Changing Mind About Trump

[anatess2]

19 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Which statement were you referring to?  

JJ said that anti-divorce laws lead to greater morality among the people.

I said that in Brazil anti-divorce laws led to people refusing to get married in the first place.

Whatever happened or may yet happen in the Philippines doesn't really address what happened and continues to happen in Brazil.

I was referring to what happened in Brazil.  I was saying it's not likely to happen in the Philippines... YET.  I do see the trends moving to the hedonistic side with the younger generation.  We'll see in a few years how it's going to turn.  The good thing about being behind the western cycles is that we get to see the failures of the cycle before we start going down that path.  So, although atheism in the Philippines is growing, it's not really gaining a good grip on the young'uns.

[Colirio]

On 1/18/2018 at 2:18 PM, Carborendum said:

It had the opposite effect in Brazil.  Divorce was so difficult that people decided it was easier never to get married.

I did not personally find this to be true. 

 

I served my mission there in the late '90's. The vast majority of people in Brazil were "married," but not legally. The government does not recognize a marriage made through a religious ceremony. They only recognize marriages made through the courthouse. Which was expensive. 

 

One of the biggest hurdles we had in baptizing folks wasn't their not wanting to be married because of fear of not being able to get a divorce. It was coming up with sufficient funds to do so. 

 

On several occasions, it took months for them to save the money, even with other members donating money, for them to afford the legal ceremony to be able to be baptized. 

 

Granted, this was just personal observation over the course of a few hundred investigators from 20 years ago. 

Edited January 21, 2018 by Colirio

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Colirio said:

I served my mission there in the late '90's. The vast majority of people in Brazil were "married," but not legally. The government does not recognize a marriage made through a religious ceremony. They only recognize marriages made through the courthouse. Which was expensive. 

One of the biggest hurdles we had in baptizing folks wasn't their not wanting to be married because of fear of not being able to get a divorce. It was coming up with sufficient funds to do so. 

My brother and our best childhood friend both served in Brazil.  Rio de Janeiro and Porto Alegre respectively.  I repeated what they both told me.  But it was obviously secondhand compared to your firsthand.  So, whatever it was, it is apparent that many people didn't joint the Church because wouldn't/couldn't get married.   And it apparently had something to do with marriage and divorce laws.

Edited January 21, 2018 by Guest

[Just_A_Guy]

My experience in the Brazilian northeast was more in line with what @Colirio describes; but there was also a very strong machismo culture that heavily pressured young women into promiscuity—and from there it became Grandma’s old question about why one would buy a cow when one already had a ready supply of free milk.

My experience with the Filipinos I’ve met/corresponded with, doesn’t lead me to believe that in general they are any more or less moral (sexually or otherwise) than Brazilians.

Edited January 21, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest MormonGator]

7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

My experience with the Filipinos I’ve met/corresponded with, doesn’t lead me to believe that in general they are any more or less moral (sexually or otherwise) than Brazilians.

My experience with people in general is that no culture is more or less moral than another when it comes to sexuality. Growing up my friends would tease me about "good catholic girls" and like every other religion-there were virtuous catholic boys and girls and there were...um...less virtuous catholic boys and girls. I'm assuring you it's the same with LDS, Baptists, Jewish....you name it. Nationality is the same thing. 

I get it, clan loyalty is a big thing and we all want to think that our religion or nationality is somehow superior in some way to other ones, but that's not reality.  

Edited January 22, 2018 by MormonGator

[anatess2]

On 1/21/2018 at 1:37 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

My experience in the Brazilian northeast was more in line with what @Colirio describes; but there was also a very strong machismo culture that heavily pressured young women into promiscuity—and from there it became Grandma’s old question about why one would buy a cow when one already had a ready supply of free milk.

My experience with the Filipinos I’ve met/corresponded with, doesn’t lead me to believe that in general they are any more or less moral (sexually or otherwise) than Brazilians.

No, they're not.  You're right about that.  The difference is... here, this is the perfect example I think - 

Just 10 years ago, there's a cultural stigma for open homosexuality in the USA.  It wasn't that there were less people living the homosexual lifestyle it's just that they were considered the negative side of culture.  That is not true anymore today.  Today, homosexuality is seen, not only as normal in the USA, but positive.  So you see homosexuality exemplified in superheroes now.

So, in the same manner, it's not that there are less promiscuous people in the Philippines than there are in other Christian places.  But, having a boyfriend in high school (12-16 years old) puts you in that side of the lunchroom with the druggies.  Being known to have sex before marriage is worse.  If you're one of those with big families that still put a lot of stock on Honor, your life can be very difficult.

So in matters of legislation, even those who have been promiscuous accepts that their choices are not the cultural example and so even they would still vote on the side of the cultural norm.

Edited January 22, 2018 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

No, they're not.  You're right about that.  The difference is... here, this is the perfect example I think - 

Just 10 years ago, there's a cultural stigma for open homosexuality in the USA.  It wasn't that there were less people living the homosexual lifestyle it's just that they were considered the negative side of culture.  That is not true anymore today.  Today, homosexuality is seen, not only as normal in the USA, but positive.  So you see homosexuality exemplified in superheroes now.

So, in the same manner, it's not that there are less promiscuous people in the Philippines than there are in other Christian places.  But, having a boyfriend in high school (12-16 years old) puts you in that side of the lunchroom with the druggies.  Being known to have sex before marriage is worse.  If you're one of those with big families that still put a lot of stock on Honor, your life can be very difficult.

So in matters of legislation, even those who have been promiscuous accepts that their choices are not the cultural example and so even they would still vote on the side of the cultural norm.

I know this has been a sore spot between us, and I don’t mean to re-open old wounds; but what I’m about to say is too germane to ignore:

Sure, a Filipino (or Brazilian) girl who falls pregnant is still likely to be shamed; but her impregnator will be hailed for his virility.  That’s machismo, not morality; and Exhibit A is President Duterte himself who seems to have a reputation as something of a womanizer and (if I am correctly informed) never took the trouble to marry his current girlfriend.  And you yourself seem to have argued that Americans are too uptight about expecting sexual probity in political leaders; especially as it pertains to our own philanderer-in-chief.

