Mitt Romney said No to an Apostle

[MG 2.0]

There are folks that have a distorted view of what the church and its leaders are all about. Its only purpose is to bring people to Christ and exercise faith in Him and his Father through choosing to obey and practice the principles and doctrines of the gospel.

I have no doubt that they and you are completely sincere. It is also possible to be completely sincere and well intended, while being wrong. I see your view as distorted, but I am not going to be rude about it.

But at the end of the day we have total free agency to do so or not. You both have exercised that right to separate yourselves from the church. Nothing stopped you. You now govern yourselves by certain principles that you find amenable to your condition.

Thank goodness. Extremists within the LDS Church and elsewhere would love to be able to tell us what to do. For the time being we remain free to make our own choices, without having to suffer too much the direct assault of extremist thinking and power.

So again, the whole program of the church rests on the idea that correct principles are taught and we determine how we govern ourselves. That includes the leaders who also travel their own path of salvation.

Regards,
MG

I have no doubt that you sincerely believe what you are saying. I disagree with you, because I see things differently. I don't think the LDS Church does allow its members to "govern themselves." If they had, I might still be a member.

And I respect your position. I really do.

Regards,
MG

[Kishkumen]

And I respect your position. I really do.

Regards,
MG

I will add this, and I want to thank you for remaining decent and kind in this conversation:

If you vote to ban abortion, you are part of the problem.

If you vote against gay marriage, you are part of the problem.

The "you" is not necessarily literally you here. I have no idea how you vote. I am saying that the fanatical movement to make people follow others' religious views is the problem. Those who support it become part of the problem.

They can be wonderful, fine, dear people, but they want everyone to live by their religious doctrines, and that is intolerable.

[Marcus]

What do you mean by this?

Do you have certain principles that you live your life by? If so, do you find them amenable to the lifestyle and beliefs that you hold to be most meaningful and purposeful for you?

If so, you govern yourself.

Regards,
MG

Your statement was

...You now govern yourselves by certain principles that you find amenable to your condition...

Is that how you govern yourself?

[MG 2.0]

And I respect your position. I really do.

Regards,
MG

I will add this, and I want to thank you for remaining decent and kind in this conversation:

More often than not, that is my forté. Much to the disappointment of some that would like to portray me as being something less and/or other than.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

...If you vote to ban abortion, you are part of the problem.

If you vote against gay marriage, you are part of the problem.

The "you" is not necessarily literally you here. I have no idea how you vote. I am saying that the fanatical movement to make people follow others' religious views is the problem. Those who support it become part of the problem.

They can be wonderful, fine, dear people, but they want everyone to live by their religious doctrines, and that is intolerable...

Excellent points.

[MG 2.0]

And I respect your position. I really do.

Regards,
MG

I will add this, and I want to thank you for remaining decent and kind in this conversation:

If you vote to ban abortion, you are part of the problem.

If you vote against gay marriage, you are part of the problem.

The "you" is not necessarily literally you here. I have no idea how you vote. I am saying that the fanatical movement to make people follow others' religious views is the problem. Those who support it become part of the problem.

They can be wonderful, fine, dear people, but they want everyone to live by their religious doctrines, and that is intolerable.

Views like yours are to be respected but also recognized as one side of the coin. Are you able to see yourself as compromising with folks that might have a different point of view or are you locked into a hard position in which no compromise is even possible?

Can religious doctrines be changed or modified to the extent that core teachings of a religion are compromised?

Of course, the answer to that is no. Yet we see policies that change. Are you willing to make compromises when policies may run counter to your personal preferences and/or those that you see as confederates?

If I’m understanding what you’re saying it seems that you may be unwilling to compromise in the short term while awaiting changes that might be more in conformity with your personal preferences or societal ‘doctrines’ and practices.

As church members it is incumbent that we ultimately rely on the council and directives from the brethren while at the same time knowing that those directives and council are in some instances and at some times and in some places subject to modification.

It is true that some folks are not willing or able to live within those parameters. It’s the ‘my way or the highway’ view.

Regards,
MG

[Philo Sofee]

MG2.0
From the time of the beginnings of the restoration the leaders of the church have never made claims to be perfect in all things.

We know that, thanks for the irrelevant point. It is not at all that they are expected to be perfect, it is their deliberate choice of lying and breaking the law when they know better, and doing so habitually for decades and then lying about it, and expecting everyone to continue believing they are holy that is the problem.

[MG 2.0]

MG2.0
From the time of the beginnings of the restoration the leaders of the church have never made claims to be perfect in all things.

We know that, thanks for the irrelevant point. It is not at all that they are expected to be perfect, it is their deliberate choice of lying and breaking the law when they know better, and doing so habitually for decades and then lying about it, and expecting everyone to continue believing they are holy that is the problem.

It is relevant as I explained in the full context of my post.

Regards,
MG

[Kishkumen]

Views like yours are to be respected but also recognized as one side of the coin. Are you able to see yourself as compromising with folks that might have a different point of view or are you locked into a hard position in which no compromise is even possible?

What aspects of Sharia law are you willing to compromise on? If someone insists that you not be able to eat pork because they think it is offensive to God, are you ready to live by their beliefs about that?

Can religious doctrines be changed or modified to the extent that core teachings of a religion are compromised?

It is certainly possible and has happened countless times.

If I’m understanding what you’re saying it seems that you may be unwilling to compromise in the short term while awaiting changes that might be more in conformity with your personal preferences or societal ‘doctrines’ and practices.

I am not sure what you mean. I do know that I do not like theology being written into laws that all people are required to obey.

As church members it is incumbent that we ultimately rely on the council and directives from the brethren while at the same time knowing that those directives and council are in some instances and at some times and in some places subject to modification.

If you elect to live that way, that is your choice and your right. I do not choose to live that way, and I don’t want your leaders’ political views forced on the rest of us.

It is true that some folks are not willing or able to live within those parameters. It’s the ‘my way or the highway’ view.

Regards,
MG

As opposed to the Brethren’s way or the highway?

[MG 2.0]

Views like yours are to be respected but also recognized as one side of the coin. Are you able to see yourself as compromising with folks that might have a different point of view or are you locked into a hard position in which no compromise is even possible?

What aspects of Sharia law are you willing to compromise on? If someone insists that you not be able to eat pork because they think it is offensive to God, are you ready to live by their beliefs about that?

Can religious doctrines be changed or modified to the extent that core teachings of a religion are compromised?

It is certainly possible and has happened countless times.

If I’m understanding what you’re saying it seems that you may be unwilling to compromise in the short term while awaiting changes that might be more in conformity with your personal preferences or societal ‘doctrines’ and practices.

I am not sure what you mean. I do know that I do not like theology being written into laws that all people are required to obey.

As church members it is incumbent that we ultimately rely on the council and directives from the brethren while at the same time knowing that those directives and council are in some instances and at some times and in some places subject to modification.

If you elect to live that way, that is your choice and your right. I do not choose to live that way, and I don’t want your leaders’ political views forced on the rest of us.

It is true that some folks are not willing or able to live within those parameters. It’s the ‘my way or the highway’ view.

Regards,
MG

As opposed to the Brethren’s way or the highway?

As is often the case we come to an impasse created by differing views concerning Christ. Is he or isn’t he who Christians proclaim him to be. I’ve read through your Jesus is a Roman God thread and it appears you have questions concerning Jesus’s divinity. As such, we are going to have…naturally…conflicting views as to whether a divine Christ would deign to speak at times to the Brethren.

We’re on a different wavelength.

And we both believe what we believe or don’t believe for reasons that appear reasonable to us.

No rocket science there.

Regards,
MG