What God says about how we Should Vote

By: Graceforgrace
October 28, 2012

In a revelation to Joseph Smith, God says (in Doctrine and Covenants section 98:4-10):

 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.

 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.

 Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.

 Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.

From this revelation, we can pick out a few key points we should consider when electing people to represent us in the way God would have us do:

  1. Make sure laws that are passed are constitutional
  2. Laws that are passed that support freedom are justified before God
  3. Elect righteous leaders or else the nation will mourn
  4. Leaders elected should be good and wise men.

Based on these criteria, who do you think lines up best between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama?  Why do you believe this?

Tags: , , , ,

72 Responses to What God says about how we Should Vote

  1. Mike S on October 28, 2012 at 6:10 PM

    Regarding these criteria:

    1. Make sure laws that are passed are constitutional
    2. Laws that are passed that support freedom are justified before God
    3. Elect righteous leaders or else the nation will mourn
    4. Leaders elected should be good and wise men

    I think that both men are wise and basically good people. I think they are equally righteous and live up to their own individual ideals. Passing constitutional laws is largely up to Congress and the Supreme Court, so I think this is less of a criteria.

    Regarding #2, I think Obama is more likely to support laws that maximize freedom, without one group of people trying to enforce their own personal ideas on other people.

    Regarding treating people fairly and not maximizing the advantage that the rich already have in our government and society in general, by far Obama.

    I’m sure Romney will do a reasonable job, should he be elected. But under him, the rich will get richer; the poor will get their benefits slashed; and our deficit will increase with his inane plan to cut everyone’s taxes 20%, including the rich.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 6

  2. Anonymous on October 28, 2012 at 6:34 PM

    Both men equally righteous? Obama wholeheartedly supports partial-birth abortion, which is an amazingly grievous sin in the eyes of the Lord and all God-fearing men. He is an evil man. All abortion is evil, but 3rd trimester partial birth abortion is downright murder of a child of God.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 5

  3. dba.brotherp on October 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM

    Both are good people. But, both will fail because congress is too divided.

    Anonymous, abortion (whether you like it or not) is a right in the USA and *any* sin will keep you from God.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  4. Geoff - A on October 28, 2012 at 8:07 PM

    Anonymous, refer back to “Realistically Curbing Abortion” on Oct 8, where it is pointed out that the only effective way to reduce Abortion is to provide birth control and sex education. Making it illigal or not has no effect. Which candidate is providing birth control?

    I think for this post the scripture is too narrow there are so many more that also convey the Lords view on what is important. See Mike S “Obama v Romney a mormon Dilema” 19 th Sept for a whole lot more that make a clearer differentiation.
    You might even consider the constiturion where it talks about government being “for the people and by the people” no mention of business or finance.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 4

  5. Mike S on October 28, 2012 at 8:52 PM

    This post can be interpreted any way that you want. For example, take the same 4 criteria:

    1. Make sure laws that are passed are constitutional
    2. Laws that are passed that support freedom are justified before God
    3. Elect righteous leaders or else the nation will mourn
    4. Leaders elected should be good and wise men.

    A little over 100 years ago, our Church leaders argued that defenders of “traditional” marriage was committing a grievous sin. They taught that monogamy led to the downfall of Rome and other societies. They taught that the leaders were interfering in what was our “right” to have the freedom to practice marriage how WE saw fit. We argued that how we practiced and defined marriage didn’t affect people back “East”.

    Our argument is now diametrically opposed. Instead of arguing for freedom of marriage, we spend millions trying to tell other people how they should approach marriage.

    And ironically, Obama seems to allow people the most freedom to choose what THEY think is best for themselves. He has never supported a law that had FORCED someone to have an abortion. He merely upheld the right for an individual to have the freedom to make that choice for themselves and to NOT be bound by his opinion. Also, ironically, Obama much better supports the idea of a Zion society where people share all things in common, where there are no rich or poor among them, where everyone IS their brothers’ and sisters’ keepers.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 7

  6. Mike S on October 28, 2012 at 8:57 PM

    Romney doesn’t even think it’s right to help victims of natural disasters. How’s that for a “God-fearing” man:

    Asked about federal disaster relief for recent tornado and flood victims at last night’s GOP debate, candidate Mitt Romney called the spending “immoral” and said the Federal Emergency Management Agency should be privatized. With greenhouse pollution on the rise, the United States has been struck by a “punishing series of billion-dollar disasters.”

    Embracing a radical anti-government ideology from the most extreme elements of the Tea Party, Romney said that the victims in Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, Massachusetts, and other communities hit by tornadoes and flooding should not receive governmental assistance. He argued it is “simply immoral” for there to be deficit spending that could harm future generations

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  7. LDS Anarchist on October 29, 2012 at 2:45 AM

    There is nothing in Doctrine and Covenants section 98:4-10, which was quoted by the OP, that says anything about voting.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  8. Usually a lurker on October 29, 2012 at 8:10 AM

    Mike S., what’s your source for that quote? It sounds like comments taken out of context and twisted, somewhat like what Obama did in the third debate about what Romney said in his op-ed piece (along with so, so many other things).

    You can also infer a very liberal and anti-Romney slant to the article by the inclusion of “With greenhouse pollution on the rise, the United States has been struck by a “punishing series of billion-dollar disasters.”

    So it’s saying, almost as if its a foregone conclusion, that the greenhouse pollution is the cause of the billion-dollar disasters. I don’t think that’s been established by any reputable scientific community. So the bias clearly shows already.

    Mentioning the Tea Party in the same sentence as Romney’s “views” is also code for “crazy conservative.”

    Romney, IMO, is much more moderate and reasonable than what is portrayed in that quote.

    As to the OP, I don’t think the four sentences differentiate much between the two men. #4, about “good and wise” men, can be debated. I think they’re both good men with very different ideologies. You have to decide which ideology best fits yours. As to being wise, I personally think Romney has Obama there, but they’re both very intelligent. Obama has made some decisions I disagree with personally, therefore I do question his capability and judgment a bit.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  9. Jared on October 29, 2012 at 9:09 AM

    If we look at the accumulated effect of all the leaders elected in the USA since WWII we get a clearer picture of where we stand in regards to D&C 98:4-10.

