Loading ...SC governor: It wasn’t an affair, it was LOVE!!!
flockwoodYet another reason to be thankful you don’t live in South Carolina…
“This was a whole lot more than a simple affair, this was a love story,” Sanford said. “A forbidden one, a tragic one, but a love story at the end of the day.” — Luv Gov. (and Promise Keeper) Mark Sanford
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford said Tuesday that he “crossed lines” with a handful of women other than his mistress — but never had sex with them.
The governor said he “never crossed the ultimate line” with anyone but Maria Belen Chapur, the Argentine at the center of a scandal that has derailed his once-promising political career.
“This was a whole lot more than a simple affair, this was a love story,” Sanford said. “A forbidden one, a tragic one, but a love story at the end of the day.”
During an emotional interview at his Statehouse office with The Associated Press on Tuesday, Sanford said Chapur is his soul mate but he’s trying to fall back in love with his wife.
He said that during the encounters with other women he “let his guard down” with some physical contact but “didn’t cross the sex line.” He wouldn’t go into detail.
Sanford, 49, said the casual encounters happened outside the U.S. while he was married but before he met Chapur, on trips to “blow off steam” with male friends.
Sanford also admitted he saw Chapur more times than previously disclosed, including what was to be a farewell meeting in New York chaperoned by a spiritual adviser soon after his wife found out about the affair.
After that disclosure, South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster said Tuesday he has asked the State Law Enforcement Division to review all of Sanford’s travel records to see if any laws have been broken.
Sanford described five meetings with Chapur over the past year, including two romantic, multi-night stays with her in New York before they met there again intending to break up.
He said he saw her two other times, including their first meeting in 2001 at an open-air dance spot in Uruguay.
“There was some kind of connection from the very beginning,” he told The Associated Press, though he said neither that meeting nor a 2004 coffee date in New York during the Republican National Convention were romantic. Sanford had been considered a potential 2012 presidential contender before the scandal broke last week.
His interview was the first disclosure of any liaisons with Chapur in the United States and contradicted a public confession last week during which he admitted to a total of five encounters over their eight-year relationship.
He previously announced he would reimburse the state for money spent during a government trip to Brazil and Argentina in June 2008 when he saw Chapur. It was then, he said, that their relationship became physical, and the e-mails they’d exchanged for years reflected their anguish over what they had done.
“Now I am frightened,” he told the AP, describing his state of mind at the time. “It was before safe. But now it’s not safe. We gotta put the genie back in the bottle.”
He insists no public money was used for any other meetings with her.
He saw Chapur again in mid-June of this year, visiting Argentina without telling his staff he was going to be out of the country. He instead led them to believe he was hiking on the Appalachian Trail.
By the time he returned to a puzzled public, staff and family, his public image and emotional state had unraveled. He admitted the affair at a rambling press conference.
Now Sanford is attempting to salvage his personal and professional lives. He and wife Jenny, parents of four sons, say they are trying to reconcile their 20-year marriage but have not been sharing the same house for several weeks. Jenny Sanford found out about the relationship in January when she discovered a letter the governor had written to his mistress.
She did not immediately return a message seeking comment Tuesday, but she told The Associated Press in an interview Friday that her husband had repeatedly sought permission to visit Chapur.
“I said absolutely not. It’s one thing to forgive adultery; it’s another thing to condone it,” she said.
The governor said he met Chapur in Punta Del Este, Uruguay, in 2001 after his final term in Congress and before his first term as governor. He said the two struck up an e-mail correspondence after meeting on a dance floor — a chance encounter during which he counseled her into the night about her failing marriage.
For the next seven-plus years, Sanford said, the two exchanged messages, sometimes sporadically.
They met in New York two more times in 2008: two nights in Manhattan in September and three nights in the Hamptons in November. Each time, Sanford claims he flew coach, paid for it himself, paid for the hotels in cash and told his staff he was reachable by cell phone.
“At that point I was very careful, everything was paid for in cash,” Sanford said. “And you won’t find a credit card record.”
