Obedience To Leaders

[thesometimesaint]

All people try to follow their leaders, that's why they are called leaders. Without them there would be anarchy. In the Church we try to follow our leaders, but allow for a great deal of latitude in how their leaders are followed. IE. Do you pay a full tithe? Yes I pay 10% of my increase. The Church has no rules as to what increase is, and leaves it up to the individual member to determine it.

Edited March 20, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[zerinus]

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.

LOL! That is a cheap dodge. It won't work. You have lost the argument, and now you are trying to wriggle your way out of it. The focus of my post was NOT Prop 8. It was about what is political and what is not. It was about what kind of activity a church can engage in using the political (and democratic) process without being involved in "politics". Using the democratic process to support a moral cause is not the same as becoming involved in politics.

Edited March 20, 2012 by zerinus

[Jeff K.]

I recall how slavery was opposed from many pulpits. Would one argue that no cause should be denounced? That the preach should simply read from the Bible and produce empty homilies for the flock? Then we really would be sheep, and the shepard merely a Judas which ignores the moral realities in seeking the destruction of a people. Slavery was vociferously opposed, and few today would say it was not a moral cause. I note that when our prophets and apostles speak out, they do not hang their hats on one candidate, in fact they carefully avoid question of candidacy. But where it has a decisive impact on the well being of the saints, their moral well being, I would say there is a moral imperative for them to speak out, and speak out as God inspires them to do so. As far as I know the church has focused on such a policy. There are some that may advocate immorality, making it the standard of the day. The church in generous in that they do not presume intent when a group desires what might be wrong in the eyes of God, that is what agency is about. So long as it does not hinder the church or its teachings. Much like a saint owning a bar and advocating for a lowered drinking age, or a saint owning a lottery franchise and advocating for its legalization. The church does speak out against those issues while not hindering those who support it. That is what leadership, moral leadership is about.

[Cobalt-70]

I recall how slavery was opposed from many pulpits. Would one argue that no cause should be denounced? That the preach should simply read from the Bible and produce empty homilies for the flock? Then we really would be sheep, and the shepard merely a Judas which ignores the moral realities in seeking the destruction of a people. Slavery was vociferously opposed, and few today would say it was not a moral cause. I note that when our prophets and apostles speak out, they do not hang their hats on one candidate, in fact they carefully avoid question of candidacy. But where it has a decisive impact on the well being of the saints, their moral well being, I would say there is a moral imperative for them to speak out, and speak out as God inspires them to do so. As far as I know the church has focused on such a policy. There are some that may advocate immorality, making it the standard of the day. The church in generous in that they do not presume intent when a group desires what might be wrong in the eyes of God, that is what agency is about. So long as it does not hinder the church or its teachings. Much like a saint owning a bar and advocating for a lowered drinking age, or a saint owning a lottery franchise and advocating for its legalization. The church does speak out against those issues while not hindering those who support it. That is what leadership, moral leadership is about.

There would have been a difference, however, between statements by the church leadership (1) strongly condemning slavery, and even commanding Mormons not to own slaves, or (2) encouraging Mormons to vote for a particular initiative that, for example, freed slaves without compensating slave holders, which might have been a complicated political issue on which there was a range of perfectly "moral" views. I think the obligation to obey Mormon leaders does not necessarily extend into the voting booth on specific legislative measures, but they are free to tell us what behaviors are right and wrong.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Jeff K.]

There would have been a difference, however, between statements by the church leadership (1) strongly condemning slavery, and even commanding Mormons not to own slaves, or (2) encouraging Mormons to vote for a particular initiative that, for example, freed slaves without compensating slave holders, which might have been a complicated political issue on which there was a range of perfectly "moral" views. I think the obligation to obey Mormon leaders does not necessarily extend into the voting booth on specific legislative measures, but they are free to tell us what behaviors are right and wrong.

A semantic argument.....

No, you are wrong, there wouldn't be a difference. Condemning it and stating they should not vote for it is the same thing. I think the obligation to obey leaders extends to the right of leaders in the church to outline the morality of an issue, even to organize a system to stop that morality, even as the morality enters politics. Remember it isn't morality that entered politics, it was politics that imposed itself on morality.

