Is The Lds Church A Conservative/Republican Church?

[ControlFreak]

The problem is that since the Church takes a politically neutral stance, some members erroneously believe that to be sufficient justification to believe and teach certain things that are actually contrary to doctrine or to erroneously assume the Church has a doctrine other than what it actually teaches.

Individual doctrines are very different than whole parties, of course. The discussion isn't on gay marriage, abortion or any other individual item, but on the parties as a whole and whether or not a member can in good consciousness support them.

There is also the very large topic of what is good to personally abstain from (e.g. premarital sex), and what is ok to leave up to each persons own discretion (again, e.g. premarital sex). Just because I don't personally agree with something doesn't mean I would vote against it. I value agency far too much.

[Ahab]

Just because I don't personally agree with something doesn't mean I would vote against it. I value agency far too much.

When you vote you are supposedly telling us whether or not you personally agree with something.

If you didn't personally agree with something why would you vote for it as if you agreed?

You get a question on an issue and you then say Yes or No. You're not supposed to say both Yes and No.

[The Nehor]

I think most of us are, even though some of us don't know or don't agree with God about how to achieve it.

What do you think Zion is?

from wiki:

Politics (from Greek politikos "of, for, or relating to citizens") as a term is generally applied to the art or science of running governmental or state affairs, including behavior within civil governments, but also applies to institutions, fields, and special interest groups such as the corporate, academic, and religious segments of society. It consists of "social relations involving authority or power" and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy.^[1]

Don't think so much about the names of different religious parties. Try thinking about what the ultimate goal is.

... we all want to live in the best world possible, it's just that our way isn't always aligned with God's way, and vice versa.

Enoch did a pretty good job, and so did King Benjamin. Remember this?:

When we are in the service of our fellow beings we are only in the service of God.

We just need to learn that the best way to have the best world possible is to do things as God our Father wants us to do things.

It's not only because he says so, but because it is the best way possible.

Zion is the pure in heart and no, I do not think most people want that. If they did we would have it. In the abstract they may like the idea but as a practical matter they are opposed to it in how they live. Many see it as overly idealistic. There are times I do too but God has said it is the only acceptable way for us to live before him and gave the frightening parable of the Sons in the D&C to explain why.

The ultimate goal is Zion. That is not the ultimate goal of most of the world. We do not share a goal.

Enoch succeeded because he built a holy city of the righteous living Zion principles not because he was a brilliant political mind able to juggle the rights and privileges of various factions to get them to tolerate each other. They were pure and took direction from God.

King Benjamin did not set up a pure society. He changed the government to one that was less dangerous. In the end it failed. His people had a season of righteousness but they did not pass it on to their children. The judge system certainly did not save them.

[ControlFreak]

When you vote you are supposedly telling us whether or not you personally agree with something.

If you didn't personally agree with something why would you vote for it as if you agreed?

You get a question on an issue and you then say Yes or No. You're not supposed to say both Yes and No.

You already quoted my answer. I value agency too much. I don't believe that premarital sex is good. I would never vote to make it illegal.

My personal values are not what I would want to be laws, because I most certianly do not want to have to suffer through anyone else's undesirable personal values becoming law. Where voting and laws are concerned, I value individual freedom far above many other values.

[The Nehor]

There is also the very large topic of what is good to personally abstain from (e.g. premarital sex), and what is ok to leave up to each persons own discretion (again, e.g. premarital sex). Just because I don't personally agree with something doesn't mean I would vote against it. I value agency far too much.

Laws do not influence agency at all, ever. Freedom is what law influence. Freedom is a wonderful thing but living in a society requires giving up some freedoms to acquire more important freedoms.

There is no need to defend agency. God gave it to us and no one will ever be allowed to take it away in any way, shape, or form. God does not need our help on that front.

[seriously honestly]

When you say Church, which person are you referring to?

In this case, I'm not referring to a person; I'm referring to an organization.

[The Nehor]

When you vote you are supposedly telling us whether or not you personally agree with something.

If you didn't personally agree with something why would you vote for it as if you agreed?

You get a question on an issue and you then say Yes or No. You're not supposed to say both Yes and No.

Because there are things that government should not be trusted to regulate.

[Calm]

Deja vu.

All over again even....

[ControlFreak]

Laws do not influence agency at all, ever. Freedom is what law influence. Freedom is a wonderful thing but living in a society requires giving up some freedoms to acquire more important freedoms.

There is no need to defend agency. God gave it to us and no one will ever be allowed to take it away in any way, shape, or form. God does not need our help on that front.

Hmm... I'm pretty sure laws have a rather big influence on agency. And thankfully so. I am very glad that the choice to violently assault someone has been strongly dissuaded by the subsequent prison term.

