1) Obama believes in the right to abortion and has voted repeatedly in support of this right. Although there is some controversy, Obama has also given evidence that he has opposed legislation that would protect babies who survived abortion from their right to life. Without adding insult to the injury, or to inflame those who wish to attempt to dismantle the argument, we will deal strictly on the issue of abortion (not infanticide) as Obama has eliminated debate on his stand on abortion. In an Illinois state test given to its legislators on the issue, Obama's answer stated, "Abortions should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade." Additionally, Obama has reduced the social status of children to being punishments to the women conceiving them. There is no secret that the church stands openly and consistently against the practice of abortion for personal or social convenience and consider children to be holy. So much so that "Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church." This is strong language supporting the sanctity of the church's position that life is of the highest value and that murder, or the taking of life against one's will, is the second greatest sin that a person can commit. On this stand alone, one could make the argument that Obama is supporting a woman's right to violate the law of chastity without social or economic recourse, as well as the death of innocent children. Two of the strongest issues that a politician can take stand on, are issues that Obama stands in clear conflict with church policy.
2) Gay Rights: This is an issue that the Church has taken very public issue with. The Church does not support homosexual lifestyles, the practice of homosexuality, and does not support homosexual marriage. With that being said, the church has also recently supported an ordinance in Salt Lake City that would not allow for discrimination against an individual in the arena of housing and employment based on being gay. With that being said, one could summarize the Church's stand in saying that being gay is a moral issue where God is the supreme judge and employment and housing are temporal issues that no human being should be denied based on the issue of personal or private moral conduct. Barack Obama is actually closer to the church on this issue than some think. While Obama clearly supports gay lifestyles as not being a choice (the church opposes this idea), Obama is quite in line with the church based on this statement, "Now, with respect to marriage, it’s my belief that it’s up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not. But in terms of, you know, the rights of people to transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government, those should be equal." (Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007)
So while Obama clearly does not oppose the homosexual lifestyle, his reasoning on a social level is inline with the church to a certain degree. This is a religious matter. So perhaps on this issue there is "recommend neutrality". Although one could make the argument that the issue of spiritual significance is that Obama supports a sinful lifestyle that the church has openly opposed.
These are the clear issues, abortion and homosexuality, where Obama stands opposed to the Church under official acts or declarations of the Church. If we were to turn to statements made by church presidents/prophets that stand against Obama's actions the list could go on for miles.
Based on two of the most significant and current intersections of where Church policy and social policy meet, Obama teaches and endorses practices and principles opposed to those being taught by the church. These are also issues where the Democratic party are inline with Obama's feelings. So this does beg the question, does someone who supports Barack Obama or the democratic party stand in violation to the question in the temple recommend interview? This is a deeply personal judgement call and is made ONLY by the person or people who are given inspirational authority to judge. But ultimately is the agency of the individual who is disclosing their worthiness to the Lord's representatives in the temple recommend interview.
For this writer, I feel that there is ample evidence that agreement with Barack Obama or the democratic party on these issues is a direct and clear violation of the temple recommend worthiness interview. I see no accord with supporting and sustaining the church, promising to keep the commandments that uphold the principles of chastity in marriage between a man and a woman as well as the sanctity of life, and do so without hypocrisy in supporting Barack Obama on these issues. One can be a democrat and not be in accord with these principles of the party. However, considering the significance of these platforms to the democratic party, I would question as to why one would be a democrat if they disagreed with their party on these issues of utmost significance.
Should one hold a current temple recommend if they support the republican party? Republicans do not support any money going to children to make sure they have access to medical care. Republicans do not support money going to educate the child. Republicans do not support children in foster care to be raised by loving gay couples who would give all the necessities for that child. Your statement is very one-sided.
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, this post is seriously misguided. I'm not even a democrat, nor did I vote for Obama, but I can't help but make a few points:
ReplyDelete1. President James E. Faust was a democrat. Other prominent Mormons have also been democrats. Are you seriously suggesting that these men might not be temple worthy?
2. In 1988 the Church actually assigned Marlin K. Jensen, a Democrat, to give an interview to the Salt Lake Tribune stating explicitly that it was possible to be a good Mormon and a Democrat.
3. According to newsroom.lds.org, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics...the Church does not endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms..." That includes the Republican party. :)
4. The Republican party also holds to principles that are un-Mormon and un-Christian. See Mr. Geoff's comment above, for example.
5. “Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of 'nature and nurture.' All of us have some feelings we DID NOT CHOOSE…Perhaps such susceptibilities are inborn or acquired without personal choice or fault…” Elder Dallin H. Oaks, speaking about same-sex attraction.
Mr Geoff...
ReplyDeleteI am not sure one could support ALL the tenants of any political party and in good faith say they have not supported something against church standards, but your shots against the republican party isn't going to hurt anyone who regularly contributes to this blog since I don't know that any of us are republicans.
As for the retarded statements you have made about foster-care, let me educate you so as to keep you from eating your own foot in the future.
I have been involved in foster-care the last 29 years previously in California, and now here in Utah. The church as you should know has an adoption agency to place children in loving temple worthy LDS homes, not very long ago there was a sister agency under LDS Family Services that also placed children in LDS run Foster care. The Church eventually gave up foster care. WHY? Because the government came in and said they had to allow gay couples, and single parents to take in the foster children. The church, being advocates for homes with mothers and fathers, felt that rather than compromise those standards, they would close the foster parenting program. As for republicans not supporting public schooling, neither does the church. They say in multiple places and ways that it is the duty of parents to educate their children and deficits in the education of children are accountable to parents, not the government. If you doubt that statement please read the scriptures, the family proclamation and search education of children on www.lds.org.
As for arguements being one-sided, I find myself wanting to laugh. Of course they are one sided. He is expressing his opinion, if you have a two-sided opinion is it really an opinion?
JDD, thank you for comment, however I will (of course) disagree that this is a misguided post.
ReplyDeleteThis post is not an endorsement of the republican party. So lets dismiss that right off. Republicans have their faults. This was more towards Obama and Obama's party. This is not to slam democrats although I can see how what I wrote could be interpreted that way. I do make a very clear and deliberate distinction that being a democrat is no sin. I do say however (and I gave emphasis to this in the article) that agreement with Obama or the democratic party "in these issues" are where violation of the temple interview question takes place - not in party affiliation itself.
Second issue:
There is a huge difference between being gay and having gay feelings or tendencies. So please don't confuse the two as this is where a great deal of conflict lies. People may not chose to have certain tendencies, but they do have a choice to indulge in them.
What I have chosen to write on is not a matter of interpretation in the sense that I have taken Barack's statements and placed them up against official church declarations. These are not issues of party preference. These are the issues that are clear and without refute. There is a clear distinction between the two. I have avoided socialism, taxation, and other subjects that are loaded with preference and interpretation. With these two issues Barack has been clear, and the church has been clear. They oppose each other on these issues.
Republicans not wanting federal dollars for the health care of children is not to say that republicans don't want children to have health care. Republicans just disagree with who pays for it. Plus, the brethren have not commented on or made a spiritual tie to health insurance. We can care for children with or without universal health care.