I see no persuasive evidence that Filipino culture is uniquely immune to the global sexual revolution.  Maybe that used to be the case; but I’m not seeing it now.

Edited January 22, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

18 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I know this has been a sore spot between us, and I don’t mean to re-open old wounds; but what I’m about to say is too germane to ignore:

Sure, a Filipino (or Brazilian) girl who falls pregnant is still likely to be shamed; but her impregnator will be hailed for his virility.  That’s machismo, not morality; and Exhibit A is President Duterte himself who seems to have a reputation as something of a womanizer and (if I am correctly informed) never took the trouble to marry his current girlfriend.  And you yourself seem to have argued that Americans are too uptight about expecting sexual probity in political leaders; especially as it pertains to our own philanderer-in-chief.

I see no persuasive evidence that Filipino culture is uniquely immune to the global sexual revolution.  Maybe that used to be the case; but I’m not seeing it now.

Uhm... Filipino males are not hailed for his virility getting his girlfriend pregnant.  He is pressured to man up and marry the girl to give a father to the child.  The Catholic stigma on shotgun weddings disappear with a pregnant woman.  And just like in the US - the celebrities and politicians are the biggest offenders of moral standards magnified by their big spotlights.

President Duterte is not hailed for his virility or for having non-Catholic morality issues.  The citizens are very cognizant of his Muslim heritage and his culture of multiple wives only 1 recognized by law.  The difference between the people of Central and Southern Philippines and the Northern Philippines (as well as many in the US) is that we don't look to our President as the exemplar of morality.  We look to the Saints for that.  Look at our Presidents - Marcos, Aquino, Estrada.. wew lad!  Rather, we recognize that it takes a very special skill to lead an entire country out of whatever is the issue of the 6 years are.  It is THAT skill that we elect to the office of President.  What do the Duterte family's personal problems have to do with governance?  That's the only relevant question on that issue.  Therefore, we are perfectly capable of electing people like Duterte to lead the nation and heap praise on his governance while skewering him for his moral shortcomings at the same exact time.

 

Edited January 23, 2018 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Uhm... Filipino males are not hailed for his virility getting his girlfriend pregnant.  He is pressured to man up and marry the girl to give a father to the child.  The Catholic stigma on shotgun weddings disappear with a pregnant woman.  And just like in the US - the celebrities and politicians are the biggest offenders of moral standards magnified by their big spotlights.

President Duterte is not hailed for his virility or for having non-Catholic morality issues.  The citizens are very cognizant of his Muslim heritage and his culture of multiple wives only 1 recognized by law.  The difference between the people of Central and Southern Philippines and the Northern Philippines (as well as many in the US) is that we don't look to our President as the exemplar of morality.  We look to the Saints for that.  Look at our Presidents - Marcos, Aquino, Estrada.. wew lad!  Rather, we recognize that it takes a very special skill to lead an entire country out of whatever is the issue of the 6 years are.  It is THAT skill that we elect to the office of President.  What do the Duterte family's personal problems have to do with governance?  That's the only relevant question on that issue.  Therefore, we are perfectly capable of electing people like Duterte to lead the nation and heap praise on his governance while skewering him for his moral shortcomings at the same exact time.

 

Is this why 51% of all Filipino births in 2015 were to unwed mothers, whereas in the US it was about 40%?

And, what do you make of D&C 98:10?

Edited January 23, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

42 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Is this why 51% of all Filipino births in 2015 were to unwed mothers, whereas in the US it was about 40%?

And, what do you make of D&C 98:10?

Births to unwed mothers in the Philippines is a multi-variant.  There are very many factors to this.  Here are a few:

1.)  Rise of non-Catholic religions and even atheism and the effects of a worldwide secular trend.

2.)  Births in Northern Philippines are increasing.  Central and Southern Philippines decreasing.  The population with the more hedonistic lifestyles are becoming more hedonistic while the population with the more traditional values are reducing their family size (usually due to economic factors).

3.)  OFW is rapidly rising.  It has become a trend for OFW's to do a "hand-fast" marriage until they come back with all this money and do a "proper wedding".  Also, OFW's are the most influenced by worldwide secularism.

4.)  The rise of non-Filipino residents in the Philippines.

etc.

D&C 98:10 - of course you seek honest and wise men.  But as you know very well, there are no perfect men.  Therefore, when left with a choice for who you would rather have to lead your country for the next 6 years - the person who is honest and wise but is weak and ineffective and even wrong about the current issues, or the person who is not as honest nor wise but has shown the strength and effectiveness in solving the current issues.. who do you pick?  I, for one, am picking the person who will make it possible for the country to move forward in freedom so that the PEOPLE may get a better opportunity to choose and seek that which is honest and wise in their day-to-day lives rather than live in the tyranny of oppression and poverty that stifles choice.  For what good is an honest and wise man on the helm if the country ends up being lost to evil men under his failed leadership?

Now, if you think Republicans only promote perfectly honest and wise men for President, then explain to me why Republicans voted for Reagan, Bush, and McCain.  And explain to me your preference for Hilary Clinton.

Edited January 23, 2018 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

On 1/23/2018 at 10:05 AM, anatess2 said:

Births to unwed mothers in the Philippines is a multi-variant.  There are very many factors to this.  Here are a few:

1.)  Rise of non-Catholic religions and even atheism and the effects of a worldwide secular trend.

2.)  Births in Northern Philippines are increasing.  Central and Southern Philippines decreasing.  The population with the more hedonistic lifestyles are becoming more hedonistic while the population with the more traditional values are reducing their family size (usually due to economic factors).

3.)  OFW is rapidly rising.  It has become a trend for OFW's to do a "hand-fast" marriage until they come back with all this money and do a "proper wedding".  Also, OFW's are the most influenced by worldwide secularism.

4.)  The rise of non-Filipino residents in the Philippines.

etc.

