How can I be sure

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

GA's may speak fondly of the founding fathers and our republic in conference, but Mormonism's missionary and one true church rhetoric, as well as its activities locally in Utah, demonstrate a yearning to run the world. It will never happen, but that is what they wish. They would love to issue edicts abolishing abortion, legal gay and extra-marital sex, alpha females, critiques of Mormon history and beliefs, etc., on pain of death, and reestablishing polygamy (for Mormon leadership). This would be easy to justify because Mormonism is the one true faith, when the brethren speak thinking must stop, and these things happened in Old Testament times.

I like you, SU, but you are really going off the deep end lately. Over-the-top statements like this do nothing for your credibility. This is the stuff one would expect in the nuttiest anti-mormon literature. Not from our well-educated friend from Seattle.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I like you, SU, but you are really going off the deep end lately. Over-the-top statements like this do nothing for your credibility. This is the stuff one would expect in the nuttiest anti-mormon literature. Not from our well-educated friend from Seattle.

I agree with this comment.

As a case in point to show how nutty it is, remember the Book of Alma, where the spiritual judge was separated from the legal, secular judgment? That is in effect a model for Republican form of government.

I doubt seriously any earnest GA, currently serving desires theological law to supplant the secular law, in all but a few instances. I doubt and challenge you to back it up, Seattle, that a single, currently serving GA, has advocated secular law be changed to outlaw adultery or fornication.

The Church has enough trials advising its membership let alon implementing religious law amongst the secular. An absurd allegation.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

It may well be that Romney is less inclined than George Bush to disregard and disrespect basic liberties. But if so, it is because of his exposure to American democratic insitututions and values embodied in the Constitution including the Bill of Rights, rather than his particular religious uprbringing per se.

This may be difficult for you to believe, but perhaps it's a combination of both. Surely you remember this little tidbit from your youth:

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I like you, SU, but you are really going off the deep end lately. Over-the-top statements like this do nothing for your credibility. This is the stuff one would expect in the nuttiest anti-mormon literature. Not from our well-educated friend from Seattle.

Admittedly I'm extrapolating. It's just imagination. The difference between us is that I don't put Mormonism on any higher moral plain than any other religion. Have you ever tried to imagine your religion as being born and based somewhere outside the United States in a time other than the time in which it was born? I bet not many here have. It's not really even possible to do because, as reflected in the article of faith cited by Il Pad, Mormonism is to such a great extent a product of its time and place. But it is also a product of the past, a reaction to its time and place. It's fundamentally a religion.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Admittedly I'm extrapolating. It's just imagination. The difference between us is that I don't put Mormonism on any higher moral plain than any other religion. Have you ever tried to imagine your religion as being born and based somewhere outside the United States in a time other than the time in which it was born? I bet not many here have. It's not really even possible to do because, as reflected in the article of faith cited by Il Pad, Mormonism is to such a great extent a product of its time and place. But it is also a product of the past, a reaction to its time and place. It's fundamentally a religion.

Your thoughts in this thread reek of bitterness born of a longing for that which you have forsaken ... the idealism, optimism and truthfulness of the faith of your youth. You have aggressively pruned that part of yourself and it has become a painful sore that requires constant attention. Not because it produces new purposeful growth, which is the bi-product of skillful pruning, but because it aches and remains infected no matter what idea, substance or pleasure you ingest to cure it.

You will return to your faith Seattle. In the back of you mind you know this and hope for it. Why prolong the sorrow and suffering.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Your thoughts in this thread reek of bitterness born of a longing for that which you have forsaken ... the idealism, optimism and truthfulness of the faith of your youth. You have aggressively pruned that part of yourself and it has become a painful sore that requires constant attention. Not because it produces new purposeful growth, which is the bi-product of skillful pruning, but because it aches and remains infected no matter what idea, substance or pleasure you ingest to cure it.

You will return to your faith Seattle. In the back of you mind you know this and hope for it. Why prolong the sorrow and suffering.

I don't think so.

I think everyone is taking this thread, in which I have without exception addressed hypothetical situations--plausible hypotheticals but hypotheticals nonetheless--too seriously.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Admittedly I'm extrapolating. It's just imagination.

Well, it's a pretty vivid imagination you have there. Secret plot for world domination? Fantasies about restoring polygamy for leaders only? Lusting for dictatorial powers? Come on...

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Well, it's a pretty vivid imagination you have there. Secret plot for world domination? Fantasies about restoring polygamy for leaders only? Lusting for dictatorial powers? Come on...

You say my hypotheticals are so over the top, but think about why Christopher Hitchins writes a book about how religion poisons everything, and thinks Mormonism is material enough to deserve a section in his book. I'm not saying I agree with him completely, not at all. But I don't see anyone saying he's gone over the top, that he's a complete loon. That perspective is at least worthy of consideration. Hithcins believes religion poses a menace to liberty tantamount to fascism and communism. Really religions' hostility to pluralism, dialogue, and intellectualism is self-evident and understandable.

[creekster]

How about this: SU is correct, we would like to have a worldwide government where secular law is identical with religious doctrine (assuming we can ever figure out what the heck that is, but that's for another thread). The goal of life is to live consistently with God's will. The goal of our church is to help us do this. The goal of our missionaries is to help others do this. The difference between our goals and SU's imagined disaster is that we want to do so by persuasion and not coercion.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You say my hypotheticals are so over the top, but think about why Christopher Hitchins writes a book about how religion poisons everything, and thinks Mormonism is material enough to deserve a section in his book. I'm not saying I agree with him completely, not at all. But I don't see anyone saying he's gone over the top, that he's a complete loon. That perspective is at least worthy of consideration. Hithcins believes religion poses a menace to liberty tantamount to fascism and communism. Really religions' hostility to pluralism, dialogue, and intellectualism is self-evident and understandable.

It doesn't surprise me that he would include Mormonism in his book. With our unique and recent history, we are certainly low-hanging fruit.

I listened to an extensive interview with Hitchens the other day about his book. Picking on religion is a pretty simple task. History is full of atrocities commited in the name of God. He is articulate, persuasive, and an excellent story-teller. But he hardly presents a balanced view. And he is prone to exaggeration and sensationalism. It's a great way to get those books moving off the shelves.