[california boy]

LOL! That is a cheap dodge. It won't work. You have lost the argument, and now you are trying to wriggle your way out of it. The focus of my post was NOT Prop 8. It was about what is political and what is not. It was about what kind of activity a church can engage in using the political (and democratic) process without being involved in "politics". Using the democratic process to support a moral cause is not the same as becoming involved in politics.

Ok if you have no problem in getting this thread shut down, I would be glad to answer your post. To say that politics is only about candidates and not about issues is ridiculous. Politics is about how we govern the nation and states. Here is the definition of political

1 the political affairs of the nation: governmental, government,constitutional, ministerial, parliamentary, diplomatic, legislative,administrative, bureaucratic; public, civic, state.

Candidates represent a view on how the laws should be formed and followed. Prop 8 was a law changing the rights of some citizens. To say it was not politics is certainly not supported by any definition of what politics is.

You and Jeff try and make the case that taking away the right of gay couples to marry was a moral issue. So who exactly does not allowing gay marriage make more moral? Are gay people more moral because the are not allowed to marry? Are straight people more moral because gays can now not marry in the state of California? Has there been any spike in increased morality in California because prop 8 passed? Are there less divorces? Are there more stable families because gays are not now allowed to marry? Just how has the morality of California changed because prop 8 has passed??

I am not nor have I ever stated that the church and its members have a right to get into politics. Of course they have that right. Should the church be involved in politics? It is up to the leaders to answer that question not me. But the fact that this election cycle where 5 states are contemplating similar laws to prop 8 the church has wisely decided to not get involved political in those propositions. So the question I have for you and Jeff, if the churches involvement in prop 8 was such a great idea, and something the church felt compelled to do, where are they this time around? Are not the people of Washington deserving of the churches political involvement? Are not the people of Maryland deserving of the churches involvement? Where are the phone banks, Where are the satellite broadcasts? Where is the rallying of the members to finance and man the streets?

I didn't walk away from your posts, I was only respecting the moderators request.

[Jeff K.]

It seems some people have a skewed view. They believe churches should not speak out on moral issues or heaven forbid they organize against immorality. Indeed they believe that encouraging immorality should triumph the act of fighting for morality. In the end it really comes down to whether or not a church has the right to speak out and organize against immoral actions and trends. It would seem that some condemn a church that does not adhere to the politics of the day, they would jeer a church that dares to speak out against what is wrong. It is unfortunate.

Then there are those who attack the church, undermine its stance on morality and jeer at it when it cannot put out every fire everywhere. They call themselves "good members" or "members in good standing". One wonders if they know the difference between a piece of paper and where their heart is or should be? One is forced to question whether the context of following prophets is really one that they understand? I cannot applaud their defense of immorality, to me what is wrong is wrong. They choose their politics over morality, after all, they do not believe in a moral standard, only a political one. They will gladly carry that standard. Unfortunately it isn't God's standard.

Our church leaders have spoken. We know, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the gay lifestyle is immoral. Our leaders are clear on it, the scriptures are clear on it, the spirit tells us so. Do we allow ourselves to be so blinded by the politics of "wanting to be liked" that we embrace what we know to be wrong? Is any group or soul so pathetic. They will continue to jeer, they will continue to tell us not to follow the leaders of our church or will encourage us to reject the advice of those leaders, even when everything we know says otherwise. They will continue to fight against Zion which has no place for adultry. And as they do so, they will continue to separate themselves further and further from God. A piece of paper does not make you a "member in good standing", only the spirit of truth does, not the spirit of politics.

In that sense they have indeed walked away from who we are and who we are trying to become.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Jeff K.

[california boy]

And it seems there are some people who have a skewed view that preventing gays from marrying is a fight against immorality. The thinking goes that some how if we prevent gays from marrying they will be more moral. Yet those same people are quick to condem the "gay lifestyle" because they are often not in committed relationships. I just wonder how many straight couples would be in committed relationships if they were not allowed to be married.