D&C 98:10 - of course you seek honest and wise men.  But as you know very well, there are no perfect men.  Therefore, when left with a choice for who you would rather have to lead your country for the next 6 years - the person who is honest and wise but is weak and ineffective and even wrong about the current issues, or the person who is not as honest nor wise but has shown the strength and effectiveness in solving the current issues.. who do you pick?  I, for one, am picking the person who will make it possible for the country to move forward in freedom so that the PEOPLE may get a better opportunity to choose and seek that which is honest and wise in their day-to-day lives rather than live in the tyranny of oppression and poverty that stifles choice.  For what good is an honest and wise man on the helm if the country ends up being lost to evil men under his failed leadership?

Now, if you think Republicans only promote perfectly honest and wise men for President, then explain to me why Republicans voted for Reagan, Bush, and McCain.  And explain to me your preference for Hilary Clinton.

1.  Re comparative unwed birthrates—all well and good; but you seem to be flirting with a “no true Scotsman” fallacy:  that the Filipinos who don’t do what you say Filipinos (should) do culturally, aren’t *real* Filipinos and that statistics including them are not reflective of the “real” situation in your homeland.  Would you allow an American to use the same tactic to throw out the demographics that tend to get divorced (or to give birth out of wedlock) and thereafter suggest that “American” marriage practices are working just fine (or are even superior to Filipino marriage practices)?  I don’t think you’ve really done the leg-work here to justify presenting your own cultural as superior to either American or Brazilian culture; rather, you seem primarily to be speaking from your own natural patriotism and your own idealization of your native culture.

2.  The above seems to deploy false dichotomies in order to de-fang D&C 98:10.  In the US there are always more than two candidates (many more, in primaries), and varying degrees of corruption including more than a few fundamentally decent folks.  It’s natural to be attracted to the appearance of strength;  but as followers of Christ we should be above that sort of power-lust (Mark 8:36 and all that).  The fatal consequences of man’s cleaving to the nearest strongman rather than trusting in God and keeping one’s integrity even if it means going it alone, are well attested in scripture.  Politically it happened to Israel, happened to Judah, happened to the Pharisees and Herodians.  And as counter-examples—Jesus didn’t accept Satan’s offer of the trappings of global domination; Mormon didn’t defect to the Lamanites just because he knew they were militarily the more potent force; and Joseph Smith didn’t renounce his testimony when the Carthage Greys surrounded the jail.  There is power in righteousness that those who never try it will never know, and even in those “but if not . . .” scenarios—Christianity is in many ways a religion of losers; and if we forget that, we lose our souls.

3.  I’ve never said Republicans only promote perfectly honest and wise men.  Reagan and Bush I’s apparent indiscretions were not known at the time of their election (and it’s a little odd that you are so ready to believe Kitty Kelly’s accusations against Reagan, while pooh-poohing accusations against Trump that include a sworn affidavit from his own ex-wife—it’s almost like you WANT to believe America has a tradition of deliberately voting for evil men).  I was out of the country when Bush II was elected, but he seems to have put on a pretty good show of remorse for his profligate past and an ongoing commitment to moral rectitude.  McCain’s reputation as a dirtbag (both in terms of dishonesty and philandering) is a big piece of the reason why even Sarah Palin (who, we now know, has her own morality issues) wasn’t enough to galvanize the Christian Right into showing up at the polls; and it’s why I personally didn’t vote for him.  And I don’t believe I’ve ever said that Hillary Clinton was preferable to Trump under the D&C 98:10 litmus test (indeed, I voted for McMullin; who I still think fundamentally passes that test even though his whining and sniping over the last year had been very off-putting).  Rather, I’ve simply said—as a response to shrill warnings about how the Hildebeast would singlehandedly bring about Armageddon—that a Clinton presidency would not be as catastrophic to the long-term interests of movement conservatism (and by extension, the country) as a Trump presidency would.  Unless you’re prepared to assure me that no Democrat will ever sit in the Oval Office, the House Speaker’s Office, and/or the Senate Majority Leader’s Office ever again; I stand by that position.

Edited January 24, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

57 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

1.  Re comparative unwed birthrates—all well and good; but you seem to be flirting with a “no true Scotsman” fallacy:  that the Filipinos who don’t do what you say Filipinos (should) do culturally, aren’t *real* Filipinos and that statistics including them are not reflective of the “real” situation in your homeland.  Would you allow an American to use the same tactic to throw out the demographics that tend to get divorced (or to give birth out of wedlock) and thereafter suggest that “American” marriage practices are working just fine (or are even superior to Filipino marriage practices)?  I don’t think you’ve really done the leg-work here to justify presenting your own cultural as superior to either American or Brazilian culture; rather, you seem primarily to be speaking from your own natural patriotism and your own idealization of your native culture.

I think you're completely flying off a different conversation pathway here.  My points are simple.  In the Philippines, Traditional Families is the cultural norm in the same way that Temple Marriages is the LDS cultural norm regardless of the number of non-temple wed people.  People in non-traditional relationships know and accept that their relationships are not what is to be promoted in society, except for the Celebrities.  They constantly push for their progressive ideas usually derived from western influence.  Even Duterte does not try to change this cultural tradition even as he is not living the tradition and has a large megaphone of influence.  This is the exact opposite of Obama who capitulated on the Gay Marriage issue even as he believes and lives in a Traditional Marriage.

This is not an exercise in whose culture is superior.  It is simply a description of Filipino culture and how I believe that a change to this culture is detrimental to Filipino society the way it is structured.  So, I don't know how this became a pissing contest.  I sure did not fire any piss at anybody.

 

57 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

2.  The above seems to deploy false dichotomies in order to de-fang D&C 98:10.  In the US there are always more than two candidates (many more, in primaries), and varying degrees of corruption including more than a few fundamentally decent folks.  It’s natural to be attracted to the appearance of strength;  but as followers of Christ we should be above that sort of power-lust (Mark 8:36 and all that).  The fatal consequences of man’s cleaving to the nearest strongman rather than trusting in God and keeping one’s integrity even if it means going it alone, are well attested in scripture.  Politically it happened to Israel, happened to Judah, happened to the Pharisees and Herodians.  And as counter-examples—Jesus didn’t accept Satan’s offer of the trappings of global domination; Mormon didn’t defect to the Lamanites just because he knew they were militarily the more potent force; and Joseph Smith didn’t renounce his testimony when the Carthage Greys surrounded the jail.  There is power in righteousness that those who never try it will never know, and even in those “but if not . . .” scenarios—Christianity is in many ways a religion of losers; and if we forget that, we lose our souls.

