The question here (though far from the title that brought me here) from all three points of view seems to be “if the major organization that my candidate belongs to made a statement on an issue would I still get my money’s worth from the candidate?”

First, I can assure you that you will never get your money’s worth from any political candidate. That probably can not happen at all today but would require as a basis the candidate’s not wanting to be president (or whatever) in the first place (George Washington style). America is so divided (thanks in the main to politics) that 75%-76% of voters vote against the other candidate (50% don’t vote and half of the 50% who do vote see their candidate as the lesser of two evils). As for my example of not being represented, I have repeatedly for the last 16 years called my representative and requested a vote a certain way on certain issues and gotten “I can’t vote that way – would you like to know why?” So much for representative government.

Second, there are 600+ other national voices to balance things out (or is it just 9 now).

Third, I hope that Obama and Romney both get there (through the party process) and everyone writes in someone who can actually do the job. The parties have not had a sane candidate for many years. They are irrelevant to what America needs and the cause of many of her needs. Nothing pleases me more than a grid-locked congress.

Back to the question “Can I, a Momon, be an American citizen?” the answer is yes. My very good athiest friend thinks that no person who believes in God should be allowed to vote – I think he should be allowed to vote. I will go further: I think there should be a financial penalty for not voting (as in Brasil, I believe). I believe that America will become what her voters become. When half vote then America will be half what it could be. The politicians know this as do the media and they apparently want to sicken the people to the point where no one votes (and there is no America).

Work for unity… but in the mean time, vote.

Sincerely,
RR Millward

RR Millward

No doubt, the flood of “second guessing” gushing forth from opponents of the current administration is merely a reaction to the White House’s bent toward “politics” rather than “governance.”

David H. — I actually think that we are in substantial agreement. A voter has a right to know if there is autonomy from a religion or particuar point of view. That is why we have party affiliation for the most part.

Chino: No amount of frustration with the current administration can justify Weisberg’s simple religious bigotry. If others, including non-evangelicals and liberals, are willing to look the other way on such prejudice then they are hypocrites who ought to think a little more about what they stand for.

Why is it that *practice* means nothing in the political realm? If the Mormon faith induces its members to live chaste lives, to be honest, to be hard working, to care for the poor, etc., why all the backflips over theological differences?

Merry Christmas.

P.S. Perhaps it would be useful to settle our differences by comparing nativity sets.

“The Church” and “God” should not be thrown together so easily. There is a difference, and we should be wary of any candidate who does not see the difference. I would have no problem with a candidate whose primary allegiance was to God, but if he thought his Church leadership always perfectly reflected the will of God, then I wouldn’t trust him to run a ward, let alone a country.

Though certainly not doctrines of the Church, it is almost indisputable that the general tenor of LDS doctrine (as it was known in my generation at least) is that all three members of the godhead (pertaining unto us) will each be married eternally in due time (if they have not yet already been) and (together with exactly one their chosen partners) have that ordinance sealed upon their heads for time and all eternity, in the pattern and model of the Abrahamic covenant of marriage.

I might add further that the scriptural evidence that there is polygyny (let alone polyandry) in the highest order of celestial glory is non-existent. In fact, all of the evidence runs in exactly the opposite direction, i.e. that polygamy is a temporal expedient at best. Jacob 2:27-31 is a classic example of a scripture which was written and preserved for our day. One might well also consider:

D&C 78:5-6,
D&C 104:7-8,14-18;
D&C 49:15-16;
1 Tim 3:2,12;
Jacob 3:5 et seq.;
D&C 107:40 et seq.;
Gen 16:2 et seq;
D&C 132:34 eq seq.

Is Hagar Abraham’s wife? (Unless Sarah has fallen from her [place, birthright blessing, exaltation]) I dare say (not any more). On the contrary she occupies the position of a husband who marries a widow who has been previously sealed in the temple to a faithful husband – A legitimate (wife,husband) to be sure, but not the one according to the promise, unless (horrors) the chosen (husband,wife) falls from (her,his) place in the new and everlasting covenant of marriage and yields (his,her) birthright and covenant blessing to another more worthy than she, even as Esau.