View unanswered posts
View active topics
It is currently Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:56 pm

Author Message
Post  Post subject: Senator Gordon Smith  |  Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2016 5:12 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:23 am
Posts: 7887
Location: D&C 121:39

I wasn't aware of this until I read a lengthy post by jsamueledwards. It was a great letter, I thought, as far as explaining the reasons for his dissatisfaction/disenchantment with the Mormon Church. So I looked up some of what Sen. Gordon Smith actually said. I won't be surprised if I get taken to task for what I'm about to say, but here goes.

Smith's remarks remind me of certain other people's remarks. People in government, speaking in churches and in political venues. I remember when Rev. Jesse Jackson was running for President, he campaigned in Churches. I have also listened to Al Sharpton making political speeches in churches. At the United Nations President Obama spoke on behalf of Islam, and the Pope on behalf of Christians in the Middle East, North Africa and other African countries. Unification Church President Sun Myung Moon spoke to Congressmen and met privately with the President (many years ago). So for a Mormon to present a Mormon view of religion, politics, and economics is neither surprising, nor unprecedented, nor particularly wrong or evil to me. In fact, it's fine! Because others can also speak in these same venues. So after Mormon, such as Senator Smith speaks, someone else can address the same audience - either collectively or singly - on the same subjects. And they do! I myself have done so. I have read things that Mormons have said, or about changes in religious policies in the military, and I have written to the principals to explain an alternative view.

The earliest Congress of the U.S. had a much greater proportion of ministers and farmers than today's Congress with its attorneys, businessmen, and career politicians. Just as back then, today it would be unrealistic to think that if someone is, say, a Catholic, they would easily vote against Catholic tradition, or if a Muslims would vote against Muslim law and traditions, or if a Buddhist to vote in favor of intolerance, and so on. People will vote "their conscience," whether that is Buddhist, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Moonie, Mormon, humanist, environmentalist, whatever. I have to accept that because it is reality. I suppose I would do the same - vote in harmony with my beliefs rather than contrary to them. Barring cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy, of course.

I do admit to being a little concerned about Smith's apparent placing of his Church establishment - Prophets, Apostles, etc. - above his government role. That probably sounds contradictory to what I just said. Voting in harmony with beliefs is one thing, but giving second-place allegiance to that voting power and the establishing in which you are voting, seems like too strong of a remark distancing the Senator from his Senatorial role. I want a Senator who will see his Senatorial role as primary (for my sake) as long as he is in the Senate. But I can imagine other believe differently.

As far as the gender-untraditional crowd is concerned, Sen. Smith made some remarks that I have to take on faith. I do not know him. I trust he is being honest. I don't see how it could be otherwise. He says he does not dislike gays or lesbians, and I have to believe him. I don't dislike them either. However, he says he is firmly in support of traditional marriage. I can accept that - that he holds no personal animosity towards gays and lesbians, and sees the marriage issue as in issue independently of his personal relation with gays and lesbians. He supports them in terms of housing, jobs, equality in politics, etc. He doesn't support them in everything. No Senator supports no body in every thing. Sometimes it seems no senator supports me in anything.

It doesn't bother me that he is against socialism, since so many people are. It would have been nice if he could have better defined socialism and distinguished its various forms and practices.

"The American Catholic Church is libertarian." That is both simplistic and inaccurate. The Catholic Church has set doctrines, policies and traditions. They are followed strictly in some congregations, loosely in others, and only in lip-service by some. Frankly, being somewhat libertarian myself, that's not a bad thing to me. ;) Catholic Senators are often the opposite of Sen. Smith - some of them vote in direct opposition to what the Catholic Church formally teaches. Maybe that's okay. Maybe it's okay for a Mormon to vote contrary to his church's teachings. Like Harry Reid! :)

Despite my personal views, this video is a bit damning. It shows that Mormons lie, and that Mormon politicians seem ready to sacrifice their nation for their church. With due respect, that verges on making Mormon politicians a fifth column seeking to alter, change, redirect, misdirect the United States government. I will continue to hope it does not mean they would subvert the will of the majority, when a decision is made by majority vote, or the decision of the authority when the decision is in the hands of a representative few (Supreme Court, President, Governor, state legislature, Senate, electoral college, Attorney General, etc.)

Anyone here think I'm missing a point, or not seeing things right?
I stand at the veil seeking further light and knowledge.

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   

Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.