Thank you for your response to my posting . . . .
The [LDS] church and BYU has changed in certain areas in-regards to this issue. There are over 1,800 LGBT students at BYU. In 2010 a gay-straight alliance group USGA was formed for BYU students to help foster improved understanding of same-gender attraction. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ym0jXg-hKCI) BYU also changed its Honor Code in 2007 allowing LGBT students to openly state their sexual orientation without fear of expulsion and in 2010 lifted a ban on advocacy of homosexuality.

Comment by Dave Hall
Craig,
I pulled this paragraph out of your latest response, because it is an interesting point about homosexuality. I have a son who will be attending BYU in the fall, and I am familiar with this policy toward gays.

A couple of weeks ago, I listened to an interview of Pastor Joel Osteen by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. He was asked if being gay was a sin. He responded, “I believe the scripture says that being gay is a sin.” But I don’t believe that being gay is a sin, and I believe the position of the LDS Church is that the scriptures don’t say that. The scriptures say that a sin is something you do. How could what you are be a sin? What kind of God would condemn someone for what they are? That’s why I was careful in my original post to talk about the belief that “homosexual acts are sinful.” This is an important difference, and thanks for bringing that out.

To me that really is the crux of the whole matter. For “liberals”/”the left”/”progressives”/”confused people”, it’s not good enough for them to have their own views – they want to force you to adopt their views as your own.

Our founding fathers believed in “Natural Law” and based many of the thoughts and ideas that they incorporated into the constitution on that belief. The Declaration of Independence itself begins with an appeal to “the laws of nature and of nature’s God.” According to Cicero, Natural Law is “True Law.” To quote Cicero:

“True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.”

I think that sums it up pretty concisely.

My personal belief is that marriage is between a man and women. It is the natural order of things and my religious beliefs support this also. I do however realize a relationship between a man and women may not be natural for other people but a relationship with the same-sex is.

Sam, I read your comments and feel the same frustrations you expressed in your statement. I wanted you to know that I too have had comments not posted and it is frustrating because typically the posts not posted are in response to Dave’s previous post to your comments which leaves Dave with the final word and no posting of your response. I welcome all comments and views because it helps see what others thoughts are. This is a great way to understand people and their perspective because like many things in life your views get stronger or change when you deal with these types of issues on a personal basis vs. purely from an academia or philosophical debate.

Response by David Hall
Craig,
I’m going to go ahead and post your comment, but I must say that I disagree with this entitlement mentality that this blog owes people some kind of right to comment. This is my blog that I pay for. I don’t “block” people – anyone who wants to start a blog can do so and more power to them. But I’m not going to take the time to edit and/or respond to everything. This is a blog I created to share my views. Sam responded to my response, but I’m not going to post that because he re-hashed what he said before and then twisted what I said, to me it just didn’t seem like he grasped the issues, and I don’t think his comment furthers intelligent discussion. If he wants to start his own blog to air his views, he is welcome. You know, I’ll even offer him a link.

I’m not greatly impressed with your comment. There’s not much creative thought or incisive analysis here, but it does give me a springboard to reinforce what I was saying. You miss the whole point I made about the gay marriage “rights” issue. Everybody knows what the gay activists want – they want to call it marriage. But it’s not a matter of a civil right. They have a right to marry. They just don’t like the definition of marriage. There are no “rights” here being violated. They can have sex with whomever they want. They have been given visitation rights, property rights, etc. They can even, if they want, call their relationship “marriage.” But that isn’t good enough – they want to make everyone else call it marriage.

And while you say that your personal view is that you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, you seem to lack the passion that I have for defeating the redefinition of marriage. Maybe you don’t care that much one way or the other, if it is defeated or not, as long as you have your personal belief that you can keep to yourself. But I will re-emphasize that I am dead-on right about this intolerance issue. If they get their way and re-define marriage, that will not be the end of the matter. Not by any stretch. As an LDS person, you ought to be able to perceive what is behind their efforts. If you have a religious belief that the homosexual act is a sin, well that has to be stamped out and they don’t want to have to hear that, and they will go to great lengths to not have to hear that. And historically, people like that have resorted to violence to keep from having to hear those unpleasant things. They have declared war on our traditional values, and I am sorry to say, Craig, it doesn’t seem to me like you are up for the fight.

Click here to visit the Liberty Musings conservative politics home page.

Now you are entitled to your own opinion, Dave, but so am I, and I think it is dangerously irresponsible for you to spread such ridiculous rhetoric as this.

You have also exposed yourself as a hypocrite, again, as you accuse the Left of blocking people on social networks because they disagree with their opinions. Dave, this isn’t the first comment I’ve left on your blog, but if you publish it, it will be the first to be published. You actually disabled comments on some of the postings I tried to comment on. Dave, if my opinions are too radical for your other viewers to see I would be happy to receive an email from you just the same. Word of advice, before you go accusing the Left of being internet blockers, make sure you aren’t doing the same!

Response by David Hall:

Sam,
I do not block people on social network sites because of their views. But I do set my own standards for what I let get through on my blogs. And these are my standards: I do publish people who disagree with me, but I do have certain standards of expression that those who comment need to meet. I don’t remember any of your other comments. But I must say that your comments here barely make the cut.

To start with, your condescension is really off-putting. Must we start with that? Let’s just get to the issue. I don’t need you to be “concerned” about me.

I am not sure I understand the purpose of your comments. You claim to be conservative like me but “much more moderate.” And then you speculate that your comments might be too radical for my blog. It would help if you would just be straightforward about the point you’re trying to make. You think that radical gay activists are tolerant? What is your point?

The two points you seem to be making are both based on a misstating of the facts. I am not “accusing the Left of being Internet blockers,” I am reporting on a study done by the Pew Research Center. If you are the conservative that you claim to be, exactly what problem do you have with this study? Have you read it? I provided a link. Liberals are twice as likely as conservatives to block people because of their beliefs. This is totally consistent with everything conservatives know about liberals.

And I did not imply that people’s lives would be in danger for supporting traditional marriage, but I did say that their homes, their property, could be in jeopardy. This is not wild rhetoric – this has actually happened. All the acts of intolerance – the name-calling, the trying to get people off the air, the vandalism, the clamping down on what can be said in schools – they have all happened.

So I have this question for you: Is your blindness to these things that have happened willful or just careless?

These questions I have posed, by the way, are rhetorical.

Click here to visit the Liberty Musings conservative politics home page.

Response by David Hall
Of course, of course.

The interesting thing is – it was the interviewer who had to prompt him to correct himself, or, apparently, he would have let the statement stand. Oh, that a conservative could have such a helpful press!

I feel you are creating a definition for conservatism and what makes one a “conservative” that may not be the same definition for all conservatives. I consider myself a conservative but who knows you may define me as a moderate. If changing your mind from one position to the other as Mitt did on abortion means you can’t be a conservative then maybe I am not one. I have heard his explanation for his change and I am okay with the explanation. Here is a thought though, as the Governor of a State you represent the people of the State, so shouldn’t you Govern for the people? Not for your own personal agenda. If you look at it in that light, Romney did what he was suppose to do. He prioritized items of importance and compromised on certain issues to pass other issue he felt needed attention.

My opinion is you are bringing religion too much into this campaign and blog. Almost scrutinizing Mitt for being a member. You are also generalizing any Mormon who is voting for Mitt and that is the wrong approach. I do not agree with all of his stances but I agree with what I feel is the most important stances for out time. If your not a conservative in business you go out of business. He is fiscally conservative and that is why my vote will be casted for Romney.

Response by David Hall:
Craig,
Thanks for your well-reasoned comments.

While you feel you are not for Romney because he is LDS, I think that being LDS colors your view of him. It probably colors my view of him also. And while I spoke of his honesty, and I think that many non-LDS people view him as not honest, in my view it is more a matter of a lack of political courage that I see in him. And I do not think he is fiscally conservative or has a conservative view of the reach of government power. I think that, while he understands somewhat the current political climate, that his instincts are to grow government. He has a desire to cut the waste in government, but I think he does not see the threat in the growth of government that I see or that many other conservatives see. I do not see in him the passion for personal liberty that Rick Santorum has. Do you?

On the percentages of the vote, I think you are missing the point. It’s not the actual vote totals I’m talking about, but the apparent ceiling on the vote totals. With the aura of inevitability that was created around the Romney candidacy, he should have done much better than he did. We don’t yet know Rick Santorum’s ceiling, because he has never been anointed by the pundits as the inevitable nominee. But Romney at one point was and STILL seemed to struggle to get above that 30-40% mark. You have to try to see that there is very little actual enthusiasm for Romney outside of the LDS community. It was more like a resigned feeling that he was the best we were going to get this time around. It’s hard to get outside your personal opinions and see that, but I will tell you that it is a very real enthusiasm gap. But we’ll see what happens now if Rick Santorum can get momentum going, because he seems to be able to generate some widespread enthusiasm.

Reply by Craig Lund

You state that being LDS colors my views of Mitt. I can not disagree with you more. As stated earlier, I feel that you are generalizing and suggesting that because he is LDS and I am LDS; he receives less scrutiny in my judgement of who I feel is best to lead this country. I will state it again, religion is not a factor in MY selection for the right candidate. For others that may not be the case but please do not generalize everyone under the LDS faith when writing in-regards to this topic. I would not have voted for Jon Huntsman and I disapprove of Harry Reid. Both are LDS and receive no favoritism for sharing my faith. My education, studies, and work experience are what leads me to selecting what I feel is the right candidate. I can not think of any better resume for the next President than someone who has been the Owner of a Private Equity firm and who had tremendous success, who has the experience of Governing, and has shown great ability to turn things around, such as the Olympics. All the remaining candidates are Millionaires, as they usually are, Mitt is by far the wealthiest and deserves every penny. He is however the only 1 out of the 4 remaining candidates who has received his wealth in the Private Sector and not through the gains received for being a life-time politician in Washington. This is a very attractive resume for me. I stated that I feel this country is in Fiscal chaos, and for me his Private Sector experience is needed. Business owners understand the consequences of tax policies, regulations, and economic cycles. Especially Private Equity firms. I also am wondering why you are not talking about some of this issues Rick has, and why you don’t label him Dishonest? Rick: Voted against National Right to Work Act Voted against Real of Davis-Bacon Prevailing union wages Voted for Alexis Herman to be Secretary of Labor Voted for mandatory Federal child care funding Voted for Trade Adjustment Assistance. Voted for Job Corps funding Voted twice in support of Fedex Unionization Voted against allowing a waiver of Davis-Bacon in emergency situations. Voted for minimum wage increases six times here here here here here and here Voted to require a union representative on an IRS oversight board. Voted to exempt IRS union representative from criminal ethics laws. Voted against creating independent Board of Governors to investigate IRS abuses. Rick Santorum’s wife opted to sue her chiropractor for $500,000 because she “gained weight”. Senator Santorum was stumping for a $250,000 cap on medical malpractice suits. She settled for $350,000 reportedly. These are just some examples. My point is you characterize Romney as dishonest because you stated, “If Romney were so honest, he would portray himself as a moderate. But he’s not. He’s trying to portray himself as the most conservative. ” I can state the same case for Rick, so my question is, does that make Rick dishonest? My opinion is no, because its just that an opinion, not a black and white fact. So I would just urge you to either hesitate from calling him dishonest or understand that it can be applied to Rick, Newt, and Paul because it is a matter of opinion. I do respect your opinion but do not like the generalization. I am sure there are plenty in the church that find his shared faith as a plus but to suggest they are voting for him strictly because of faith, I would disagree with. I do not think you would see the same result with Harry Reid running for President.

