Did I misunderstand? -- Notes from Zarahemla Political Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 02:07:31 01/03/07 Wed
Author: Deborah
Subject: Did I misunderstand?
In reply to: Chuck in ND 's message, "I think you misunderstand" on 23:00:20 12/30/06 Sat

A theocracy is literally "rule of God", where God or His designated representative rules. Voting for Romney would be no more a theocracy than voting for Kennedy was (and that was the complaint against Kennedy as well). I think you know very well that I am not advocating for a theocracy.

My post was sent in response to your written words as I interpreted them, Charlene. In the event Mitt Romney is seen as not true to his beliefs (possibly accepting what you called in another post, the "gay agenda"), it could appear to some that it's disqualifying him as worthy of any moral substance to govern. Whenever it's deemed that a candidate stand only for his/her beliefs, doctrines of individual churches of choice, run on those issues, toward impressing them onto all others with fear of consequence... Yes, that does seem to qualify as intending a theocracy.

No, I'm merely pointing out that when a person says "I'm LDS" he is saying he subscribes to a well-defined, well-known set of beliefs. Ditto when some says he is Catholic, Baptist, Mennonite or what have you. If someone says he subscribes to a set of beliefs (a religion) and then acts contrary to those beliefs, I naturally question the integrity of that person.

Numbers of members among your church, the Catholic church, and across the spectrum see many things differently from issue to issue. And in the event the Boston Globe is correct that Mitt's people have met with at least one member of the Quorum, let me guess they're (First Presidency, et al.) okay with Mitt talking outside whatever numbers of sides of his mouth.

Outside Mitt-dom, it's my opinion an elected President represents many things, none of which include his/her church's beliefs or backing, to be impressed onto others.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]