thesometimesaint Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 Cobalt-70:If you are in the military you are told to kill by your leader.
california boy Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 I don't agree that the Church became "politically" involved. The Church had a moral duty to support a decision it considered to be morally right and in the interest of society as a whole, and to urge all its members to give it their full support; and that is what it did.lol. Well there is bound to be at least a few that think the church was not politically involved in the prop 8 campaign. Reality is such a difficult thing to face at times I guess.
zerinus Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 lol. Well there is bound to be at least a few that think the church was not politically involved in the prop 8 campaign. Reality is such a difficult thing to face at times I guess.It is the sign of a lost argument when people resort to jeering and sneering instead of engaging in rational debate. Some people are just bad losers I guess.
altersteve Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 Cobalt-70:If you are in the military you are told to kill by your leader.Kill, yes, but not murder.
thesometimesaint Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 California Boy:I believe that members of the Church were politically involved. As citizens of California we have an absolute right to be politically involved. As members of the Church we have a moral responsibilty to be involved in our communities, states, and nations. 1
thesometimesaint Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 altersteve:Murder is a legal definition on the authority to kill. All murders are killings, but not all killings are murder.
california boy Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 It is the sign of a lost argument when people resort to jeering and sneering instead of engaging in rational debate. Some people are just bad losers I guess.How exactly do you want me to respond to your statement that the church was not politically involved in Prop 8? Do we really need to derail this thread by me listing all of the things the church and it's members did to actively pass prop 8? If providing over half of the financial support and over 70% of the manpower to pass prop 8 was not being politically involved what would you consider being politically involved? It is not called the "Mormon proposition" because the church sat on the sidelines.
Jeff K. Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 (edited) Thanks, Gohan. The Wilford Woodruff source is from his journal, vol. 5, page 577 (25 May 1861). Woodruff's information about what Brigham Young said on that occasion was independently verified by John D. Lee, from his diary, dated May 30, 1861. (This may be found in Clenand & Brooks, Mormon Chronicle, 1:314. Lee quoted Young as saying, "Vengeance is Mine Saith the Lord, & I have taken a litle of it."As to Young's direction to bishops at Winter Quarters that "when a man is found to be a thief, he will be a thief no longer, cut his throat, & thro him in the River," that is found in the diary of Thomas Bullock, dated 13, Dec. 1846. Bullock was a church historian and recorder, and was the assistant to Church Historian Willard Richards. Young's statement to bishops on this occasion was consistent with other statements he made indicating that suspected thieves should be decapitated because it was God's law. Obviously, we don't know how many (if any) suspected thieves were murdered in this way by bishops or those under the direction of bishops, because if any of them were, their bodies would have disappeared in the river and there would have appeared that the men disappeared mysteriously.So I guess the way to bring this back around to the OP is to ask, if you were a bishop, and the President of the Church asked you to commit a vigilante murder, would you do it?No.If I might provide context. If by stealing food from starving people, we cause those people to die, is that worthy of a death penalty? During martial law is becomes obvious that theft must be dealt with swiftly. The question is whether or not one believes Winter Quarters was in such a heightened point of despair or disaster that a type of martial law came into effect. Would such a requirement be put in place.And aren't we using a type of presentism, taking the demand by the prophet out of that time and placing that same demand in our relatively bountiful period? Finally what is vigilantism when no law exists? Consider the California Gold Rush, for two to three years, there was no law in the gold fields, and yet everyone was fighting to keep their "poke" (in terms of a bag) safe from others. Do we simply sit on our hands and declare vigilantism bad and allow one individual to continue killing since to "take the law into one's own hands" is bad. What law did the US provide at Winter Quarters, in fact what law was provided to protect the Saints at all? Edited March 19, 2012 by Jeff K.
california boy Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 California Boy: I believe that members of the Church were politically involved. As citizens of California we have an absolute right to be politically involved. As members of the Church we have a moral responsibilty to be involved in our communities, states, and nations.I completely agree with you. I never have stated otherwise. That is not the issue I was addressing in my post.