Some freedoms are necessary to give up (e.g., freedom to drive your car through a red light), however, I would like to give up as few as possible.

Anyway, the point is that it is possible to have a difference in how you vote vs. how you feel. For example, you could be pro-choice and firmly believe that abortion is wrong if you believe that the agency of the woman ranks higher than the right to life of the child. I personally have a hard time feeling that way, but I can at least understand why others might.

[Nathair/|\]

What would Captain Moroni do?

[The Nehor]

Hmm... I'm pretty sure laws have a rather big influence on agency. And thankfully so. I am very glad that the choice to violently assault someone has been strongly dissuaded by the subsequent prison term.

Some freedoms are necessary to give up (e.g., freedom to drive your car through a red light), however, I would like to give up as few as possible.

Anyway, the point is that it is possible to have a difference in how you vote vs. how you feel. For example, you could be pro-choice and firmly believe that abortion is wrong if you believe that the agency of the woman ranks higher than the right to life of the child. I personally have a hard time feeling that way, but I can at least understand why others might.

Laws may change the reasoning people use when exercising agency but they do not restrict it. I can assault someone. The basest prisoner imaginable with almost no freedom still has agency. A man who has leaped off a cliff still has agency. Both are limited in terms of freedom of course.

[The Nehor]

What would Captain Moroni do?

March on Washington, stir up rebellion, and pull down the President and Congress by force because he is not getting reinforcements and MREs.

Maybe the situations just do not match?

[ControlFreak]

Laws may change the reasoning people use when exercising agency but they do not restrict it. I can assault someone. The basest prisoner imaginable with almost no freedom still has agency. A man who has leaped off a cliff still has agency. Both are limited in terms of freedom of course.

Fair enough. I should have used the term "freedom" then, by that definition, not "agency".

[Ahab]

Because there are things that government should not be trusted to regulate.

God has a government, so don't universally rule out all government in general.

[The Nehor]

God has a government, so don't universally rule out all government in general.

God is a government but it is pretty clear I was not talking about the Kingdom of God.

[Ahab]

God is a government but it is pretty clear I was not talking about the Kingdom of God.

You said there are things that government should not be trusted to regulate.

I don't think you were talking about the government of God in that context, and we should trust in him and his government while trying to build up the kingdom of God... which will eventually rule this whole planet.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Ahab

[Hestia]

There is no place for modern Liberalism in any doctrine of the Church.

This is getting close to judging others. In fact this thread is becoming more political so keep it neutral and on topic.

[pmccombs1]

No, he doesn't speak for all of the members, either, because not all of us agree with him. He speaks for God to all of the Church, but he doesn't speak for the whole Church because not all of agree with him. You know this already, don't cha?

I agree with you because I'm a dissenter. But what do you make of this charge found in D&C 38? "I say unto you be one; and if you are not one, you are not mine."

Anyway, there was a time when it was easy to tell when the prophet was speaking for God and not simply for himself, because he would actually speak in the capacity of a mouthpiece. He would speak as if he were the Lord Himself... I say unto you. "Prophet, seer, and revelator" was more than a mere title of authority in those days.

We have a lot of preaching from the early days recorded in the Journal of Discourses. It contains records of Church officials speaking in their capacities as Church leaders. Some of their teachings are rather surprising and wouldn't pass for "official" doctrines today; not that they were true then and false now, but that we feel they just aren't reliable. We sometimes say that those men were speaking speculatively and not officially, yet they spoke often in conferences of the Church and the people then believed them.

As far as I can tell, the Brethren never speak for the Lord these days, either. We never have anybody acting as Voice for God; there is nothing worthy of the D&C. It's mostly repetition of past ideas (which we haven't perfected in practice--or ever will--and are therefore doomed to hear repeated ad nauseum), or policy that may or may not be in effect next year. Notice how, when some new policy is announced, the brethren always use the language of "we." We feel, we think, we are inspired, we, we, we. The announcement is made on behalf of the leadership, not of God. It must be inspired, though, right? Someone felt inspired, unlike all those former leaders who made claims, never canonized, that are recorded in some tome now considered unreliable and subsequently dismissed? I can picture all of the recent pronouncements of the brethren as falling under these same suspicions, just like the things in the Journal of Discourses. Forget what the brethren said then; they spoke no universal truths that we haven't already heard (A Bible! We have got a bible and we need no more bible). We can't augment our canon any longer, because, wouldn't you know it, we have a living prophet who preempts whatever the scriptures say, and his words now have expiration dates on them. So the canon has been closed for quite a while now, if you haven't noticed. In other words, it's so "open" that it's irrelevant.

How do we know the Brethren are speaking for God when they are de-facto speaking for the Church via the language of "we" and leaving the implicit understanding that because they are in authority, they are also representing the Lord's mind? If there has been a consensus among the brethren that is understood to be the will of God, why not put it in those terms? Why risk the same marginalization that has come to plague other speech once uttered by Church authorities that is now considered speculative in nature? Could we not consider all that is said under these conditions as speculative?

Joseph Smith knew the voice of God and wasn't afraid to use it. And when God spoke, we wrote it down, as it were, in stone tablets. You either believed it, or you were out. Joseph Smith didn't leave much room for dissenters like me. He was aiming for a people who needed no king because they were of one mind. We aren't those people, so we have a shadow of what we once had--endless echoes of the Voice of God and a Church that is merely the symbol of another Church that can't seem to last for long in this crazy world.

[The Nehor]

This is getting close to judging others. In fact this thread is becoming more political so keep it neutral and on topic.

The solution to political problems is the simple solution to all problems provided by this maxim:

There is no problem so difficult or complicated that it cannot be solved by killing everyone involved.

[Ahab]

I agree with you because I'm a dissenter. But what do you make of this charge found in D&C 38? "I say unto you be one; and if you are not one, you are not mine."

That's a goal we're still striving for, or at least I hope so, and it's a good goal to work toward. Notice he uses the word "be", and I take that as his command. We should be one with God, and when we're not we should strive to become one with him... at least if we want to be like he is and enjoy all that he enjoys.

Anyway, there was a time when it was easy to tell when the prophet was speaking for God and not simply for himself, because he would actually speak in the capacity of a mouthpiece. He would speak as if he were the Lord Himself... I say unto you. "Prophet, seer, and revelator" was more than a mere title of authority in those days.

We can still know who is speaking for God, though, by finding out for ourselves if what they say agrees with what God tells us.

We have a lot of preaching from the early days recorded in the Journal of Discourses. It contains records of Church officials speaking in their capacities as Church leaders. Some of their teachings are rather surprising and wouldn't pass for "official" doctrines today; not that they were true then and false now, but that we feel they just aren't reliable. We sometimes say that those men were speaking speculatively and not officially, yet they spoke often in conferences of the Church and the people then believed them.

When someone tells you that you shouldn't believe them, or take what they say as official doctrine, do you automatically stop believing? If you know what they said was inspired by God, and agrees with what he thinks, why would you stop believing just because someone told you to not believe it? Just find out what God has to say about what others says, including whether or not to not believe what someone says God said, or didn't say.

As far as I can tell, the Brethren never speak for the Lord these days, either.

Then you need to see a little farther than you can see now. Even if what we have today is repetition of what he has already said, it's still true that he said what he said and it's still just as true as it ever was.

We never have anybody acting as Voice for God; there is nothing worthy of the D&C.

Says you, and do you want to know why I don't believe what you're saying? Because God lets me know when he inspires others to say what they say.

It's mostly repetition of past ideas (which we haven't perfected in practice--or ever will--and are therefore doomed to hear repeated ad nauseum), or policy that may or may not be in effect next year.

Repetition of truth doesn't make it not true. If you haven't accepted what God has already told the Church, collectively, why would you think that would ever change?

Notice how, when some new policy is announced, the brethren always use the language of "we." We feel, we think, we are inspired, we, we, we.

That's how they feel. If you need confirmation from God you can get it.

The announcement is made on behalf of the leadership, not of God.

God has given those men his authority to act in his name. They are God, for all intents and purposes.

It must be inspired, though, right?

You don't need to make any assumptions. You can get a direct confirmation from God to you, personally, who will tell you whether or not he inspired those people to do or say what they did or said, or if he gave them his authority to act on their own.

Someone felt inspired, unlike all those former leaders who made claims, never canonized, that are recorded in some tome now considered unreliable and subsequently dismissed?

The fact that some people don't consider those claims to be from God doesn't mean they aren't. They just don't think so, and you can check with God to see for yourself.

I can picture all of the recent pronouncements of the brethren as falling under these same suspicions, just like the things in the Journal of Discourses. Forget what the brethren said then; they spoke no universal truths that we haven't already heard (A Bible! We have got a bible and we need no more bible). We can't augment our canon any longer, because, wouldn't you know it, we have a living prophet who preempts whatever the scriptures say, and his words now have expiration dates on them. So the canon has been closed for quite a while now, if you haven't noticed. In other words, it's so "open" that it's irrelevant.

More garbage. Why don't you try saying something God has inspired you to say? You're not speaking for him now.

How do we know the Brethren are speaking for God when they are de-facto speaking for the Church via the language of "we" and leaving the implicit understanding that because they are in authority, they are also representing the Lord's mind?

They're not speaking for the Church. I thought we agreed on that point. They're speaking for God, even if some in the Church don't agree with them. God has given them his authority to rule this Church and they have God's authority to make executive level decisions. God has established that order for us to follow, as they follow God, and by following those in charge we are following God's established order of government.... even if they make a mistake or two every now and then.

If there has been a consensus among the brethren that is understood to be the will of God, why not put it in those terms?

You don't really need someone else to tell you it is, or has been. You can go to God as our Father and he'll tell you whether or not those men are speaking for him with his authority. You don't need the rest of the Church to tell you they agree. If they did what would that really mean to you? What would happen if some people didn't agree but it really was the will of God? Would that shatter your faith in God then?

Why risk the same marginalization that has come to plague other speech once uttered by Church authorities that is now considered speculative in nature? Could we not consider all that is said under these conditions as speculative?

You can consider it that way, but that wouldn't necessarily mean it is.

Joseph Smith knew the voice of God and wasn't afraid to use it. And when God spoke, we wrote it down, as it were, in stone tablets. You either believed it, or you were out. Joseph Smith didn't leave much room for dissenters like me. He was aiming for a people who needed no king because they were of one mind.

Well, with more experience came more wisdom, and Joseph eventually learned that we all can't be perfect as fast as he would have liked us to be. Today we're a little more patient and lenient because we understand people need more time to develop. I think we're still making some headway.

We aren't those people, so we have a shadow of what we once had--endless echoes of the Voice of God and a Church that is merely the symbol of another Church that can't seem to last for long in this crazy world.

I think we're doing okay, not as good as we can be but still working on it. Repentance of all of our sins doesn't happen all in one day.

[pmccombs1]

We can still know who is speaking for God, though, by finding out for ourselves if what they say agrees with what God tells us.

And if God is silent, or is contrary?

When someone tells you that you shouldn't believe them, or take what they say as official doctrine, do you automatically stop believing? If you know what they said was inspired by God, and agrees with what he thinks, why would you stop believing just because someone told you to not believe it? Just find out what God has to say about what others says, including whether or not to not believe what someone says God said, or didn't say.

What if we didn't know what to believe in the first place? If some strange doctrine is put forth in old literature--Adam-God or finite-God--and our current authorities remind us that the brethren would speculate and sometimes be wrong, how do we know when our leaders are speculating or wrong?

For many of us, God is silent... or tells us other things.

Then you need to see a little farther than you can see now. Even if what we have today is repetition of what he has already said, it's still true that he said what he said and it's still just as true as it ever was.

But we don't need a prophet for that. We could use some other sort of custodian to remind of Old Things, like every other Church has. They have a bible, and can constantly remind themselves of what it says.

Says you, and do you want to know why I don't believe what you're saying? Because God lets me know when he inspires others to say what they say.

How do you know it's from God?

Repetition of truth doesn't make it not true. If you haven't accepted what God has already told the Church, collectively, why would you think that would ever change?

That's how they feel. If you need confirmation from God you can get it.

Very true. And if I need denial from God, I can also get that in stunning spiritual awesomeness. Whatever I need or am willing to accept is what God seems to come through with.

God has given those men his authority to act in his name. They are God, for all intents and purposes.

Then why don't they speak in his name? Why do they speak in their own name?

You don't need to make any assumptions. You can get a direct confirmation from God to you, personally, who will tell you whether or not he inspired those people to do or say what they did or said, or if he gave them his authority to act on their own.

Yes, I can. And I have. I also have direct knowledge from God that He is a can of cooked sausages. True story. That's why I'm not sure I can rely on this "spiritual" sense. Mine is broken. God made me spiritually defective; I can get a testimony of anything and everything.

The fact that some people don't consider those claims to be from God doesn't mean they aren't. They just don't think so, and you can check with God to see for yourself.

Which God can we check with? Apparently they're all talking on my channel.

More garbage. Why don't you try saying something God has inspired you to say? You're not speaking for him now.

I felt inspired.

They're not speaking for the Church. I thought we agreed on that point.

Well, their language is wrong then. They need to stop using "we" because that is a pronoun that refers to the Church, and not to God. That is de facto.

I think we're doing okay, not as good as we can be but still working on it. Repentance of all of our sins doesn't happen all in one day.

I'd say we've traded a real Zion for an abstraction. Don't take my word, ask God. He'll tell you the Truth.

[BCSpace]

D&C 38? "I say unto you be one; and if you are not one, you are not mine.