In early 2009, after Jenny Sanford discovered the affair, the couple went into counseling. She has told The Associated Press that he asked her several times to visit the mistress and she refused.
But the governor claims he wanted to end the affair in person and, with his wife’s permission, went to New York with a “trusted spiritual adviser” serving as chaperone. The three went to church and dinner together and parted ways the same night.
But he visited Chapur again in Argentina on June 18, the trip that brought the whole affair to light.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
The best analysis I’ve seen so far was by Maureen Dowd, who opened her column in the NYTimes this way:
“As in all great affairs, Mark Sanford fell in love simultaneously with a woman and himself — with the dashing new version of himself he saw in her molten eyes.”
June 30th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
I would disagree, as I’m sure he was in the midst of a deep and abiding love affair with himself long before she spiced it up.
June 30th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
MoDo (Maureen Dowd) has had some plagiarism issues before, so it’s not surprising that her characterization of Sanford’s motivations is taken almost word for word from the script of the movie “The Women” (1939 version). It’s part of the speech that Mary Haines’ mother gives her when she finds out Mary’s husband has been cheating on her.
Go team Dowd!
June 30th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
`The fact still remains he cheated on his wife repeatedly. What poor judgement, what a poor role model for his kids. Just like the forbidden fruit, can’t put it down, can’t leave it alone. What a dilemma to put your family in.
June 30th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
I think these guys would do so much less damage if they just divorced and moved on. If your needs aren’t being met in the relationship, and you can’t control yourself, you should at least put some legal distance between your family and your mid-life crisis.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:50 am
Yeah well, Niall, the problem with your analysis of such situations is that one can control themselves if they choose to do so. If it were not so, we’d be animals. I get tired of sitting on councils in our church where we strip men of their church membership or disfellowship them because of exactly this same thing. One by one, they admit that they had it better at home and that the grass was not greener.
It takes great courage for them to come and confess, don’t get me wrong. I just wish they could realize what they have before they “[send] and [enquire] after the woman.”
July 1st, 2009 at 5:02 am
[...] [...]
July 1st, 2009 at 11:00 am
Thank God the Episcopal Church doesn’t throw you out (or call you before the authorities) if you commit a sin. I’m not sure who’d be left.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:20 am
David Duke:
Ha ha ha. Right. That’s the answer. Just never do anything wrong! Ever! This is a staggering simplification of the issue we are discussing. Also, I thought the Gospel taught we are powerless to be good on our own. Doesn’t this poke a hole in your, “We can just choose to be good” argument?
Anyway, divorce is a perfectly legitimate way for people to end a dead relationship. Unless you’re going to tell me we can just “choose” to love anyone we need to? And therefore it’s our fault if we no longer do?
Oh, and really bad choice for a handle. Why would you want to promote a racist? I’m sure that’s something you could “choose” not to do.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:31 am
Niall, did you just get out of prison or the nuthouse, I can tell it won’t be long before your banned off this blog, how many does that make?
Religion is about denying the body, its about your mind over your flesh. Marriage is about 2 people working on keeping a commitment to each other, one they made when they were in love will each other. Please try and have some respect on this blog, ridicule is a lonely place to be.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:38 am
I’m not ridiculing, I’m criticizing. And your opinion that “religion is about denying the body” is deeply unchristian. It is in fact an ancient Christian heresy. So I’m surprised to hear you expressing it on this blog.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:38 am
One more thing…
If this blog can tolerate openly racist handles, it should have no problem accommodating my light-hearted criticisms.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:54 am
“Yet another reason to be thankful you don’t live in South Carolina.”
Hey Frank–I agree this is a disaster, but take it easy on S.C. as a whole. We have our challenges, but we’re making progress.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Niall, buddy, back off. Though I don’t know him personally, my understanding is that David Duke is his real name, not a “handle.” Though I gig him from time to time for his church’s views, David has never written anything racist on this blog, and I don’t have any reason to believe him to be a racist.