And don't you find it ironic that liberals and democrats use children to pitch their health care reform but then advocate the right to abort children (essentially de-healthing them)? I don't buy arguments loaded with blatant hypocrisy and neither should you.
That's the problem with supporting political parties rather than candidates. And this is the reason the country is going to CRAP. Because there are only two choices and they both suck. If we had people who ran on principle ie. Borders, Language, and Culture - No more illegals, English is the official language, and if you live here then be proud to be an American. Principles such as honesty/integrity and put principle before self. Mr. Geoff are you closely related to any of the other fat twinkie eating inbred liberal retards that post on this site? Because your comments leave plenty to be desired.
ReplyDeleteGWH, that was kind of uncalled for wasn't it? If they are so inferior, then why insult them so directly? Let them hang themselves if they are incorrect in their thinking.
ReplyDeleteOh I see, James. M Galt is free to accuse people of eating twinkies but when Great White Hope does it, it's suddenly insulting. I'm tired of liberal stupidity. Sometimes I just gotta vent. Sorry you took offense.
ReplyDeleteHoly crap - I am dumber after reading this post. Maybe the bigger question is, should you be allowed to be a Democrat if you are a temple recommend holder?... sounds rediculous right? Almost as rediculous as this post.
ReplyDeleteSo Mr. or Mrs. Anonymous, what is so ridiculous about the post? Is there something you disagree with?? If so, what?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous here. I should pre-emp my comment by saying I am more of a NOM, not a TBM.
ReplyDeleteThere are so many reasons that this post bothers me, but I will list the biggest problem I have with it:
It propigates the mentality that church members "get in line" and support and/or oppose one candidate or one proposition... otherwise they are somehow unworthy or unjust. Life is not black and white. You cannot say one is worthy or unworthy because they are for or against a political candidate or a political cause.
I guess the thing that bothers me the most is that I imagine a lot of TBMs would read this post and say, "yea, he's right on! I should not suupport Obama". And that's why I'm having a hard time staying in Mormonism... it feels too much like 1984.
Perhaps I would know more of what you meant if you explained NOM and TBM.
ReplyDeleteI don't have any idea what you mean with that.
TBM = True Believing Mormon
ReplyDeleteNOM = New Order Mormon. To complicated to explain... link in case you are interested in understanding more: http://www.newordermormon.org/
Anon... are you saying it is ok to support abortion? It is still the taking of an innocent life. Yes, I am aware of the church's stand that it can be ok in cases of rape or incest or for the health of the mother, and I have no issue with those cases. But if a woman goes out and has sex and gets pregnant, she is responsible to bring that life into the world. Once it is born she can give it up for adoption if she prefers not to have the ordeal of raising an unwanted child.YOu say life is not black or white, but that is where I think satan has won a battle. There is right and wrong. If you are in doubt pray about your options in any situation. The Lord always inspires the right choice. Another way to look at it is that the lord can not tolerate the LEAST DEGREE of evil in his presence. What is gray, but good mixed with a little bit of evil, the philosophies of men mingled with scripture? The difference between the Lord's gospel and 1984 is that though you can only reach exaltation one way, the Lord says you don't have to have exaltation if you don't want it.
ReplyDeleteWhile I personally don't think being a supporter of Obama calls temple worthiness into question, I do feel that in fighting for gay marriage or for abortions is in serious conflict with church policies and Jesus' teachings. And just to forestall the argument Jesus taught love, not murdering innocent babies or allowing and encouraging sin to continue, only to accept them as God's children despite those choices.
Understand that both major parties represent the political ambitions of the world at large. They are designed to be popular in the apostate world.
ReplyDeleteBoth are brimming with corrupt officials and both dedicate much of their party platforms to evil.
Can you support the Republicans' practice of unjustifiable wars of spite? Can you support their policy of socializing corporate losses and privatizing corporate gains?
If you want to go down this road, I think the right question is, "Can you be a temple recommend holder and support any major political party?"
Don't buy the propagandists. Hannity, Limbaugh, etc., are all actors, and they are bad dudes.
Oh, they are bad dudes...thank you. So when you met with Rush did he tell you he was bad or did you deduce that on your own? I would never vote for him for president, and Hannity is annoying, but I don't know that I could classify them as "bad dudes". What exactly have they done to earn this classification? I look at the record of Obama and there are many, but the strongest reason for me to classify him as a "bad dude" would be his long association with Reverend Wright. Yes, the same man who said "Goddamn America for killing innocent people!" and "Hillary don't know what it's like to be called a Nigger!" - These are direct quotations mind you. If Bush had associated himself for 20 years with the KKK he never would have been elected. And yet half of the American people and 98% of Blacks in this country are A-OK with our current president associating himself with an openly racist pastor not just for a year or two but for 20. And the same man who baptised his children....Come on! Why are all these things overlooked? Why is he given a pass? He supported partial birth abortions and infanticide in the state of Illinois, he associated and continues to associate with people of questionable background ie. Bill Ayers, and a number of his Czars who happen to be open members of the Communist party of America. There continues to be questions around the origins of his birth and whether or not he is an American born citizen. He has delivered on none of his campaign promises, except for maybe "change" because he never enumerated what exactly that meant, and he's actively changing this country into a socialist republic. So just in his background and associations he is a "bad dude". Then look at his policies - He's anti-gun, anti-traditional family, anti-christian, anti-democratic, anti-capitalist/free market economy, anti-military (he questions the recommendations of his military commanders in the field), anti-American oil independence, and just plain Anti-American as America has existed. It's not racist to question the president in his policies. He is the racist bringing the color of his skin into everything he does. MLK has got to be rolling in his grave along with the Founding Fathers with what this destructive frontman, and his destructive party are doing to this country. They are destroying opportunity under the guise of "The government will take care of you." It disgusts me. And it disgusts me that liberals are so brain dead to not question any of these things. They blindly follow because they are emotionally based rather than logic/reality based. You can tell a liberal the sky is blue and they disagree and tell you it's green because they "feel" that it's green. How can a country function with so many irrational lazy people?
ReplyDeleteTo Annonymous,
ReplyDeleteYour classifications of TBM and NOM seems to be an embarrassing admission. In fact the distinctions seem to be born of individuals who wish to compartmentalize and rationalize a desire to conform the teachings of Christ to the gospel they want to live, as opposed to the gospel God wants us to live. This also speaks to a very significant reason that this question is in the temple recommend interview.
There are two scriptures that summarize the significance of why one should even ponder this question:
D&C 88:22 - For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.
D&C 105:4-5 - 4 And are not united according to the union required by the law of the celestial kingdom;
5 And Zion cannot be built up unless it is by the principles of the law of the celestial kingdom; otherwise I cannot receive her unto myself.
If you disagree with celestial law, or the commandments and teachings of the Church, you are not worthy of the temple (the place on earth that symbolically represents the celestial kingdom).
TBM or NOM is an irrelevant distinction. In the end it doesn't matter what we have chosen if it is not the gospel of Christ and to follow HIS laws. This is not 1984, this is exaltation and eternal life. You cannot align yourself with principles such as abortion or homosexuality in direct defiance to God's law and the teachings and practices of His church without disqualifying yourself for exaltation by violating celestial law.