    I suggest two points that most of us will agree on:

    We project our military power often

    We spend more than we take in

    The net effect is that we are in jeopardy of collapsing the dollar.

    I think in the short term, a leader like Romney may be the wisest course. If we continue to spend and pass laws like we have under the Bush and Obama administrations, the laws of economics will, at some point, bring ruin to the republic.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  10. Will on October 29, 2012 at 9:12 AM

    Mike S.

    Let’s see.

    Abortion

    “Obama’s abortion extremism is such that, as a state legislator, he opposed protection for — I’ll use his words here — “that fetus, or child — however way you want to say describe it” when, contrary to the wishes of the women involved and their abortionists, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.” Babies were inconveniently being born alive, self-styled health-care providers carted them off to utility rooms where they would be left to die. That is infanticide, plain and simple. In Illinois, people tried to stop this barbarism by supporting “born alive” legislation. Barack Obama fought them all the way.
    Do you really think God is in favor of this extreme view? Mitt Romney has the same stance as the church on this issue.

    Helping the poor

    Mitt Romney gave more to help the poor and needy than all of the other candidates, Republican or Democrat in both the 2008 and 2012 elections COMBINED. Not just in total dollar expenditures which is expected given his hearty income, but in percentage of income. Romney currently donates more than 16 percent of his income, Obama less than 1/2 of 1 percent. This is not to mention the fact that is brother (from a polygamist father in Kenya) lives in a 400 square foot hut with a dirt floor. Which one is really their brother’s keeper?

    Service

    Mitt Romney has spent his entire Adult life, including a two year full time mission, serving other people. This includes the huge time commitment as a Bishop of 7 years and a Stake President of 10 years. Obama spent three years contention as a community organizer, pitting one group against another with OTHER people’s money.

    One served as a minister for 19 years (2 Missonary, 7 Bishop, 10 State President) and the other as a community agitator.

    Dependency

    Romney looks to the God given principles of self reliance, independence, thrift and following the Constitution of the United States inspired by God. Obama on the other hand promotes the State as the answer.

    This constitution, inspired by God, promotes limited Government and freedom. It is Lucifer that promotes the state solution and collectivism.

    Debt

    Barack Obama has put more on our nation’s credit card that all of the presidents from George Washington to George Bush combined. Forget our kids; this will crush us in the middle class NOW. If he is re-elected and we continue on the same path we will have 20 Trillion in debt (1/2 of which will be Obama Debt), which is equivalent to EVERY single family home in the United States. Put another way, most Americans will have two mortgages, half of which will be from Obama policies.

    We know what God says about debt.

    AND ON AND ON AND ON. Clearly, Romney is in better favor with God.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 9

  11. allquieton on October 29, 2012 at 9:28 AM

    I’m surprised how much credit some you all give these two guys. I wouldn’t call either of them righteous. They both seem like they have dedicated their lives mostly to worldly pursuits. Judging from the things they say and do, I think Romney has some level of sincerity in his religious beliefs, whereas, I believe Obama probably has none. But to me, righteous is a strong word.

    I also wouldn’t call either of them wise. I’ve listened to quite of bit of them both and have yet to hear any statements or answers I would consider profound or especially wise. Mostly they seem like average people in this department.

    The Constitution champions individual liberty and limited government. So Mitt, even though he is not all that conservative, crushes Obama on this point.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  12. allquieton on October 29, 2012 at 9:32 AM

    Mike–
    #2 was talking about third term partial birth abortions–which I suppose most people consider to be murder. Are you defending this as freedom?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  13. Jon on October 29, 2012 at 9:33 AM

    First off, it should be recognized that small “c” constitution and “law of the land” is referring to natural law per Rock Waterman’s great post on the subject:

    What Is the Law of the Land

    We must defined terms first. Rock did a great job of defining those terms.

    Both candidates are definitely not good men. They are both monsters in my not-so-humble point of view. I used to think differently but after watching videos on drone strikes killing/maiming innocent children in foreign lands I can’t hold that view anymore. Anyone that can continue such things, in my mind, are wicked beyond compare and I don’t understand how people could give their support to such men.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  14. Jon on October 29, 2012 at 9:34 AM
  15. Mike S on October 29, 2012 at 10:11 AM

    #8 Usually a lurker:

    Here’s a YouTube clip of where Romney talks about removing disaster relief from the domain of the Federal government and moving it to the state, or ideally, the private sector.

    At the end of the clip, he even specifically includes disaster relief. A transcript of that part:

    KING: Including disaster relief, though?

    ROMNEY: We cannot — we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  16. Mike S on October 29, 2012 at 10:13 AM

    #10: Will:

    If, as some LDS leaders have taught, God has a hand in US presidential elections and all presidents are who God would have in that position, and,

    If, as you stated: Clearly, Romney is in better favor with God.

    Would you be willing to accept that,

    If Obama wins this election, then Obama is in better favor with God?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  17. Mike S on October 29, 2012 at 10:22 AM

    #12 allquieton: Mike–#2 was talking about third term partial birth abortions–which I suppose most people consider to be murder. Are you defending this as freedom?

    If a fetus is viable and is killed, I am absolutely against that. On a personal basis, I am also against abortion except in the case of injuring the mother’s help or in cases of rape/incest (God’s willingness that the pregnancy occurred in that situation notwithstanding).

    However, it is a misguided point. I personally feel it is wrong, but I don’t drink either, nor do I smoke. I don’t clamor to make those illegal. I leave the decision as to whether someone wants to smoke or drink up to them. If it affects someone else (ie. second-hand smoke or drunk driving), we absolutely need to make laws to protect others in that situation.

    Similarly with abortion. If a fetus is non-viable, regardless of how I personally feel about it, it’s not really my decision to impose my judgements on someone else in a free society.

    And it’s a principle that goes far beyond abortion. If Brigham Young felt compelled by God to practice polygamy, was it right for the government to impose someone else’s set of morals on him because they personally found it wrong? At what point to we stop trying to legislate our own morals onto someone else.