July 1st, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Caleb -
I’ll wait for him to tell us that David Duke is his real name. Since you don’t know him, you’re in no position to say. Because if it’s not his real name, it is clearly an open advocacy of racism. In that case, he’s the one who needs to “back off”, not me.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:43 pm
And yet, Niall, my advice remains: Back off until YOU know that it’s not his real name. I have some reason for believing that it is; at this point, you have none for believing that it’s not.
July 1st, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Caleb -
We are all waiting for Mr. Duke to verify whether it is his real name. You can fume and vituperate all you like until then.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:14 pm
You are hilarious, Niall. You making an assumption here, which disparages the character of one of our regular participants, with absolutely NO evidence that your assumption is true, and are attempting to take on the role of the injured party!
For the record, Niall, when I decide to vituperate, you’ll know it.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Niall, why would you think there is only one David Duke in the world? My religion is about denying the body, perhaps you can shed some light on yours so we can have the option so be so openly critical.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Niall,
Caleb is right… back off… and you might want to learn about this great thing called “google” that allows people to do 3 seconds worth of research to discover that you are not the first person to make this mistake.
See for instance:
http://biblebeltblogger.com/index.php/religion/the-bible-according-to-time-can-you-spot-the-error
You can still wait for David to answer you (though I think your cheap shots are hardly worth his time), but in the meantime you should know that 1. two long time readers have now told you its his real name and he has never posted anything remotely racist and 2. that it helps to give people the benefit of the doubt (unless, of course, you’re just being a troll).
July 1st, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Ok, minor correction:
Three long time commentors have now told you…
And you have to scroll down to the comments in the link above…
July 1st, 2009 at 3:32 pm
UKLutheran -
Well, actually, the first person to tell me that (Caleb) couldn’t say for certain. And Mr. Duke himself has never responded to the issue. You are the first, and only, person to provide any real response to my concern.
So thank you.
But back off!
(sorry, had to say that).
Now I hope we can return to a discussion of Mr. Duke’s heretical beliefs.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Niall,
Unlike the rest of us, Mr. Duke apparently has a real job that prevents him from blogging between the hours of 9 and 5. I’m guessing that’s why he hasn’t responded just yet.
Yes, David Duke is his real name and he’s about 38 years old. I know him. I grew up with him. I can vouch for him. And he’s top notch.
July 1st, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Oops. He’s about 40 years old.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Just to be clear, Niall, on two points.
Yes, my real name is David Duke. Born January 7, 1969. My biological mother gave me the name Douglas, but I was adopted at the age of 7 months and my adoptive parents renamed me David Lewis Duke after paternal and maternal great grandfathers.
The David Duke you’re referring to did not come into prominence, if you can call it that, until many years after I was born.
Another point: If we can’t choose to do good, then why did God give us commandments? Can we be perfect? No, and I certainly have never claimed to be. However, I think most people could do much better than they do with some effort and there are certainly enough men who do not cheat on their wives to reasonably assume such a thing is possible.
BTW, thanks Caleb, UK, Frank and perplexed.
Just a note to you Caleb. When we are faced with the excommunication of a member because of “sin” it is usually isn’t just because of the sin, but because of the covenants taken to live up to a certain standard. Also, when it does happen, we do everything we can in the way of fellowshipping and befriending that person to bring them back. Most that I have dealt with are rebaptized within a year or so and continue on in the gospel. They are never banished from attending church, but are encouraged to do so. Having attended a few “rebaptisms,” I’ve not had many more spiritual experiences in my life. Also, those who are excommunicated are those who had a great depth of gospel knowledge, thus “sinning against the greater light.” If their gospel knowledge was limited, it very rarely results in excommunication, but normally some sort of probation.
Excommunication, for us LDS, is simply part of the repentance process for “grosser” sins.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:14 pm
“If we can’t choose to do good, then why did God give us commandments?”
I believe Paul answered your question in the Epistle to the Romans. You might enjoy reading it.