I repeat, this is not an endorsement of a party, or a candidate. This is a voice against principles that Obama and the democratic party "officially" embrace and that stand in conflict with the official teachings of the church. If the only argument people have against what I wrote is that they feel that this is an endorsement of the republican party let me repeat - the republican party can be lumped into this - so go ahead. Concluding such doesn't disqualify my argument. The principles I share apply to any principle embraced by any individual or group that opposes the teachings and practices of the Church.
James,
ReplyDelete"Your classifications of TBM and NOM seems to be an embarrassing admission"
Yea - I'm pretty embarrassed.
Clearly you and I are at different points in our spiritual journey, and I have no desire to try and pull you out of the place you are at if it works for you.
I want to thank you because your polarizing rhetoric and condescending tone have helped me to realize that maybe my days in this church are numbered. I don't feel comfortable associating myself with the judgmental, fear-mongering mentality that you embrace... and if you are the voice of the average Mormon, then maybe its time for me to go.
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteDo not go trying to shuffle off responsibility for your choices to James or anyone else. You said it yourself: it is YOUR spiritual journey.
Sounds to me like you made the decision yourself. You are the one who has decided that you know better than the Lord's annointed Prophet what the Gospel means.
If you are going to make a decision, make it for yourself. Do not try to blame someone else for "pushing you over the edge."
Now, that being said: I do not think Zionlist is so far-fetched to say that being a member of any single political party may in fact be contrary to holding a temple recommend. Yes, I understand his hyperbole, but when you consider the question in the temple recommend interview...there is much about every party that seems to run contrary to the teachings of the Gospel. Heck, being an attorney I have to pause every time I am asked that question to consider whether or not being a member of the Bar disqualifies me.
Yes, I do in fact ask myself that question.
What, then, does that leave us as a government? Well, as far as the worldly government is concerned, I am a believer that every man and woman should vote according to the dictates of their own conscience. If one does so, it is impossible to say that the individual "wasted" a vote.
On a larger scale, this discussion runs smack dab into something I have been thinking about lately: as Priesthood holders, what should we be doing as members of our community. (I will not mention the White Horse prophecy, except to say that I will not be mentioning it.) I will say, as a preface to my comment, that I do not know the answer to this; I simply pose it as a question that is in my own mind.
How are we best to serve our families, communities, country? Perhaps it is by our example, and/or perhaps it is by our calling. President John Taylor once said, "'I shall … briefly answer that [the priesthood] is the government of God, whether on the earth or in the heavens, for it is by that power, agency, or principle that all things are [upheld and] governed on the earth and in the heavens, and [it is] by that power that all things are upheld and sustained. It governs all things—it directs all things—it sustains all things—and has to do with all things that God and truth are associated with.
“It is the power of God delegated to intelligences in the heavens and to men on the earth. … When we arrive in the celestial kingdom of God, we shall find the most perfect order and harmony existing, because there is the perfect pattern, the most perfect order of government carried out, and when or wherever those principles have been developed in the earth, in proportion as they have spread and been acted upon, just in that proportion have they produced blessings and salvation to the human family; and when the government of God shall be more extensively adopted, and when Jesus’ prayer, that He taught His disciples is answered, and God’s kingdom comes on the earth, and His will is done here as in heaven, then, and not till then, will universal love, peace, harmony, and union prevail.”"
As Priesthood holders we should be striving to do whatever is possible to work towards universal love, peace, etc., while understanding that God's government will include nothing evil, perverse, or worldly. It is difficult for me to believe that under God's government that unborn children will be violently torn from the womb and killed. It is likewise difficult for me to believe that rampant waste, greed, and corruption will be existent, let alone prevalent.
There is much to dislike in any political party, especially if viewed through the eyes of the Priesthood. Would we not be better off if we all voted for the person (or the spirit of the person) who held our own ideals? Would we not be better off spending our time and energies promoting the kingdom of God instead?
Amen, Iguana. I do believe that there is much to be said as members of the church not endorsing a party, but perhaps a candidate that we feel best serves our feelings on government. In fact the church's policy on that is the same. So when I write about supporting Obama or the democrats in these two issues, they are simply the figure heads, the individuals or groups, that embrace these principles. Obama has some good in him (no this is not a Darth Vader reference). But I consider these two issues to be of great significance. They are clear and obvious and void of propagandist rhetoric. Both parties are taken at their words.
ReplyDeleteSo for Anonymous, Mr. Geoff, or anyone else that felt to disagree with me, thank you for sharing your opinion. But I encourage you to deeply consider why you would disagree with a post that was really all about supporting abortion and homosexuality? Do not these principles stand against church doctrines?
I still endorse the policy and belief that we are able to chose for ourselves our own answer to the questions of the temple recommend interview. Those choices determine our eternal standing with the only truly righteous judge - God. But God has given us certain standards by which we can make that decision. My post was to do my part to share and clarify MY interpretation of that standard.
I know I'm going way back to MrGeoff and his opening comment but can some one other then me not punch holes through his illogical statements. "republicans do not support money going to educate the children." Are you kidding me? Bush, a republican signed the largest public education bill in history, remember no child left behind? At least James backed up his ridicules posting with references and actual statements of fact.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, while members of the church can be aggravating IM has a point. Polarizing rhetoric or what ever you want to call it is kind of par for the course in a church that claims to be the only true church on the face of the earth.
I have to say, that I don't feel comfortable backing up candidates, who support total ban on abortion (a substantial part of socially conservative "issue candidates").
ReplyDeleteThe reason for this is, that if abortion is completely illegal, it will lead to many women dying in the hands of butch-job "doctors." If I were in the situation where my wife was dying from a pregnancy gone wrong, I would definitely support the idea that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare." (You should recognize this as Obama's "official" stance, also. The trouble is that people are seldom always consistent.)
Too bad these comments deteriorated into sophomoric posturing.
No Child Left Behind was underfunded each year and just bad all around. Yes, Republicans don't put money into education.
ReplyDeleteBack to the post, It's poor judgement for anyone to think that God is a member of any American political party. That is what James is implying, even if he says he's just as critical with Republicans, which he clearly is not.
I am absolutely not implying that God is a member of a political party! Where did you pull that from? I said that those who agree with Obama and the democratic party on the issue of abortion and homosexuality stand in conflict with the teachings of the church. Nothing more, nothing less.
ReplyDeleteWhere does God's political party enter into it?
You don't express criticism of the Republicans like the Democrats. That is why you imply God to be in favor of Republicans. It doesn't have to be directly stated.
ReplyDeleteIf you want me to write a post about the republicans I can. Would that change the truth of what I wrote?
ReplyDeletePerhaps you will one day see that there are more options out there than democrat and republican. An attack on one does not mean an endorsement of the other.
Yet you continue to go after Obama and the Democrats. My point is still valid. You don't have an issue with Republicans because you are one. I know you keep pulling a Bill O'Reilly but he is a Republican too.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I am not a republican.
ReplyDeleteYour implications are in your mind. Stop trying to discount my writing by injecting your brand of crazy and pass it off as my opinion. God does not have a political party affiliation, nor am I endorsing a political party with what I wrote. I don't even criticize the democrats on anything more than these two issues.
So now what?