The dichotomy was presented not as the only choices but to represent the extremes of the consequential possibilities.  When choosing a leader, we are choosing our destinies.  The leader doesn't MAKE the destiny, the people do.  The leader simply make conditions such that the people can then choose their destinies at will.  The morality of the leader, therefore, is not as important as the morality of the people when freedom is maximized.  King David was not an example of morality.  But with the influence of the prophets, he was able to accomplish the mission - to preserve the prophesied lineage of Christ.  The prophet would have been the moral guy one can rally behind.  But he is not a warrior and, therefore, cannot accomplish the mission.

And here's the fallacy in YOUR dichotomy... that choosing strongmen such as Duterte or Trump is not a choice that was made after an appeal to God and trusting in Him.

 

 

57 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

3.  I’ve never said Republicans only promote perfectly honest and wise men.  Reagan and Bush I’s apparent indiscretions were not known at the time of their election (and it’s a little odd that you are so ready to believe Kitty Kelly’s accusations against Reagan, while pooh-poohing accusations against Trump that include a sworn affidavit from his own ex-wife—it’s almost like you WANT to believe America has a tradition of deliberately voting for evil men).  I was out of the country when Bush II was elected, but he seems to have put on a pretty good show of remorse for his profligate past and an ongoing commitment to moral rectitude.  McCain’s reputation as a dirtbag (both in terms of dishonesty and philandering) is a big piece of the reason why even Sarah Palin (who, we now know, has her own morality issues) wasn’t enough to galvanize the Christian Right into showing up at the polls; and it’s why I personally didn’t vote for him.  And I don’t believe I’ve ever said that Hillary Clinton was preferable to Trump under the D&C 98:10 litmus test (indeed, I voted for McMullin; who I still think fundamentally passes that test even though his whining and sniping over the last year had been very off-putting).  Rather, I’ve simply said—as a response to shrill warnings about how the Hildebeast would singlehandedly bring about Armageddon—that a Clinton presidency would not be as catastrophic to the long-term interests of movement conservatism (and by extension, the country) as a Trump presidency would.  Unless you’re prepared to assure me that no Democrat will ever sit in the Oval Office, the House Speaker’s Office, and/or the Senate Majority Leader’s Office ever again; I stand by that position.

Actually you said that Republicans only promote moral men.  Reagan's sexual proclivities as a Hollywood actor is widely known.  His support of abortion is legend.  Both Bush's are war mongers.  McCain even more so.  So, if you're just going to limit morality to - accusations of sexual harassment - then you're basically just setting up conditions so you can say... see, see, Trump is immoral and Reagan is not.

And here's your cold-water splash in the face on Hillary Clinton... if Clinton would have won, the Constitution is dead and so goes religious liberty.  It would have taken you another Revolution to put conservative Republican leadership at the helm of the 3 branches of government.  Are you paying attention to the information coming out of the FBI/DOJ lately?  Are you paying attention to the Republican struggles in Congress?

And lastly, you STILL think Trump is not advancing conservatism even as he can't spell it?

 

Edited January 24, 2018 by anatess2

[anatess2]

Just putting this out there.  @prisonchaplain can probably tell us if this is accurate or not.

[prisonchaplain]

That's largely true. To quote my "bishop," (who would loathe an HRC presidency, and does see much of the good that DJT has brought) "Trump needs to shut up." I'm a little more optimistic, but I refuse to defend POTUS' morality. He was 15th on my list of the 15 GOP candidates. He's done so much good, but wow and yikes. Nevertheless, if the election were held today, I cannot think of a Democrat that I would vote for over and against Trump.

Edited January 26, 2018 by prisonchaplain

[Just_A_Guy]

On 1/24/2018 at 12:30 PM, anatess2 said:

I think you're completely flying off a different conversation pathway here.  My points are simple.  In the Philippines, Traditional Families is the cultural norm in the same way that Temple Marriages is the LDS cultural norm regardless of the number of non-temple wed people.  People in non-traditional relationships know and accept that their relationships are not what is to be promoted in society, except for the Celebrities.  They constantly push for their progressive ideas usually derived from western influence.  Even Duterte does not try to change this cultural tradition even as he is not living the tradition and has a large megaphone of influence.  This is the exact opposite of Obama who capitulated on the Gay Marriage issue even as he believes and lives in a Traditional Marriage.

This is not an exercise in whose culture is superior.  It is simply a description of Filipino culture and how I believe that a change to this culture is detrimental to Filipino society the way it is structured.  So, I don't know how this became a pissing contest.  I sure did not fire any piss at anybody.

I think that if 51% of new mothers are flouting a "cultural norm", it's safe to say it's no longer a "cultural norm".  It may well be a cultural ideal; but it's hardly one exclusive to the Filipino people--and it's an ideal that other cultures are implementing better than Filipinos currently are. 

Which, I think, is a perfectly legitimate response to your suggestions that in the Philippines, as opposed to elsewhere, "the predominant Catholic culture of it being a tragedy to be known as somebody who engages in sex before marriage still prevails" and that "it's not likely to happen in the Philippines... YET.  I do see the trends moving to the hedonistic side with the younger generation.  We'll see in a few years how it's going to turn.  The good thing about being behind the western cycles is that we get to see the failures of the cycle before we start going down that path."  Because statistically, the Philippines are further down the path than some of the western cultures (e.g. the US) that you seem to characterize as the font of cultural pollution.  

If you weren't trying to suggest that the Philippines have provided especially resistant to the social ills of other countries, and/or that American cultural influence has been a significant factor in whatever Filipino moral decline may be occurring . . . then I must have misinterpreted you and, of course, you have my apologies.  