    The most ironic thing in this whole argument was made on a post in the last week or so. If we would promote birth control and true sex education, we would have FAR FEWER UNWANTED PREGNANCIES with a similar rate of premarital sex. Abortions would be FAR LESS. We could do more good actually teaching our children about sex then we could arguing about abortion. But we stick our heads in the sand and pretend if we don’t talk about it then they won’t have sex.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 4

  18. Will on October 29, 2012 at 10:35 AM

    Mike S,

    “If, as some LDS leaders have taught, God has a hand in US presidential elections and all presidents are who God would have in that position, and….”

    I’ll stick to the Book of Mormon, Helaman 5:2 – God allows wicked people to elect wicked leaders and society is in real trouble when this happens—on this one. I don’t know if our society is at this point yet.

    If God does have a hand or wants to sway this election, let’s pray for 15 feet of snow in De”roit”, Cleveland, Pittsburg, Milwaukee and Madison and bright sunny days for the rest of these states from now through November 6th.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  19. Paul on October 29, 2012 at 10:57 AM

    Mike S, my congratulations for your even-handed responses. You’ve largely captured my thoughts better than I could have.

    My increasing disenchantment with “the right” is what you cite in your first comment about policies that maximize freedom.

    #10 Will:

    I will not debate abortion with you. No abortion debate has moved anyone to the other side.

    Regarding Mitt’s care for the poor, his 16% contributions do not all go the poor.

    I do not fault or discount Mitt’s service as bishop or stake president. And certainly a fair measure of his service as bishop would have been in serving the poor. (Less as a stake president, since that work is generally left to the bishops.)

    There are those who believe that public service as an elected official is also a way of serving people.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  20. Mike S on October 29, 2012 at 12:08 PM

    Also, regarding Romney’s “contributions to the poor” – I’ve argued in other posts from what numbers we have that around 1% of our donations to the LDS Church as actually used for humanitarian needs. The vast majority go to BYU, temples/meeting houses/other real estate, investments (so that the “interest but not the contribution”) can be used to build $3 billion malls, etc.

    So, assuming that Mitt makes $20 million and gives $2 million to the Church, that’s around $20k in actual humanitarian aid.

    Just to put that in perspective, when I do a knee replacement in a patient with no insurance, we write off the entire cost of a $30,000 operation. And that’s just a single patient. So I do NOT count Romney’s contributions as “helping the poor” any more than I count my tithing dollars as “charitable aid”.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  21. Molly on October 29, 2012 at 12:37 PM

    Dems are DEFINITELY the party of choice. Unless you want to forgo having health insurance, drink sugary drinks, donate leftover food from parties to the homeless, put up a cross to commemorate a policeman’s death, hire the best qualified candidate/admit the best candidate to school, not recycle trash correctly, have a muddy vehicle, sell a toy in a kid’s meal, smoke in public, or a myriad of other things. I laugh when people call Dems the part of “choice.” In reality, the only things the Democratic party allows you to have your own choice about is a) having an abortion, and b) who you want to marry. Otherwise, it’s nanny state for you!

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 10

  22. Usually a lurker on October 29, 2012 at 1:04 PM

    Mike S.,

    Thanks for the link! I’ll check it out. It’ll be great to hear it in Romney’s own words.

    I am wary of blatantly biased sites like Fox News and MSNBC. Not that that’s where your quote came from, necessarily, but the list goes on and on of “news” sources with either a strongly liberal or conservative slant.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  23. Bob on October 29, 2012 at 1:57 PM

    #21: Molly:
    ” Unless you want to forgo….”
    Molly__ I think being Mormon makes you forego most of these things too(?).

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  24. Mike S on October 29, 2012 at 2:14 PM

    There are tons of articles on Romney and FEMA, especially with the hurricane hitting the East coast, and the Romney camp backtracking. Here’s a quote from another article:

    During the 2012 presidential primary debates, Romney said if he were elected, he would leave disaster relief to the states, or better yet, “send it back to the private sector.”

    According to Romney, FEMA is not worth spending federal dollars on and it should be cut from the budget.

    Romney referred to federal disaster relief as “one of the things we’re doing that we don’t have to do.”

    With so many states cash-strapped, disaster victims may have to rely on private companies for help. However, as any Florida resident can tell you, in the wake of a storm, price gouging is both common and seemingly permitted.

    It is conceivable that if Romney is elected, without FEMA, food, water and basic medical supplies following a disaster might only be available to victims with enough cash to buy them at absorbent prices from sleazy re-sellers, who Romney would likely label business entrepreneurs.

    While shrinking the federal government might sound like a clever campaign slogan, there are realities attached to it. There are some things worth paying for that require the federal government. Disaster relief for Americans is one of them.

    It is admittedly easier for someone who has been through a natural disaster to relate to the struggles of surviving and rebuilding. It can be physically, emotionally, and financially draining. Not everyone has Romney’s millions or an extra house to run to when nature takes one away.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  25. Jon on October 29, 2012 at 2:37 PM

    Mike S,

    At what point to we stop trying to legislate our own morals onto someone else.

    I believe I’ve been making that point for over two years now on this blog. hmm, so you finally agreeing with me Mike? Oh wait, you are not. When it comes to things that you want to morally push on others then you are fine with pushing your morals on others. So much for consistency. Mike you cannot make that claim since you don’t believe that claim.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  26. Jon on October 29, 2012 at 2:40 PM

    I still have the question how any of you can support people that kill innocent children. How is that Christlike?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  27. Molly on October 29, 2012 at 2:54 PM

    Mike S (#24), that seems like it comes from a really biased site, with lots of political slant. Therefore, it serves no purpose except to divide. Of course, that’s what most political discussions are doing a week before the election, I guess.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  28. Will on October 29, 2012 at 3:35 PM

    Bob @ 23:

    You are the last person that should be criticizing others for poor grammar or spelling. With all the cryptic symbols +#._ and parsed and incomplete sentences. Really?

    Mike S,

    So how exactly does pushing FEMA to the States (which seems totally reasonable) put Romney in less favor with God? I know we frequently disagree, but your arguments are usually logical. This one has me baffled.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  29. Will on October 29, 2012 at 3:36 PM

    Molly @21,

    Loved your comment. Thanks

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  30. Usually a lurker on October 29, 2012 at 3:41 PM

    Jon, on #26,

    Is your question on supporting those who kill innocent children about abortion or war? Both are extremely difficult subjects and I assume most answers would include a “for the greater good” component, although of course no one really endorses killing innocents.