I am really getting tired of your misplaced judgements about who I am and what I am writing about. What is the flaw in the information? Have I miss quoted Obama? Have I miss quoted the church? No? Then what is it? Why the fight?
No question about it; you are a Republican. Why else would you post so many times with criticism of Democrats? If it quacks like a duck-it's not a rooster.
ReplyDeleteFYI one of the temple questions is about being honest.
Wow.
ReplyDeleteJames, James , James,....
ReplyDeleteYou should know there are only two parties. I mean all those people who list themselves as
*green-party
*Constitutionalists
*Libertarian
*socialist,
* American Party
* America First Party
* America's Independent Party
* Boston Tea Party
* Florida Whig Party
* Independence Party of America
* Moderate Party
* Modern Whig Party
* Marijuana Party
* Objectivist Party
* Party for Socialism and Liberation
* Peace and Freedom Party - active primarily in California
* Prohibition Party
* Reform Party of the United States of America - not to be confused with an offshoot of the party, the American Reform Party (below)
* Socialist Equality Party
* Socialist Party USA - originally founded in 1901 as the Socialist Party of America
* Socialist Workers Party
* Unity Party of America
* Workers World Party
* Working Families Party
Since none of these are Democrats, they must by default all be Republicans too ashamed to admit what they are.
MrGeoff "underfundeed" means less then you may have wanted but still more then any Democrat up to that point had spent so on your sliding scale of money=caring Republicans must care more then Democrats. I do agree though that it was bad all around as is almost every government program. Stop parsing words and admit that your unfounded unbacked up statements are wrong. Do a little research and you'll find that people who classify themselves as conservative (a line most often used by Republicans) give to charity far more then Democrats. The facts on this are out there if you actually care to think outside your box
ReplyDeleteBeyond that your inability to see beyond the two party system is perhaps a symptom of a very closed way of thinking. Are all things and choices in your life limited to only two? Are you this suspicious of everyone who deviates from your two choice system of thinking? Clearly you need to go back to the drawing board and see that there are many more then two simple choices. While criticism is centered on Obama have you stopped to think that this is because he and the party he represents are currently 100% in control? Deviation from your two choices thought pattern and your reaction to it is simply scary, not exactly the freedom of thought I would expect from some one who claims such open love and caring for all things liberal and left wing. I thought you guys are the party of openness and inclusion?
And Crayon Face, please don't confuse MrGeoff with so many choices. He can only see the world in two colors and choices. I sure hope this doesn't carry over to seeing people as only two colors.
Has James told us what party he is a member of? No. Wow. Hard to state your political party on a blog. Has James told us the last six presidential canidates he voted for? No. Wow. Wouldn't want to reveal a biased record.
ReplyDeleteC'mon James. We (I) am waiting.
Well since I am only so old, I can say that I am only old enough to vote for the last so many presidents.
ReplyDeleteI am currently without party as I am trying to find which one matches what I most agree with. I don't believe an individual can be completely in accord with any one party and be honest with themselves. But I am either libertarian, or independent party. Libertarian/Constitutionalist because I think they seem to have their heads on straight most of the time. Libertarianism can become an extreme that I want to avoid if possible. Independent because it seems like there is great deal more freedom to vote however you want without conflict, morally, or politically.
In any case, I will probably go independent for the fact that I like to not feel like I am towing a party line - not because I think they are middle of the road. As I said, I tend to closely identify with libertarians in most instances. So either one works for me really. I know that it is not the current version of the republicans, or the democrats - definitely not the socialists.
My presidential voting record demonstrates my evolving philosophies and illustrates my growing education in the world of politics. I can honestly say that I am learning more and more each year. The Education of hard knocks in the sense that at first I believed what politicians told me. So I have voted for Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and John McCain. Regrettably I voted for John McCain. What that really was in essence was my anti-obama vote. But in conscience I should have voted for Allen Keys. Apart from some extremism in his points of view I think he would be doing this country the greatest service it needs at this point.
So to sum up, Independent. As far as my presidential background, it is varied so have fun with that y'all. I just have to say that the older I get the more I want less government. While my presidential voting record may not demonstrate that, I am learning and plan on being truer to that in the future.
In the past I bought what the candidates were selling. I don't anymore because they lie. Including Obama. From here on out, I will be voting on principle, not presentation.
Good for you. I now take you at your word you are not a member of the Republican party. My bad.
ReplyDeleteGreatWhiteHope, your _strongest_ reason for thinking Obama is a bad dude is guilt-by-association, seriously?
ReplyDeleteThinking like that is the reason Hannity and Limbaugh and the rest are bad dudes. They never actually analyze legitimate platforms or beliefs, it's all hyperbolic, simplistic, myopic overgeneralizations and outright fraudulent propaganda.
If you actually listen to Rev. Wright, while he has applied hyperbole in his sermons before, his points are kind of legit; do you think America should not be damned for imperialistic tendencies that have killed tens of thousands of innocents for political or monetary profit? Wright's postulations are not that far out.
That kind of thinking is what make Hannity and other pundits problematic. They not only promote it, it's their whole lifeblood. All of their arguments are based on victimizations. "How can anyone oppose waterboarding, or say it's tortue? Don't they know it puts America in danger?"
This emotional subterfuge is harmful to everyone. Hannity and these people, people from sources you've been trained to trust, use this blackmail to get you to believe whatever they want. You need to make decisions based on rationality and facts, not one-sided party lines.
Come on, you people. Drop Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, and the line of thinking they represent and become independent. Seek to serve the Lord with all your heart, mind, and strength and think what they're telling you out, not only in a rational but also a scriptural context.
Nationalism is not included in that.
Oh, right so you get your information from Chris Matthews, Kieth Olberman, or Rachel Maddow so you are enlightened. Give me a freakin break. I almost considered not legitamizing your comment with a reply. You are out there to say that Rev. Wright has a point. So Hitler had a point as well?.... Or Ahmadinajad? Extremists are extremists and Rev. Wright is no exception. Now, to your point about Obama being guilty by association - I did post direct comments from the man about infanticide that you failed to address, and yes he is guilty by association because the media fails to do its job and actually investigate his background. He was groomed to be the frontman of the democratic party and his voting record in llinois is evidence of that. When you vote present and fail to take a stance on issue after issue you have to wonder if the person is really interested in public service or if they are in it for themselves. Like I said, you are clearly liberal minded and therefore emotional and not interested in logic. I will give you props for the educated speech though, nice job on the use of "hyperbole"....typical - ever searching and never coming to a knowledge of the truth.
ReplyDeleteI don't get my information from Matthews, Olbermann, Maddow, or pundits on either side. I don't have a cable TV subscription and almost never care or watch what any mainstream media source says. Most of my information comes from primary sources ... that is, the raw information before it gets chewed out and processed for you by your pundits-of-choice.
ReplyDeleteAhmadinejad is not anywhere near on par with Hitler. I may not like him that much, especially after the last election, but he's not rounding up ethnicities and shipping them off to the ovens.
Ahmadinejad is a freely elected leader in a democratic country. I don't think his positions are all that outrageous, in some respects, at least not the most controversial ones.
What's wrong with wanting nuclear power? That's a forward looking policy, imo; Iran is sitting on one of the biggest known oil supplies in the world, but they're thinking about freeing themselves from bondage to fossil fuel. We could use such vision here in America, where it's much more important socioeconomically.
