Can a democrat be a good Mormon?

[WhiteNoisecaptain of 100]

s

[durangoutcaptain of 1,000]

That's what this country needs, not a Mormon, a Catholic, a Baptist or an atheist.

That's why you are here on an LDS forum I suppose? (LDS Forum??? That's questionable) I think we need men of God in Politics, I think the lack thereof is what's got us here in the first place. I think the Brethren support the idea of Mormons in Politics. I am sad that you disagree.

You have unwittingly stumbled upon a group of people that I could only compare to the Jewish Zelots during Jesus' mortal ministry. They were the classic example of a group who "lost sight of the forrest for the trees". The Zelots were so consumed by thier political aspirations / beliefs/ fears / concerns ...that while they were looking for a political savior, they missed the spiritual Savior as He walked among them.

(I just deleted several paragraphs of this post as the more I consider them, the more I realize expressing more of my thoughts on this subject is pointless)

Have a nice day.

[WhiteNoisecaptain of 100]

s

[durangoutcaptain of 1,000]

[quote="[/quote]

Thanks! Its nice to know another brother here. But, I'm not so sure that I "unwittingly" stumbled upon this forum. Perhaps there was a reason.[/quote]

Good point.

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

That's what this country needs, not a Mormon, a Catholic, a Baptist or an atheist.

That's why you are here on an LDS forum I suppose? I think we need men of God in Politics, (you are absolutely right, and Mitt's political actions over the years has proven otherwise.) I think the lack thereof is what's got us here in the first place. I think the Brethren support the idea of Mormons in Politics. (So do I as long as they are just.) I am sad that you disagree.

Exodus 18:21
21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:

2 Samuel 23:3
3 The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.

just
1. guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness: We hope to be just in our understanding of such difficult situations.
2. done or made according to principle; equitable; proper: a just reply.
3. based on right; rightful; lawful: a just claim.
4. in keeping with truth or fact; true; correct: a just analysis.

Now, when one applies all these words to MR in his actions, does he live by them in a congruent manner?
Do all his actions reflect abiding by Constitutional principles, and an innate fear of God?
Is his ideas on abortion based on truth?
How about healthcare?
How about same-sex marriage?

Does the word "NO" mean anything today?

To fear God is to think like him, act like him, to deal justly and honestly. And a President must uphold and defend the Constitution. It is our law given us by God, and he expects us to vote for someone that knows and is profoundly in favor of living by its rules. That person must protect the right to own and bear arms, the right to free enterprise, must be against government plunder at the risk of rendering many struggling people helpless.

Mitt may have made the Olympics possible, but he wasn't dealing with the more than 311,800,000 people in this country.

To quote Chuck Baldwin:
"No two men were more different than George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. They were opposites in just about every measure of determination. But without a doubt, these two men were two of the most valuable and influential men at the time of America's founding. It is safe to say that without these two men, the United States of America would not even exist. Though they differed in religious persuasion, background, education, etc., they both expressed the same sentiment in regard to the discussion at hand."

George Washington said, "The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained."

Thomas Jefferson said, "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep forever."

Christians or unbelievers, churchgoers or non-churchgoers, Federalists or Democrat-Republicans, northerners or southerners, to a man, America's founders were men that feared God. That doesn't mean they were without sin. It doesn't mean that they possessed some sort of super-spirituality. But universally, the founding generation (and many generations afterward) possessed an innate fear of God.

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin710.htm

[WhiteNoisecaptain of 100]

s

[sbsioncaptain of 1,000]

ask Harry Reid............maybe he should be president, he's a priesthood holder and temple attender

[WhiteNoisecaptain of 100]

s

[sbsioncaptain of 1,000]

good, repentance every week is great

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

Does the word "NO" mean anything today?

To fear God is to think like him, act like him, to deal justly and honestly. And a President must uphold and defend the Constitution. It is our law given us by God, and he expects us to vote for someone that knows and is profoundly in favor of living by its rules. That person must protect the right to own and bear arms, the right to free enterprise, must be against government plunder at the risk of rendering many struggling people helpless.

FF,

Speaking of the true meaning of things, FF, you may be surprised to know the Mormon definition of the word "fear" in many translated scriptures.