Obedience to church leaders is expected and required when you are a member of that church. Certainly all should respect the right for any church to teach the dogma it chooses to teach to its followers. It is not so much expected to follow the leaders or dogma of a religion if you ar not a member of that church.

There is no fight against Zion. No one is trying to change Mormon beliefs or doctrine. Let them worship how where or what they may.

[Jeff K.]

Those who follow the advice and heed the calls of the prophet invariably find themselves closer to Heavenly Father it has always been so. Those who follow their own political whims, and the whims of society, invariably find themselves further from the truth. They see no fight against Zion because for them, there is no Zion. To them the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is like any other church. They have no testimony of its validity, anymore than they have for any other ecumenical group.

Christ allows us to choose whom we will follow. Some will follow his servants, and take upon themselves the name of Christ. Others will use Christ's name, but take upon themselves the mantle of politics. They have chosen their God. Unfortunately, it isn't our Savior.

[frankenstein]

Obeying a priesthood leader even if you knew what they were saying was wrong? I grew up hearing the story of if your priesthood leader says get on the floor.and roll a marble with your noise you do it. I tend to not agree with that mentality.

[Jeff K.]

And of course, you are never wrong.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Jeff K.

[zerinus]

Candidates represent a view on how the laws should be formed and followed. Prop 8 was a law changing the rights of some citizens. To say it was not politics is certainly not supported by any definition of what politics is.

You and Jeff try and make the case that taking away the right of gay couples to marry was a moral issue. So who exactly does not allowing gay marriage make more moral? Are gay people more moral because the are not allowed to marry? Are straight people more moral because gays can now not marry in the state of California? Has there been any spike in increased morality in California because prop 8 passed? Are there less divorces? Are there more stable families because gays are not now allowed to marry? Just how has the morality of California changed because prop 8 has passed??

I am not nor have I ever stated that the church and its members have a right to get into politics. Of course they have that right. Should the church be involved in politics? It is up to the leaders to answer that question not me. But the fact that this election cycle where 5 states are contemplating similar laws to prop 8 the church has wisely decided to not get involved political in those propositions. So the question I have for you and Jeff, if the churches involvement in prop 8 was such a great idea, and something the church felt compelled to do, where are they this time around? Are not the people of Washington deserving of the churches political involvement? Are not the people of Maryland deserving of the churches involvement? Where are the phone banks, Where are the satellite broadcasts? Where is the rallying of the members to finance and man the streets?

You are not adding anything new. I need only to repeat what I said before, "Using the democratic process to support a moral cause is not the same as becoming involved in politics.

Ok if you have no problem in getting this thread shut down, I would be glad to answer your post. To say that politics is only about candidates and not about issues is ridiculous. Politics is about how we govern the nation and states. Here is the definition of political

* * *

I didn't walk away from your posts, I was only respecting the moderators request.

I think what you are hoping for is that the thread gets shut down as a way of escape from your predicament.

[Jaybear]

You are not adding anything new. I need only to repeat what I said before, "Using the democratic process to support a moral cause is not the same as becoming involved in politics.

Inasmuch as the phrase "democratic process" means the same thing as "political process" you are saying that:

"Using the political process to support a moral cause is not the same as becoming involved in politics."

Good luck with that.

But, in any event, who cares? Its a free country. If the LDS Church wants to get involved in politics, rather than merely using the "democratic process" to support a moral cause, then it has every right to do so.

[Jeff K.]

The LDS church has a right to speak out against immorality, even state sanctioned immorality. They do not endorse a client, but seek after issues. To attempt to muzzle an entire people for speaking out on moral issues is wrong and always has been. Immoral communities want to muzzle them and deny them their voice in order to influence the spread of their personal immorality. Some people are, of course, foolish enough to buy into it and would destroy those they claim to be part of.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Jeff K.

[california boy]

You are not adding anything new. I need only to repeat what I said before, "Using the democratic process to support a moral cause is not the same as becoming involved in politics.