Do you just automatically assume that Iran's people don't deserve safe, renewable power generation? Or did you just assume that they would kill us with it because they're Muslim and refuse to lie down for us? They've made no aggressive motions toward us.
Maybe instead of being angry that someone like Ahmadinejad exists, you should ask yourself why Iran would install a sovereign with his ideas. I'll give you a hint: it's not because Iran is jealous of our freedom or money, it's because we treat all non-Westerners like crap.
Regarding logic, I'm afraid you're the one uninterested. I'm "liberal-minded" and therefore "emotional" and incapable of applying logic. I'm actually not "liberal-minded"; I'm a social and fiscal conservative, but a real Goldwater, live and let live style conservative, not a racist neocon.
You assume that since I don't like Hannity or the others so I must be a disciple of leftist propagandists. I'm not.
Reverend Wright is not extremist. He just doesn't agree with you. That doesn't make him incapable of logic or extremist or deserving of comparison with Hilter, it just means he doesn't agree. Some of his statements were hyperbolic, and the media certainly capitalized on these to spread FUD about Obama and the rest of their enemies, but if you actually listen to him he's not that extreme. He's obviously upset at our imperialism, which is good.
You've also attempted to discredit everyone without posting anything substantive. You said that Wright was an extremist but didn't offer any "extremist" views in context.
You don't have to like someone to recognize the validity of their points. Hitler did do important things and he's worth studying; you shouldn't stop intellectual inquiry by feigning disgust or demonization. There was a reason Hitler was able to do all the things he did, and it's worth knowing about -- you don't just inquiry because you don't like someone, or don't like aspects of something about them.
I feel like you're almost hopeless, but I sincerely hope that this helps. Please wake up from your propagandized fantasy and search out the truth.
As Latter-day Saints, all truth is encompassed by our religion, and it is our duty to seek that out without giving into cheap emotional appeal by pundits or parties.
I suggest you listen to Ron Paul, Barry Goldwater, and other conservative luminaries in context and with an open and sincere mind and heart. Don't seek to validate what you hear on talk radio; just listen and evaluate their statements, their relevance, and their truth independently and within a gospel context.
Good luck. : )
I would also suggest you learn something about MLK, because he is surely not on the same plane as the Founding Fathers, and I reckon he wouldn't really have a problem with Obama's policies.
ReplyDeleteJames,
ReplyDeleteIn arguing that, to the extent that a Mormon agrees with President Obama or the Democratic Party on abortion or gay rights, s/he should not be entitled to a temple recommend, you are essentially saying that to the extent a Mormon disagrees with the Church on these issues, s/he should not be entitled to a temple recommend. In other words, the issue (as you present it) is not so much about agreeing with the President as it is about disagreeing with the Church.
I don't believe that the Church intends that the temple recommend interview be a mechanism for enforcing a rigidly-defined orthodoxy. The belief-based questions are fairly non-intrusive and open-ended; the bishop does not ask if you agree with the Church in every respect.
Nor do I believe that the Church expects that its members will agree with it in every respect. Even during the heat of the Prop 8 campaign, Elder Clayton conceded that members were free to disagree with the Church on that issue.
Joseph Smith was quite averse to creeds and other devices that "trammelled" upon one's "liberty of believing as [s/he] please[s]." I have to believe that he would disagree with the creation of some type of narrow LDS orthodoxy, enforced via temple recommend interviews.
Well thank you Zionlist, I too feel that you are hopeless, so at least we can stand on one piece of common ground. You live in a world of surreality. You don't know what it's like to swear an oath to your country that you are willing to lay your life down for it. You don't see the United States as the unique experiment in allowing people to govern themselves and this ideal that has been and continues to be desecrated by liberal minded people. Freedom is the fundamental principle which existed prior to the beginning of man, and to see it destroyed in favor of external control via government is sickening. Without the United States the gospel would not exist because there was no nation on earth and I would argue that even today there is no nation on earth that provides a haven for freedom as the United States does. The people who have sacrificed their lives so that I can enjoy the blessings of the gospel and the blessings of living in a free land, I reverence. And I have committed myself to that same ideal through military service. You say the United States is imperialistic - I see the United States as a beacon of light seeking to share the blessings we enjoy through assisting others in freeing themselves from the bondage of tyrants in their lands. I can agree that this is being warped by politicians today in sacrificing American lives not for the ideal of freedom but for profit and it is obscene. This is another reason why I am upset because again liberalism is to blame. A liberal Congress and a liberal President are the ones responsible and ought to be held accountable. Now mind you I said liberal which many equate to mean Democrat but my complaint is that Republicans and Democrats are both to blame. The Republicans of today are more liberal than the Democrats of yesterday. And the Democrats today are as liberal as the Communist members of the former U.S.S.R.
ReplyDeleteYour hateful screeds against the standing president of our nation, lawfully elected (whether you agree with his politics or not) linked with the implication that those who disagree with you are unworthy somehow has driven my decision to drop your blog from mormonblogs. Good luck with your ventures. Your target audience is not one we desire at mormonblogs. My feeling would be the same if this were a left-wing blog calling members unworthy who watch Glenn Beck.
ReplyDeleteNo hard feelings I hope.
Wow.
ReplyDeleteI am amazed. In the past, I have considered asking for my blog to be taken from the mormonblogs blogroll because I have not really been wanting to be associated with some of the more common blogs on that site.
Now I am considering it again. To ban this blog for fairly reasoned, although sometimes overly-passionate, question-and-answer commentary is amazing. Especially considering the screeds I have read concerning George W. Bush prior to the election, the ramapant militant feminism, the (apparently) commonly-held ideals by many of the bloggers on the blogroll that you should not agree with the Prophet or the Brethren on anything (regardless of whether you have prayed about it or not) because that is simply blind obedience....
Shall I go on?
It appears that, to be listed on Mormonblogs, it is OK to question the Gospel, the Prophet, and the US President so long as you disagree, disagree, and agree respectively. It is OK to question and drip venom, so long as it is against the approved targets.
(I should not paint with such a broad brush, I guess. There are a few harmless blogs that actually attempt to spread the Gospel, or a missionary message, and for those I am grateful. It is simply too bad they are swallowed up in the dank morass made by the others. There is a reason I have not and do not visit the blogroll any longer.)
Of course, if the "banning" gets rid of some of the lunatics (like Mr. Geoff/Javelin (who are, I suspect, one and the same)) then maybe it is a good thing.
Nope. I am no longer considering it. It has been done. Apparently freedom of speech only slants one way on mormonblogs.
Good luck with your own favorite screeds, Angela. Hopefully they will keep you warm at night.
No hard feelings.
Steve M, Thank you for your comments.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that what is at the heart of this post is not so much Obama and the democrats as much as it is against the principles of abortion and homosexuality that the church stands against. However, because Barack is the president and the Democrats are currently in a majority position of power, they were the associated target.
The temple recommend interview is not to enforce rigid orthodoxy as much as it is a chance for each individual to declare their worthiness to the Lords representatives on the earth. This is the same as tithing settlement. We are free to answer according to the dictates of our own conscience. My feeling is that I don't know how anyone in good conscience can disagree with the church on these crucial issues and answer "worthy" on this interview question. How can one leave the temple and go to a pro-choice rally? It seems wrong.