LDS Bible Dictionary

Fear. Care should be taken to distinguish between two different uses of this word. The “fear of the Lord” is frequently spoken of as part of man’s duty (e.g., Ps. 111:10; Eccl. 12:13; Isa. 11:2–3; Luke 1:50); it is also described as “godly fear” (Heb. 12:28). In such passages fear is equivalent to reverence, awe, worship, and is therefore an essential part of the attitude of mind in which we ought to stand toward the All-holy God. On the other hand fear is spoken of as something unworthy of a child of God, something that “perfect love casteth out” (1 Jn. 4:18). The first effect of Adam’s sin was that he was afraid (Gen. 3:10). Sin destroys that feeling of confidence God’s child should feel in a loving Father, and produces instead a feeling of shame and guilt. Ever since the Fall God has been teaching men not to fear, but with penitence to ask forgiveness in full confidence of receiving it.

Source: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/fear?lang=eng

Thank you for the lesson, of which, I already know. And in my post above, it was demonstrated as to what kind of fear is essential. Nothing was said about being afraid. It was all about respect and honor for God and doing things his way (in this sense, we call this as having fear for the Lord).

But what about the rest of the message in my post? Nothing was addressed as to Mitt's adherence to these rules of leadership; nothing said as to Mitt's ability to be just. His record proves otherwise.

Scripture can and does bring out requirements that a lot of people ignore for one reason or another. But this doesn't change scripture in the least. And then we have the pouters that say "well, that's only your interpretation." But I say "they aught to have a dictionary on hand somewhere if they have a hard time with some of the words."

The fact remains, voting is all about principle, not who the person is or what their achievements are; it is based on the candidates love for liberty and freedom and their desire to help everyone in this country keep theirs, being JUST. Come to think of it, God is just, he wants everyone to come home to him who are desirous to do so, and willing to put forth the effort. But he is not going to bend the rules for anyone.

And just why should the American people change the rules for any candidate who has demonstrated anything but strict adherence to Constitutional law?

[firendcaptain of 1,000]

ask Harry Reid............maybe he should be president, he's a priesthood holder and temple attender

When he is on any of my ballots, I will enter the same process for him. Until then, its not my stewardship to judge a man, especially eternally. I'm looking forward to voting for Romney, and taking the Sacrament tomorrow.

you should judge righteous judgement by their fruits, or else how would you know what candidate stands for truth?

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

ask Harry Reid............maybe he should be president, he's a priesthood holder and temple attender

When he is on any of my ballots, I will enter the same process for him. Until then, its not my stewardship to judge a man, especially eternally. I'm looking forward to voting for Romney, and taking the Sacrament tomorrow.

you should judge righteous judgement by their fruits, or else how would you know what candidate stands for truth?

Some would contend, "yes, but Romney holds the priesthood, shouldn't that cover all his infractions?"

[WhiteNoisecaptain of 100]

s

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

I'm not real eloquent in my wording at times but I'll do my best.

I would have to ask...when one already knows the horrible mistakes and unconstitutional acts of a candidate, why on earth would that person even come close to being a subject of prayer, other than to ask God to help that candidate repent, let alone putting him in charge of over 312,000,000 people? God also expects us to act on our own. Read this:

Doctrine and Covenants 58:27,28
27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness.
28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves....

According to these words, we also must use our own reasoning and compare a person's acts with revealed scripture and Constitutional law. If a candidate is for women's rights, is condoning gay marriage, or anything else that God is against, is God going to say "ya, go ahead and vote for him?"

On the other hand, if we thought a candidate was good and yet may have hidden acts not widely known then we could possibly do this:

Doctrine and Covenants 9:8
8 But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

Again, we must use our reasoning power.

Not even two years ago, I was for voting for the lesser of two evils because I hadn't paid attention to scripture and the words of the Prophets. Since then, I know without any reservation that it is wrong to vote like that. Now I have a much better gauge to work with, more confidence in my vote and more assurance of God's pleasure in voting his way.

[WhiteNoisecaptain of 100]

s

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

...when one already knows the horrible mistakes and unconstitutional acts of a candidate, why on earth would that person even come close to being a subject of prayer,

FF,

The answer is simple. I'm a pretty smart guy, and I would say I can hold a conversation with the smartest ones on most subjects of their choice. But you know, the vast gulf that separates us from full knowledge is incomprehensible. Lets face it, we are in a Telestial level, and the Spirit Paradise has better source of truth than we do! (dang it, I wish I could share more .... oh well) Can you imagine how bright it would be with Celestial knowledge. I've chosen my words carefully, coded for members of the church. but, if its still unclear, let me say this ..... This isn't rocket science, its faith. This isn't about the Apollo 1 command module that was the best ever because the company that built it said it was. Rocket Science is based on telestial knowledge. This isn't about blaming the military for firing the missile that struck and brought down TWA flight 800. When we gain celestial knowledge, we know that putting 100% oxygen in a command module is unsafe and a fire hazard. We also know that empty fuel tanks on a 747 can explode in mid air. But we learn both of those things BEFORE THEY HAPPEN. This knowledge isn't delivered to us by the company that won the low bid elevator. Its delivered by our creator who has only one agenda: To bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

I'm not voting for Romney because he simply holds the priesthood, or because he's a member. Not because his rich, or has a stake in GM. Not because he's good looking, or because I will expect some sort of kickback. I'm voting for him because my sources are better than anything else on earth. O.K.?