Also my point about the Sanford case wasn’t that whenever married men feel the urge to fornicate they should do so. Rather, it was that if the marriage is dead and the love they need is not to be found there, the only honorable thing is to get a divorce, and then pursue your new single life. Hardly a radical notion.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Noticed something else, Niall, because I do not subscribe to the “we fell out of love theory.” That’s bunch of crap. It takes two to make a marriage work and sometimes divorce is legitimate. My sister was abuse by her first husband. I’m glad she divorced him and she is married now to a great man.
However, one thing that would help people in their relationships is if they would understand that love is not only a noun, it’s also a verb. To “love” someone is to serve them, “
July 1st, 2009 at 5:21 pm
(sorry, hit the wrong button…)
“even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.”
You can discuss my “heretical beliefs” if you choose, Niall, but while a lot of the people on this forum don’t agree with my beliefs, I’m sure they’ll tell you that I’m pretty good at backing them up with scripture and I’m not sure a “debate,” if you can call it that, with you would be worth my time. I’m not sure I’d learn anything from you, and I’m sure you wouldn’t learn anything from me. People of your ilk seldom do.
July 1st, 2009 at 5:23 pm
…and since I’m now 40 and have made it a practice to read the entire Bible at least twice per year since I was 18, well you can do the math in your head, I hope, and figure about how many times I’ve read the Epistle to the Romans….
July 1st, 2009 at 5:24 pm
By the way, I think you owe my mother an apology for your insult to my name….
July 1st, 2009 at 5:27 pm
David -
OK. You’re a Bible prodigy. So it’s odd that your view of the Law is anti-Pauline. Can you perhaps explain that?
And what exactly is my “ilk”?
July 1st, 2009 at 6:50 pm
This is a thread that I find neither educational nor entertaining but it’s important to add my comments about one matter. Sure, several of us did a double take the first time we saw David’s nom de blog. Upon hearing his explanation, however, we just nodded and that was that. David has been a faithful contributor to Frank’s forum and he has surely earned his place here as much as anyone. I say this as one who deeply disagrees with David about a number of theological and social points. More than once have butt heads so hard that we staggered away sore, but I don’t recall either of us finding it necessary to question the sincerity of the other.
July 1st, 2009 at 7:12 pm
David and I have our disagreements, but he’s much better at articulating a clear defense of his beliefs than I am mine, and he’s always respectful to people. So get a new problem, OK!
To quote old SNL (Mike Meyers as Deiter in the early 90′s):
“Your story has grown tiresome, Niall–this is the time on Sprockets when we dance.”
July 1st, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Just out of curiosity Naill, or Jewish or Hindu?
July 1st, 2009 at 9:45 pm
At 40, I think I’m a little old to be called a prodigy, don’t you think? And I’m not anti-Pauline, I just don’t think you’re interpreting Paul correctly….
Enought with this one, really. Sorry if I was disrespectful at all, especially to you, Naill. We try to honor all of our beliefs here, and be respectful, so I was sort of caught off guard when you were going off on my name. It had a been a ridiculous day at work (side note…HSBC bank has the worse customer service of any company I’ve ever dealt with, and I’ve dealt with every major bank and most minor ones….) but that was no excuse to retaliate in kind, no matter what you’d written.
To everyone else, thanks.
If you want to discuss the Pauline letters with respect to a certain passage of scripture, Naill, that’s cool. Let’s just be respectful about it and forget the name calling, OK? Truce? Since it’s pretty obvious that you’re a “grace alone saves” believer, which most here are, I think, then we’re not going to agree, because I believe that the Savior’s grace saves us because we can’t possibly do it ourselves (no human I know of can raise himself from the dead….), but that doesn’t absolve us of our responsibility to keep the commandments and that will determine as well our ultimate destiny in the “many mansions” of our Father. What we’ve found here is that Caleb, Peach, perplexed, Jose and a host of others, including myself, can defend our beliefs from the scriptures, yet we disagree on points. One day, all of us will know…that much I know.
Good night all!
