahrump Valley didn't worry about this. I once asked a young man whether I could hunt quail on his land, and he said he needed to ask. An older gentleman was summoned to meet me. He said I would be welcome, as long as the young man accompanied me.

I asked the young man if he would hunt with me, and he said he had no shotgun. I handed him my Savage 24 in 20ga/30-03 to use, and he beamed. He wasn't much of a shot, but he got some birds; I shot a limit of 10.

When it came time to leave I thanked him and asked that I be able to thank the older gentleman, also. I shook hands with both, handed back the Savage 24 to the young man and all but two quail I had shot. I said I only needed two for a meal. The older gentleman gave a small wry smile and extended to me an open invitation to hunt the family property and most other property in the Valley any time. They also ran into the edge of the alfalfa field and got a big watermelon for me.

In later trips back I learned the older man had "several wives", and that he pretty much was law there among his people. I have never been treated better in my life, and I bet the family all used that Savage for many years.

The community was for the most part pretty closed, and I felt honored to be so welcomed, not being Mormon.

Sycamore,

Interesting article. I am LDS but not offended nor am I suprised by it's content.

I was raised in a "split" religion family with my mother LDS and my father Presbyterian. I grew up listening to (and still do!) all of my dad's assessments, judgements, criticisms, and even praises of the Church, it's history, it's teachings, it's leaders, and it's modern day members. He has never been able to agree with all of the Church tenets and beliefs... obviously he is not a member! But, he married a very "active" LDS woman, calls many LDS people his closest and most reliable friends and professional associates, supported his children being raised in an LDS environment, and even moved us all to Utah in the 1970's to escape what he perceived to be a "decaying" environment in which to raise kids in Southern California. We agree to disagree a lot but still love and respect each other.

"Faithful" Church members are expected to live to pretty high standards. Last time I checked, no perfect man has walked the face of the earth other than Christ himself... the rest of us all fall short, including LDS members ie. Mitt Romney. The timeline of mortality along with repetition, repentance, forgiveness, knowledge, and wisdom all give us a chance to shed some of our imperfections and become more like Christ which is our goal. The principle of "free agency" makes it MY choice to choose and only I will be held accountable for MY choices. My "challenge" has always been to focus on my own life and imperfections rather than those of others. I struggle with the hippocracy of those who adhere to LDS principles on Sunday and then live by others during the week to their convenience because this is not what we adhere to believe. I concede that it is a challenge for all of us to be "in the world" but not "of the world". Most fall short! What you see in most faithful LDS members is "good" people trying to get "better".

I will add that this is not the exclusive realm of LDS members!My Presbyterian and Lutheran relatives were/are some of the most solid, "good" people I have ever come in contact with. While I have many wonderful LDS friends, three of my closest are Catholic and Greek Orthodox. They would give me the shirts off their backs and I would do the same for them. Many others who I have come in contact with during my education and with my employment who have made me a "better" person are not LDS nor do they have any interest in becoming LDS. They are just "good" people and that is what it is really all about, being "good" and trying to become "better" or inspiring those around you to be "better".

To address watchforbear's question, I think Mitt Romney can choose country along with religion and not cheat either or alienate his charge to separate church from state.

1. He can satisfy his LDS faith by living by it's tenets in his personal life, setting an "example" for all to see, perhaps inspiring others to agree with some of his beliefs, but not forcing them on anyone. This is consistent with our belief in the principle of "free agency" to choose.

2. He can satisfy the expectations of the people as POTUS by upholding the principles of the Constitution and adhering to the "law of the land" which is required of all faithful Church members as spelled out in the "Articles of Faith". They represent the will of the people, not necessarily the will of the "Church"... any church!!! How else do we uphold that sacred right to freedom and the pursuit of happiness. Tolerance and respect within the law are the answer.

If elected, it is Mitt's choice to make and I think he has the wisdom to make good choices. Is he perfect, no! You could say the same for Jon Huntsman, another "Mormon". Harry Reid is LDS... some of his "core" values should be the same as Romney's and Huntsman's yet it would appear that his "life experiences" have led him to the other end of the spectrum wrt his views and political philosophies. I would love to sit in a room with him and ask him some questions. Most LDS tend to be a pretty conservative bunch but it is not a "reqirement" leaving room for personal "revelation"/interpretation/free agency/accountability.

I personally could be happy with Mitt or Newt. There are things I like about both. I'd rather somebody who is not prostituted to any one group of Americans. I'd rather someone other than an attorney... already overepresented and enjoy gridlock too much (inefficient). Given our "divided" population, I would prefer someone who presided from near the "middle" on the consrvative side given my Republican bias to try to create a more healthy "bell shaped curve" wrt views, socioeconomic status, etc. rather than the "barbell shaped curve" that seems to exist today.

The old adage that "together we stand, divided we fall" seems to be applicable more than ever before. There are many right now who would love to see us fall because we got distracted internally.

Say what you will, but if Mitt gets elected and leads with integrity, honesty, uses his leadership skills to bring people together, extracts a little sacrafice from ALL Americans in different ways to make America stronger, alienates none completely, instills trust among all Americans, and puts a realistic "American Dream" (not defined by reality TV) within the reach of the majority of Americans I think he will be looked upon favorably. It will likely take more than one leader... bouncing between far right and far left every 4-8 years ain't going to get it done anymore and the clock is ticking.

Through hard work, education, good parents, others who have cared about me along the way, and a little "luck" I have fallen into that upper "5%" of Americans. I am grateful but not content. It does me no good in the long term big picture if the other 95% of Americans are struggling. This includes my customers, my relatives, friends, hunting buddies, etc. I want everyone to have some success... makes the big wheel go 'round.

Disparity, while inevitable, is not a good thing in the extreme.

Hey man, I agree with you on that video. Rommey is not the best man for the job. But it isn't because of his faith.

I'm not so sure. Christ was crucified for less

luv2safari...

What a cool story. Good for you!

Your new friends probably called themselves Mormon, and may belong to one of the break-offs. It's very unlikely they were members of the mainstream LDS Church. Even in the hinterlands, the church does not turn a blind eye.

All that said, my guess is that I would have enjoyed those folks as much as you did. We can all enjoy one another, and have good friendships, and still disagree about a lot of things.

True!!!

I still have faith that the "American" on average is inherently good and smiled upon accordingly.

The alternative in the extreme, reality for some, is "kill or be killed". On a large scale, I see no "winners" there.

Denton, why is the mormon church so dead set against multiple wives? Is it written somewhere? A scriptural passage maybe?

Every time this subject comes up, you have the most off the wall perspectives. Most of the chit you say couldnt be further from the truth.

Who ever wrote that article obviously hasnt been to Ogden since 1950.

And they weren't mormon..FLDS

This was about 40 years ago. I don't know what the church structure was then, but I do know I always felt welcomed when I returned.

There wasn't all the hoopla about plural marriages back then, I know that.