If you have a testimony of the church, you know that.

My testimony of the church is based on scripture, which trumps any prophet or anyone else in the church...for it is scripture that they are supposed to expound and teach to us, right?

There is no need to question my testimony because of the truth and counsel that comes from feasting on the words of Christ. And nowhere does Christ say to vote for evil, no matter the degree. I have come to realize a wasted vote is in doing just that, voting for evil, wrong doing or unconstitutional...or whatever else it could be called.

There are many quotes by church leaders that say we must vote for someone that is honest, wise and good...and who upholds the Constitution in its fullest for the benefit of all America. This responsibility goes way beyond choosing a nice guy.

And I still stand by my previous post. But like I have told many others on this forum, I really don't care who they vote for. I just want people to know how I changed my paradigm in the past 2 1/2 years. I learned things from some of the posters and then did research on my own, discarded nonsense and retained scriptural and leadership evidences. I pondered and prayed, and have thanked God for my new understandings.

If anyone wants to know more about my beliefs, there are over 2270 posts to look at showing many of them in detail.

[Mike Griffithcaptain of 100]

I've certainly posted many more statements that support my conclusions than others have in the opposition...

Back before I worried about such things as obeying commandments, I gave my girlfriend a lot more reasons why we should be allowed to fool around before marriage than she did to be chaste. A thousand wrong ideas don't measure up to one right idea. From the premise of your original question, I'd say it's impossible. In today's political world, you cannot be a good LDS Church member and be an active, party-supporting Democrat. That would be akin to being a good DEA agent and a member of a Mexican Drug Cartel. The two ideologies are too far opposed to be compatible.

Now if the questions was "How CAN a good LDS Church member be a Democrat" then I would say there is an answer to that. If a person tried to be active in the Dem Party and move the party ideals back to where they were in the time that President Faust served in the House, or when JFK was President then that could be, on paper, possible. However, that theoretical person is going to be so far at the end of ineffective that they may as well not exist. Moving the Dumbocraps to suppport LDS principles is as likely as discovering that there really is a man in the moon, and that he's eating green cheese.

Yes, the Democratic Party is way, way too far gone for anyone to waste time trying to get it to support traditional values again. The Democratic base is increasingly immoral and hostile to every founding principle and traditional value that once made America great.

The GOP, on the other hand, has gotten more conservative over the last 4 years and, for right now, offers us the best medium by which to defend traditional values and constitutional principles.

[WhiteNoisecaptain of 100]

s

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

FF,

Sorry, I thought you asked me a question, so I responded with the answer... Here is the question you asked .....

...when one already knows the horrible mistakes and unconstitutional acts of a candidate, why on earth would that person even come close to being a subject of prayer,

Individual revelation trumps all in my opinion. The fact is, there isn't much scripture (if any) that talks about Mitt Romney defiling the constitution. It sounds to me that most of your information and opinion on Mitt Romney is coming from other sources. Members of the church, who later became leaders in the church have talked about the constitution and that its an inspired document. It is. But it would seem that you have then taken Mitt Romney's history (real or not), and applied it to your interpretation of what these leaders have said and then stopped. That's not Mormon doctrine. The next doctrinal step is to take your information before God and ask him. In my opinion, I don't consider something testimony until I have a spiritual witness. Again, I'm not telling you how to vote, but you are the one that is questioning my testimony of Mitt. And then you asked me why I would take it to the Lord. Like I said, that's not Mormon doctrine.

As far as scriptures go, they are excellent source of information including truth and testimony. Scripture reading is excellent, but it's an example of personal revelation and truth for those that had those experiences. For me, Scriptures are the a wonderful part of study that help me gain personal revelation.

But in the end, scriptures are mostly what someone else knows, their testimony and experiences. Personal revelation is a much more pure and direct. Again, you asked me. And just so you know, I'm not questioning your testimony. I just found it strange that you don't agree on a fundamental doctrine of the church. But, I suppose everyone is different. But, it should be noted for everyone to see that you are suggesting a course of action for others, and questioning other peoples testimony, when you don't have a spiritual witness by your own admission.