    I don’t think Romney’s a warmonger, though, to be clear. I think he’s about peace through strength–a we’re-so-intimidating-that-you-wouldn’t-dream-of-threatening-us sort of thing. That’s what I get from him, anyway. I do question the need to increase our military budget, but analyzing military needs is certainly not one of my strengths.

    Basically, I want someone who’ll cut, tighten, and limit our government programs without hurting innocents unnecessarily. I think Romney’s definitely closer to being that guy.

    And yes, I realize I’ll need to change my screen name if I keep posting at this rate!

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  31. Cowboy on October 29, 2012 at 3:46 PM

    “Used-to-be-a-lurker”

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 5

  32. hawkgrrrl on October 29, 2012 at 4:31 PM

    I just read an article last night about how the rich have gotten richer under Obama who has essentially continued Bushs’s policies. So rhetoric doesn’t match actions. But once again, we believe a well spun fable over the facts. The article was suggesting voting for a 3rd party. I for one don’t believe that the rich will get richer under Romney. We’ll see what really happens.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  33. Bob on October 29, 2012 at 5:24 PM

    #28: Will,
    “You are the last person that should be criticizing others for poor grammar or spelling”.
    I have NEVER criticized,(other than myself), another for grammer or spelling in 15 years of blogging comments.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  34. bon on October 29, 2012 at 9:39 PM

    Will et Al:

    A lot of the Romney arguments get really, really tiring.

    I have two points:

    (1) How exactly is the promotion of droning, torture, perpetual war on anyone and everyone and grinding the faces of the poor remotely close to either the gospel or the constitution??? This also relates to Obama, but Romney is sounding that drum awfully loud.

    (2) How exactly is Satan the one pushing for collectivism when our own scriptures suggest the exact opposite? I don’t know, something about the mere presence of the poor amongst us…you know…must of the D&C…

    Zion, by definition, is collectivism. No poor, no rich, everyone writing for the benefit of others.

    Lastly, I really don’t think that (a) we can judge anyone to be in out out of favor with God – holy presumptuous – and (b) the cry to continual war and killing How’s children worldwide seems completely anti-Christ…

    Do good to your enemies…by killing them.
    Love your enemies…by killing them.
    Wage peace…by killing everyone that disagrees with you.
    Be Christlike…by promoting war, torture, etc.

    Yup, sounds about right.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  35. hawkgrrrl on October 29, 2012 at 11:02 PM

    Mike S # 6 – Cutting FEMA isn’t equivalent to not helping people in crisis. It’s not using tax dollars to do so. Here’s the conundrum IMO. We donate millions to help other countries out of disaster situations, including borrowing from those countries in order to do so. That’s asinine. Romney has in fact spent his time & resources helping people out with Hurricane Sandy. His FEMA remarks don’t absolve him from his own feeling of responsibility to help others, just not to ring up debt to do it.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  36. hawkgrrrl on October 29, 2012 at 11:12 PM

    In response to the 4 points in the OP:
    1 – “Make sure laws that are passed are constitutional.” This is an interesting one. What if the nation’s constitution is unjust or oppressive? In the case of the US, we have made constitutional amendments over time. It is elastic.
    2 – “Laws that are passed that support freedom are justified before God.” But not all freedom is equal. Freedom to do wrong? Freedom from helping others? Freedom for individuals? All of them, or more for some than others? This idea is too vague to be meaningful. You could justify almost anything or nothing based on this.
    3 – “Elect righteous leaders or else the nation will mourn.” Given that we’re talking government, I assume “unrighteous” means “corrupt” or “dishonest.” This is politics, right?
    4 – “Leaders elected should be good and wise men.” I think both candidates are good men. Whether wise is subjective based on our own experience and understanding and how our judgment matches up with theirs. Again, it’s easy to justify either position. I couldn’t vote for McCain when he chose Palin as VP because she wasn’t wise (and knew less about foreign policy than a 5th grader). But people are not wise on every topic either. We are wise in areas where we have experience.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  37. Douglas on October 30, 2012 at 12:22 AM

    To add on the HawkChicks points:
    1) Yes, “Constitutional” IF the principles outlined by the Constitution are aligned with Gospel princples. Remember, there’s nothing inherently magical about the US Constitution, the Soviet Union had one fairly much the same! The US Constitution is in essence the product of a supermajority…and if the (super)majority were always right, would they not be rich?
    2) “Free-dom? A ‘Yang’ worship word! You will not speak it!” (You Trekkies out to know that line). Seriously, we want to uphold free agency (hence ought to favor Libertarianism), but the immature confuse freedom with license, an attitude that precludes the self-government that is critical to live under the rule of law prescribed in the Constitution.
    3) “Elect ‘righteous’ leaders…like the “you want it WHEN?” poster, an outburst of ridiculing laughter. By definition, an honest politician is an oxymoron with respect to the Gospel. By the world’s standards, an ‘honest’ politician is one that when bought stays bought.
    4) Elect “wise” men (and women)…I’d rather have a mouthy broad that flunks geography as Veep but yet raises a gaggle of bright, educated children, than a slickster that talks out of boths sides of his neck. I’ll leave it to a four-armed Besalik running a diner on Coruscant as to how to define “wisdom”. But at times, I want someone like good ol’ “Tricky Dick”…as Everett Dirksen is reputed to have said of him…”He’s an S.O.B. but…he’s OUR S.O.B.” Espeecially when it’s time to take out the trash, both domestic and foreign.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  38. Jon on October 30, 2012 at 1:02 AM

    @Usually a lurker,

    Iran decides that it is going to do some targeted drone strikes against strategic terrorists in the US without the permission of the US. Iran bombs the house next door to you of a man between the ages of 17 and 33. This bomb kills your wife and maims your children, you weren’t home. Will you become a terrorist to avenge the death of your wife and maiming of your children? Will you encourage others to go to battle against Iran? Will you be willing to kill their 4 yr olds in order to make it so they don’t kill your 4 yr olds?