Jeff K. Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 I am reminded of this weeks priesthood lesson: The Presidency of the Church … are the representatives of our Heavenly Father, not only to this people, but they represent him to all the people of the earth. We would do well if we would magnify and honor these men he has placed at our head. They are men with human frailties, they will make mistakes, but if we will be as charitable to the mistakes that they make as we are to our own failures and mistakes, we will see their virtues as we see our own.
thesometimesaint Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 California Boy:More money was raised by the Anti8 groups.What is your point?
california boy Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 California Boy:More money was raised by the Anti8 groups.What is your point?This thread is not about prop 8. Zerius asked for an example when a Prophet or Apostle has commanded a Church member to do something that was manifestly wrong? Sky responded with:I'm not saying I agree with it, but an obvious area where a lot of people feel the leaders of the Church were completely wrong was in regards to Proposition 8. Many of the objections to the Church in coming years will center around the Church's doctrines regarding homosexuality. So brace yourself, friends, because we are in for a bumpy ride! I was responding to Zerinus claim:I was careful enough to say evidently wrong. It is not at all "evident" that that is wrong. I would guess that 90% of lds believe it is right. I would guess that 90% of Catholics believe it was right. Perhaps even 90% of Baptists think it was right too. It is something about which it is possible to have more than one opinion. I am not aware that the Church has taken any disciplinary action against any Church member who has disagreed with Prop. 8. Since you seem to have forgotten what I posted, I will repost it for you.You may find 90% of the church that agrees with the churches position on prop 8 was correct. I doubt very much you would find 90% of the church members who think the prophets and apostles decision to get politically involved in prop 8 was a good decision. I coubt you would find 90% of the church leadership that made the decision to get politically involved in prop 8 in hindsight think it was a wise decision. They should have counseled with God a little more on that idea. My support for that statement is the noticable fact that the church is not getting politically involved in this election cycle where similar propositions are on at least 5 states ballots. Evidently it was wrong guidance and counsel.That is my point.
Jeff K. Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 (edited) I bet that 90% plus think it was a good decision, they may not agree with the results and resulting attacks, but your opinion that it was "evidently wrong" is your opinion without the "evidently" part. In fact, from what I have seen it has done more to bring the church to the forefront of the national discussion than anything outside of the Romney campaign, giving the church the platform and opportunity to explain its doctrine.Wrong? it may well have been the best decision the church has made in a decade.We will wait and see the evidence as it unfolds, but it certinaly isn't presently evidentiary. Edited March 19, 2012 by Jeff K.
KevinG Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 It is easy for those who disagree with the Lord and step away from His plan to see this as the Lord being wrong. I've been there myself and had to repent. I knew I was in trouble when a good sense conference talk written by an Apostle offended and angered me. I was overwhelmed with my life and the talk on dedicating ourselves to service just stuck in my craw. It was quite a wakeup call. When I did repent of my attitude and rededicated myelf to the work of the Kingdom I was greatly comforted. Then I was part of a layoff. But you know what - my changed attitude and unplanned changes in my life have been a blessing that will give me strength in the long run.
thesometimesaint Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 California Boy:Getting involved in Prop8 was not improper, nor was repealing Prohabition, nor is asking that members get involved in their communities. To make "what if" claims or to take out of context quotes and apply them to the general membership of the Church is rediculous. As members of the Church we don't give up our Agency. We individually will be held to what we individually do. To claim that "The Bishop/President of the Church made me do it" holds as much water as claiming "The Devil made me do".If Brigham Young believed that men live on the sun. He alone is responsible for his belief. It has no bearing on me. IF, and I have no reason to believe that he does, Thomas S. Monson believes bald heads are sexy. I'm fine with that though I have a full head of hair at 60 years old and will probably keep it the rest of my life.
zerinus Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 How exactly do you want me to respond to your statement that the church was not politically involved in Prop 8? Do we really need to derail this thread by me listing all of the things the church and it's members did to actively pass prop 8? If providing over half of the financial support and over 70% of the manpower to pass prop 8 was not being politically involved what would you consider being politically involved? It is not called the "Mormon proposition" because the church sat on the sidelines.I am not aware that the Church institutionally provided financial or human resources to promote its cause; but individual Church members did; which they were entitled to do as citizens. It was not just Mormons. Catholics and many other faith groups did the same. Indeed, the LDS Church became involved because it was invited by Archbishop Niederauer of San Francisco to support the campaign. The opposing camp spent more. Citizens are free to devote their means to support any cause that they feel is important enough for them to support.
Sky Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 Sorry guys, I did not mean to turn this into another disucssion about Prop 8!This is only beating a dead horse! I think we all know where we stand, and none of us are likely going to change our minds. Can we at least agree on that?
Bob Crockett Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 Thanks, Gohan. The Wilford Woodruff source is from his journal, vol. 5, page 577 (25 May 1861). Woodruff's information about what Brigham Young said on that occasion was independently verified by John D. Lee, from his diary, dated May 30, 1861. (This may be found in Clenand & Brooks, Mormon Chronicle, 1:314. Lee quoted Young as saying, "Vengeance is Mine Saith the Lord, & I have taken a litle of it." Lee wasn't there.