Just what is your interpretation of this?
Doctrine and Covenants 58:27,28
27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness.
28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves....

I ask, where does it say to get confirmation.

According to this scripture, I do not require a confirmation on any particular person that I could cast a vote toward. It is my right to vote for someone not even on the ballot because they are much more qualified for that position. And I guaranty I'm not the only one that will vote this way.

But what i must do is this:

2 Nephi 32:9
9 But behold, I say unto you that ye must pray always, and not faint; that ye must not perform any thing unto the Lord save in the first place ye shall pray unto the Father in the name of Christ, that he will consecrate thy performance unto thee, that thy performance may be for the welfare of thy soul.


How can I vote for evil, even in the least degree, and then ask God to consecrate it unto me for the welfare of my soul? Can anyone?

As it has been explained so many times, it's not about the lesser of two evils, rather, it is choosing someone that will uphold and defend the Constitution that counts. If none of the candidates fill that mandate, do not vote for them.

We are to vote in a manner which pleases God, letting him know we are for keeping the Constitution intact, not just pieces of it for appeasement purposes for the few. When we cast a vote for someone that will live up to their oath of office and does not get elected, the ensuing evil from someone else is taken care of by God at some point. At least we chose right and good letting God know we want righteousness and not evil. After all, we will have to report to God as to why we chose evil at any level. Does anyone voting for the lesser of two evils want this on their conscience?

Perhaps someone will express their take on this, but as for now, I speak for myself. I just know there are others on this forum that agree with this process.
There are many sources within the threads on this forum as to how this process was learned, but I don't want to be redundant.

It is true that I am being extremely firm in my belief. You may or may not know, however, that a lot of us that do not want to vote for MR are being called "secret Obama lovers" or "if you don't vote for Romney you're throwing your vote away", or "if you don't vote for Romney, your vote automatically goes to Obama." Perhaps you would like to contend with such rubbish.

BTW, you made comment that I'm trying to get others to vote my way. Since it is based on scripture and quotes from church leaders, what have I got to lose? Either I do it God's way or by the precepts of men. I might call myself a "born again voter" And you are incorrect about me challenging the testimonies of others. To set the record straight, I never mentioned testimony, only a difference in voting methods.

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

That's what this country needs, not a Mormon, a Catholic, a Baptist or an atheist.

That's why you are here on an LDS forum I suppose? (LDS Forum??? That's questionable) I think we need men of God in Politics, I think the lack thereof is what's got us here in the first place. I think the Brethren support the idea of Mormons in Politics. I am sad that you disagree.

You have unwittingly stumbled upon a group of people that I could only compare to the Jewish Zelots during Jesus' mortal ministry. They were the classic example of a group who "lost sight of the forrest for the trees". The Zelots were so consumed by thier political aspirations / beliefs/ fears / concerns ...that while they were looking for a political savior, they missed the spiritual Savior as He walked among them.

(I just deleted several paragraphs of this post as the more I consider them, the more I realize expressing more of my thoughts on this subject is pointless)

Have a nice day.

Did you read the article I provided before coming up with your claim? If not here it is again. It's much easier to judge than understand isn't it?

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin710.htm

You're loved a lot too, I'm sure. You have even a nicer day next time you attend the temple.

[durangoutcaptain of 1,000]

Freedomfighter:

Yes; I read the article and it is quite good. I'm not sure I see what your're trying to tell me. I mean, I think it makes my point exactly as well as the point I tried to make on another thread about the priciple of freedom. It has nothing to do with politics but everything to do with looking to Jesus Christ.

Did I miss something here?

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

You have unwittingly stumbled upon a group of people that I could only compare to the Jewish Zelots during Jesus' mortal ministry. They were the classic example of a group who "lost sight of the forrest for the trees". The Zelots were so consumed by thier political aspirations / beliefs/ fears / concerns ...that while they were looking for a political savior, they missed the spiritual Savior as He walked among them.

Freedomfighter:

Yes; I read the article and it is quite good. I'm not sure I see what your're trying to tell me. I mean, I think it makes my point exactly as well as the point I tried to make on another thread about the priciple of freedom. It has nothing to do with politics but everything to do with looking to Jesus Christ.

Did I miss something here?

Perhaps I mistook your statement, feeling as though some here on the forum are being called zealots. I guess I have to ask, what group of people? If you would expound on your statement, it would clear things up.

I'm glad you liked the article.

[WhiteNoisecaptain of 100]

s

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

Perhaps in some ways it's good to be a zealot. It may take zealots to save the Constitution.