Quote

The dichotomy was presented not as the only choices but to represent the extremes of the consequential possibilities.  When choosing a leader, we are choosing our destinies.  The leader doesn't MAKE the destiny, the people do.  The leader simply make conditions such that the people can then choose their destinies at will.  The morality of the leader, therefore, is not as important as the morality of the people when freedom is maximized.  King David was not an example of morality.  But with the influence of the prophets, he was able to accomplish the mission - to preserve the prophesied lineage of Christ.  The prophet would have been the moral guy one can rally behind.  But he is not a warrior and, therefore, cannot accomplish the mission.

And here's the fallacy in YOUR dichotomy... that choosing strongmen such as Duterte or Trump is not a choice that was made after an appeal to God and trusting in Him.

With all due respect, the above is gobbledygook.  D&C 98:10 is what it is, it was directed (unlike the Bible) to people living in a democratic republic, and there's really no getting around that.  Either you keep God's counsel and trust Him to protect you; or you set His counsel aside and trust in the arm of flesh--and apparently, the fleshier, the better.

It's interesting you use David as an example of a righteous warrior, because God specifically barred David from building the temple precisely because of his warlike nature (1 Chron 22:8); and his wars and taxes and immorality and resultant palace intrigue caused a great deal of suffering in Israel.  And in point of fact, God didn't even want Israel to have a king in the first place--free citizens begged God to give them a strongman, so a strongman God gave them--with disastrous long-term results.  (1 Samuel 8). 

As for your argument that David had to fulfill prophecy that he would be the ancestor of Jesus--I'm not aware of any pre-Davidic prophecy stating such.  And if God could raise seed of Abraham up out of the very stones of the desert (Matthew 3:9), then he surely could have had raised the Christ up through some lineage other than David's.  David was not the "critical man".  There is no "critical man" in Christianity except Jesus Christ Himself.

God's ability to make lemonade out of lemons doesn't mean He couldn't have made something even better if He only had sweeter fruit to work with.  If God prized deception and seduction and cruelty and machismo as hallmarks of good leadership, He could easily have told us so in D&C 98.  But in fact He said something quite different. 

I have a lot of sympathy for those who wrestle with this issue, can't bring themselves to take that leap of faith, and--with an anguished grit of the teeth--pull the lever for Trump.  I don't agree with it, but I can mostly understand it.  But to go further and affirmatively argue against the precepts of D&C 98; to worship Trump's apparent strength; to relish in his cruelty and vulgarity; to downplay or justify his sexual escapades; to go absolutely gaa-gaa over his hyperbole and dishonesty and write panegyrics about how it constitutes some form of hitherto-unknown, genius-level, four-dimensional politics that future Republicans should emulate--folks who do that need to take a look at Acts 5:29 and think about where their priorities lie.

As for the suggestion that choosing Duterte or Trump was the result of an appeal to God:. If you’re speaking of yourself, I would be very surprised to hear that you ever found such an appeal necessary; because I don’t remember you ever expressing deep personal revulsion at the character/morality of either Duterte or Trump.  And even if such an appeal was made—sometimes persistent appeals are unnecessary in the face of an earlier clear direction from the Lord (e.g. Martin Harris and the lost pages; Israel in continuing to insist on a king after Samuel warned them against it).  It is a principle of the Gospel that at least sometimes, God will eventually give us an “answer” that comports with our prejudices (to our condemnation) if we prove ourselves unwilling to accept any other answer.  There’s also a certain amount of irony in your demanding I recognize your vote for a candidate I despise as an act of faith on your part, even as you continue to suggest (see below) that my vote for a candidate you despise was nothing less than an act of suicide and betrayal on my part.

Quote

Actually you said that Republicans only promote moral men.  Reagan's sexual proclivities as a Hollywood actor is widely known.  His support of abortion is legend.  Both Bush's are war mongers.  McCain even more so.  So, if you're just going to limit morality to - accusations of sexual harassment - then you're basically just setting up conditions so you can say... see, see, Trump is immoral and Reagan is not.

And here's your cold-water splash in the face on Hillary Clinton... if Clinton would have won, the Constitution is dead and so goes religious liberty.  It would have taken you another Revolution to put conservative Republican leadership at the helm of the 3 branches of government.  Are you paying attention to the information coming out of the FBI/DOJ lately?  Are you paying attention to the Republican struggles in Congress?

And lastly, you STILL think Trump is not advancing conservatism even as he can't spell it?

That's the second time you've attributed to me the statement that Republicans only promote moral men.  Such a statement doesn't sound like me; I believe I rarely speak in absolutes about historical trends.  Do you have a link to me ever having written such a thing?   

Now, I daresay that over the past months I have said that Republicans tend to promote moral candidates; and that visibly immoral candidates have tended to get drummed out of the party pretty quickly.  That's apparent to anyone who has watched the Republican party over the past thirty years or so.  But of course, that's not nearly the absolute statement you claim that I've made. 

While you're doing that, I'll indulge the straw-man about the characters of past Republican presidential candidates:

• Reagan's alleged sexual proclivities are widely known now, but were not widely known then (which is what I said in my previous post).  I am not aware of Reagan ever publicly supporting elective abortion; rather, as California governor he signed a "therapeutic abortion" bill to avoid being overridden with a bill that would have had even fewer limits on abortion.  And, you still haven't told me why you're so eager to believe Kitty Kelly but so quick to pooh-pooh Ivana Trump.
• It's pretty ironic for someone from the Philippines, of all places, to suggest that a US President who rids an overseas land from an oppressive dictatorship is per se a warmonger just because that land happened to be rich in natural resources.  I suspect you don't consider FDR and Douglas MacArthur to have been warmongers.
• We've already talked about McCain.  He was a dirtbag, and like millions of other Americans (including lots of Republicans)--I didn't vote for him.    

As for your panic about Hillary . . . I agree she's bad.  And I believe you were making similar comments about the near-irrevocable damage Hillary would do to traditional American rights, even during election season.  You're telling me you sincerely think--and, I presume, thought, back in November 2016--that the Constitution would have been overthrown, and the Church would no longer be able to function effectively in this country?  Okay, then.  Tell me, Anatess--what was your contingency plan if Hillary won? 