    The so-called terrorists we are after don’t even need to be terrorists. There is no judge. They fit a predefined profile. Boom, they’re dead and so are a bunch of people around them.

    There is no humanity in this. Just watch the second (short) video with Jack Hunter who puts it in well measured terms (I’m not very at being tactful). We judge the people in the BoM harshly for having a lust for blood but refuse to recognize it in ourselves because we believe that surely our fearless leaders would not lead us astray, surely we would know. Maybe if we read different people then those that lull us to believe all is well. Just read some of Glenn Greenwald’s work (Salon.com) and you’ll have a hard time wondering how the mass media never told you about all the things your government is doing in your name.

    As for Romney being a peace loving man. He has promised to continue the drone strikes. He has promised to incarcerate American’s without due process and even assassinate them if it is deemed necessary, he has promised to not get congressional approval to go to war, he has promised to continue the economic sanctions – which is an act of war and any country that has sanctioned levied against has a right to return such aggression in kind. The list goes on. Romney may have a good personal life with his family but his politics are those of a wicked man. Yes, Romney may be a good person, but if he is mislead and does horrible things then he must be judged in this world for his actions and let God give the eternal judgment.

    Really, these things are important. The elections won’t change anything but opening the minds of the people will and when the people rise up and say no more (in a peaceful manner), then there will be change.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  39. Jon on October 30, 2012 at 1:13 AM

    @hawkgrrrl,

    1 – There’s a difference between constitutional and Constitutional. Remember 2 Ne where Nephi says God speaks in the language of the people he speaks to. Hence lower case “c” constitutional is refering to the “law of the land” which is nothing more than natural rights as Jefferson called it which is nothing more than natural law. Take a look at the link by Rock Waterman wrote. Quite in depth. I find it very interesting how people don’t even believe in the concept anymore – something that has deep historical roots. I guess that is what government schools have done to us.

    2 – Are you just being facetious? Making fun of the scriptures? Douglas is right. Check out Mosiah 29 for some context.

    3 – Yep. Couldn’t agree with you more on this one. You know you have righteous leaders when you are not taxed anymore like King Benjamin and Mosiah refused to tax the people.

    4 – Not very many wise men out there. Ron Paul is extremely well read and tells everybody that maybe Christ was right, that we shouldn’t going around bombing people to make them be good. Yeah, but just like Obama said, that’s just crazy, what’s this Jesus guy talking about anyway follow the be attitudes, whatever.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  40. hawkgrrrl on October 30, 2012 at 1:27 AM

    Jon – no, I am serious in asking about what freedom means. In the US, it’s inextricably linked to property rights, and yet in the NT, they had all property in common. That’s contradictory. Personally, I prefer to keep my property rights given the option.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  41. LDS Anarchist on October 30, 2012 at 1:38 AM

    This post seems intent on forcing a political interpretation onto the scripture quoted by the OP, but I feel like there needs to be a contrary view and interpretation given. So, here is my understanding of this scripture:

    D&C 98:4-10 is broken into two parts. The first part talks of the laws of man:

    and now | verily | i say unto you | concerning the laws of the land |

    it is my will | that my people should observe to do all things | whatsoever i command them |

    and that law of the land | which is constitutional | supporting that principle of freedom | in maintaining rights and privileges | belongs to all mankind | and is justifiable before me | therefore | i | the lord | justify you | and your brethren of my church | in befriending that law | which is the constitutional law of the land |

    and as pertaining to law of man | whatsoever is more or less than this | cometh of evil |

    Okay, so these are the instructions concerning the laws of man and whatever is more or less than these instructions is bad. The law of man here is qualified, so that only one type of law of man is justifiable before the Lord, not every law of man.

    Next, the Lord talks about the laws of God:

    i | the lord god | make you free | therefore | ye are free indeed |

    and the law also maketh you free | nevertheless | when the wicked rule | the people mourn | wherefore | honest men | and wise men | should be sought for diligently | and good men | and wise men | ye should observe to uphold | otherwise | whatsoever is less than these | cometh of evil |

    So, here we get no qualifiers. The Lord makes us free and also His law makes us free, and that law has no qualifiers. There are no qualifiers because He’s no longer talking about the laws of men. He now talking about His own laws. But, if the wicked rule the people mourn. The wicked He is referring to are not political rulers among the governments of men, but the leaders of His church. Also, “the people” He is referring to that mourn are His people, not the general populace. So, the instructions here pertain only to the ecclesiastical kingdom of God. Only honest and wise men are to be sought for diligently as rulers in the kingdom of God. And only good and wise men are to be upheld (sustained) by the Lord’s people. None of these instructions were given to direct our political selection, they were given to make sure the people of the Lord did not allow wicked men to be over their churches, because regardless of the laws of God (which make us free), wicked ecclesiastical rulers would bring God’s people into bondage and thus they would mourn.

    This second part of the scripture, dealing with the law of God (and His rulers), is also ended with a “whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.” This clearly shows the division between the two sections, each section ending with similar phrases.

    When we take this scripture and apply a political meaning to it, we are wresting it. God never intended us, His people, to participate in the political process. We are to seek after Zion and let the Gentiles attend to their own business and affairs. However, insofar as there are man-made laws which support the principle of freedom, we can justifiably “befriend them.”

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 7

  42. Molly on October 30, 2012 at 9:08 AM

    I’m irritated that Romney is being called a warmonger (partly) because of approving drone strikes. OBAMA has done thousands of them, and expanded them from Bush. There’s no way Romney should be criticized for agreeing to continue drone strikes while Obama is given a pass.

    About FEMA…I know this is a TOTALLY partisan site, but to get a perhaps more in-context evaluation of Romney’s FEMA remarks, check out http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/30/Fact-Check-Mitt-Romney-Never-Called-FEMA-Immoral.

    I think he was doing a “you asked me a question about FEMA but I want to turn it to deficit spending” type answer that politicians do so often.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  43. Jon on October 30, 2012 at 9:21 AM

    @LDS Anarchist,

    I don’t really agree with your viewpoint on this. If we read the BoM and compare then I think God is making a political statement. Let me try and explain:

    And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land [see Rock Waterman's post on what the law of the land was referred to in Joseph's day]

    , it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them [Here he is talking about his covenants, but not the law that applies to all].

