Mitt Romney said No to an Apostle

[Philo Sofee]

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

No, it's not. The issue is not about asking them to be perfect and it never has been that. That is a rabbit trail we don't have to follow. It is the one you must try to get us down into however, as our argument makes hash of your view of prophets and their immoral choices they habitually make throughout the decades.

[Marcus]

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...

You are completely missing the point. It is irrelevant what type of deity YOU or anyone else believes in, or does not believe in.

The point is, it is not acceptable to force those who don't believe in your type of deity to live by what you say are your deity's rules.

...No rocket science there...

One would think.

[Kishkumen]

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

Sure. But a core issue for me is whether or not the religious views of one group should be forced on another by law. My answer is no. Another is whether I would agree to obey flawed people who claim to speak for God. Again, my answer is no. So, you are right to say we are on a different wavelength.

[honorentheos]

MG, this is the core problem:

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.

This is arguing for authoritarianism. Individual ethical judgement is abrogated to a few whose judgement is unquestionable. Ethical judgement is in fact reduced to how one ultimately gets themselves in line with the authority.

I've argued before and long maintain that Mormonism makes its members incredibly bad at moral reasoning because it vilifies engaging in it. Worse yet, it asserts superior moral reasoning is occuring at the source so the poor ethical judgement that follows is smuggly assured it holds the moral high ground while doing nothing of the sort.

Legislating that bad moral judgement? History is rife with examples of why that is dangerous.

[Dr Exiled]

The first amendment seems to have resolved the issue in favor of those who oppose theocracy, MG. It's sound advice that even the most holy brethren should follow.

Here it is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I emphasized the important parts for you.

I get how you would think that the church is destined to rule the world. The leaders have been drunken with this concept for some time and spew it out over the pulpit from time to time. However, sadly, it's a false path that you seem unwilling to leave. I guess the outside world will once again have to school the tiny sect.

[honorentheos]

The first amendment seems to have resolved the issue in favor of those who oppose theocracy, MG. It's sound advice that even the most holy brethren should follow.

Here it is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I emphasized the important parts for you.

I get how you would think that the church is destined to rule the world. The leaders have been drunken with this concept for some time and spew it out over the pulpit from time to time. However, sadly, it's a false path that you seem unwilling to leave. I guess the outside world will once again have to school the tiny sect.

I suspect folks, perhaps MG even, reject this argument based on the belief their morality comes from the ultimate source of GOOD tm, and that whatever weaknesses the brotheren may exhibit is acceptable because in the end they speak for God. They don't understand the deflection this represents and why it's not a defense.

[MG 2.0]

The first amendment seems to have resolved the issue in favor of those who oppose theocracy, MG. It's sound advice that even the most holy brethren should follow.

Here it is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I emphasized the important parts for you.

Thanks for that. I am a whole hearted supporter of the First Amendment and separation of church and state.

I get how you would think that the church is destined to rule the world.

Well, no you don’t. That’s not what I believe.

The leaders have been drunken with this concept for some time and spew it out over the pulpit from time to time.

I think about the closest you can come to that in the last one hundred years are references to Christ’s coming.

However, sadly, it's a false path that you seem unwilling to leave.

Sadly, for you, that is a path I’ve never been on.

I guess the outside world will once again have to school the tiny sect.

Your post was irrelevant to reality.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

The point is, it is not acceptable to force those who don't believe in your type of deity to live by what you say are your deity's rules.

Why are you making a point that many of us don’t take issue with? Who is your audience?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

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

Sure. But a core issue for me is whether or not the religious views of one group should be forced on another by law. My answer is no.

I agree. And it goes both ways. Secular beliefs and restrictions and/or mandates should not be forced on religious folks.

Another is whether I would agree to obey flawed people who claim to speak for God. Again, my answer is no. So, you are right to say we are on a different wavelength.

We are all flawed people. We live in a country in which we follow the laws created by flawed people. Those folks are all around us. You and I most likely fall into that category.

That’s why, for me, I think it is important to not focus on flaws. Rather, focus on the substance and meaning of those ‘commandments’ and laws that are prescribed and whether or not at its foundation these laws and commandments have their origins in a deity who is the mastermind of the universe and all that is in it.

To focus solely on people who may be conduits for eternal truth is going to be an exercise in frustration, right?

Regards,
MG

[Kishkumen]

The idea that secular rules are forced on religious folk is interesting. It does happen that religious organizations are required to follow the same rules as everyone else. I don’t often see religious people being FORCED to violate their religion, except that they perceive their religion as exempting them from following society’s general rules.

For example, the idea that a religious person would complain about the taxes they pay being used to fund things they don’t agree with. In my view, that’s just tough. Religion is not a “get out of society’s common burdens” card. We all object to something or other the government does. Religion would become a dodge if it were about avoiding those burdens. Some think it does entitle one to those exemptions.

Government is the secular realm, one that all citizens partake in without special exemptions or unique privileges for one group.