Here is part of an conference talk.

The devil knows that if the elders of Israel should ever wake up, they could step forth and help preserve freedom and extend the gospel. Therefore the devil has concentrated, and to a large extent successfully, in neutralizing much of the priesthood. He has reduced them to sleeping giants. His arguments are clever….
[Says the devil]: “Don’t do anything in the fight for freedom until the Church sets up its own specific program to save the Constitution.” This brings us right back to the scripture…to those slothful servants who will not do anything until they are “compelled in all things” [D&C 58:26]. Maybe the Lord will never set up a specific church program for the purpose of saving the Constitution. Perhaps if he set one up at this time it might split the Church asunder, and perhaps he does not want that to happen yet for not all the wheat and tares are fully ripe….
[H]ave we elders been warned? Yes, we have. And have we elders been given the guidelines? Yes indeed, we have. And besides, if the Church should ever inaugurate a program [to save the Constitution], who do you think would be in the forefront to get it moving? It would not be those who were sitting on the sidelines prior to that time or those who were appeasing the enemy. It would be those choice spirits who, not waiting to be “commanded in all things,” used their own free will, the counsel of the prophets, and the Spirit of the Lord as guidelines and who entered the battle “in a good cause” and brought to pass much righteousness in freedom’s cause….
Brethren, if we had done our homework and were faithful, we could step forward at this time and help save this country. The fact that most of us are unprepared to do it is an indictment we will have to bear. The longer we wait, the heavier the chains, the deeper the blood, the more the persecution, and the less we can carry out our God-given mandate and worldwide mission. The war in heaven is raging on the earth today. Are you being neutralized in the battle? (April 1965, General Conference)

[CarlWatkinsHi, I'm new.]

I agree. A Democrat can be a good Mormon, so long as he doesn't agree with the Democratic platform - pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti second ammendment, pro-socialism, etc. I know there are some Democrats who do not support the Democratic platform. Perhaps they are here to bring change to the Democratic party. If that is the case, God bless you! Please help Harry Reed to understand better.

[WhiteNoisecaptain of 100]

s

[Mike Griffithcaptain of 100]

I agree. A Democrat can be a good Mormon, so long as he doesn't agree with the Democratic platform - pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti second ammendment, pro-socialism, etc.

But then how can they call or consider themselves Democrats when they don't support most of the Democratic platform? And what is the point of saying you're a Democrat who's trying to change the party's platform back toward the center when there's clearly, obviously, plainly no hope of doing so in the foreseeable future?

And I trust we all heard the news a few days ago that Democratic leaders announced that the party's platform will endorse gay marriage.

Simply put, why would you want to lend your name to a party that opposes the Church on every single moral issue of our day?

[skmocaptain of 1,000]

I agree. A Democrat can be a good Mormon, so long as he doesn't agree with the Democratic platform - pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti second ammendment, pro-socialism, etc.

But then how can they call or consider themselves Democrats when they don't support most of the Democratic platform? And what is the point of saying you're a Democrat who's trying to change the party's platform back toward the center when there's clearly, obviously, plainly no hope of doing so in the foreseeable future?

And I trust we all heard the news a few days ago that Democratic leaders announced that the party's platform will endorse gay marriage.

Simply put, why would you want to lend your name to a party that opposes the Church on every single moral issue of our day?

Exactly. It would be like saying "I want to be a member of GLAAD so I can teach their members to give up their homosexual lifestyles and embrace the Gospel of Christ."

[Thomascaptain of 1,000]

What a pointless argument. The republicans have no morality either. Until everyone wakes up to that fact we are doomed. Bush destroying the Bill of Rights was one of the most immoral acts ever commited. There is no difference between parties.

We are on the brink of a totalitarian government, thrust upon us by both parties. Both parties are war-mongering murderers of innocent people. Both parties are currently trying to start WWIII and will most likely succeed. The crimes of both parties cannot be supported by God or us.

[freedomfightercaptain of 1,000]

What a pointless argument. The republicans have no morality either. Until everyone wakes up to that fact we are doomed. Bush destroying the Bill of Rights was one of the most immoral acts ever commited. There is no difference between parties.

We are on the brink of a totalitarian government, thrust upon us by both parties. Both parties are war-mongering murderers of innocent people. Both parties are currently trying to start WWIII and will most likely succeed. The crimes of both parties cannot be supported by God or us.

Agreed. This is why, IMO, church members should vote for the person, not party. Then to go even deeper, we need to choose someone that we feel will live up to the oath of office. This would also include upholding our Constitutional privileges.