• Were you planning for a violent resistence?   If so, how many firearms, and what kinds, did you have stockpiled in your home in preparation for such a contingency?  How many pounds of food?  How many gallons of water?  Generator?  Gasoline?  Were you going to be a one-person army, or did you affiliate with some local militia?  Did you take shooting lesson?  Did your husbands?  Your kids?  Were you planning to come to the defense of your fellow ward members, or were you planning to let them fend for themselves and just barricade yourself in your house 'til the shooting was done?  Or, did you have a bug-out den prepared in some nearby unpopulated area?  By the way, I trust your family all got trained as HAM operators in preparation for a doodie-hits-the-fan scenario.  What license levels did you earn?
• Alternatively, were you just planning to take your family and return to the Philippines?  Did you have your passports and visas lined up?  Funds where they could be accessed overseas, but where they wouldn't be subject to seizure by the Feds?  Traveler's checks?  Were your travel tickets bought and paid for?  Had you obtained (or at least identified) a house in the Philippines to live in?  Were you planning to get your in-laws out of the USA too, or just your own immediate family?  What arrangements had you made to secure employment for yourself and your husband in the Philippines so that you would be able to provide for yourselves once you returned there?  

If you didn't begin preparations for either scenario--why wouldn't you have done that, if you sincerely believed Hillary was everything you want me to believe she is?  

And, why don't you believe that any future Democratic president in the wake of the Trumpian Escalation will use the precedents Trump has set, and the eroded procedural protections in Congress for the minority party, to pose just as big a threat to American civil liberties as Hillary Clinton ever did?    

And, why did you believe God could work His will through a dishonest, cheating, power-hungry lecher like Trump; but not through a dishonest, cheating, power-hungry mercenary like Hillary (and Bill) Clinton?

Edited January 27, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

On 1/25/2018 at 9:32 PM, anatess2 said:

Just putting this out there.  @prisonchaplain can probably tell us if this is accurate or not.

<clip image>

I am coming to feel this way.  This is in line with the post I made a few months ago comparing Trump to Nebuchadnezzar.  No, they are not good men.  No, they don't share our values.  No,  a bunch of other stuff that I could say negatively about either man.  But each for their own reason and by different means were placed over us for a reason.  And I do believe this was as God intended.  Not saying it's the best of circumstances to be in.  I'm saying that given the situation we've made for ourselves, it will be the best we can hope for.  And it is not without some benefits.

--searching for the silver lining.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

I am coming to feel this way.  This is in line with the post I made a few months ago comparing Trump to Nebuchadnezzar.  No, they are not good men.  No, they don't share our values.  No,  a bunch of other stuff that I could say negatively about either man.  But each for their own reason and by different means were placed over us for a reason.  And I do believe this was as God intended.  Not saying it's the best of circumstances to be in.  I'm saying that given the situation we've made for ourselves, it will be the best we can hope for.  And it is not without some benefits.

--searching for the silver lining.

How far do we take this situational ethics thing in light of D&C 98:10’s lack of ambiguity, though?  That scripture doesn’t say “choose honest, wise, and good men unless they can’t beat Hillary”, any more than Exodus 20:14 says “thou shalt not commit adultery unless your wife is ugly”.

Why do we as Mormons openly talk about how the wickedness of corrupt kings like Noah inevitably trickles down to hoi polloi, but then act as though the wickedness of elected leaders is magically prevented from becoming a cultural phenomenon?

Would you endorse a man like Donald Trump as the prophet of the LDS Church?  Why not, if God is perfectly capable of working through unrighteous leaders?

By the way, Nebuchadnezzar was an instrument of divine punishment; not protection (unless we choose identify ourselves spiritually with ancient Babylon rather than ancient Israel—for a worldly, idolatrous Babylonian, I suppose Nebuchadnezzar’s reign was a pretty sweet gig).  And to use the Old Testament to suggest that temporal security lies in declaring allegiance to one strongman, is a gross perversion of the messages of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Samuel, and a host of other pre-exilic prophets.

Edited January 27, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

How far do we take this situational ethics thing in light of D&C 98:10’s lack of ambiguity, though?  That scripture doesn’t say “choose honest, wise, and good men unless they can’t beat Hillary”, any more than Exodus 20:14 says “thou shalt not commit adultery unless your wife is ugly”.

Why do we as Mormons openly talk about how the wickedness of corrupt kings like Noah inevitably trickles down to hoi polloi, but then act as though the wickedness of elected leaders is magically prevented from becoming a cultural phenomenon?

Would you endorse a man like Donald Trump as the prophet of the LDS Church?  Why not, if God is perfectly capable of working through unrighteous leaders?

By the way, Nebuchadnezzar was an instrument of divine punishment; not protection (unless we choose identify ourselves spiritually with ancient Babylon rather than ancient Israel—for a worldly, idolatrous Babylonian, I suppose Nebuchadnezzar’s reign was a pretty sweet gig).  And to use the Old Testament to suggest that temporal security lies in declaring allegiance to one strongman, is a gross perversion of the messages of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Samuel, and a host of other pre-exilic prophets.

I don't see it as situational ethics. 

Quote

The doctrine of flexibility in the application of moral laws according to circumstances.

1) I'm not saying this is all good.
2) I'm not applying moral laws any differently.
3) I'm saying we should still do all within our power to make things better. 

I'm saying that this is the reality:  Donald Trump is our President.  Deal with it. 

It's like getting into an accident.  We can gripe and moan or we can DEAL with it.  Now, if you want to talk about different methods of dealing with it, that's cool.  I can do that.  But to simply say that things shouldn't be this way is unproductive.

[Just_A_Guy]

29 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

But to simply say that things shouldn't be this way is unproductive.

Perhaps; but it is a necessary counterpoint to those who suggest that things should be exactly this way (by divine mandate, no less!) and who portray goodness, honesty, and wisdom as signs of weakness.

