61 replies to this topic

[zerinus]

Scott Lloyd, on 23 April 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

Democrats have bigger anti-Mormon problem than Republicans

I think that Mormons have an anti-Democrat problem.

[Whiskeypete]

There is a difference beween the party platforms and the positions of the various candidates, even when they are a member of that party. In other words, not every candidate agrees with every plank of their party platform.

That being said, while there are good and honorable men and women in various political parties - and I have voted for Democrats, Republican and Libertarians - I am a member of my political party for the following reason:

• There are planks in the opposition party platforms that I just can't support.
  
• There are not planks in my party platform that I do not support.

There are candidates in my party that I don't support. There are positions held by candidates in my party that I don't support. But there aren't any planks in the party platform that I don't support (which tend to be a little more general principles than specific legislations)

In those cases where I find myself supporting a candidate of an opposing party, it is because they are voting out of line with their party and more in line with mine. And my party candidate either is out of step with my party platform, or else has been there so long that they just need to go (term limits anyone?)

But that becomes a problem when it gets time for them to vote for leadership positions. If I vote for the opposition party candidate, because I think they are a good honorable person, they then HAVE TO support their party when it comes to voting for Speaker of the House, Committee chairmen, etc.

[rameumptom]

Buzzard, on 23 April 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

Let's just bottom-line it.  Lefties couldn't have cared less about us until Prop 8.

Actually, they were attacking Romney in 2007, before Prop 8 occurred.  Lawrence O'Donnell had his first raging attack against Mormonism on PBS' McLaughlin Hour, where he called us every bad word in the book.  So Prop 8 may have a part in it, but it is deeper than that.

[rameumptom]

thesometimesaint, on 23 April 2012 - 03:10 PM, said:

BCSpace:

My reading of the Scriptures has Christ, and his servants,  talking a lot more about how to treat the poor than about abortion, or pushing Prop 8.

That is a strawman.  I read in the scriptures Jesus and his servants calling people to repentance. Jesus noted we would always have the poor with us, but it was okay for the woman to pour expensive oils on his feet to wash them, or for the young man to not say goodbye to his family/dead father, but to follow him.

There's nothing in the Bible about government taking care of the poor. Just warnings that the princes and wealthy not steal from the poor, and we are to give freely to the Church (tithing/storehouse/Malachi), so that it can care for the poor. The Good Samaritan did not pay the government to take care of the injured man.

That sexual sin and killing are addressed in the scriptures, we must then suggest that abortion and Prop 8 may have a scriptural foundation.  Although I will admit that such efforts are often ran very poorly and are unhelpful.

[rameumptom]

Bikeemikey, on 23 April 2012 - 08:25 PM, said:

BC space,

The church is a form of government. To say that the church process of redistribution does not involve government exposes a fundamental misunderstanding about the functioning of an organization that administers over 12 million members.

12 million members is 4 times the population of my country. The churches annual operating budget will be bigger than some countries. Government may be primarily discussed in terms o countries. However, any entity the size of our church has both it's own "politics" and "government" issues to deal with.

(null)

There are major differences between a Church and a national government. First, if I disobey the Church, the most they can do is kick me out of the organization. If I disobey the government, they have the power to imprison, fine, or even execute me. The Church can ask for tithes and donations. The government can forcibly take my money, property, and freedom. Church lay members are tasked with managing the finances of the organization, which are appropriated through donations.  Government hires people who have no spiritual or personal involvement in order to get the best and most honest service (see GSA or Secret Service as examples).  The Church pays as it goes.  The federal government is almost $16 Trillion in debt, which we will be forced to pay for in some manner or another.

So, your attempt to compare government and Church are just a straw man.

[thesometimesaint]

rameumptom, on 24 April 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

That is a strawman.  I read in the scriptures Jesus and his servants calling people to repentance. Jesus noted we would always have the poor with us, but it was okay for the woman to pour expensive oils on his feet to wash them, or for the young man to not say goodbye to his family/dead father, but to follow him.

There's nothing in the Bible about government taking care of the poor. Just warnings that the princes and wealthy not steal from the poor, and we are to give freely to the Church (tithing/storehouse/Malachi), so that it can care for the poor. The Good Samaritan did not pay the government to take care of the injured man.

That sexual sin and killing are addressed in the scriptures, we must then suggest that abortion and Prop 8 may have a scriptural foundation.  Although I will admit that such efforts are often ran very poorly and are unhelpful.

If the Scriptures don't address an issue it is kinda hard to claim they do. Christ in the Scriptures said not one word about abortion or Prop 8. Further modern Prophet have said that under rare conditions abortion is permissable, and outside of the definition of marriage itself we support many of the goals of our LGBT members.

Government is just the collective will of its citizens. You know "We the People". Are you suggesting that people can't join together in common cause? That it must be all just individual effort?  

I seem to remember the story about the rich young man being asked to give up all that he had. Nothing in that story was about stealing. I also seem to remember Jesus as saying render unto Caesar that which is Caesars, AND unto God that which is Gods'. So we are to do both.

I believe the Church has taken the right stance on both issues. However in a pluralistic society such as ours mine shouldn't be the only belief allowed.