I don't think that it is a reasonable expectation of church members to agree every whit with the church. But I do think that God does expect agreement with his teachings and his principles - homosexuality and abortion being two biggies. I also believe that those who have made temple covenants have agreed to support and sustain the church and no to not speak ill of it. This covenant speaks directly to the temple recommend question. So in essence this question could read, are you keeping your temple covenants by not disagreeing with the church on these issues?
On these two issues, there is no harm in being narrow minded. The church has said being actively gay is wrong, and abortion is wrong. The church has also prescribed that those who violate these two principles or support others violating these principles can loose their membership in the church, not just their temple recommend. So perhaps this is an issue that you should take up with the prophet, not me.
Steve M, I as well would like to thank you for a well articulated posting. You should add more more often.
ReplyDeleteJames,
ReplyDeleteI think we interpret things very differently.
You concede that it's not reasonable to expect church members to "agree every whit with the church," yet provide no support for your claim that homosexuality and abortion are "two biggies." What makes abortion and homosexuality more "crucial" than other issues, aside from the fact that they are pet political issues for social conservatives? You're setting up an arbitrary hierarchy.
According to Jesus, the two great commandments are love for God and love for our neighbors--"On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Jesus said much more about caring for the needy than about homosexuality or abortion.
I also believe that those who have made temple covenants have agreed to support and sustain the church and no to not speak ill of it.
Actually, as you and I both know, the temple covenant refers to "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed." Plainly, one can disagree with the Church and its leaders without "speaking evil" of them, and while still sustaining them.
are you keeping your temple covenants by not disagreeing with the church on these issues?
This is a matter for personal interpretation. I have argued elsewhere that conscientious objection to positions advocated by the Church is not tantamount to disloyalty.
On these two issues, there is no harm in being narrow minded.
Unless you believe that limiting others' liberties causes harm.
The church has also prescribed that those who violate these two principles or support others violating these principles can loose their membership in the church, not just their temple recommend.
I disagree that the Church has said that. The LDS.org line about abortion plainly suggests that one's membership in the Church may be jeopardized through personal participation in an abortion. Believing that women should have the right to choose does not constitute encouragement of abortion any more than believing that the KKK should have the right to free speech constitutes encouragement of racism. And I do not believe that you have pointed to any source suggesting that one might lose his membership in the Church for favoring LGBT rights.
So perhaps this is an issue that you should take up with the prophet, not me.
Let's keep the condescending language to a minimum, shall we?
The Church has previously expressed opposition to equal rights for women, the Civil Rights Movement, interracial marriage, and even the repeal of a provision in the Taft-Hartley Act. Are you willing to defend these positions as fervently as you defend the Church's position on homosexuality and abortion?
And even if we assume that homosexuality is a "crucial" issue, what are we to make of the Church's recent support of the Salt Lake City nondiscrimination ordinance? There are a number of Mormons who, in spite of the Church's statement, remain fervently opposed to such legislation. Technically, Mormons who believe that it is perfectly legitimate to fire someone simply because he is gay are out of touch with the Church on a "crucial" issue--should these members be denied temple recommends as well?
My thought is that those Mormons who advocate for rigid orthodoxy typically operate under the assumption that their particular set of beliefs are "orthodox." To that, I would respond with the words of Hugh B. Brown, counselor to David O. McKay: "We must preserve freedom of the mind in the church and resist all efforts to suppress it. The church is not so much concerned with whether the thoughts of its members are orthodox or heterodox as it is that they shall have thoughts."
James - I must disagree with your contention that support for Barack Obama impinges upon temple worthiness. The worthiness interview is intended to be an assessment of personal worthiness rather than political worthiness.
ReplyDeleteIf one meets the critieria of personal worthiness, then it should be irrelevant who one supports for President, so long as the President meets the constitutional qualifications for office. Remember the Article of Faith that proclaims that we shall "honor, uphold, and sustain the law".
BTW, I did not support Obama, if you are curious about where I come from politically. Ron Paul's a bit more my cup of tea.
I disagree. I believe a person can be a committed, believing Latter-day Saint, worthily and honestly holding a temple recommend, and be in full agreement with Obama with respect to the legal status of abortion and with respect to GLBT legal rights.
ReplyDeleteIt was not that long ago that a prominent former stake president and active Latter-day Saint in Massachusetts ran for Senate, then governor (and won the governorship), as a "pro choice" republican (also in favor of GLBT rights, but not same sex marriage). That individual had a political conversion of sorts on those issues at the time he decided to run for the national GOP nomination.
But at the time he was running for governor, a close friend who is a devout Catholic asked me if a practicing Mormon could be a pro-choice politician (and implicitly wondering whether our Church might deny the Sacrament to such candidates in the same way some Catholic bishops have denied communion to pro-choice Catholic politicians.)
As a result of this question, among other things, I checked more closely official LDS statements on abortion. The same lds.org website that proclaims that the Church is opposed to abortion and disciplines its members who engage in abortion (with limited circumstances) also states that the Church has "not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion." http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/abortion
Accordingly, Governor Mitt Romney, in favoring legalized abortion, was not disagreeing with any Church position on the matter.
I accordingly think that Latter-day Saints can, in complete honesty, support legalized abortion and state that he or she is not in opposition to any position of the Church.
(FWIW, I am a pro-life democrat. I do not agree with Obama's support of Roe v. Wade, and I voted for him in spite of that position.)
With respect to GLBT rights, as the opening post states, the Church's official position is very close to Obama's. The Church may not be a strong advocate of GLBT rights, but it does not officially oppose any GLBT potential right except for same sex marriage. Inasmuch as Obama does not support same sex marriage, a person can fully support Obama's positions on GLBT legal rights, and not be in opposition to any position of the Church.
Jack Mormon, Re: I must disagree with your contention that support for Barack Obama impinges upon temple worthiness.
ReplyDeleteI think I have stated several times in the post and in additional comments that my post was not stating that support for Barack Obama impinges upon temple worthiness. The issue was supporting Obama in the issue of Abortion and homosexuality so far as they disagree with Church doctrine.
So you can disagree all you want, but a careful reading would show that I don't come to that conclusion.
Steve M, RE: I disagree that the Church has said that. The LDS.org line about abortion plainly suggests that one's membership in the Church may be jeopardized through personal participation in an abortion.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure what there is to disagree on as the church's statement includes encouraging others in the act of abortion, not just for those that have abortions themselves. The statement is clear on that.
What the church has said in the past is irrelevant to what the current stance is. And the current stance is that engaging in homosexuality is a violation of church practices. Support of Abortion is against current church statement. And the reasons that these two issues are relevant are based not on the two great commandments, but the two greatest sins - minus the biggie. Sexual sin and murder are extremely relevant. I wish to not diminish the importance of these issues simply because they are being dismissed as right wing propaganda. Yes these are political issues, but they are also egregious sins - they were sins first.
David H, you are one of the few people that seems like they actually read the article. So for that I thank you. I agree the church has made very few exceptions to the abortion rule, but they are certainly a long distance away from acceptance of the practice on the whole.