The gymnastics some Mormons are going through to make peace with Trump’s moral degeneracy and marginalize the role of moral probity in their larger culture are dangerous to their nation, to their spiritual community, and—frankly—to themselves.

Edited January 27, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

50 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Perhaps; but it is a necessary counterpoint to those who suggest that things should be exactly this way (by divine mandate, no less!) 

That's how you took it?  I see "the way God intended" as being quite different than "by Divine mandate."

God intended us to go through suffering.  God intended us to have free agency to do evil.  That does not mean it was a Divine mandate for men to do evil.  That's far too close to "God is responsible for all evil that occurs in this life because He does nothing to stop it."

I was never marginalizing your assessment of Trump's faults.  I agree with them.  But how productive is it to continue to talk about it?  If you can find some way that continuing to bring it up as a PRIMARY point of the discussion could somehow help us change the situation in the near future, then enlighten me.  If not, the only thing we can do for the next three years is wait for the next election.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not sure if I would vote for him in a re-election cycle.  But seeing as how there is little to nothing that I can do about it today, I don't see why you take offense at my looking for the silver lining.

[Just_A_Guy]

Oh, I agree that there’s nothing wrong with recognizing materialistic silver linings in the Trump presidency, so long as we aren’t killed into complacency about the spiritual threat that he poses.  And had you simply posed it in terms of “reality”, @Carborendum, I’d have quickly agreed with you.  It was the suggestion of divine intent that threw up warning flags; because such discussion is so heavily laden with “divine right”, “submit unquestioningly to worldly leaders”, and so on.

And from a realism standpoint—sure, there’s nothing you can do today about Trump being President today, but these conversations aren’t taking place in a vacuum.  There’s plenty we can all do about whether he’ll be president in four more years.  Trump’s supporters know that too, and the things being said by some of them in this thread are groundwork to persuade us to stick with him come next election rather than finding a worthier standard-bearer.  There is a deliberate gaslighting campaign being waged to make us all believe that America *never* prioritized fair play, or honesty, or sexual restraint, or peace; to make you believe that all America has ever truly valued is money and physical/military strength; to convince you to dismiss the Lord’s guidance for citizens of democracies as quaintly irrelevant—in short, to re-define what it meant to be “American”, and even a “Mormon American”, so as to make Trump’s wickedness more palatable.  The suggestion fundamentally is that we should follow him, personally, in spite of—and maybe even because of—the very qualities that we would have identified as “ungodly” in any other person.

This value-shifting has consequences far beyond the political.  It spills over into the way people pattern their lives each and every day.  The way they manage their business.  The type of media they consume, and allow their families to consume.  The way they treat their spouses.  The way they interact with others.  The depths they are willing to sink to—the lies they are willing to tell—to “win” in a debate of ideas.

This is all part of a well-worn pattern described again and again in scripture; with verifiably disastrous consequences.  Every time someone at MormonHub gets up and suggests that Trump’s qualities are a net positive, in the best interests of the country, approved by God and worthy of emulation; there needs to be someone else with a set of scriptures willing to stand up and say “no”—whether it’s an election year or not.

Edited January 27, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Oh, I agree that there’s nothing wrong with recognizing materialistic silver linings in the Trump presidency, so long as we aren’t killed into complacency about the spiritual threat that he poses.  And had you simply posed it in terms of “reality”, @Carborendum, I’d have quickly agreed with you.  It was the suggestion of divine intent that threw up warning flags; because such discussion is so heavily laden with “divine right”, “submit unquestioningly to worldly leaders”, and so on.

And from a realism standpoint—sure, there’s nothing you can do today about Trump being President today, but these conversations aren’t taking place in a vacuum.  There’s plenty we can all do about whether he’ll be president in four more years.  Trump’s supporters know that too, and the things being said by some of them in this thread are groundwork to persuade us to stick with him come next election rather than finding a worthier standard-bearer.  There is a deliberate gaslighting campaign being waged to make us all believe that America *never* prioritized fair play, or honesty, or sexual restraint, or peace; to make you believe that all America has ever truly valued is money and physical/military strength; to convince you to dismiss the Lord’s guidance for citizens of democracies as quaintly irrelevant—in short, to re-define what it meant to be “American”, and even a “Mormon American”, so as to make Trump’s wickedness more palatable.  The suggestion fundamentally is that we should follow him, personally, in spite of—and maybe even because of—the very qualities that we would have identified as “ungodly” in any other person.

This value-shifting has consequences far beyond the political.  It spills over into the way people pattern their lives each and every day.  The way they manage their business.  The type of media they consume, and allow their families to consume.  The way they treat their spouses.  The way they interact with others.  The depths they are willing to sink to—the lies they are willing to tell—to “win” in a debate of ideas.

This is all part of a well-worn pattern described again and again in scripture; with verifiably disastrous consequences.  Every time someone at MormonHub gets up and suggests that Trump’s qualities are a net positive, in the best interests of the country, approved by God and worthy of emulation; there needs to be someone else with a set of scriptures willing to stand up and say “no”—whether it’s an election year or not.

You've made enough points to get me conflicted.  I agree with you on all your points.  At least a part of me does.  Another part is thinking about so many leaders in the past that we tend to overlook faults and still praise them for being good leaders.  What do we make of that?  I know it's far too easy to excuse the great faults because "all of us have faults."  But many men who are historically seen as "good men" were lecherous or at least not so upstanding compared to our LDS sensibilities today.

• The Founding Fathers were slave owners (a lot of them).
• Jefferson, himself, is often looked upon as a demigod among libertarians who tout the Monroe Doctrine.  Yet Jefferson was the one who implemented the practice of puppet governments.  Not to mention Sally Hemings.
• John Adams who was the primary voice for swaying the more mellow Colonists to join in the rebellion, was also the man who signed the Alien and Sedition Acts.  He was also known for being quite ill tempered.
• Franklin had a reputation for being a philanderer.  It may have been undeservedly so from what I've reasearched, but still not the model of chastity either.
• Christopher Columbus, well, I'm pretty sure you're aware of the things that are popular to be told about him.
• Eisenhower openly had a mistress while President.
• Kennedy (whom I admire as an overachiever and a pretty great President) was also a womanizer.