    And that law of the land which is constitutional [Here the term constitutional is defined by equating it to the law of the land which, in Joseph's day meant natural law - remember this was close to the founding of the country when natural law/rights was taught as a matter of fact]

    , supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges [i.e., what natural law does, it gives all one ethical standard to live under even if you don't believe in the same religion],

    belongs to all mankind [once again, natural law is universal],

    and is justifiable before me [i.e., is the minimum by which all men should live.].

    Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land [As defined earlier as the "Law of the Land"];

    And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil. [So anything that doesn't meet this minimum criteria is wicked.]

    I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed [I agree this seems to be in the spiritual sense but also shows how the natural state of man is to be free.];

    and the law also maketh you free [An opposing statement being compared to the "Law of the Land."].

    Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn [As referenced back to Mosiah 29 where king Mosiah states that when the people have wicked rulers they will be tempted to sin, and, as we know, sin never was happiness.].

    Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.[Once again, if we refer back to the chapter in Mosiah we see this in verse 11 with the same language]

    It should also be noted that the “Laws of the Land” are comparative to “laws of God” in the Book of Mormon.

    I agree, Anarchist, that it would be wise to apply these principles to the church also, but I think he was referring to the actual physical freedom of man when compared with Mosiah which goes through a very similar thought process and is definitely not referring to the church (in Mosiah).

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  44. Jon on October 30, 2012 at 9:24 AM

    Molly,

    If you watch the second video I posted you would see that Obama isn’t given a pass, in fact Romney is almost given a pass except for one small mention in the video which shows that Romney would continue these awful acts. Just because one ruler does awful things doesn’t mean future leaders should be given a pass, it just means they are all wicked in that certain aspect.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  45. Jon on October 30, 2012 at 9:30 AM

    @hawkgrrrl,

    I agree, I prefer to keep mine also. If we look at the United Order people were supposed to maintain those property rights, but they shared what they had that was more than they needed, which seems subjective to me – e.g., do I need money to save for old age?. So to equate the NT passage as saying that one doesn’t have property isn’t necessarily true.

    Also, freedom doesn’t mean one is “free” from the consequences of their actions, just the opposite, because to deny others their rights denies the very same rights you proclaim to have. There is a logical progression that is made to show this, if you are interested I can attempt to show this. It just comes from the book (among many others) “The Ethics of Liberty” by Rothbard. It’s a pretty simple concept though, if I say I own my body but then enslave another person, then how can I say I own my body? I can’t, since it would have to be universal. So, I end up denying my freedom by the act of denying others their freedom. So you have rights insofar as you do not interfere with the rights of others and this is what freedom is. Clear as mud?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  46. bon on October 30, 2012 at 9:58 AM

    There’s no way Romney should be criticized for agreeing to continue drone strikes while Obama is given a pass.

    You’re joking, right??

    Some members (ok, most/many) are voting fOr Romney simply because he’s LDS and, as Will stated, much more in “favor” with God. He’s righteous. He’s a “God-fearing” man. I’ve heard it all.

    This isn’t about giving Obama a free pass, it’s about showing the disconnect between the gospel that Christ emulated and where Romney runs off the track. Continuing programs that indiscriminately kill civilians of foreign countries, that kill children under the auspices that it’s better them than me and that otherwise promote am increasingly warlike state is completely contrary to the gospel. If the wool is so thick as to be unable to distinguish those evils in a so called “God fearing” man, then we truly don’t have much hope.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  47. Cowboy on October 30, 2012 at 10:16 AM

    As alway’s, LDS Anarchist has me feeling the call towards his tribal interpretation of things. If I had faith, I’d be asking for admission.

    What his interpretation recognizes is the distinction between policy, and hierarchy. I’m not going to a sponsor a dog in the race about whether these scriptures are talking about the Church government or the National government. What I will notice is that the policy provisions are intentionally generalized. “The constitution is good, go ahead and follow it”. This is exactly the trouble I am having with the current election. The policy distinctions are really quite trivial and debatable. I don’t have the wherewithall to sort through all of the details necessary to determine whose take on economic policy, for example, is likely to “protect the middle-class” (since that’s the target both candidates claim to be shooting at). Yes I understand the general theory both sides are using, and I can see scenario’s where both could play out. However, these scriptures point out the bigger picture, ie, who is the greater friend to true freedom and national prosperity? Who would be the quintessential King Benjamin, or King Nephi? Doesn’t the Book of Mormon also state that it would be good for the people to alway’s have a king, so long as it were a “righteous king”?? Isn’t that why the Nephites imposed chief judges, to ultimately couch against the probability of corruption? And doesn’t the Book of Mormon also tell a futile story about the systemic solutions to mitigating corruption, ie, don’t the Chief Judges ultimately become corrupted and infiltrated by the Gadionton Robbers and Murders? In other words, if I were to use the scriptures as an example about good government, sure, policy matters…but what really matters is righteous leaders. Everything beyond that is just details. In reality, I think this is one of the stronger points of the Book of Mormon. The more I become aware of the philosophies on economic policy, the more I realize how trivial those solutions are to the bigger problems of corruption in our political system (no, not a grand conspiracy, just a very poor pool of leadership culled from a process that selects for carp).

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  48. h_nu on October 30, 2012 at 10:36 AM

    “Obama’s a good man” except for when he ran an advertisement propositioning all of the women in America.

    Bad taste, bad man, bad people who support him.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  49. Anon on October 30, 2012 at 11:30 AM

    “Obama’s a good man” except when he sat back and abetted the murder of Americans in Libya and then conspired in an elaborate cover-up to hide his guilt and cowardice.
    Evil man, and evil people will get what they deserve if they continue to enable this debacle.
    FYI — I’m not voting for either of the two evils on the ballot.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  50. Mike S on October 30, 2012 at 12:41 PM

    #48 h_nu: …bad people who support him

    I voted early yesterday. I guess I’m a bad person then.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  51. LDS Anarchist on October 30, 2012 at 2:20 PM

    Jon #43: I’ll give you my understanding of what the saying, “that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges,” was actually speaking of. See here.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  52. Jon on October 30, 2012 at 2:47 PM

    LDS Anarchist,

    I agree with that interpretation. I do think there is a difference though between the “C” and “c” constitution in D&C. I normally don’t think it is worth pointing out spelling/punctuation but here in the scriptures we have quoted I do think it is important because it seems to be used generically.