I think what you are hoping for is that the thread gets shut down as a way of escape from your predicament.

The problem is, you haven't explained how preventing gay couples makes them more moral or anyone else for that matter. So what moral cause was the church activally involving itself in the political process over? It is a puzzle to me that somehow stopping anyone from marrying is a moral cause.

I think most people would disagree with you that activally pushing a proposition before the voters is not political. But hey, believe what you want. You certainly have not provided any support for your theory. I on the other hand have provided you with common definitions of what is political.

[frankenstein]

You are not adding anything new. I need only to repeat what I said before, "Using the democratic process to support a moral cause is not the same as becoming involved in politics.

I think what you are hoping for is that the thread gets shut down as a way of escape from your predicament.

zerinus, it is painfully obvious you do not have enough knowledge on this subject. It is also painfully obvious you are not familar with US FEDERAL Tax law.

A true Saint (to borrow a phrase from Pahoran) would not argue that LDS Church Officially was not involved with the passage of Prop 8.

A true Saint would acknowledge that The LDS Church OFFICIALLY contributed to the passage of prop 8.

A true Saint would acknowledge that The LDS Church was fined for failing to file on time the required forms concerning its involvement; this fine being roughly $5500 US.

Please educate yourself on the full facts. Continue your education below

The LDS church has a right to speak out against immorality, even state sanctioned immorality. They do not endorse a client, but seek after issues.

Zerinus, Jeff K, et al

A true Saint would acknowledge that The LDS CHURCH has a LIMITED RIGHT to be involved with political/legislative issues.

A true Saint would acknowledge this limitation as US Law.

A true Saint would honor and sustain the law.

A true Saint would acknowledge that the The LDS CHURCH willingly accepted this limitation on its rights when the LDS Church accepted tax exempt status.

A true Saint would acknowledge that Prop 8 was a ballot measure is treated as a "legislative" matter by the IRS; thus, a true Saint would acknowledge that the LDS Church was limited in its right to be involved.

A true Saint would acknowledge that there is no "moral issue" exception to the limitation on rights, thus a true Saint would acknowledge that the LDS Church remained limited on how involved it could be in the passage of prop 8.

A true Saint would acknowledge that The IRS has not determined whether or not the LDS violate tax laws with its involvement in prop 8. Thus a true Saint can only honest say "we do not know" if the LDS violated the law or not.

A true Saint would say "What we do know for a FACT is that the LDS Church was and is limited in its rights concerning political/legislative matters, which include ballot measures such as Prop 8. And we also equally know for a FACT that there is not a "moral issue" exception to the LDS Church limited rights on political/legislative matters such as prop 8."

Edited March 21, 2012 by frankenstein

[Jeff K.]

And you haven't explained how embracing an immoral lifestyle ie, making it part of a legally sanctioned system, would somehow make being gay more moral? The fact is you change society to induce a greater acceptance of an immoral act, which by its definition is immoral. That is, unless you believe that the gay lifestyle is moral, and therefore you choose to champion it.

[thesometimesaint]

Frankenstein:

Hyberole.

ANY church can advocate for/against any legislation they so desire. It does not loose it tax status simply because it/they don't agree on a piece of legislation. Further individual members of ANY church don't loose their right to participate in the democratic process simply by being members.

[frankenstein]

good greif, why are so many of you unwilling to acknowledge the law of the land?

Edited March 21, 2012 by frankenstein

[thesometimesaint]

Frankenstein:

You refuse to acknowledge that it is a moral issue. You would use the power of the State to circumvent the rights of a religious body. Something the Constitution prohibits.

[frankenstein]

And you haven't explained how embracing an immoral lifestyle ie, making it part of a legally sanctioned system, would somehow make being gay more moral? The fact is you change society to induce a greater acceptance of an immoral act, which by its definition is immoral. That is, unless you believe that the gay lifestyle is moral, and therefore you choose to champion it.

and you know what else I have not done Jeff.....

I have not explained that embracing an immoral lifestyle would somehow make being gay more moral.

