The Mormon Connection


August 9, 2012 by gomw

Or I should say disconnection. I am a faithful, practicing LDS.  My Mormon friends/family are the most generous, gentle, forgiving (they even forgive me for being a liberal), loving people I know. It is difficult for me to understand why Mormons resent their government, their government, doing, or trying to do, the same things we are commanded to do by the scriptures and our Church leaders.  As a Mormon, I would love to vote for and see a Mormon president but I would never vote for a candidate just because he was a Mormon. When Mitt Romney became the Republican candidate, I promised I would never malign him personally. And I won’t, but I have to make the observation that not only has he made his fortune in a manner that is repugnant to me and is contrary to our four basic set of scriptures, OT, NT, B of M, and D & C, but his economic and tax policies would have a deleterious effect on the poor and even the middle class.

When I point out to my fellow members that government policies of wealth redistribution and health care are exactly what we are commanded to do by the scriptures.  The usual response I get is “but that is government” as if government is a hostile or even satanic entity. That is not, in fact, what our scriptures teach us.

The 12th Article of Faith is: We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

The Doctrine & Covenants, Section 134, 1 reads:  We believe that governments  were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men  accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

There is no reason that we should reject LDS-like policies of government because they are of the government. 

Mitt Romney made his money by hurting workers, both poor and middle class, he has no distinction of the difference in people and corporations, and his life style, his extreme opulence, and conspicuous consumption as demonstrated by his auto elevator and his expenditure of $77,000 (an amount that could support two families for a year) for his horse’s ballet lesson is anathema to what we are taught by the scriptures.

Book of Mormon – 2nd Nephi
Chapter 9: 30 But wo unto the rich who are rich as to the things of the world For because they are rich they despise the poor, and they persecute the meek, and their hearts are upon their treasures; wherefore, their treasure is their god. And behold, their treasure shall perish with them also.

Proverbs 22
16 He that oppresseth  the poor to increase his briches, and he that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want.

Doctrine and Covenants,
Section 84: 112 And the bishop, Newel K. Whitney, also should travel round about and among all the churches, searching after the poor to administer to their wants by humbling the rich and the proud.

Section 56:  16 Wo unto you rich men, that will not give your substance to the poor, for your riches will canker your souls; and this shall be your lamentation in the day of visitation, and of judgment, and of indignation: The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and my soul is not saved!

Book of Mormon – Mosiah
Chapter 4: 22 And if ye judge the man who putteth up his petition to you for your substance that he perish not, and condemn him, how much more just will be your condemnation for withholding your substance, which doth not belong to you but to God, to whom also your life belongeth; and yet ye put up no petition, nor repent of the thing which thou hast done.

New Testament – John
Chapter 2:  
13 ¶And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,

14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
 15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;
It is not my purpose here to denegrate Romney’s qualification to be President. I oppose him solely on his announced intentions to repeal Obamacare without a plan to replace it, his proposal to privatize Medicare, his belief that concentrating wealth at the top, supply side economics, creates jobs and his general preference of laissez faire over regulation of business and his confusion of the distinction of people and corporations.

30 thoughts on “The Mormon Connection

  1. scootd28 says:

    The problem with the government redistributing wealth and providing health care is that it is accomplished by compromising individual agency, by taking the property of one individual and giving it to another under the threat of force. I don’t understand why this is so difficult to comprehend.

    • Brooks W. Wilson says:

      Thank you for illustrating my point of selective scripturitis. You choose to ignore Article 12 of Articles of Faith and Section 134 of D & C. This has nothing to do with agency. You have the same agency when deciding whether to break a law, exceeding the speed limit for example, or deciding whether or not to pay your tithing. Each carries a penalty. The severest penalty one can suffer is being excluded from the Celestial Kingdom which is the penalty for choosing not to pay your tithing.

      You also exercise your agency when you vote for a candidate who proposes a system contrary to the church system and oppose one who proposes a system attune to it. Section 134 requires us to support government that help society:

      “1 We believe that agovernments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men baccountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.”

  2. LDSDPer says:

    I am not as ‘noble’ as you are. I do feel an almost personal abhorrence for the man you mention–

    I am a ‘green’ Mormon, but I don’t trust either political party or any government leader. I am too mistrustful of Godless agendas to believe that any ‘welfare’ that comes from government is given without strings attached.
    But, then, welfare given through the church also has strings attached.

