Vote For Romney = Vote for Satan

[Aqualung]

No. Principles are eternal. Laws are not necessarily eternal.

Good call. But eternal principles are manifested in law.

What Jonny said - but this is one of the main reasons that Lucifer's plan didn't have a snowball's chance in - well, you know - of working anyway.

It was rejected because it stole free will, but I never heard it was rejected just because it wouldn't work.

 

[SoyLeche]

Good call. But eternal principles are manifested in law.


It was rejected because it stole free will, but I never heard it was rejected just because it wouldn't work.

It wasn't rejected, really. There weren't two plans presented and debated. There was one plan presented, and then Lucifer spoke up and gave his own thoughts. The Father's plan was the only one that ever would have been implemented, as it was the only one that would have worked.

All of this can be found in the Gospel according to SoyLeche - chapter 3

Anyway - the point is that Lucifer wasn't wanting to "legislate morality". That's more along the lines of what the Father's plan does.

 

[Aqualung]

It wasn't rejected, really. There weren't two plans presented and debated. There was one plan presented, and then Lucifer spoke up and gave his own thoughts.

Which were then rejected. After all, they weren't ignored, because the one who presented it actually got thrown out of heaven and failed his first estate. That's the biggest rejection I can think of.

The Father's plan was the only one that ever would have been implemented, as it was the only one that would have worked.

All of this can be found in the Gospel according to SoyLeche - chapter 3

Ah, I was just about to ask where you were getting this, but you answered.

Anyway - the point is that Lucifer wasn't wanting to "legislate morality". That's more along the lines of what the Father's plan does.

I know. I said satan's was way more hard core than romney's. I was basically just trying to think of a way where the thread title would be true, but it fell through.

 

[kiwimac]

Putting this silly video aside can I ask you a and the other RF's a rather blunt question abut Rommey. If Rommey is elected president of the United States can he be a president first and the Mormon second, or will he be a Mormon first and a president second?

Where do his loyalties first lie? To the sovereign government of the United States or to the Church of Latter Day Saints?

Didn't they use to ask the exact same question about Catholics?

 

[Scuba Pete]

Putting this silly video aside can I ask you a and the other RF's a rather blunt question abut Rommey. If Rommey is elected president of the United States can he be a president first and the Mormon second, or will he be a Mormon first and a president second?

Let's HOPE that he is a Mormon first. After all, being a president is merely temporary. He's been a Mormon most of his life.

 

[The Mad Hatter 2002]

Whew, "breathes sigh of reilef"...didn't know how you or anyone else would respond to that post...

We really are not much different than other Christians on issues like abortion and gay marriage...just maybe a little more conservative...

All the more reason not to vote for him in my opinion. This country needs to continue moving away from religious intrusion into our laws. The conservatives need to quit trying to run everybody elses life and worry about their own. God never said to force others into your way of life through making something a law. Abortion is a personal choice of the individuals involved, not the government. Especially not a religion. If someone is against it, then that is their choice. It is not however their choice to make for someone else. Judge not, or have you forgotten. As far as gay rights. How dare you think that you have any right to dictate that either.

 

[Blindinglight]

All the more reason not to vote for him in my opinion. This country needs to continue moving away from religious intrusion into our laws.

I agree. The Religious Right has no right to make there cannon national law. We even have a secular constitution, which is being ignored. Society wont fall if gays can marry, and if abortion is legal, we can have more raw material for stem cell research, which is a "necessary evil," but it will eventually greatly improve the lives of millions.
While I don't feel a vote for Romney is a vote for Satan, I feel it is a vote for the decline of America.
Personally, I do not care what a politician believes. I do mind though, when they take there religion to there office, and make laws that are biased towards it.

 

[FFH]

My favorite comment about Mitt is, He is the only candidate that has only been married to one woman.

Wow, good piece of trivia there...

 

[SoyLeche]

I know. I said satan's was way more hard core than romney's. I was basically just trying to think of a way where the thread title would be true, but it fell through.

And I am disagreeing with you. I see no connection between Lucifer's plan and "legislated morality". "More hardcore" would actually result in more sin, not less.

Also, I wanted to help dispell an error that many LDS people make: Many people believe that Christ and Lucifer each presented plans - Christ's was chosen and Lucifer got mad. That is not the case. The Father presented the only plan that was ever going to be "implemented" (for lack of a better word). Lucifer didn't like the plan, so he tried to figure out his own way - which never would have worked anyway, and got mad when the Father didn't give in.

And, my version of "Lucifer's plan" (no rules = no sin) would destroy agency. Without conseqences there can be no agency. Also, I need to make a distinction between "having" no law and "knowing" no law. You can be under the law and not know it, in which case you are still "sinning", but are in a position for mercy to fully take over. If there is no law there is no sin at all, so there is no need for mercy.

Anyway, that's enough for this tangent

 

[Aqualung]

Anyway, that's enough for this tangent

Haha, yeah...

 

[nutshell]

Good job, evangelicals. One of your own must make you proud.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19308352/

 

[jonny]

I don't see why Brownback needed to apologize for this, but it was nice that he did. I'm sure there's a lot more of this going on. Someone just got caught.

 

[DeepShadow]

Yeah, and they got caught "checking facts." Is that so bad? Isn't that what se want them to do? Hopefully the reprimand was for something more substantial than merely striving for accuracy.