Pahoran Posted March 19, 2012 Posted March 19, 2012 The mere fact that such a childishly audacious statement came into circulation is enough to make the thinking world vomit.Ah. The "all thinking people agree with me" assumption.Oddly enough, it is usually held by those with the smallest minds.Regards,Pahoran
california boy Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 I am not aware that the Church institutionally provided financial or human resources to promote its cause; but individual Church members did; which they were entitled to do as citizens. It was not just Mormons. Catholics and many other faith groups did the same. Indeed, the LDS Church became involved because it was invited by Archbishop Niederauer of San Francisco to support the campaign. The opposing camp spent more. Citizens are free to devote their means to support any cause that they feel is important enough for them to support.I am not going to turn this thread into a who did what to pass prop 8 thread. Like Sky said, it is beating a dead horse. If after all of this time and all of the discussions on this subject, all the facts, all the satalite broadcasts, all the letters read in Sacrament meeting, all the statistics on time and money given by Mormons, you feel the Church had no involvement in passing prop 8, I doubt that I could say anything to you that would change your determined mind. But if you want some reality check, just ask around. Yeah ask your ward members or neighbors if they feel the Church had NO political involvement in prop 8. 1
Cobalt-70 Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) I don't agree that the Church became "politically" involved. The Church had a moral duty to support a decision it considered to be morally right and in the interest of society as a whole, and to urge all its members to give it their full support; and that is what it did.That, and organizing members to go door-to-door and hand out flyers, scheduling members to man calling centers, and asking members to donate money to the political organizations that created the TV ads. What makes it different from the church's usual public announcements is that the church actually got directly involved in the dirty world of politics. I'm not saying whether that was good or bad, but it certainly gave the church a black eye, and probably turned off some unknown number of potential converts.I know several good, active and stalwart Mormons who voted against Prop. 8, and declined to get involved this time around. But I haven't heard of anybody being reprimanded for that by church leaders. I understand that to mean that, as in times past, nobody is required to adopt the church's political views, and while the church may occasionally dabble in politics, everyone's vote is ultimately a personal thing for which the church is not going to require absolute obedience. Edited March 20, 2012 by Cobalt-70
Jeff K. Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 Members did indeed go door to door, and the organization of such was entirely voluntary by both members and leaders. It was not a requirement for membership or worthiness. Apparently enough people when informed decided it was the right thing to do. And upon moral issues the church would be remiss not to get involved when it is necessary and feasible.
Ares Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 This is not another Prop 8 thread. Get back on topic "Obedience to Leaders" or it will be closed.
zerinus Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) I am not going to turn this thread into a who did what to pass prop 8 thread. Like Sky said, it is beating a dead horse. If after all of this time and all of the discussions on this subject, all the facts, all the satalite broadcasts, all the letters read in Sacrament meeting, all the statistics on time and money given by Mormons, you feel the Church had no involvement in passing prop 8, I doubt that I could say anything to you that would change your determined mind. But if you want some reality check, just ask around. Yeah ask your ward members or neighbors if they feel the Church had NO political involvement in prop 8.That depends on how you want to define "political involvement". The kind of "political involvement" that churches should not become involved in are (a) when they support a particular political candidate over another (of whatever party), or (b) when they support a particular political party over another (and urge their members to do so), or (c ) when they support a cause that is essentially political rather than moral or something else. Participating in the democratic process to support a moral issue is NOT the same as becoming involved in politics. Prop 8 was NOT a political issue, but a moral issue. The LDS Church (and any other church or organization) did NOT become involved in politics by supporting (or opposing) Prop 8. Using the political (and democratic) process to accomplish a moral purpose is NOT the same as becoming involved in politics. Edited March 20, 2012 by zerinus 1
california boy Posted March 20, 2012 Posted March 20, 2012 That depends on how you want to define "political involvement". The kind of "political involvement" that churches should not become involved in are (a) when they support a particular political candidate over another (of whatever party), or (b) when they support a particular political party over another (and urge their members to do so), or (c ) when they support a cause that is essentially political rather than moral or something else. Participating in the democratic process to support a moral issue is NOT the same as becoming involved in politics. Prop 8 was NOT a political issue, but a moral issue. The LDS Church (and any other church or organization) did NOT become involved in politics by supporting (or opposing) Prop 8. Using the political (and democratic) process to accomplish a moral purpose is NOT the same as becoming involved in politics.Did you not read what the moderator said? This is not a prop 8 thread. If you would like to start a prop 8 thread, I would be more than happy to answer your post. Because I would love to hear how you think not allowing gays to marry makes anyome more moral. So go ahead and start a prop 8 thread and we can discuss this issue if you would like. Otherwise please stay on topic. This thread is about being obedient to chruch leaders.
Recommended Posts