David
July 1st, 2009 at 10:06 pm
David -
In your response to my post, you stated that all people need to do is choose to be good, and they can be. If this were true, we would not need the undeserved grace of Christ. Paul made very clear that we do not in fact simply have the power to choose the good. If we could, we would not need Christ. Paul also makes very clear in Romans that it is precisely the commandments (the law) that make it impossible to be good. Therefore your idea that we can only be good through the commandments is anti-Pauline. QED.
As for owing an apology to your mother – it is not I who have brought disgrace to your name, but that other David Duke. I suggest you contact him with your demand.
Perplexed:
I’m surprised you’d be interested in the creed of someone who “just got out of prison or the nuthouse”. You’re pretty good at slinging insults for someone who pretends to be above it all.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:51 am
I think Niall is irish, as in the old kings.
Actually Niall it’s your screed were paying attention to much more than your creed. Contrary to many unchurched people out there (those people we are supposedly in need of reaching), there is a difference between the two. All the bickering and name calling doesn’t do anyone any good, and surely doesn’t make your point of view more convincing.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:34 am
Naill, believe I’m not above it all, I’m usually right in the middle of it. I can’t help but notice how you demand answers to questions and yet you fail to reciprocate. Whats up with that? The way you present yourself puts people on the defensive. You have the air of being above it all, whether thats a front or not remains to be seen. Most of us have bared our soul on this blog at one time or another, and we have lost some because of unprovoked attacks by others. So, forgive me if I seem to want to sort you out, just remember, conversation runs both ways.
July 2nd, 2009 at 10:37 am
David, while no doubt I should either attack you for your name, heretical beliefs, or for having a real job, I really don’t care about those things. It saddens me to have to point out, though, that you used the word “fellowshipping” in your post as a verb. Sigh. I suppose as we enter this Fourth of July holiday, we should particularly celebrate that portion of the constitution or bill of rights that gives every word the right to turn into a verb.
Just kidding, David: Have a great Fourth of July weekend! But watch those verbs . . . they’re action words, and will get you every time!
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:14 pm
You’re right, of course, Caleb! At past 10 at night, I just couldn’t figure out a better way to say it! But hey, I’m not an attorney, never claimed to be a wordsmith, and I’m not sure you can say that loan officer is a real job since I can make up my own schedule!
Have a great 4th also! Happy 4th to all!
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:37 am
Niall,
I’ll bite…
Your “no one is good” arguments stems from Romans 3:10-12, “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”
Notice Paul’s first words of verse 10: “As it is written…” Obviously he is quoting someone. Who? The Psalmist, David. Both Psalms 14 and 53 start this way: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is NONE THAT DOETH GOOD.” Then the Psalmist states that “God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”
What does that mean. Does it mean that man cannot DO good at all? That cannot be. Why can it not be? Because there are several other verses from Paul, even in the Epistle to the Romans, where Paul states that we SHOULD be “good.”
For example: (Capitals added by me for emphasis.)
Romans 11:22, “Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, IF THOU CONTINUE IN HIS GOODNESS: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.”
Romans 2:1-10, “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
Who will render to every man according to his DEEDS: To them who by patient continuance in WELL DOING seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not OBEY the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to EVERY MAN WHO WORKETH GOOD, to the Jew first, and also to the cGentile:
Long one, I know, but look at the words I’m capitalized: DEEDS, WELL DOING, OBEY, EVERY MAN WHO WORKETH GOOD…All of these words state that not only can we CHOOSE, but Paul is saying that it is expected that we do so. I mean, how much clearer can it be? “EVERY MAN WHO WORKETH GOOD” will receive glory, honour and peace.
In reality, we find Paul’s emphasis regularly on teaching the Jews that adherence to the Mosaic Law will not save them, but the “goodness” of Jesus Christ, His grace. He had been a member of the Sanhedrin, thus he understood that the Jews of his time, for the most part, thought the law would save them. He knew that to be incorrect, thus his emphasis on grace in his teachings. However, one cannot, when reading all of Paul’s teachings and taking them into context who he is speaking to and who Paul is, determine that Paul ever taught that we cannot choose to act in harmony with the commandments.