ReplyDeleteThis is the complete statement on abortion:
In today's society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord's declaration, "Thou shalt not . . . kill, nor do anything like unto it" (D&C 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline.
Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer."
I agree that defense of abortion has been filled with deceptive and permissive arguments that do not embrace the gospel of Christ but seek to rationalize the place of sin in the practices of the church.
Please note that even the exceptional circumstances do not constitute automatic justification of abortion. It seems that a great many people are seeking hard to justify the practice and make excuses for agreeing with the practice.
For the record, I don't care what Mitt Romney does. His conversion to pro-life could have been the result of his church leaders correcting his position. In any case, I default to how things are supposed to be today as opposed to how they are were in the past. One could postulate on the number of reasons that the church has the stance that they do in neither endorsing or denouncing any legislation or demonstration on the issue. But when taken in its totality, the church and its inspired leaders (Mitt Romney excluded) is clearly against the practice and considers murder or anything like unto it to be a sin. I see no reason to support such a disgusting and deplorable practice. It represents low ideals and supports a most pathetic option.
Nice post.
ReplyDeleteNo need to single out Obama (other than he's the "current" president).
I think it's pretty clear that you can't really *support* ANY US president and be a temple recommend holder, if you want to interpret it that way. But if it were interpreted that way, the temples would be pretty desolate places...
Further, it's pretty clear you can't support Harry Reid or Orrin Hatch, and many more.
You can belong to most parties, and support issues and especially voting.
As alluded to by a prior poster, being a member of ANY party could mean "upholding standards against Church policy!" Because the initial poster argued that supporting Obama fit his rigid, insane standard, let me contend that supporting the Republican party is just as evil if not worse! At least the Democrats support the poor, the needy and the widows, as per counsel in the Book of Mormon. They also support the immigrant, the foreigner and those who are the "least of us." Republicans such as Tom Tancredo and former campaign manager and Mormon Bay Buchanan, are simply racist BIGOTS! That to me is against Church policy and should disqualify one from a recommend.
ReplyDeleteAnd anyone who supported Bush too! The commandments say "Thou shalt not kill!" What? 175k innocent Iraqis are DEAD thanks to an UNJUST WAR! This is what Rev. Wright was referring to, and he was RIGHT ON!
I've talked your talk. I used to be a lifelong conservative, but now I am a PROUD LDS LEFTIST, SOCIALIST. I'm leftist because I feel liberation theology was the true doctrine Jesus taught.
James,
ReplyDeleteSupport of Abortion is against current church statement.
In my earlier comment, I made the point that being pro-choice is not the same as being pro-abortion. I personally find abortion rather gruesome, but that does not mean that it should be illegal.
Likewise, even if someone believes that homosexuality is immoral, that does not necessarily preclude support for recognition of equal rights for LGBT individuals.
And to that end, just because a society "legalizes" something does not make it right before God.
ReplyDeleteYour title and first paragraph deserve to be condemned.
ReplyDeleteYou explain yourself a little better later on (explaining that it's only certain issues that are problematic, and not support of Obama's presidency as a whole). However, might I suggest you alter the first paragraph and the title to reflect that?
As a side note, if you support the Republican stance on tobacco (support of tobacco companies), does that pit you against the church? The church has a firm stance on tobacco...
Tim I will not alter the first paragraph for the reason that the first paragraph introduces the issue at hand and the previous statements of GreatWhiteHope.
ReplyDeleteHe stated in previous comment the question of Obama:
"How can you in good conscience as an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints support a president who supports partial birth abortions and infanticide?
He in fact did and does support infanticide and partial birth abortions. Let's not beat around the bush here - So yes, I am saying that if you support him for president I do not understand how you in good conscience can attend the temple knowing full well that you contributed to the election of a president who supports legislation which destroys life and has no qualms about it.
It was this position that I was introducing in the first paragraph and the title. The reason the rest of the post is "different" because as the case for that argument was laid out, the conclusion that I saw unfolding was that it was not support of the democrats or Obama alone that was the issue but the issues of Abortion and Homosexuality that these two parties seem to espouse. This was not (and I repeat) an endorsement of any one candidate or party. It was simply to point out that as Latter-Day Saints we do have moral positions that spill over and have application in the political realm. And that support of certain practices do have an effect on church membership.
So Tim, I see no need to change the introduction as it was giving the background to the thesis argument that was treated the rest of the post. Thank you for commenting and sharing your opinions. All of you :) It is great to have some new faces here.
"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. I Samuel 15:3
ReplyDeleteHow can you have a temple recommend and support a God who orders infanticide.
Tah
Grow up and worry about yourself and let others do the same
The most entertaining part of this argument is when those who feel it is ridiculous, take the time to accuse the author of wasting his time trying to change or influence others. The fun thing about blogs in reality is that you rarely, if ever, even begin to change another's opinion on a subject. All of us who contribute to blogs regularly should know that. I don't like Republicans, Socialists, Democrats and most well known political parties. I am a constitutionalist; government taking part in peoples lives bothers me less when it is on a state level, but I hate it from the national gov't. Saying this I know many of you, including some who I consider friends in this blog, think my political affiliation is ridiculous. The difference is I do not expect any of you to change your minds about your political affiliation or about the president you support. Life will change your opinions far more effectively than I ever will, or any blog for that matter.
ReplyDeleteCrayon Face: I was once a "Constitutionalist" but it is a euphemism for Conservative big RIGHT WING Republican. Don't give me that excuse.
ReplyDeleteWell I consider myself an American Independent Party (AIP) member which would mean to you "anonymous" that I am a CHRISTIAN Conservative Big Right Wing Republican....oooo scary. And Tah - this being an LDS blog we believe in an OLD and NEW testament in addition to the NEWEST testiment being the Book of Mormon. They practiced polygamy in the Old Testament and that is no longer applicable so you're clearly not comparing apples with apples.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJames, this post was sophomoric at best and, at worst, your recommend should be taken away for not having minimal levels of mental capacity.
ReplyDeleteGreat White Hope, you scare me more than James. Please tell me you aren't in the education system on any level. The thought of you instructing my children might actually change my opinion of home-schooling.
T.J. - Very scholarly of yourself to make an attack without any support for your argument. Please rest assured that I find no merit to your disagreement with the post.
ReplyDeleteAt least the others who disagreed made an argument for their case - a practice I respect. What you have written is nothing but playground name calling.
Nice satire here. I mean, you really pulled off the detached-from-reality thing perfectly. To think that a person would actually think these things is a laughable proposition. Thanks for the laugh.
ReplyDeleteSo your blog is titled "The Spirit of the Law" and yet you take a literalist interpretation here? I don't get that. You are at odds with yourself, sir.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, the question itself is actually highly vague, even though it has three qualifiers for groups or individuals who teach and practice against that which is accepted by our church. The question does not specify what exactly are the "accepted" teachings and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and thus it is left up to the questioner and questionee to adjudicate. There is no established "Mormon Doctrine" of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. There are general principles that are fairly clear, yet at the same time still vague enough not to be anchored down.