[Zakuska]

thesometimesaint, on 24 April 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

If the Scriptures don't address an issue it is kinda hard to claim they do. Christ in the Scriptures said not one word about abortion or Prop 8. Further modern Prophet have said that under rare conditions abortion is permissable, and outside of the definition of marriage itself we support many of the goals of our LGBT members.

Government is just the collective will of its citizens. You know "We the People". Are you suggesting that people can't join together in common cause? That it must be all just individual effort?  

I seem to remember the story about the rich young man being asked to give up all that he had. Nothing in that story was about stealing. I also seem to remember Jesus as saying render unto Caesar that which is Caesars, AND unto God that which is Gods'. So we are to do both.

I believe the Church has taken the right stance on both issues. However in a pluralistic society such as ours mine shouldn't be the only belief allowed.

Well he did condemn his ancestors for their post-birth abortions when they passed their children through the fires of Molek.  A case could be made that this would include a child in the womb.

Edited by Zakuska, 24 April 2012 - 09:55 AM.

[cinepro]

Scott Lloyd, on 23 April 2012 - 02:30 PM, said:

Perhaps in the sense that Democrats are more likely to vote against the Republican, whether he is Mormon or not, than Republicans are, and thus Republicans are apt to be more discriminating (or discriminatory) in this particular race.

Is that what you mean?

Yes.  An anti-Mormon Democrat isn't really a lost vote, so who cares?  I'm much more concerned about any Republicans that might not vote for Romney because of their anti-Mormonism when they otherwise would have.  But I suspect that when the rubber hits the road, most Republicans are going to vote Republican.

The biggest concern are the "independent" voters! "Indpendent" meaning there is a chance they could vote Republican or Democrat depending on the candidates.  If it turns out there are many anti-Mormon independents, then that could be most concerning....

[Scott Lloyd]

thesometimesaint, on 24 April 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

If the Scriptures don't address an issue it is kinda hard to claim they do.

There is nothing inherently wrong with using fundamental scriptural principles to extrapolate an application to a particular topic or issue. One could argue that the application is misguided, but the fact of the matter is the scriptures cannot address each and every issue that comes up, so we are left with the necessity of drawing applications. Hopefully, the applications are wise and are informed by divine inspiration. But just because the scriptures do not address "Prop 8" with that specific term is not a reason not to look to the scriptures for guidance in formulating one's opinion on that or other issues.

Edited by Scott Lloyd, 24 April 2012 - 04:08 PM.

[Scott Lloyd]

cinepro, on 24 April 2012 - 10:06 AM, said:

Yes.  An anti-Mormon Democrat isn't really a lost vote, so who cares?

I care, not because of any difference it might make in the election, but because an anti-Mormon Democrat might use Romney's candidacy as an occasion to defame the Church. I could do without Larry O'Donnell's ranting or Bill Mahr's cheap shots.

[thesometimesaint]

Scott Lloyd:

Application is always a bit of a sticky wicket, and drawing inferences from Scripture is more so. Let alone trying to put it into law. Something the Pharisees were really good at it.

[Scott Lloyd]

thesometimesaint, on 24 April 2012 - 10:20 AM, said:

Scott Lloyd:

Application is always a bit of a sticky wicket, and drawing inferences from Scripture is more so. Let alone trying to put it into law. Something the Pharisees were really good at it.

For that very reason, I put the qualifiers in my statement: "wise" and "informed by divine inspiration."

If the scriptures are to be of any value to us at all, we cannot escape the effort to draw application from them as we endeavor to deal with the problems and details of daily living. In fact, Nephi taught his people to liken the scriptures unto themselves. What is at issue is whether the applications we make are wise and appropriate.

The fact that  the Pharisees failed in their application of scripture does not mean everyone else has to.

Edited by Scott Lloyd, 24 April 2012 - 04:19 PM.

[ERayR]

thesometimesaint, on 24 April 2012 - 10:20 AM, said:

Scott Lloyd:

Application is always a bit of a sticky wicket, and drawing inferences from Scripture is more so. Let alone trying to put it into law. Something the Pharisees were really good at it.

deleted

Edited by ERayR, 24 April 2012 - 04:21 PM.

[Sky]

Joanna Brooks has some words to say about this.

[Bikeemikey]

rameumptom, on 24 April 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

There are major differences between a Church and a national government. First, if I disobey the Church, the most they can do is kick me out of the organization. If I disobey the government, they have the power to imprison, fine, or even execute me. The Church can ask for tithes and donations. The government can forcibly take my money, property, and freedom. Church lay members are tasked with managing the finances of the organization, which are appropriated through donations.  Government hires people who have no spiritual or personal involvement in order to get the best and most honest service (see GSA or Secret Service as examples).  The Church pays as it goes.  The federal government is almost $16 Trillion in debt, which we will be forced to pay for in some manner or another.

So, your attempt to compare government and Church are just a straw man.

I never suggested that national govts. and church govts are identical. They are not. However, any institution or organization as big as the church has certain areas in which they operate in a similar manner to national govts.