    So, from what you wrote on your website. I think we are more in agreement than not. I’m just always amazed how people don’t believe in a higher ethical law that either comes from God or from logic and reason (and if you believe it comes from God then you would most likely also believe you could use logic and reason to figure it out, since the Mormon God is a god of reason) – it is a pretty core principle in the gospel, even if you are an atheist I would think it would be pretty core belief.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  53. allquieton on October 30, 2012 at 2:49 PM

    Bon, Jon Hawkgirl, others:

    Regarding Zion Society, or the law of consecration as the ideal. Note that the individual consented to this system. It was not forced on anyone. It’s a big, big difference from collectivism/socialism/the Nanny State.

    In fact, consider that we are still, right now, free to start a commune and share all our property. Some people do that. You can choose to to if you want. There’s no need to force others to do it.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  54. Anon on October 30, 2012 at 3:36 PM

    Perspective: If you knew that one of Hitler’s henchmen was performing abortions on women sent to concentration camps, and if the fetus was born breathing so the guy killed the baby outright, would you trust someone who said that was okay because it was the desired outcome —- would you EVER vote him into any office, or give him any sort of trusted position? Why is it so difficult to call evil, evil?

    And don’t talk to me about legality. It makes me sick to think our country has come to embrace an evil like abortion, and yet many members of the Church believe that God is still willing to bless and preserve this nation. He is still blessing those who are truly His Saints, but our country is going to get exactly what it deserves.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  55. Will on October 30, 2012 at 3:53 PM

    Bon,

    @ 1.. The Savior said there would be wars and rumors of war. I think what he meant by this is that there would be wars and rumors of wars. This was God speaking. Not a politician, an attorney, a community organizer or a venture capitalist. It was God. He is saying we will have war. He is saying we will have people that are going to try and kill us. He is saying we will have people that will try and put us or our children in bondage. He is saying we should renounce war and publish peace. He is saying we should come to him to fight our battles. He is saying we should follow the rules of engagement outlined in the 98th section of the D&C. He is saying in this section at some point it is justifiable to use brute force – to drop an atomic bomb or to decimate an entire community by the river Sidon. He is saying it is better that one man should perish than a whole nation dwindle in un-belief. He is saying there is a time for war, just as there is a time for peace.

    In the final debate I saw a Mitt Romney vowing to follow the 98th section of the D&C. I believe he will.

    @ 2. To the contrary, it was Lucifer that said “I will redeem all mankind that one soul shall not be lost”. It was Lucifer that “sought to destroy the agency of man” in the pre-mortality (see Moses 4:1-4). It was Lucifer that wanted to FORCE us to be a collective. He fought God’s plan in pre-mortality and has continued to push this FORCED collective plan through Marx, Engle, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Jimmy Jones and the like.

    God’s plan, on the other hand, is one of agency. God provides absolute agency with no dominion or compulsion. God’s plan distributes the souls of Men based on merit – survival of the spiritual fittest if you will – into various kingdoms ( D&C 88: 22-30 states kingdoms without end). God is love. God is agency. God allows us to act and to be acted upon. God does not force his will on us. God does not force us to pay tithes. God does not force us to be honest or virtuous. God does not force us to live a Celestial Plan (the Law of Concecration). If fact, D&C 88 says most will not be able to live this plan. Any plan of God’s will provide absolute agency. God’s plan dictates we will be free to make the choice, but will not be free of the consequences or our choices.

    The Law of Consecration is voluntary with no dominion or compulsion. No one is forced to live this Celestial Law. No one is forced to live this lifestyle; thus, it excludes some. In fact it excludes a lot. Most in fact. Thus, by definition, it is not collectivism.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  56. Jon on October 30, 2012 at 4:38 PM

    In the final debate I saw a Mitt Romney vowing to follow the 98th section of the D&C. I believe he will.

    Yet, Romney has said he is in favor of drone strikes, assassinations, economic sanctions (an act of war), has the similar team of foreign affairs as Bush had which are warhawks, etc. So much for being a man of peace.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  57. Henry on October 31, 2012 at 6:31 AM

    wILL
    I don’t know if our society is at this point yet.

    Obama
    I think 2 men and 2 women should be able to get married.

    We are at that point.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  58. MH on October 31, 2012 at 8:06 AM

    allquieton,

    Regarding Zion Society, or the law of consecration as the ideal. Note that the individual consented to this system.

    Well, I know that is a Mormon myth, but it isn’t exactly true. Oliver Cowdery was kicked out of the church because he didn’t want to participate. In Utah, Brigham Young not only excommunicated those who didn’t participate in the United Order, but told the saints not to trade with apostates or gentiles.

    I wouldn’t call that voluntary.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  59. Jon on October 31, 2012 at 8:33 AM

    Molly, This one is for you.

    Obama and Drone Strikes:

    I continue to be dumbfounded by the Obama Administration’s escalating drone war in Pakistan and other nations. On the one hand, we have a President who argued persuasively that our war on terror, by its ham-handedness, was actually creating more terrorists than it eliminated by giving people more reasons to hate America. On the other hand, we have the exact same administration escalating Bush’s drone war by a factor of six. The same children of the sixties that likely marched against the bombings in Cambodia are now bringing random, robotic death from the sky to countries we have not actually declared war on.

    a Washington Postinvestigative report published last week raises questions about whether bureaucratic “mission creep” has cut the program loose from its original justification. “Obama has institutionalized the highly classified practice of targeted killing,” the Post’s Greg Miller writes, “transforming ad-hoc elements into a counterterrorism infrastructure capable of sustaining a seemingly permanent war.” He reports “broad consensus” among Obama terror-warriors that “such operations are likely to be extended at least another decade.”