Thirdly, the problem with taking a literal interpretation here is that this puts individuals at odds with other established principles of the church. For example, say there is a devout Muslim individual who wants to run for mayor of your town. You know the individual. He is an excellent individual, has a great family, and is incorruptible. He is running against the incumbent who continues to be bogged down by charges of bribery. He happens to be Christian, a Mormon no less. Taking a literal approach to this question, in order to remain temple worthy, how can one "support, affiliate with, or agree" with this Muslim man who wishes to be your mayor? He is, after all, by virtue of his belief in Islam, contrary to the teachings and practices accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. You could technically lose your temple recommend by supporting this individual. Of course, by not supporting this individual, and instead showing support for the corrupted Mormon, you are going against another principle of the church, which is to support righteous and good individuals for public office. Clearly that principle is not a part of the temple recommend interview, thus is not as effective as a more equal example, but the point is good.
Finally, why would anyone take anything of this church literally when its leadership doesn't? On some issues, there is a clear case of literalism, except of course where there isn't a clear case of literalism. It's an amazing thing to see, particularly the latest, which you note, that the church is now supporting gay rights in Utah! Literally, it is time to take the temple recommends away from the General Authorities! But literalism is ineffective, and more importantly, damaging in this church. The most important point is that it drives otherwise good, righteous people away. Let me tell you, sir, if you were my bishop, and you attempted such literalism, I would tell you to go stuff it and I would not talk to you again until you were released. In the meanwhile, I would constantly badger the Stake President about your ineffectiveness as a bishop because of your literalism. Or, I would go inactive until you were gone.
I am a Democrat.
ReplyDeleteI am a Temple Recommend Holding Member.
I like President Obama very much.
I am a member of my Stake Relief Society Presidency.
I find your post incredibly misguided.
See here for evidence of just how uncharitable members can be towards other members who are not Republican. http://bandanamom.blogspot.com/2008/09/anonymous-shows-true-colors.html
Dan, you said, "if you were my bishop, and you attempted such literalism, I would tell you to go stuff it and I would not talk to you again until you were released. In the meanwhile, I would constantly badger the Stake President about your ineffectiveness as a bishop because of your literalism. Or, I would go inactive until you were gone."
ReplyDeleteWould this constitute sustaining your church leaders? You, sir put your faith in men and not Jesus Christ. The actions of an imperfect church leader you said would cause you to go inactive and therefore you would miss out on the blessings of the gospel. This is the type of attitude that leads to apostasy.
I don't think James, myself, or anyone else who posts regularly on this blog advocates persecuting LDS members who vote for politicians who support principles and ideals which are in direct opposition to the principles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The purpose of this blog, and more specifically of James' post is to present a question for inner reflection. I think the reason many of you liberal church members have taken offense is because it pricks you to the core and you recognize there may be a need to repent.
Bandanamom, you flaunt your church service as a bullet point on a resume. I think you could use a little more discretion in posting that you are a member of the Relief Society Presidency, as if that makes what you are trying to say all the more applicable. Just pointing it out in case you are unaware, it's distasteful.
ReplyDeleteGWH,
ReplyDeleteWould this constitute sustaining your church leaders?
Indeed. I will not sustain corrupt church leaders and will do everything in my power to bring them down. Anyone who makes the claim of the original poster in this post does not deserve to be a bishop. I will vote to not approve him. I hope that is clear.
The actions of an imperfect church leader you said would cause you to go inactive and therefore you would miss out on the blessings of the gospel. This is the type of attitude that leads to apostasy.
Not in any way. As long as a bad person is in charge, that particular ward is going in apostasy.
I don't think James, myself, or anyone else who posts regularly on this blog advocates persecuting LDS members who vote for politicians who support principles and ideals which are in direct opposition to the principles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
This is untrue, as shown by your comment to my comment. You state that doing what I would intend to do with such a person as a bishop, you claim I would apostatize. Indeed, you persecute those who do not believe as you do.
I think the reason many of you liberal church members have taken offense is because it pricks you to the core and you recognize there may be a need to repent.
You'd love to think that. It brings you a sense of fulfillment to think that. But alas, the reason I take offense, and I cannot speak for anyone but myself, is that this kind of belief, as presented in this post, corrupts this religion, and as such, I will fight against it.
For all the people that have read this post and thought this was it was an attack on democrats or Obama - you sadden me with your reading skills.
ReplyDeleteAnd for those who have insulted me for "being insulting", I hope you realize the hypocrisy you have demonstrated. I think there have been maybe three people who have disagreed with this post that actually read the post and understood it for what it was. They still disagreed which is their prerogative, but at least they disagreed on the actual points of the post not some emotional knee jerk reaction.
One very transparent aspect of the liberal (or NOM) mormon seemed to surface from this post- you don't care what is actually written, you just think this was an attack so you pushed back. I laid out the argument that defended being a democrat or an Obama supporter and for still having a temple recommend, yet a majority of people seem to focus on a misconception and spent their time insulting me and inserting what they believe to be their own spiritual superiority.
So to all you who thought this was an attack on simply being a democrat or simply supporting Obama - you are all wrong and you sounded so stupid doing it. You are entitled to disagree and I appreciate those who did so with well presented reasoning. For those who simply felt to insult, you have exposed your ignorance is such a public fashion so as to completely justify my posting this.
Now I ask, can we please move on....
GWH - you call that "flaunting"? I find that an amusing take on the situation. I am merely stating facts. If I were the ward nursery leader I would have stated that as well. Would that have been "flaunting"? Perhaps you need to re-think your own feelings about church hierarchy. We are all the same in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
ReplyDeleteChurch hierarchy? Didn't know there was one, but thanks for acknowledging your views on the matter.
ReplyDeleteJames - Don't take it personal, liberals don't read, they are emotional in all matters and that is how they view life, emotionally.
If it's wrong to be a Democrat the
ReplyDeleteChurch would not have said that gospel values can be found in both political parties. So, should be the last word on that subject.
Our democracy needs a two party system to keep the country centered.
Sometimes it leans too far right or left and then the other party is
needed to come in a bring things back
the other way for balance.
Annonymous, your last comment displays your own ignorance to the post. I made the argument that being a democrat was not a violation of being a temple recommend holder or against church membership - yet you still seem to think the way you do.
ReplyDeleteFor your own sake, knock it off. It is a dead straw horse argument. Let it die.
Will you please move on.
Dan is right. I too refuse to support lying, cheating, thieving church leaders. That is why we have a vote on them ahead of time. I am NOT adverse to raising my hand in opposition. I have worked with some who are the absolute SCUM of the earth.
ReplyDeleteThis is a hard one to explain, but with your attitude Anon & Dan - Unless you know the person individually you are saying that your judgement is greater than the Lords. See, I believe that the church leaders ie. Stake Presidents etc. take their calling very seriously and pray, fast, and ponder when it comes to calling a Bishop or any other calling for that matter. I believe they recieve inspiration through the Spirit to extend callings and when the vote is presented in church it is an opportunity for the members of the congregation to sustain - show their support visually through the rasising of the hand an outward expression of support for an inner commitment to sustain and support their newly called church leaders. Granted, on this earth no one is perfect but we all have opportunity to serve in the church and unless the person is unworthy and thereby should recieve a vote of opposition, just because a person may not be particularly talented in leading a ward does not disqualify them from service nor does it justify your prideful attitudes.
ReplyDelete