    I DO believe profoundly that the biggest enemy of true liberty and well-being for the poorest of Americans/global citizens is:


    More malignant than any government, whether political or religious, corporations are without peer in doing damage to human beings, wildlife and the earth–

    And nobody seems to be able to control them, including political and religious governments.

    I truly do wish that I could trust government ‘helping’ programs, but there is such an infringement of privacy involved with getting any government assistance–
    I don’t really think there is any difference between the loss of privacy and dignity that is experienced with getting government help or church help, though–

    it’s a very sad dilemma–

    In the meantime, yes, I have to believe that this life is a test and that those who live oppressed lives in poverty will be that much the greater in the life to come (if they don’t oppress others)–

    and those who have lived in opulence will have their reward–


    (that of being small in spirit)

    Poverty is not easy. I have experienced high end poverty (upper lower class) or working poverty, with an education. I have also had friends who are third generation welfare recipients, and, yes, I know that those programs have been altered, but–those friends lost their will to labor. 😦 It was a sad thing to see. And now without welfare many struggle to survive.

    I’ve said too much–

    As an ‘impoverished’ (it’s all relative; I live in America, so I don’t live in a tarpaper shack or a mud hut)
    Mormon I have felt the sting of rejection from those LDS with ‘more’–who believe that I must have sinned somewhere in order to be so poor–
    though I am not ‘openly’ poor–
    I hide it as well as possible. When our ancient car drives into the church parking lot, even though our clothes are neat and comely . . . it’s pretty obvious–

    I am beginning to believe truly that many LDS support MR (won’t write out the name), because there is that belief that those who are wealthy are, somehow, more righteous. What a perverted belief.

    Thank you for your essay–

    • gomw says:

      Thanks for your comments. You make some points I agree with and some I don’t. I will stick to my belief in Article 12 of Articles of Faith and Section 134 of D & C and that we are responsible for making good selections when we vote.

  3. The obvious answer to “but that is government” is “Well, the fact that there are poor among us and we need government to step in shows that we’ve already rejected Christ anyway…”

    I do have to disagree with an unquestioning acceptance of Article of Faith #12, though. I wholeheartedly reject its more common use, which is to justify sending off our youth to break the commandments: killing, torturing, etc. for the sake of government policy.

    I think it ends up being a question of what is it appropriate for government to do; in what efforts should we support government, and in what ways should we fight tyranny. In my opinion it’s silly to call wealth-redistribution a removal of agency while using the military to enforce our will on foreigners. The latter is an obvious affront to agency, and a clear violation of “thou shalt not kill,” “turn the other cheek,” and “love your enemies,” while the former is merely Caesar seeking to receive that which is Caesar’s.

    But you know, holding on to those tokens of Mammon is the most important thing we Latter-day Saints can do to honor our God’s will…

    • LDSDPer says:

      unique perspective and new ideas–

      thank you–

      the hypocrisy of military oppression is not new to me, but the idea that “we’ve already rejected Christ anyway”–

      I hadn’t made that connection, and I appreciate it–

    • Brooks W. Wilson says:

      Hmmm! I can’t really argue with anything you’ve said.

  4. Tariq says:

    I certainly am sympathetic to your reasons for opposing Romney. He represents the ultra-wealthy and seems to have no concern for the working class. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and has absolutely no understanding of what it is like to, for example, be unable to afford the gas it takes to drive to work, or unable to afford groceries, afford rent, or afford to take ones children to the doctor’s office. These rich guys are so oblivious of the role privilege plays in their good fortune. They think that they are rich because they are industrious and good, and that poor people are poor because of laziness or other character faults. Utterly, willfully oblivious.

    I do have concerns however with your use of the Article of Faith and D&C 134. Joseph Smith never claimed either of those to be revelations. To be a good Latter-day Saint, does one have to obey, honor, and sustain the law even when it is harmful? For example, if you were a Mormon living in Germany under the Third Reich, would you have been wrong to oppose the Nazis? Would it have been wrong for Mormons living in the U.S. under racial segregation laws to take part in sit-ins or to protest racism? Protesting a corrupt law is the opposite of obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. So, is their any wriggle room on that or do Mormons have to sustain and honor the law no matter what the law is? If so, that sounds like a crappy rule that benefits corrupt officials.