Is it ok to not approve of the man, but approve of the President?  Now, to declare that I am being consistent, I behaved the same way with Bill Clinton.  I didn't approve of his liberal policies.  I didn't approve of him as a man.  But there were many economic things that happened on his watch that I had to say were good results.  Does that mean I approve of anything else?  NO.

We so often excuse people because they are a product of their times.  In a way I suppose what I'm trying to say about Trump is that his Presidency (not necessarily the man himself, but perhaps so) is a product of the times.  The people of this land have become so corrupt that this is what we have.  Not only was this on the tails of an Obama Presidency, but his best competition was Sanders and Hilary.  So, I guess, in a way, this is what we deserve.

Take it for what it's worth.

[Just_A_Guy]

It seems to me that D&C 98 tells us how (from 1833 onwards) we ought to select leaders, not how we ought to write or regard our history.  Modern historical practice usually allows us to acknowledge the complexity of human characters without trying to dive them into categories of “good” or “evil”.  (And of course a “great man” need not have been a “good” one.).

Certainly our national history has its share of actions, as well as individual leaders, that were deeply immoral; but without which it seems our country may have taken a very different direction.  Generally speaking, perhaps that direction might have been better than what we ended up with?  It’s hard to envision how, because as Americans we view America as a very successful country—but we also tend to measure that success using indicia (boundaries, wealth, prestige, military power) that God doesn’t seem to think are particularly important.  Did God mean for the United States of America to become a superpower with borders stretching from Atlantic to Pacific, or did He mean for it to become a Zion whose western border stopped at the Mississipi?  Which would have been the ”better” outcome?

I think all we can really do is try to choose morally in the here-and-now according to the criteria God has given us.  We can absolutely approve of the good stuff that comes out of this White House—and even make common cause with it, when possible—while still expressing the skepticism towards the pretensions to Trumpian moral leadership that his history deserves, and resisting the Trumplings who want us to believe that might makes right.

It might be easier to embrace Trump as a “product of his times” if the guy were born in 1990; but as it is he was born in 1946:  “his times” are also the times of over a dozen 2016 Republican primary contenders who were better individuals than he; not to mention folks like Jeff Holland, Dieter Uchtdorf, Quentin Cook and Todd Christofferson who were all born within a decade of him.  Trump isn’t being carried along by the prevailing moral currents of his day—he’s joined a growing movement that stands against them and, in so doing, cannot help but redirect them.

Edited January 28, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

On 1/27/2018 at 8:46 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

It seems to me that D&C 98 tells us how (from 1833 onwards) we ought to select leaders, not how we ought to write or regard our history.  Modern historical practice usually allows us to acknowledge the complexity of human characters without trying to dive them into categories of “good” or “evil”.  (And of course a “great man” need not have been a “good” one.).

Certainly our national history has its share of actions, as well as individual leaders, that were deeply immoral; but without which it seems our country may have taken a very different direction.  Generally speaking, perhaps that direction might have been better than what we ended up with?  It’s hard to envision how, because as Americans we view America as a very successful country—but we also tend to measure that success using indicia (boundaries, wealth, prestige, military power) that God doesn’t seem to think are particularly important.  Did God mean for the United States of America to become a superpower with borders stretching from Atlantic to Pacific, or did He mean for it to become a Zion whose western border stopped at the Mississipi?  Which would have been the ”better” outcome?

I think all we can really do is try to choose morally in the here-and-now according to the criteria God has given us.  We can absolutely approve of the good stuff that comes out of this White House—and even make common cause with it, when possible—while still expressing the skepticism towards the pretensions to Trumpian moral leadership that his history deserves, and resisting the Trumplings who want us to believe that might makes right.

It might be easier to embrace Trump as a “product of his times” if the guy were born in 1990; but as it is he was born in 1946:  “his times” are also the times of over a dozen 2016 Republican primary contenders who were better individuals than he; not to mention folks like Jeff Holland, Dieter Uchtdorf, Quentin Cook and Todd Christofferson who were all born within a decade of him.  Trump isn’t being carried along by the prevailing moral currents of his day—he’s joined a growing movement that stands against them and, in so doing, cannot help but redirect them.

My issue with your position is that you paint Trumplings however you paint them (the latest is "who believe might makes right") and then turn around and excuse men like Reagan and both Bushes and all other Republicans in American History.  That's what bothers me.  I'm fine with you having a disagreement with the election of Trump for your own reasons.  Heck, you can vote against him in the next election and I wouldn't think lower of you.  But, the opposite is not true.  You think me much beneath your moral high ground.  And this is what I do not like about your posturing.

The things that have happened in the past year is not something ANY of the other 15 candidates could have survived.  You see it.  And whether you see it or not, he is redirecting America to a better course despite the full on attack by the Democrat Party and their supporters in the FBI/DOJ and the media.  I posit that nobody, not even Ted Cruz or my guy Ben Carson, could have done it.  And even today, Trump continues to prevail.  And if that's not enough for you for the President of the United States because you believe only one worthy of Apostleship qualifies for President (regardless of his effectiveness of governance), then I submit that you do not understand the difference between Prophet and King in Bible Stories.

 

Edited January 29, 2018 by anatess2

[JohnsonJones]

On ‎1‎/‎29‎/‎2018 at 8:33 AM, anatess2 said:

I posit that nobody, not even Ted Cruz or my guy Ben Carson, could have done it.  And even today, Trump continues to prevail.  And if that's not enough for you for the President of the United States because you believe only one worthy of Apostleship qualifies for President (regardless of his effectiveness of governance), then I submit that you do not understand the difference between Prophet and King in Bible Stories.

 

I think Ben Carson's strength was the ability to choose smart people around him instead of simply pushing yes men.  My OWN OPINION is that Ben Carson would have actually done a BETTER job at it, or rather would have had individuals around him that could have done a BETTER JOB of his administration and handling various things.  I think he'd even have a higher positive rating at the same time, and be better for those who are religious then Donald Trump has been.

Personal Opinion of course.