My question to you, and any other who states things similar about how we can do nothing is simply this? Will you take only the words of Paul to determine your ideas of the gospel and deny those spoken by the Savior himself, who time after time tells us to “keep the commandments” and even, GASP!, stated, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” Not sure how we can be “perfect” if we can’t even be “good.” Do you?
For you to say that no one is “good” or no one can choose to act well (use that word instead of good if it eases your mind) because Paul chose to use this particular word in showing our condemned condition without the grace (or goodness) of Jesus Christ, then I guess we cannot use the word “father” in our vocabulary either. I mean, Jesus stated, “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”
If I use your same literal interpretation of one word, as you have done with Paul’s particular use of one word, then I guess I better start calling my father something else. I wonder if he’d like “tall, bald dude?”
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:20 am
I don’t know David… the Bible (2 Kings 2:23-24, to be specific) would seem to caution against calling someone “tall, bald dude.”
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:47 am
True, UK. I wouldn’t want to get torn apart by bears….
July 3rd, 2009 at 9:52 am
David’s baaaaack!!!
I think it’s hilarious to read posts from two people, each of whom claims to believe that the Bible is “true” and “inerrant,” whatever that means, slice and dice it like a Ronco Bible-Matic.
I guess I thought the issue was pretty simple. We’re all human. Humans sin. Therefore we all sin. However, if we consciously try to do good, we will do some good, but not enough good to keep us from being sinners, because we’re, after all, human. BUT that’s all ultimately okay, because we are saved by grace, not works.
Unfortunately, “tall, bald dude” wouldn’t work for my own father, who is neither tall nor bald. I doubt that “short bearded hillbilly” would go over well, either, though it describes both him and me.
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:39 am
That whole “no one is good” thing is sort of a fundamentalist cliche’. They always put it in their list of “salvation in five easy steps”. The last step or so always involves walking through the door of their particular church.
But you go, David. I wish I could work with scripture on my feet like you do
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Caleb,
This issue is simple. Sometimes it just takes a long post to explain “simple.” And just to be clear, I’ve never said the Bible is “inerrant,” just true. Remember, one of our LDS Articles of Faith states, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God, so far as it is translated correctly…”
I just wish the “tall” would describe me also, but I guess I’ll just settle for a full head of hair!
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Oh, and by the way, Caleb, although many would want to dispute that because they think they know what we (LDS) believe better than I do, your explanation is a very concise doctrinal statement on exactly what we believe.
Compare: “I guess I thought the issue was pretty simple. We’re all human. Humans sin. Therefore we all sin. However, if we consciously try to do good, we will do some good, but not enough good to keep us from being sinners, because we’re, after all, human. BUT that’s all ultimately okay, because we are saved by grace, not works.”
to
“For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” (2 Nephi 25:23, The B of M)
and
Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.” (Moroni 10:32, The B of M)
Sounds pretty darn close to me….
July 4th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
And you thought I was an apostate, David.
July 4th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
BTW, David, while my father does have a full head of hair, you’d have to describe me as a short bald bearded hillbilly . . .
July 4th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
I have written to replies if both show up I apologize if neither show up–I will redo another one–frank you have 48 hours.
July 4th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Okay now I have sent four through-so Frank pick the best and post it please
July 6th, 2009 at 11:42 am
David:
Paul is very clear in Romans that the natural man cannot choose, all by himself to be good. He states this explicitly:
Romans Chapter 7
6But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.
4For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Note that Paul says explicitly that Christians are delivered from the Law, and are not subject to it.
As he writes in Romans 10:4: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.”
Paul also states in Romans 3:20: “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”
Paul’s whole argument in Romans is that all the Law and Commandments can do is to create the conditions for sin to occur. It does not give people the ability to cease to sin. As he writes in Romans 3:
“19Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.
20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. ”
Paul was very clear about this. A Christian cannot do good of his own volition, and the commandments will not make him good.