Yet we aren't supposed to be one at all costs. We're supposed to be one in the same doctrine and belief which happens to be dictated by the Lord.

The problem is that since the Church takes a politically neutral stance, some members erroneously believe that to be sufficient justification to believe and teach certain things that are actually contrary to doctrine or to erroneously assume the Church has a doctrine other than what it actually teaches.

No, the problem is in thinking the Church is one person, as if that one person represents all of us (the members), and as if we all agree with that one person. There is no one person who we all agree with. We are not one in unity, yet, as God is.

Incorrect. There is one person who we must all agree with and that is the Lord. He has authorized representatives on the earth who establish and publish his doctrine. Therefore, we must be one with the doctrine. If the Lord says no Socialism or no ssm (and he has said both via that operation), then if we are to be one, it is that belief which we must agree on.

Edited November 21, 2012 by BCSpace

[RobertAC]

My outsider-looking-in sense is that Mormons may tend to be conservative, but it seems that they are more libertarian.

[Nathair/|\]

My outsider-looking-in sense is that Mormons may tend to be conservative, but it seems that they are more libertarian.

My dad tried to tell me that one of my libertarian positions was putting me in opposition to Heavenly Father. (It was something I felt should be a moral matter between an adult and his God, not his government, and one that he's only asked members of the Church to act in a certain way as a mark of the covenant, and not something he's commanded to non-members as well.)

[Ahab]

And if God is silent, or is contrary?

Silent? It happens sometimes. Contrary to what? What others say? Then it's not what God says.

What if we didn't know what to believe in the first place?

Ask God, like Joseph did. Someone would probably find out first before some others of us, but then they could write it down or tell us over the pulpit if we were there to hear them and then we could check with God to see if he agreed with what that person said God said, which of course it would if that's what he said in the first place.

If some strange doctrine is put forth in old literature--Adam-God or finite-God--and our current authorities remind us that the brethren would speculate and sometimes be wrong, how do we know when our leaders are speculating or wrong?

By asking God to find out what he says. You shouldn't believe anyone who claims to be speaking for God without checking with God to confirm for yourself.

For many of us, God is silent... or tells us other things.

Then they just don't know what God has said until they find out.

Other things are fine as long as it all agrees with what God has said.

But we don't need a prophet for that.

A prophet is simply someone who has heard from God, and all of us need to hear from him. If we're the first he ever tells something then we're just passing on to others what he has told us and they can confirm it's from God for themselves.

We could use some other sort of custodian to remind of Old Things, like every other Church has. They have a bible, and can constantly remind themselves of what it says.

That's what scriptures are. It's all old news because it's all what has already been said.

How do you know it's from God?

You ask God and wait until he tells you whether or not it is. If he doesn't say anything about it you can just not count that.

Very true. And if I need denial from God, I can also get that in stunning spiritual awesomeness. Whatever I need or am willing to accept is what God seems to come through with.

He says what he says, but not always what some people think he said. If he said it he said it, and if he didn't he didn't. That's how I learn what God says.

Then why don't they speak in his name? Why do they speak in their own name?

They do speak in his name, even if they don't say something like "Thus saith the Lord..." He speaks in the name of the King, and they have the King's authority.

Yes, I can. And I have. I also have direct knowledge from God that He is a can of cooked sausages. True story. That's why I'm not sure I can rely on this "spiritual" sense. Mine is broken. God made me spiritually defective; I can get a testimony of anything and everything.

It sounds to me like you're going through the process of learning the difference between God and somebody else, and whether or not someone else has God's authority. I started out learning the difference between good and evil, while realizing everything good came from God. What did "whoever" mean when he/she said God was a can of cooked sausages? That doesn't sound good to me, but maybe it is, so I'll check to see what God has to say about that.

Which God can we check with? Apparently they're all talking on my channel.

Yes, God is a general term name/title that can refer to pretty much anybody, but when I say God I'm talking about our Father who speaks to us through his son and our Savior, Jesus Christ, who himself often speaks to us through the Holy Spirit. Satan also calls himself God, too, so you'll need to learn the difference between him and them.

I felt inspired.

Did our Father say he inspired you? I don't knew enough about why you may have felt inspired.

Well, their language is wrong then. They need to stop using "we" because that is a pronoun that refers to the Church, and not to God. That is de facto.

It depends on who the "we" is, I think. If one person who is God said we he may have been referring to what our Father and our Lord and the Holy Spirit agreed on together.

I'd say we've traded a real Zion for an abstraction. Don't take my word, ask God. He'll tell you the Truth.

Yeah, I know. Some people have. And don't worry, I do ask God and I take his (or their) word for it.