    I could be convinced to use drones to knock off a few top managers with irreplaceable impact on the war, sort of like taking out Patton or Rommel in WWII. But now we are taking out corporals, or the terrorist equivalent. And ever time we kill one (with a few innocents thrown in the mix, which Obama has relabeled as combatants by definition) we are probably creating two new terrorists.

    This targetted killing is an expansive and scary new power. The Administration owes us a reckoning, a justification which demonstrates that these drone strikes are really having some sort of positive effect. Right now, it is hard to see, with Libya, Mali, Egypt, Syria blowing up and Afghanistan no closer to peace than it was four years ago. What are we getting in exchange for president taking on this dangerous new authority?

    PS- the report linked notes that the death toll from drone attacks is approaching 3,000. What happened to the press, which was so diligent about reporting all these grim milestones under Bush. It is just amazing how far the press and the Left have gone in the tank, against their stated ideals, for Obama.

    Update: Killing of 16-year-old American in drone strike blamed on his … having a bad father. It was his fault!

    Counterterrorism experts said the reliance on targeted killing is self-perpetuating, yielding undeniable short-term results that may obscure long-term costs. ‘The problem with the drone is it’s like your lawn mower,’ said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst and Obama counterterrorism adviser. ‘You’ve got to mow the lawn all the time. The minute you stop mowing, the grass is going to grow back.’”

    via Coyote Blog. You can read the whole thing there. He also had a good one on the hypocrisy of Obama and his supposed Civil liberties platform. Obama, the other monster.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  60. Will on October 31, 2012 at 9:25 AM

    MH,

    Brigham Young was wrong to force anything. This is contrary to God’s plan of salvation.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  61. Paul on October 31, 2012 at 10:03 AM

    Hang on. The Lord’s prophet cannot indicate that a condition of continuing members is a certain behavior? There’s no loss of freedom here, just membership.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  62. Mike S on October 31, 2012 at 10:15 AM

    #60 Will: Brigham Young was wrong to force anything.

    So Brigham Young was wrong? Would you have told him that if you lived in his time? Would you tell President Monson that in our time?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  63. Will on October 31, 2012 at 11:27 AM

    Mike S,

    Yes, they are both men. Prophets, but Men.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  64. Cowboy on October 31, 2012 at 11:30 AM

    Will:

    They are Prophets when they are right, and men when they are wrong…is that about right?

    In that case, every man women and child (dog and cat for that matter) are likewise Prophets. What makes the fifteen men at the top of the Mormon leadership any better than the other 6 billion people on earth?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  65. Paul on October 31, 2012 at 12:11 PM

    Cowboy, you’ve almost got that right. Joseph Smith said that all members could be prophets. Not so sure he felt that way about cats and dogs, though.

    Of course the Apostles who lead the church also preside, something the average member does not have the keys to do.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  66. Will on October 31, 2012 at 12:17 PM

    Cowboy,

    Like the rest of the people on earth, he made mistakes. As for a Prophet (or any other calling in the Church) The Lord calls the best person available for the position for the time, in spite of thier faults.

    I think BY was the perfect man for the job. What that man accomplished is amazing. No way he could have done what he did without the help and inspiration from God.

    On a related issue, when I was first married we lived in a really poor neighborhood and I went to church and handed my tithing to the bishop. The next day I was called into the Stake President’s office for a leadership call. I was in a significant leadership role at 22. There is no way this would happen in my current ward. In my HP group there are 35 former bishops, 4 former stake presidents and a GA.

    The bottom line is the church was new and The Lord worked with what he had and with the current environs.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  67. Cowboy on October 31, 2012 at 12:40 PM

    Fair enough guys, so let’s just go ahead and dismiss revelation as a key function of being a Prophet…since we all agree that it distinguishes nothing, and relegate the function of Church hierarchy to that of strictly leadership.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  68. Molly on October 31, 2012 at 1:10 PM

    #59 Jon – For me? Gee, and I didn’t get you anything. :) When I said Obama was given a pass, I didn’t mean he was never criticized, but I’ve seem more criticism about it for Romney (who hasn’t (yet) ordered a drone strike) than in the past year for Obama. Maybe because I get most of my news from NPR? I guess I was a little hyperbolic. I get your point, though, that Obama has been criticized.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  69. allquieton on October 31, 2012 at 1:45 PM

    MH-I think paul said it well in #61.

    It seems to me like it boils down to favoring group security over individual liberty. But I have to admit I really don’t understand the other side on this one.

    Mike and Cowboy-Yes BY was wrong. And I actually don’t think he was a prophet. I do think Monson is wrong about some things and I would tell him so. Why not?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  70. allquieton on October 31, 2012 at 1:59 PM

    Cowboy-what point are you trying to make with all the prophet comments? I feel like I’m missing it.

    I actually have a very specific idea of what a prophet is, but maybe this isn’t the thread on which to explain it all…

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  71. Cowboy on October 31, 2012 at 2:26 PM

    allquieton:

    I’m derailing the conversation, and railing on a point that’s been railed on many times before. In other words, I’m sort of scratching an itch…sorry.

    Just so you don’t wonder, my point is that it is very convenient to wear the badge of “Prophet”, but not have to be accountable for that claim. If I say something profound, and it turns out to work, then I get to use that as evidence of my divine calling. On the other hand, if I’m wrong, I’m only human and can’t be blamed for not being right all the time.

    What is a Prophet if not a revelator? And what good is revelation if it isn’t reliable?

    I’ll drop the subject now.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  72. Luzhi on November 7, 2012 at 4:24 PM

    Ugh. Honestly, I’m beginning to think that Huckabee is a DNC plant, or maybe just a flack sceern for McCain. It could be that he’s now getting more attention and as a result his views are in turn getting greater scrutiny, but the weirdness factor here just keeps going up. It almost does seem like he’s been put in place to serve as something easy for the DNC candidate to shoot down in the general election.It turns out that Japan has slightly higher corporate taxes than us, at least according to the information I have available right now (and this is amongst the OECD member countries, too). I think the Europeans and Canadians might envy our personal income tax rates, but as far as corporations are concerned, they give up a larger percentage of their income to the U.S. government than elsewhere. That alone is a major drag on growth in our economy. I’m hoping that Romney can level the playing field between our economy and that of our foreign competitors some.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

Archives

%d bloggers like this: