The Gum Tree for 2007 October 12

Here is a very interesting take on the possible movement of evangelicals toward electing Hillary. The MSM (Mainstream Media) frequently portrays the Evangelical movement as a monolithic herd, but, as the article above points out, about 1/3rd of evangelicals voted for Clinton in 1996. I know that a Hillary presidency is anathema to many conservatives, but the republicans are where they are right now because they started doing thing to win elections in stead of doing things that helped the country. I like Giuliani, and about 3 years ago, I was really excited about the prospect of him running for president. The more I look at his positions on the issues I care about, however, as well as the character of the man; the more I am convinced that I might stay home on election day if the choice is between Giuliani and Clinton.

Thanks for the honest and discriminating dialogue. It is refreshing when people actually read the words I write instead of their own projections of bias on my words.

# 22 I guess my question, then, is if you think there is anything in other religions or philosophies or perspectives that is worth studying in order to understand.

I have found that the Gospel is a lens which is able to refract and focus the light of others and bring more clarity into the topics. That is the great efficacy of the Gospel (and the Gift of the Holy Ghost in particular). ‘The Good’ can be found everywhere, not simply inside of the church. Nature, Science, the Arts (rarely), and so on, all have intrinsic Good. It is always well to understand the Good in other religions, worldviews, etc. Shakespeare lived during a time of Apostasy, e.g., but that doesn’t disqualify his body of works for study, nor does it annul the Good found therein. But, all worldly knowledge and understanding is trivial compared to the knowledge of the Gospel. It is one thing to know how to temporally and spatially excise specific genes in the creation of Knockout mice (as 2007 Nobelist Mario Cappechi did), but it is quite another to understand the saving principles and ordinances of the Gospel. The former without the latter is trivial, and I think there will be a lot of disappointed people in the next life who will find that their life’s work will not amount to much. As Elder Maxwell has explained, a Mortician does good work here—especially if he does it with Charity. Also, how are we going to interact with people of other faiths, perspectives, etc. if we don’t first try to understand? It isn’t possible, but members of the church shouldn’t be at the feet of other religions to be taught because we already have the ‘fullness of the Gospel.’ These two are different, we already have the big picture, but we also need to understand how to best help others find the gospel through dialogue; reinforcing the Good, and helping to reject error and incorrect traditions. We cannot accomplish that goal if we are unfamiliar with either the wheat or the tares. #23:

#21: Joseph, I guess I would need to know what you put into your definition of ” What is found in the Gospel “to understand #21. Me..I like music and nature, but do not put them in my definition of”Gospel”. I think Joseph Smith had “meaning in his life before 1830. I feel many people have “meaning ‘ and “joy” in their life outside or without the Church.

I think my previous statements are necessary and sufficient on that point. Also, Moroni 7 was quoted in the original post, and a discussion of the Light of Christ vs. the Gift of the Holy Ghost would further clarify this point.

I did read ( maybe mistakenly ) shots at Atheist or those using “clever aesthetics and logical gymnastics, as having meaningless lives.

My statement was:

if I were an Atheist, I would say that my life is infinitely and absolutely meaningless notwithstanding all the clever aesthetics and logical gymnastics.

This is a hypothetical (note the use of “I” referring to myself) in which I was referring to the rank hypocrisy of atheists. They profess a doctrine, which if they lived by (or supposing it was true), would produce despair and suicide. Obviously the atheist of the world DO feel their life has loads of meaning; writing all kinds of books about that subject, but the fact remains that they have a portion of the Light of Christ sustaining their lives and intellectual pursuits; which they deny a priori, and with great hypocrisy. They do not practice what they preach, nor do they preach what they practice. They do not acknowledge the Light of Christ which DOES sustain their lives—giving them some modicum of meaning. This is rank hypocrisy.

While we are making up awards, why not award Al Gore the Nobel prize in Medicine or Chemistry, since he is obviously the most qualified scientist around, or since the 'catastrophe' of so-called Global Warming will kill off our children if we don't start eating organic food from our own 'green' garden; fertilized by our own feces (to reduce water pollution, of course). I know I am not a member of the Swedish Nobility, but perhaps somebody can show me some evidence how the .71 degree increase in the worlds temperature in the last 30 years has caused widespread war and what Al Gore has done to actually decrease war and poverty in the world. Perhaps next time they will award a Nobel Prize to all the babies who were aborted because they saved the earth from a massive population bomb, or to Prince Harry, because he is expected to carry out his mother's humanitarian efforts. . . in the future. The fact that the results of his actions are questionable right now need not bother us; since we are Royalist all, and we're oh so sure that he will be a good prince in his old age. No, don't argue; the matter is settled--Prince Harry is a humanitarian genius who will have done more to serve the poor and underprivilaged than we may ever know. Especially since the more he serve humankind, the less opportunity there is for him to serve humankind--so we'll just award his Peace prize right now and save ourselves the waiting. We can also overlook the 'inconvenient truth' that the policies that Gore is advocating will possibly lead to increased poverty in places like China, India or South America--and perhaps more war. This is the 'we have ours, and we are going to make sure that you don't get yours, because you'll pollute the earth too much' attitude. I suppose Al gore is a step up, though, compared to other Nobelist like Le Duc Tho who later turned out to have been partially responsible for the mass murder of millions of people. I guess this isn't the first time the Nobel Committee has shown poor judgement in awarding the Peace Prize (the U.N. recieved the award 3 times, America: 0). Maybe next year the Nobel Prize committee will cut-to-the-chase and award the Nobel Peace Prize to. . . themselves; they deserve it!