    Lastly, lets make one thing clear. These right-wingers do not oppose government. What they oppose is the government doing anything helpful. They are fully behind “big government” spending on war and occupation. Romney wants to increase the already bloated military budget. They love big government programs to imprison people of color and poor people. The love big government programs to persecute immigrants. Basically, anything government does to hurt people who are down and out, right-wingers love. What they hate is for government to do anything that actually helps people, like spend money on things like healthcare or education. They are not anti-government. They are anti-compassion.

    • Brooks W. Wilson says:

      Thank you for your careful analysis of my article. I agree with you mostly. I agree that the Articles of Faith are not revelation but inspiration and certainly has limitations for application. The Doctrine and Covenants, however, ARE revelation and are part of the four basic documents upon which we base our religion.

      The wording of Section 134 clearly provides the wiggle room you describe for resisting unfair government actions. My use of The Articles Of Faith is to make the point, somewhat rhetorically perhaps, that government aiding people is not inherently or a priori bad.

      Your last paragraph is excellent and is what disturbs me. That is the essence of my theme; the Mormon disconnection.

      • Tariq says:

        I am completely with you as far as what you call the Mormon disconnection goes. I don’t mean to sound like I am trying to tear down what you are saying. As far as I can tell we’re more or less on the same side on this.

        But I was under the impression that D&C 134 was not considered by the Church to be a revelation but rather a statement of belief or opinion of the officers of the Church. This is from an institute manual:

        “It should be noted that in the minutes, and also in the introduction to this article on government, the brethren were careful to state that this declaration was accepted as the belief, or ‘opinion’ of the officers of the Church, and not as a revelation, and therefore does not hold the same place in the doctrines of the Church as do the revelations.” (Smith and Sjodahl, Commentary, p. 852.)

      • gomw says:

        I appreciate your comments and I stand corrected. 134 is NOT revelation…I do see it, however as indicative of the position of the Church leadership and wise. Thank you.

    • scootd28 says:

      Tariq, I respectfully object to your characterization of right wing conservatives. I don’t know if I’m right wing or not, but I am not anti-compassion, I do NOT support wars of influence and control. I do NOT support compromising individual or collective agency in any way, unless those entities are first compromising the agency of others. I object to government that exercises control over peoples’ lives, and – say what you will – government welfare is an instrument of control, not compassion. Any time one is dependent upon another entity for your very existence, you are enslaved to that entity. Such support can be given compassionately, but the government cannot, by its very nature, do that. What the government gives always has strings attached.

      I also object to a government where representatives (president,congressment, or whatever) is limited to the power elite, where our leaders are chosen by the powers behind the central bank, and we are presented with the illusion of choice, not true elections. I object to a government that threatens to take away my guns and my gardens, and who characterizes me as a terrorist, potentially subject to arrest sans habeas corpus because I have a year’s supply of food. And I object to a government that perpetuates poverty (moral, spiritual and financial) rather than helping to end it.

      • Tariq says:

        What war isn’t a war of influence and control? Who is threatening to take away your guns and your gardens?!! Who is characterizing you as a terrorist for having food supply?!

        How does a welfare program, funding for education, or healthcare threaten your liberty? Is it simply because it is tax money? If so, why aren’t you angry about the far greater amount of tax money that goes to war, occupation, and the prison industrial complex? Do you object to the funding of the military, police, or prison system or is your agency only threatened if that money goes to social programs? Do you respect the agency of immigrants to choose to cross borders, or in that case do you suddenly love government created borders and call for the use of coerced tax money to fund government officials to crack down on immigrants?

        I don’t disagree with you that government programs always come with strings attached. But why is there only anger from the right-wing about the strings attached to social programs, but no anger over the much greater spending on things like prisons, police, war, occupation, and anti-immigration measures? Or heck, for that matter, why no anger over fire departments and roads? Those are also tax funded. Why is it EVIL SOCIALISM when it’s a program to help low income people, but RIGHTEOUS PATRIOTISM when its a program to kill Arabs or imprison people of color?

      • gomw says:

        I agree with your response. I would add that there is nothing inherently wrong with attached strings. It’s the nature of the string and it’s attachment that is important.

      • scootd28 says:

        And unfortunately, I don’t trust the way the government will manipulate those strings. Wish I could.

      • gomw says:

        But you have no problem with the way the corporations manipulate the strings?