You are correct the power differential between a national govt, a church govt and a member of either organization is different - that said, the presence of a power differential is dramatic. As such, the comparison between national govt. and church govt. and members of both institutions is not with out some realistic crossover.

To address some specific items you mentioned:

Our church has debt. We don't know how much it is. It will need to be paid.
Our church is sometimes managed by people who do not have the best interests of the organization at heart.
For a true believing church member the threat of revocation of celestial inheritance is substanitally more debilitating than prison time.

Had I claimed that church govt. and national govt. is identical that would be a strawman. However, I did not. There are important similarities between church govt. and national govt. These similarities exist because of a centralized power structure that is disproportionaately skewed in the favor of the "State"/"Church" of the "citizen"/"church member".

Where this imbalance exisits there is the presence of govt; and a legitmate need to concern and monitoring. This is not a bad thing per se. It is not a judgement on churches or national govts. I believe that both at national and more general level oforganization the exisitence of govt is valuable. We should however not pretend that Govt. exists soley "out there" in the world and ignore the fact it exists within our church also.

Edited by Bikeemikey, 24 April 2012 - 05:59 PM.

[Tepui]

Whiskeypete, on 24 April 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

There is a difference beween the party platforms and the positions of the various candidates, even when they are a member of that party. In other words, not every candidate agrees with every plank of their party platform.

That being said, while there are good and honorable men and women in various political parties - and I have voted for Democrats, Republican and Libertarians - I am a member of my political party for the following reason:

• There are planks in the opposition party platforms that I just can't support.
  
• There are not planks in my party platform that I do not support.

There are candidates in my party that I don't support. There are positions held by candidates in my party that I don't support. But there aren't any planks in the party platform that I don't support (which tend to be a little more general principles than specific legislations)


In those cases where I find myself supporting a candidate of an opposing party, it is because they are voting out of line with their party and more in line with mine. And my party candidate either is out of step with my party platform, or else has been there so long that they just need to go (term limits anyone?)

But that becomes a problem when it gets time for them to vote for leadership positions. If I vote for the opposition party candidate, because I think they are a good honorable person, they then HAVE TO support their party when it comes to voting for Speaker of the House, Committee chairmen, etc.

Very forthright.

I have never voted for a Democrat in my life. (And I don't live in UT.) For I believe when push comes to shove, the Democrat will vote with his party to save his job/position. The Republican, too. But, I disagree immensely with the Democrat (& Libertarian) Party positions on moral grounds. Read their party platforms. Libertarian and Republican Parties may both be Fiscally Conservative, but the Democrat and Libertarian Parties support rampant immorality. Society wouldn't survive based on their lack of supporting morality or moral issues. Obviously. Money problems are mostly a symptom of moral problems. I'm generalizing, but I'm avoiding details for good reason.

[Bikeemikey]

Govt should protect freedom and liberty.

To protect the freedoms we believe in and support we must also protect those we oppose.

That is the double edged sword of constitutional protection.


(null)

[NobodyFamous]

rameumptom, on 24 April 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

That is a strawman.  I read in the scriptures Jesus and his servants calling people to repentance. Jesus noted we would always have the poor with us, but it was okay for the woman to pour expensive oils on his feet to wash them, or for the young man to not say goodbye to his family/dead father, but to follow him.

There's nothing in the Bible about government taking care of the poor. Just warnings that the princes and wealthy not steal from the poor, and we are to give freely to the Church (tithing/storehouse/Malachi), so that it can care for the poor. The Good Samaritan did not pay the government to take care of the injured man.

That sexual sin and killing are addressed in the scriptures, we must then suggest that abortion and Prop 8 may have a scriptural foundation.  Although I will admit that such efforts are often ran very poorly and are unhelpful.

If I understand you correctly, your claim is that while Jesus preached repeatedly about the need to care for the "least of these," he never said that the GOVERNMENT should take care of them.  Each of us has a personal obligation to do so.  As a result, we need not advocate public policies that would push the government in that role.  Well, if that is the case, isn't it also true that Jesus never said that the government should enforce sexual morality.  He warned each of us to PERSONALLY avoid sexual morality.  So why should government be forced into the role of making sure that we meet that commandment?  It seems that you want to have it both ways.  On issues of "morality," government should step in to enforce God's mandates.  On the other hand, on issues of "social justice," government should step back and allow the people to exercise their agency to obey or not.

P.S.  My fellow liberals and I are just as guilty of wanting to have our cake and it eat too.  We just do it in the reverse manner.  "Government stay out of my bedroom but get in here and put food on my table!"

[Bikeemikey]

Nice post!!

(null)

[Bond...James Bond]

Buzzard, on 23 April 2012 - 01:32 PM, said:

Let's just bottom-line it.  Lefties couldn't have cared less about us until Prop 8.  Since they consider homosexual relationships to be morally equivilant to marriage, they are incensed and outraged about our defending traditional marriage.  Whether you agree with what the church did in CA to be the right thing or not, it is what it is right now, and I don't know that their anger is going away anytime soon, President Romney or not.

Or they see Mormon support of anti-gay marriage activities as bigoted and thus attack the bigots.