But based on your phrasing you are stating that being gay is moral just not as moral a not being gay....Perhaps you would like to edit your commentary.

[frankenstein]

Frankenstein:

You refuse to acknowledge that it is a moral issue. You would use the power of the State to circumvent the rights of a religious body. Something the Constitution prohibits.

Nope, I have not refused anything. I acknowledge the LDS Church accepted a limitation on its rights when it accepted tax exempt status...can you make such an acknowledgement or would you have the LDS Church not honor its contract on tax exempt status? The LDS Church could decide to pay taxes and ride itself of the political/legislative limitation.

There is not a "moral issue" exception to the US Federal Tax Law; so even if the LDS Church claims "moral issue" its right to be involved is still limited by US Federal Tax law.

Prop 8 was a ballot measure. The IRS treats ballots measure as "legislative" matters. Tax exempt organization are limited in their right to be involved with legislative matters - whether the a tax exempt organization considers the legislative matter a moral issue.

I have acknowledge the actions of the LDS Church, the facts and the law....have you?

I have not tried to weasel the LDS Church out of its obligations to honor the law it accepted when the LDS Church accepted tax exempt status.

Edited March 21, 2012 by frankenstein

[LeSellers]

And you appear unable to acknowledge that there is a [sic] not [legalistic/tax code] "moral issue" exception to the LDS Church limited rights in political/legislative matters such as prop 8.

Which begs the question.

The Church has a duty to oppose immoral laws. It is not "politics", per se, the the Church does not involve herself in, it is partisan politics. Political questions affecting morals are not "partisan" questions (except to the extent that the parties make them so—which they so often do).

When the Bishop reads the bi-annual letter to USmerican wards, it reminds us that we cannot use Church property or resources to campaign, etc., for individual candidates or parties. It says nothing at all about other political issues. The merger in many people's minds of "partisan politics" and "politics" in general is an artifact of the general alignment of the Democrat party with "liberal" (a hijacked word) social and spend-thrift economic issues and the Republican assumption of "conservative" stances on matters of morality and fiscal policy. (I hasten to remind people, and inform newcomers, that I am libertarian, and have no favoritism for Democrat or Republican party matters: they're both equally wrong and neither values true freedom at all.)

The Infernal Revenue disService sets more-or-less arbitrary rules that define how much a tax-exempt organization (like a church) can expend without jeopardizing its status. The LDS Church has never even come close to the limit. The only infraction in, e.g., the Proposition 8 matter, was a late filing, not a violation of the limit. Such rules are, in my view and from the vantage point of history, unconscionable. The "Black-Robed Brigade of the late XVIII was a major force multiplier in the Revolution. Our USmerican heritage of religious political activity is indisputable, and to muffle that voice an affront to religious freedom.

Lehi

[Anijen]

I find it a bit of a double standard that critics use quotes of LDS prophets to show a seemingly contradictory view of obedience etc, but when they compare it to a biblical perspective it is okay if the Old Testament or New Testament asks for the same obedience.

IOW its evil or murder or name your prerogative term when an LDS is asked to be obedient but when using the Bible to an evangelical the question of obedience is acceptable.

[frankenstein]

Which begs the question.

The Church has a duty to oppose immoral laws. It is not "politics", per se, the the Church does not involve herself in, it is partisan politics. Political questions affecting morals are not "partisan" questions (except to the extent that the parties make them so—which they so often do).

Lehi

Go read the tax laws.

Lobbying

In general, no organization may qualify for section 501©(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501©(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.

Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature, any local council, or similar governing body, with respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as legislative confirmation of appointive office), or by the public in referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional amendment, or similar procedure. It does not include actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.

An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.

Did the LDS Church advocate for the adoption of Prop 8?

The only honest answer is YES, this is a fact.

Thus, the LDS Church engaged in "lobbying" as defined by the IRS. A 501c3 tax exempt organization, as condition for tax exemption accepts that its right to lobbying is limited.

A 501c3 organization also accepts that there is not a "moral issues" exception to the limitation on its lobbying or political activities.

Edited March 21, 2012 by frankenstein