      • scootd28 says:

        Sure I do, gomw. I have a problem with all injustice and manipulation of agency. That is not to suggest that I’ve figured everything out yet, or that all of my thoughts and values are completely synchronized. That’s an on-going process. It seems like you and Tariq are reading things into what I said. I never said I was happy with all other aspects of our society, I only said I wasn’t happy with government-sponsored programs such as welfare and healthcare, which, in my opinion, indebt people to the government and ultimately feeds the power of the secret combinations we have been warned about. When more than 50% of the people in this country are either receiving government assistance or are employees of the government or government contractors (and we are rapidly approaching that situation), the government will be entrenched, the minority will be supporting the majority, and we will have crested the peak of the proverbial slippery slope toward either socialism or chaos.

        Consider this……people gain their sustenance by either working for it, having it given to them, or taking it by force. When we reach the situation above – where the majority are surviving off the contributions (taxes) of the minority, and that balance is no longer sustainable (there are more takers than givers), so there are no more government handouts, the majority will not re-learn to work, they will resort to taking. That’s when the chaos will commence.

        I realize that I am talking in broad strokes, but sometimes broad strokes, regardless of how the details play out, are unavoidable. I believe that the scenario I describe above is unavoidable if we continue on the path we are on where government and debt continue to grow. It is unsustainable, and that doesn’t even take into consideration the ultimate impact on the lives and spirits of those who have accepted that their lot as “takers” is the norm, and they have no need to contribute as long as they have what they need. This is slavery of the spirit, no different than slavery of the body of 150 years ago.

      • gomw says:

        I love ya, man; but other than your choice of religion, we are on different planets. The trouble with making “broad stroke” comments, there is no need to back them with fact or any way to challenge them. The slippery slope you mentioned relative to reliance on government included contracts with contractors. This is the biggest problem, financially speaking, and is far more likely to end up in fascism or corporate feudalism than socialism (which is what we will be living under in Zion).

        You seem to be implying that employment in the public sector is becoming an insidious problem. That just isn’t the case. The total labor force in 1970 and 2005 was 82.7 million and 149.3 million respectively.

        The total number of government workers in 1970 and 2005 was approximately 13 million (15%) and approximately 20 million (13%) respectively.

        It actually has decreased. Cut the defense budget which is 20 % or total federal spending by bringing all the troops home and cutting the size of the military down to pre-Korean war levels and the problem disappears. As an aside, earlier, you mentioned wars to preserve our freedom. We haven’t fought one of those since 1945. Our freedom has not been in danger since then – not even in the cold war years.

        You seem to be implying (again broad stroke statements are impossible to impugn) that those of us who are employed by the government or are on government retirement or health plans are takers. I worked for the government for 30 years including two years active duty in the 82nd Airborne and 4 years in the reserves and in construction for 35 years including 25 years as a building contractor and nearly ten years hammering nails. I found that government workers worked just as hard as private workers and for less money and (in my case) longer hours. I respectfully resent being called a “taker!” I earned and am paying for my Medicare and my PERS retirement.

        I admit that our country in in trouble but the danger is coming from the right not the left.

      • scootd28 says:

        Thanks, Gomw. First, let me apologize for implying that you are a taker, thus triggering your resentment. I guess any time one makes negative comments about a group of people, one has to be prepared that those comments ultimately apply to an individual, and that is bound to create discomfort.

        I’m surprised by the figures you quoted that say the % of the total workforce that is government employed is down over the last. Why, then, do you think the debt continues to rise? I’m certainly not getting any of it – except through government contract manufacturer that in turn contract with my company. That’s a question, by the way….I’m not being rhetorical.

        I’m PAINFULLY aware that we haven’t fought a war of defense (or a declared war) since 1945. That is an apalling fact to me.

        You’ve pretty much hammered me on the broad strokes concept. That’s ok – I’m not upset or anything – it is what it is. I respect your opinion and take my lumps on that. I just keep going back to the concept that to the extent that we are encouraging people to live off of welfare, we are robbing them of their self-respect and their motivation to improve themselves. It’s also an insidous way of enslaving the populating. Controlling peoples’ livelihood is an exercise of power, and I think our society is way too much about exercising power – especially the government. I used to think that I would rather give people sustenance so that they’re not desperate and so they don’t try to take it. But then I realized that, in doing so, we’re robbing them of everything that truly makes them human. I also figured it was cheaper to give money away than to pay the administrative costs associated with making people work for their money. But then I’m back to the same issue – if you give it to them,…..

        Anyway, I suspect it’s very much an Ayn Rand-type perspective (although I’ve only read one of her books – Fountainhead), and don’t expect to convert anyone who believes differently (where have we heard THAT before), but that’s what I believe, and that’s the basis of what I’ve said so far.

      • gomw says:

        Good question. The fact is, that government employment isn’t the sole, or even primary cause of debt. The Oil Wars, accompanied by unprecedented wartime tax cuts contributed more. And, in support of your view, much of the government employment has been replaced by privatization of things previously done by government, in most cases, arguably, cheaper.

        I totally disagree with you that government assistance to people in need foster habitual indolence. I don’t know all the unemployed people or people on relief but I lived through a time when virtually every one I knew, including many in my family, were unemployed or on relief. I knew of no one, NO ONE, who enjoyed it or didn’t grab the first opportunity of a job that came along. Many of the young people in my family left home to work for the Civilian Conservation Corps under the most spartan conditions, my father worked 12 hour shifts in a coal mine operated by the WPA in Utah. We lived in a one room shack with no plumbing and a dirt floor. My mother, later, in 1935 made shirt for food chits at the South Gate Public Market on Tweedy Blvd in South Gate. All was government operated enterprise and everyone preferred it to soup lines. Private business offered nothing. When jobs opened up in the defense industry in 1939, people couldn’t get off their duffs quick enough.

        I grew up on welfare after my father died. When I found out my mother was accepting welfare, I ran away from home and tried to join the merchant marines. I blamed her. This was in 1944. I saw it from the inside. Being on the dole is not habit forming except in rare cases.

        I read Fountain Head and Atlas Shrugged. Enjoyed the stories but reject Ms Rand’s philosophy. Peace! You can have the last word. I didn’t anticipate taking up this much of the readers time.

      • scootd28 says:

        TARIQ……You have jumped to many conclusions, and you are hanging an unfair stereotype on me. I don’t consider a war of defense to be a war of influence and control over anything but my own life, liberty and property and that of my brethren who are also under attack in such a war. Agenda 21 is threatening to control gardens, and the threat of increased gun control is, in my opinion, constantly on the horizon. Perhaps I’m being paranoid – I understand how you might assume that – but I don’t think it’s just paranoia. But THEN you go into a bunch of things where you are making completely unfair assumptions. First, I AM angry about the tax money that goes into the military. I AM angry about the fact that we have the highest incarceration rate per capita in the world, and that far too many of those inmates are there on non-violent, largely drug related offenses. You didn’t mention, but I think the war on drugs is an absolute travesty! I’m not sure how I feel about the immigrants – the jury is out on that, but I’m not one of those who get emotional about the “immigrant” problem. I do recognize the irony of the fact that I cannot go to Mexico and live without documentation, but they can come here, and I also believe that for people from another country to come here and then start trashing our country and culture is somehow wrong. That said, I DO NOT treat someone differently because they are clearly from another country. I try to treat all people with respect until they prove undeserving by their actions, and then I respect Christ’s teachings that I still need to love them. Where did you get the idea that I condone tax-funded programs to kill Arabs and imprison “people of color” (whatever that means)?

        I guess I stepped into this, because I do consider myself to be pretty much right wing – but for you to accuse me of these things because you have this stereotype of what “right-wingers” believe is stepping way out on a limb. I’m not really offended, though, because I am aware of who I am, and who I try to be, imperfections and all. I am constantly trying to learn more, to overcome inconsistencies in my beliefs. So, if the point you’re making is that there is a stereotype that exists, that it is filled with hypocrisy, and that you believe it applies to many people that you know or are aware of, then your point is made, but don’t hang that stereotype on me, because it doesn’t fit.

      • scootd28, small correction: You CAN come to Mexico and live without documentation. Many of the Americans down here in Baja California are undocumented. Yes, it’s just as “illegal” as in the United States, but the difference is that down here they don’t have to walk around in fear of immigration agents, since deportations to the United States are rare, and generally only occur for those few who actually cause problems…

      • scootd28 says:

        Thanks for the correction Jeremiah. Come to think of it, we knew quite a few people in France who were there illegally, and as long as they stayed under the radar, they might be ok, but they had to be paid in cash and there were other restrictions – in other words, the radar was much more discriminating than ours. I really don’t get as excited about the immigration issue as some to, but I do object to those who come here and then stomp on the flag, and engage in other forms of disrespect. I would NEVER have done that in France, or any other country.