And Another Response by David Hall

Really? You are LDS and it doesn’t color you views? I don’t know how you do that. For me, it colors just about everything.

Your comments are thoughtful and I appreciate them.

Click here to visit the Liberty Musings conservative politics home page.

Comment by David Hall:
Dennis,
In personal relationships, of course we take a generous view of people and their faults. But in voting for President, in such a critical time as this, that course is dangerous. I am reminded about a comment that Pres. Hinckley made during the impeachment trial of Pres. Clinton, when asked whether he forgave Clinton. He clarified that, of course, on a personal level, he forgave him, but this was about his fitness for office, and judging is appropriate there and should not be confused with forgiveness.

I think you are being naively dismissive of the perils of our times and the need for courageous leadership to confront them. And if you are indeed “voting to win”, you are gravely misguided if you think that means we Republicans pick a moderate as our candidate. History does not bear you out, and in fact seems to indicate that victory is best assured by bold, likable conservatives. We have a long string of defeats under the banner of Republican moderates. That, of course, is not the chorus the Republican establishment is singing, but they have motives that are very different from mine, and I don’t listen to them. Read my earlier post about the myth of Romney’s electability.

The scriptural standard for office, from D&C 98:10, is, “Wherefore honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.” In 1972, when he was Church Commissioner of Education, Neal A. Maxwell commented on this scripture. He said, “In the Doctrine and Covenants, section 98, verse 10, we read that we should seek out men who are wise, good, and honest. When I first read these criteria years ago, they seemed quite general to me; they don’t now. Too often leaders can lead men astray because they lack one or more of these qualities. A leader can be bright but dishonest, and a leader can be honest and conceptually inadequate. A man may be a good man and yet lack the wisdom to cope with complex circumstances that can come upon him. This triad of virtues, for me, is a significant guide to selecting future leaders in any representative government.”

Visit the Liberty Musings conservative politics home page.

Response by David Hall:
Ooooh, nasty! Real, honest-to-goodness religious bigotry, right in front of us, folks, to look at in wonderment.

And just as a clarification – this is what I mean by people who read into these doctrines taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and don’t really understand those teachings. We don’t teach that we will be God. But we do believe that we are children of God, and we believe the Bible when it says that those who live righteously will be like God (1 John 3:1-2, Revelation 3:20-22). Beyond that, we don’t claim to know much about the subject.

And as a clarification of another point, there is a big difference between lying, which is something Bill Clinton did with great finesse and Barack Obama does with great brazenness, and the lack of political courage being displayed by Romney, which seems to be born out of a desire to be liked and approved of by others. I have never found Romney to lie about anything, where Barack Obama does that in seemingly every subject he addresses. I did not accuse Romney of lying.

So Sandy, it sounds like anyone who doesn’t share your religious beliefs, whatever they are or aren’t, is a liar in your eyes. Is that so?

You know, mocking someone’s religion is a very easy thing to do. Any religion has beliefs that could be mocked, and it is rather childish to do that. Christ was mocked, and it didn’t take a lot of intelligence to do that. I was in Junior High when Kennedy ran for President, and his Catholicism was mocked and some wouldn’t vote for him simply because of that. We have grown up as a country since then, but in your case, it looks like not completely. At some point, I hope you will grow up and get over this and learn a quiet deference and wholesome respect for other people’s sacred beliefs.

More Response by David Hall

I think what Pres. Hinckley did was prudent. It is not equivocation to emphasize one part of an answer rather than another. And it is not prudent to open up everything to everyone. There’s a principle that the Savior used in his teaching by teaching in parables, so that those who were sincerely interested could figure out what he meant by certain teachings, and others were not allowed to understand. Why does he have to reveal all that information to people who wouldn’t even understand it? Or, taking it a step further, Heavenly Father treats us the same way and we could similarly ask why He doesn’t let us know more clearly what He was like when He was mortal? He has His reasons why all that information wouldn’t really be good for us at this time.