The Washington Post is running a front page article today, “For Romney and Paul, a strategic alliance between establishment and outsider.” Read the rest of this entry »

A break from politics and Mormonism for a moment (or is that now the same things?).

So, being in the center of the NFL experience this week, and owning my very own Super Bowl 46 Committee jacket, I’d like to know how y’all think the game is going to go this Sunday? (not that any of you will be watching it, of course).

Winner:

Point Spread:

MVP:

I’ll reserve my thoughts until I hear from others.

Take a gander at this great, concise article by Nate Oman.

Here are the key graphs:

In 1902, Utah elected Reed Smoot to be its U.S. senator. Unlike Romney, who temporarily occupied positions of local church leadership in Boston, Smoot was a Mormon apostle, a life-long member of the church’s second-highest governing council. Activists and journalists insisted that Mormon theocracy was again rearing its head and that Smoot would take political orders from church leaders.

The result was a four-year congressional investigation of Mormonism. Ultimately, church President Joseph F. Smith appeared before the Senate. He disclaimed any theocratic agenda; he insisted that Mormons were loyal citizens of the U.S., and he pledged that the church would not direct or seek to dominate Mormons elected to political office.

We now have more than a century of experience with that pledge. While the church occasionally acts politically — as do all American denominations — it has abided by Smith’s promise. Robert Bennett, for example, a former three-term Republican senator from Utah and a practicing Mormon, insists that in 18 years in office, church leaders never instructed him on how to vote on a single issue. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate and a Mormon, says the same thing.

Prior to the Vatican II council of the 1960s, the Catholic Church was formally opposed to many of the core features of liberal democracy, such as religious freedom. Given historical experience, however, it’s ridiculous to imagine a believing Catholic like Joe Biden as part of a subversive Roman agenda.

Seeing Romney’s candidacy as a Mormon plot is equally outlandish. We now have twice as much experience with post-Smoot Mormonism as we have with post-Vatican II Catholicism

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/mormon-plot-wasn-t-article-1.1014874#ixzz1l9U2cd3u

Listening to some news shows lately (such as Morning Joe), it is interesting to hear them discuss how vituperative the campaign between Romney and Gingrich has become.  They discuss how such do not speak much on what they will do, but more on why the other person should not be elected.

As I’ve thought about this I see two issues not being considered.

First, we live in the Internet age. When they say that Reagan and Thatcher did not have to go uber-negative, they neglect to realize that there was no 24 hour news cycle back in the 1980s.  Nor were there websites, blogs, or Drudge report.  It is easy to destroy the other person by gaining control of the media cycle.  Afterward, one can then establish his own credo by explaining his views without a strong competitor.

The second issue is that there have been extremely negative campaigns since the beginning.  The media of the day discussed the possibility of Thomas Jefferson having an affair.  Reagan was very negative towards Pres Ford in 1976, and would not support him in the convention.  There were some very negative campaigning between McCain/Huckabee against Mitt Romney just 4 years ago, including a huge attack on Mormonism.

That today super PACs can be established with endless cash flow for media issues, one can also understand why so much more money will flow through the system this time around.

Does anyone think that there could ever be a successful campaign today with just nice, clean ads?

Let’s face it: being an unmarried Latter-day Saint is really rough. We are a church focused on marriage and family. Adult church lessons often are taught with the assumption that everybody in the audience is already married. But in every ward I have been in, there are many adults who are not married, and many of them despair of ever getting married.

So, what kind of comfort can we offer these people?

Many Church members do not know that Book 2 of the Church Handbook of Instructions is on-line. In the handbook we find the following:

Faithful members whose circumstances do not allow them to receive the blessings of eternal marriage and parenthood in this life will receive all promised blessings in the eternities, provided they keep the covenants they have made with God.

Notice the word “will.” If you keep your covenants you will receive all “promised blessings” in the eternities. What are the “promised blessings?” The assumption, if you read the handbook, is that you will have your own eternal family.

Similar promises have been made by modern-day prophets. But I thought I would highlight this promise in the handbook. I know many people who feel alone and lonely as they proceed through the years unable to find a spouse and form their own families. I hope this promise in the handbook will bring them comfort.

What do you think?