Mormon tribalism has never been weaker

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The danger of Mormonism entering a phase of vying for acceptance from Babylon in unprecedented fashion is MUCH MORE DANGEROUS than any gains to be had from having a Mormon president.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe suddenly as the restoration continues to be de-emphasized, there will be a sudden awakening and the stone cut from the mountain will stop slowing down.

The Book of Mormon's themes contain the idea that churches and tribes wax and wane. It is pretty clear about why they wane. Pride, complacency, materialism, seeking the approval of Babylon.

What does it mean for a believer to be King of Babylon? Is God getting giddy at the prospect?

This is your personal view. And it's getting in the way of your being part of the tribe. If that's important to you.

I don't know Philipino culture as much as Korean. You may relate to this from your mission experience or maybe not. Koreans are about as tribal as you can get. I can not imagine a single Korean American not voting for a Korean American candidate for president no matter his politics or how "unprincipled" he may be. If you're Korean, your favorite TV show is Lost because they have Koreans on it, your favorite baseball team is Boston Red Sox with the Korean pitcher, you vote for a Korean American no matter what. That's tribalism. You don't make up shitty reasons to not go with the tribe because you have some grand vision nobody else sees.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I am a believer in original Mormonism. I am a Joseph Smith Mormon, not a Covey Mormon, not a Stephen Robinson Mormon, not a Deseret Book Mormon.

We are ballast on opposite ends of the ship. There is a place for everything you said. I personally feel the ship has tipped too far and is now plowing through the water, and I advocate more ballast on my end.

That's fine. I have no qualms with that. We can disagree on doctrine that is not well-defined and has room for interpretation. Neither of us are going to convert to another religion. But what does this have to do with tribalism? And how does it relate to Romney?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

But your desire to express outrage at institutional racism requires a climate wherein heterodox views can be freely expressed. And where we can accept a multitude of viewpoints without feeling threatened. I.e., a "big tent" church. It seems to me that a proponent of such an idea would be last one to criticize Mitt for being non-orthodox regarding polygamy.

One of the main differences, is that much of the rejection of the past is motivated more by embarrassment. Does Mitt Romney have doctrinal problems with polygamy, like I have doctrinal problems with the ban? I doubt it. Rather, he is *embarrassed* to stand before Babylon.

Am I embarrassed by the racism of the leaders in the 1800s? Yes, a little. But I also understand that they were the product of their times, in a much different era. I am MUCH MORE EMBARRASSED by current church members who use racism to justify things.

Joseph Smith was a heretic. A rebel. Unabashed. Bold. Revolutionary. Confident. He didn't parse his answers so as to most fit with the contemporary Christianity, like we see when we see half-truths or evasions in church press releases or on Larry King.

Where did that spirit go?

When my friends and colleagues have asked about polygamy, I don't apologize about it at all.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

One of the main differences, is that much of the rejection of the past is motivated more by embarrassment. Does Mitt Romney have doctrinal problems with polygamy, like I have doctrinal problems with the ban? I doubt it. Rather, he is *embarrassed* to stand before Babylon.

There you go. The fact that you would presume to know his motives, and that you would declare your misgiving pure while his are impure, is stunning to me. Your talk about a "big tent church" appears to be little more than hot air. Either that or you and I simply have different definitions of the term.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

There you go. The fact that you would presume to know his motives, and that you would declare your misgiving pure while his are impure, is stunning to me. Your talk about a "big tent church" appears to be little more than hot air. Either that or you and I simply have different definitions of the term.

I consider certain things to be pillars.

As in was Joseph Smith a prophet. Was the BoM translated from plates?

Am I critical of the movements within the church that say JS did not receive revelation, that BoM was made-up?

Yes. I am critical of them.

If you reject polygamy, then you have rejected D&C and Joseph Smith. It's too big a pillar to take down, and not have the entire structure come down.

Romney may have meant several things. My best guess is that he was giving a politically convenient answer that had no doctrinal implication whatsoever. Because I believe he is that kind of man.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Romney may have meant several things. My best guess is that he was giving a politically convenient answer that had no doctrinal implication whatsoever. Because I believe he is that kind of man.

I suspect you're right. I also believe it's not of much consequence. I also believe that's how the politics game is played and no one is innocent. It's a very weak excuse to go against the tribe...if that's important to you.

[Goatnapper'96]

Mike Waters, international man of principle, will one day forget these claims as quickly as he fell off the "Bronco Mendenhall cannot hold Gary Patterson's jock" bandwagon.

[BYU71]

Mike, I stand all amazed and with respect and awe. You can get a discussion going over nothing but horse shit better than anyone I know.

No wonder they got rid of you on Cougarboard in the religious section. They didn't have enough mods to cover the numberous directions you head. You are like how the streets were planned in Cinn. They put them whereever the Cowboys chased the Indians.

[UtahDan]

If Mormons are not at least a little outraged by Huckabee then I am truly perplexed. My anecdotal experience in life teaches me that we tend to see "antis" everywhere and mostly where they don't exist.

Here we have a politician who has done some authentically anti-mormon things staring us right in the face. Loyalty to party is stronger than loyalty to faith? I wouldn't have predicted that.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

If Mormons are not at least a little outraged by Huckabee then I am truly perplexed. My anecdotal experience in life teaches me that we tend to see "antis" everywhere and mostly where they don't exist.

Here we have a politician who has done some authentically anti-mormon things staring us right in the face. Loyalty to party is stronger than loyalty to faith? I wouldn't have predicted that.

Let me see if I understand you here. In the sixties you would have voted against Kennedy because he belonged to the great and abomnible church. The church of the devil? I suppose you could have argued since he belonged to that church he could be the anti-christ. I think voting based on faith alone is dangerous. That is why I consider the religious right in any religion including ours, politically dangerous.