  5. Tariq says:

    Scoot, I have indeed jumped to some incorrect conclusions concerning you personally, so I apologize. Nevertheless, my conclusions concerning the right-wing in general are not off base. The mainstream of both the republican party and the tea party love government spending on harmful things like the military industrial complex and the prison industrial complex, but hate government spending on anything potentially helpful like education and healthcare. I say the mainstream, because there are people on the fringes of the right-wing, like the Ron Paul folks, who don’t fit as neatly into that mold. You personally may be more principled in your opposition to government spending, criticizing war and occupation as much as you criticize social programs, but the mainstream of the right-wing is not so principled. My impression is that they are motivated more by bigotry, fear, ignorance or greed than they are by libertarian principles.

    I am in agreement with you that all taxation is in some sense extortion in that it is coerced. I suppose, however, that government using tax money for things like healthcare, education, fire departments, roads, and a safety net for the poor bothers me less than tax money that goes to things like war, because if taxation were voluntary, I would voluntarily contribute to social programs, but I would not voluntarily contribute to war, prisons, or anti-immigration measures.

    Ayn Rand was out of her mind. I read one of her books, and there was a scene in it where a man raped a woman, and the woman liked it. After that, I couldn’t take anything Rand said seriously. I don’t understand the cult-like admiration on the right for Ayn Rand. (And I’m not saying that you personally have a cult-like admiration for her, but I’ve met many right-wingers who do, and that seems crazy to me.)

    • scootd28 says:

      Apology glady accepted, Tariq. I read Fountainhead many years ago (15), and I do recall that her characters were quite dysfunctional. I remember two things – that the protagonist’s passion for his integrity led tragically (as in literary tragic) to his downfall, and the essay buried in the book on how state-sponsored welfare robs people of their humanity. They both had a huge impact on me.

      I love your analogy concerning what you would give to voluntarily. That’s a great litmus test. May I borrow it?

      I appreciate the exchange we’ve all had here. I shouldn’t have so readily identified myself as “right-wing” as any time we start apply labels (as I did myself with the term “takers”) we invite the exceptions. My belief and value system is undergoing constant evolution, and there are many inconsistencies with the blanket “this is good, this is bad” structure that we all seem to need for ourselves that I haven’t reconciled. However, there are certain aspects of my belief system that I do not question, and I suspect that we all hold those in common.

      God bless, and perhaps we’ll meet someday. I would relish the opportunity.

      • Tariq says:

        I guess I read Ayn Rand very differently than you did. To me her philosophy seems like the very opposite of what Jesus taught. Jesus taught humility. Rand taught arrogance. Jesus taught compassion for the poor, the sick, the elderly, the mentally ill. Rand taught to turn away the poor, the sick, the elderly, and the mentally ill on the grounds that they are parasites on society. Yet, when she was old and sick, she had no problem taking medicare and social security benefits.

        There is a new generation of privileged young white men (and I’m not saying that you personally fall into this category) who have been seduced by Rand’s anti-social glorification of exploitative behavior. They like her because unlike Jesus, she tells them what they want to hear: that they are privileged because they are great, and poor people are poor because of character faults. Compare Ayn Rand’s philosophy to, say, King Benjamin’s address in the Book of Mormon, or the Sermon on the Mount, and see how it measures up.

      • gomw says:

        Beautifully stated. You have epitomized what I referred to as the Mormon disconnect.

      • Joseph says:

        Tariq, you missed an important Book of Mormon sermon that actually mirrors Ayn Rand almost perfectly. It’s the one in Alma 30. Oh wait, that’s the guy we’re NOT supposed to emulate. Oops. 🙂

    • gomw says:

      To Jason: your satirical reference to Alma 30 and Korihor did not escape my razor sharp mind. (I hope I posted this reply in the vicinity of the correct place.)

  6. jason says:

    Thanks for expressing so well what I’ve been thinking and feeling for a while — not just about the presidential election but the disconnect between what the scriptures teach and the political views I encounter so often in so many fellow Latter-day Saints.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 262 other followers



Recent Comments

threattadmin on Evicting God!
Lilly on Speaking Truth to Power: 9/11…
fwsimmons on Evicting God!
jkotab on Sparrows Matter
Korance on Trading a Cross for a Fla…
Korance on Trading a Cross for a Fla…
Ron Madson on Where is Jeremiah Today?
Stephanie Steffen on Where is Jeremiah Today?
%d bloggers like this: