Prophets Saw Our Day

[Questing Beast]

So you don't believe there was a total division between the wicked and the righteous during Enoch's day? and you don't believe there was a total division between the wicked and the righteous in Noah's day? and you don't believe there was a total division between the wicked and the righteous when Lot's family escaped the Lord's judgments on Sodom and Gomorrah? and you don't believe there was a total division between the wicked and the righteous during the time of widespread destruction just prior to the Lord's appearance to the spared Nephites? and you don't believe there was a total separation between the wicked and the righteous when righteous Moroni witnessed the total destruction of the Nephite nation because they had fully ripened in iniquity? and you don't believe there was a total division between the wicked and the righteous when righteous Ether witnessed the total destruction of the Jaredite nation as a consequence of their ripening in iniquity? and finally, you don't believe there will be a separation between the righteous and the wicked at when the Lord send His judgments upon the gathered wicked during the second coming of the Saviour? (sorry to seem so annoying, but I didn't know how else to put this)

Not annoying at all, actually. What you carefully arranged in order shows my point very well: all such examples are ancient to the point of mythical. In the REAL WORLD of historical evidence, even with all the interpretation variance that the evidence receives, no such condition has ever been shown to develop. The "fall of Rome" easily the largest collapsing culture and gov't in both geographical extent and population, was no such division as you suggest from scripture. The destruction of the Jews and "Judea" their homeland/nation was never so cut and dried, as "righteous and wicked" camps. The so-called Lamanites of the Americas were not to be divided into "righteous and wicked" as the "gentiles" destroyed ninety percent of them, mostly unintentionally through shared diseases. Unless I see clearly with my own eyes and ears I won't believe that such a scenario is even possible. People are too variable, but with the vast majority falling in the "middle" where they behave themselves most of the time and life galumphs along as always. Does God intend to save or destroy that greatest demographic segment of the earth? Where does the "knife of judgment" slice, to divide humanity into "righteous" over here, "wicked" over there? Most people, easily seventy-five percent and upward, don't care about religion much if at all. They ignore it and go about daily cares being decent to everyone. In one of the "most wicked cities of the world", LA, my daughter's boyfriend has a job, in downtown LA in fact, and when he lost his wallet, some faceless "wicked" person turned it in, with nary a one dollar bill missing, to the desk clerk, and he was notified and it was returned. I'd be stupid to assume the faceless one was "one of the three Nephites", or a Mormon, or one of the "righteous minority", since especially in LA religion is even less attended to by the population at large. Why would any typically "wicked" person return a stranger's wallet, crammed with cash and credit cards? That's not what "wicked" people do. I could multiply examples, and so can you: of common people doing exactly that kind of thing for total strangers. Such stories vastly outnumber the crap examples of humanity who take advantage every chance they get. The REAL WORLD does not divide out into the two distinct camps of "righteous and wicked" in scriptural tales posing as history.... Edited July 26, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Questing Beast]

I am an gay man, living with a guy that I both love and respect. We have a wonderful life together filled with kindness and respect. We give freely to those in need and spend time serving in soup kitchens that feed the poor of our city, serve as volunteers in helping to raise money for Habitat for Humanity, as well as other civic causes. While I used to be an active member of the church, I had to give all of that up because I don't fit in to the heterosexual mold that the church has tried so hard for me to fit into. I was married and had children partly because I was promised that if I did, I would somehow start to fit into that heterosexual mold the church demands. Even though I am divorced, I still make sure my wife is doing well and help her financially more than what the courts require. I support my children and I am an active participant in their lives. I support them in their activity of the church and have never spoken bad about the churches leaders or the goodness that the church offers. I could go on, but I think you understand enough about my life to answer this question.

Am I righteous or am I wicked. Am I against God? Do I fight against Christ? Are you going to put me in the camp with the wicked simly because I am gay and have chosen to live a life filled with love and companionship rather than try and fit into the current mold the church so wants me to be shoved into? Just how evil do you want to lable me?

You are not addressing me directly, but this strikes so close to home right now that I feel a response is needed, for me at least.

I have "wayward daughters of Zion", as it were. One in particular IDs as "bi. She admits that she's felt physically attracted to both genders. Her current relationship is with another woman. It has a sexual dimension to it, even despite her father's (my) admonition to leave the sex out of it, as they are not even "married" in a civil sense, or anything whatsoever to do with legalizing the relationship. They are just very close friends. "Lovers", I suppose. I said to leave the sex out of it, because I'd say that to a "straight" child too. But fundamentally, when my daughter decided that Mormonism was not for her, she decided that religion in general is not for her. You won't find a more kind, respectful, responsible person than my daughter. She tutors to help immigrants learn English. She is always trying to help those around her feel better about themselves. She's loving to all in the family and respectful of we her parents, etc. and etc. She is a good person in every sense of the word. But she has this blind side: she thinks that sex doesn't matter. I'd be just as upset at her attitude if she focused on a guy.

Now comes the difficulty. We have the typical traditions of family dinners and other gatherings. Regularly we gather as extended family at our house for Sunday dinner. Boyfriends and girlfriends have been included over the years. The greatest majority of family are LDS and actively so. My daughter wants to include her "girlfriend". I am very, very anti including of any bf or gf who is being immoral with my child in family Sunday dinnertime! To knowingly allow this acceptance goes against long-held standards about what role sex plays in the human family. My natural inclination is to agree that sex is just a plaything. My experience says otherwise. "Sexual jealousy" is very real. We are talking about deep-seated biological imperatives. And, in this specific case, we are talking about two females! One is my daughter and the other is a slightly older woman whose family is totally dysfunctional, addicted to substance abuse and in trouble with the law perennially. My daughter thinks she can "help" her gf. But the sex, the biology, will not help. I can only put it to her that way, when I refuse to allow her gf to join "the family" for Sunday dinners and other invited occasions. It won't fly. She will think I am merely being bigoted toward "gays"....

[Tacenda]

I am an gay man, living with a guy that I both love and respect. We have a wonderful life together filled with kindness and respect. We give freely to those in need and spend time serving in soup kitchens that feed the poor of our city, serve as volunteers in helping to raise money for Habitat for Humanity, as well as other civic causes. While I used to be an active member of the church, I had to give all of that up because I don't fit in to the heterosexual mold that the church has tried so hard for me to fit into. I was married and had children partly because I was promised that if I did, I would somehow start to fit into that heterosexual mold the church demands. Even though I am divorced, I still make sure my wife is doing well and help her financially more than what the courts require. I support my children and I am an active participant in their lives. I support them in their activity of the church and have never spoken bad about the churches leaders or the goodness that the church offers. I could go on, but I think you understand enough about my life to answer this question.

Am I righteous or am I wicked. Am I against God? Do I fight against Christ? Are you going to put me in the camp with the wicked simly because I am gay and have chosen to live a life filled with love and companionship rather than try and fit into the current mold the church so wants me to be shoved into? Just how evil do you want to lable me?

I wish I could give rep points .

[teddyaware]

Not annoying at all, actually. What you carefully arranged in order shows my point very well: all such examples are ancient to the point of mythical. In the REAL WORLD of historical evidence, even with all the interpretation variance that the evidence receives, no such condition has ever been shown to develop. The "fall of Rome" easily the largest collapsing culture and gov't in both geographical extent and population, was no such division as you suggest from scripture. The destruction of the Jews and "Judea" their homeland/nation was never so cut and dried, as "righteous and wicked" camps. The so-called Lamanites of the Americas were not to be divided into "righteous and wicked" as the "gentiles" destroyed ninety percent of them, mostly unintentionally through shared diseases. Unless I see clearly with my own eyes and ears I won't believe that such a scenario is even possible. People are too variable, but with the vast majority falling in the "middle" where they behave themselves most of the time and life galumphs along as always. Does God intend to save or destroy that greatest demographic segment of the earth? Where does the "knife of judgment" slice, to divide humanity into "righteous" over here, "wicked" over there? Most people, easily seventy-five percent and upward, don't care about religion much if at all. They ignore it and go about daily cares being decent to everyone. In one of the "most wicked cities of the world", LA, my daughter's boyfriend has a job, in downtown LA in fact, and when he lost his wallet, some faceless "wicked" person turned it in, with nary a one dollar bill missing, to the desk clerk, and he was notified and it was returned. I'd be stupid to assume the faceless one was "one of the three Nephites", or a Mormon, or one of the "righteous minority", since especially in LA religion is even less attended to by the population at large. Why would any typically "wicked" person return a stranger's wallet, crammed with cash and credit cards? That's not what "wicked" people do. I could multiply examples, and so can you: of common people doing exactly that kind of thing for total strangers. Such stories vastly outnumber the crap examples of humanity who take advantage every chance they get. The REAL WORLD does not divide out into the two distinct camps of "righteous and wicked" in scriptural tales posing as history....

So you disbelieve or rationalize away the scriptures. By this, you are also apparently revealing you don't believe the Book of Mormon is an accurate historical record of things that actually happened on planet earth. So this debate actually hinges on the truthfulness and historicity of the Book of Mormon -- that's where the debate really lies.

If it were at all possible for you to succeed in convincing a believer that the Book of Mormon is not genuinely historical and that, for instance, the wicked Nephite faction mentioned in 3rd Nephi was not utterly destroyed by the judgments of God, then you might be better able to convince that former believer there has never been an actual instance in all of world history where the ranks of the righteous and ranks of the wicked were not totally divided.

Because I for one believe in the divine authenticity and historicity of the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, and most of the Bible, you will never be able to convince me I'm wrong on this point. So why bother?

Edited July 26, 2013 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

True to form, when all else fails, the 'arc steadier' card is guaranteed to win the day.

But don't overuse your ace. We naysayers might become immune to it.

Perhaps I should find a synonym for ark steadier. I'm glad that my use of the expression in my post still had some potency.

[Questing Beast]

So you disbelieve or rationalize away the scriptures. By this, you are also apparently revealing you don't believe the Book of Mormon is an accurate historical record of things that actually happened on planet earth. So this debate actually hinges on the truthfulness and historicity of the Book of Mormon -- that's where the debate really lies.

If it were at all possible for you to succeed in convincing a believer that the Book of Mormon is not genuinely historical and that, for instance, the wicked Nephite faction mentioned in 3rd Nephi was not utterly destroyed by the judgments of God, then you might be better able to convince that former believer there has never been an actual instance in all of world history where the ranks of the righteous and ranks of the wicked were not totally divided.

Because I for one believe in the divine authenticity and historicity of the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, and most of the Bible, you will never be able to convince me I'm wrong on this point. So why bother?

I won't bother. Anybody bothering to disabuse me of my belief in scripture as accurate history would have likewise failed. I ended up being convinced that scripture is as manipulated as all history by studying history enough to see that this is commonplace. I convinced myself. We have even discussed a modern version of this elsewhere on this forum, with "Alan" asserting that, among other sources, the Wm Clayton Nauvoo period journal was back-written later to show JS as responsible for, and living, polygamy; and this is believable to "Alan" because he did that very thing with his missionary journal of his early mission: rewrote it to present his feelings then in the better perspective of later development, and threw the original journal away. People do this sort of thing all the time, religious writings not excepted to any degree that I can tell....

[teddyaware]

I won't bother. Anybody bothering to disabuse me of my belief in scripture as accurate history would have likewise failed. I ended up being convinced that scripture is as manipulated as all history by studying history enough to see that this is commonplace. I convinced myself. We have even discussed a modern version of this elsewhere on this forum, with "Alan" asserting that, among other sources, the Wm Clayton Nauvoo period journal was back-written later to show JS as responsible for, and living, polygamy; and this is believable to "Alan" because he did that very thing with his missionary journal of his early mission: rewrote it to present his feelings then in the better perspective of later development, and threw the original journal away. People do this sort of thing all the time, religious writings not excepted to any degree that I can tell....

How do you believe this kind of manipulation and embellishment happened to the Book of Mormon, as there was only one translator?

[Ahab]

I am an gay man, living with a guy that I both love and respect. We have a wonderful life together filled with kindness and respect. We give freely to those in need and spend time serving in soup kitchens that feed the poor of our city, serve as volunteers in helping to raise money for Habitat for Humanity, as well as other civic causes. While I used to be an active member of the church, I had to give all of that up because I don't fit in to the heterosexual mold that the church has tried so hard for me to fit into. I was married and had children partly because I was promised that if I did, I would somehow start to fit into that heterosexual mold the church demands. Even though I am divorced, I still make sure my wife is doing well and help her financially more than what the courts require. I support my children and I am an active participant in their lives. I support them in their activity of the church and have never spoken bad about the churches leaders or the goodness that the church offers. I could go on, but I think you understand enough about my life to answer this question.

Am I righteous or am I wicked. Am I against God? Do I fight against Christ? Are you going to put me in the camp with the wicked simly because I am gay and have chosen to live a life filled with love and companionship rather than try and fit into the current mold the church so wants me to be shoved into? Just how evil do you want to lable me?

The correct answer to whether you are righteous or wicked depends on the correct understanding of those terms, because if a righteous person is a person who never does anything wrong then there probably aren't any or very many of us on this Earth who are that good. I think it's better to ask if you do anything which is righteous, or anything that is wicked, and then get the honest answer to that question. Surely you know that most of us in the Church believe our Lord has taught that sexual relations between people of the same sex is a sin, so if you are doing that then you're doing something that.... well, it ain't good, even if you like doing it.

Lots of us can point to a lot of the good things we do in our lives. What we need to work on is no longer doing anything that is evil.

[WmLaw]

So you don't believe there was a total division between the wicked and the righteous during Enoch's day? and you don't believe there was a total division between the wicked and the righteous in Noah's day? and you don't believe there was a total division between the wicked and the righteous when Lot's family escaped the Lord's judgments on Sodom and Gomorrah? and you don't believe there was a total division between the wicked and the righteous during the time of widespread destruction just prior to the Lord's appearance to the spared Nephites? and you don't believe there was a total separation between the wicked and the righteous when righteous Moroni witnessed the total destruction of the Nephite nation because they had fully ripened in iniquity? and you don't believe there was a total division between the wicked and the righteous when righteous Ether witnessed the total destruction of the Jaredite nation as a consequence of their ripening in iniquity? and finally, you don't believe there will be a separation between the righteous and the wicked at when the Lord send His judgments upon the gathered wicked during the second coming of the Saviour? (sorry to seem so annoying, but I didn't know how else to put this)

My question would be, is it really that easy for you to see people fitting so nicely into only 2 categories?

[cinepro]

You know, whenever I hear that ancient prophets saw our day, I always wonder if they saw Kate Upton. Because that would have been very memorable for them.

[teddyaware]

My question would be, is it really that easy for you to see people fitting so nicely into only 2 categories?

Of course not. This happens only occasionally, and only after a people who have the gospel turn against it and become fully ripened in iniquity. This is why the Lord brought such great cataclysmic destruction upon whole populations in ancient America at the time of Christ's resurrection. By that time, Nephite society had become totally polarized, with those who had ripened in iniquity by their total rejection of God and His laws on one side, and with the followers of the Lamb of God on the other.

By comparison, it seems to me the United States has quite a way to go before we reach that point of no return. But there can also be no doubt the population of the United States is, even now, becoming more and more polarized.

Edited July 26, 2013 by teddyaware

[Ahab]

You know, whenever I hear that ancient prophets saw our day, I always wonder if they saw Kate Upton. Because that would have been very memorable for them.

And kinda distracting to boot, I would think. Moses said he saw everybody. Kinda hard to imagine not wanting to pause and think of some people for at least a few seconds, or so. I wonder if he was just looking superficially or if he could really see the beauty inside of each person's personality.

[Bikeemikey]

So you disbelieve or rationalize away the scriptures. By this, you are also apparently revealing you don't believe the Book of Mormon is an accurate historical record of things that actually happened on planet earth. So this debate actually hinges on the truthfulness and historicity of the Book of Mormon -- that's where the debate really lies.

If it were at all possible for you to succeed in convincing a believer that the Book of Mormon is not genuinely historical and that, for instance, the wicked Nephite faction mentioned in 3rd Nephi was not utterly destroyed by the judgments of God, then you might be better able to convince that former believer there has never been an actual instance in all of world history where the ranks of the righteous and ranks of the wicked were not totally divided.

Because I for one believe in the divine authenticity and historicity of the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, and most of the Bible, you will never be able to convince me I'm wrong on this point. So why bother?

Even history books struggle to be accurately historical. Why would a book that claims explicitly in its text that it is actively selecting content that is spiritual and not historical, even want to be considered historical.

Why is the accuracy of the historical record a relevant consideration for a believer of the text?

I believe in the divinity of the BOM, I also believe the BOM has overtly cautioned its readers to avoid considering it a historical text.

[Bikeemikey]

How do you believe this kind of manipulation and embellishment happened to the Book of Mormon, as there was only one translator?

The Book of Mormon was selected hundreds of years after the fact by mormon as a curator of a much broader selection of texts.

He admits to selectively including and editing the material to meet the specific message he was inspired to share.

That BOM contains the admission of the very manipulation that questing beast mentioned.

This is not a value judgement - it simply has a direct impact on its credibility as an historical text.

[Bikeemikey]

Of course not. This happens only occasionally, and only after a people who have the gospel turn against it and become fully ripened in iniquity. This is why the Lord brought such great cataclysmic destruction upon whole populations in ancient America at the time of Christ's resurrection. By that time, Nephite society had become totally polarized, with those who had ripened in iniquity by their total rejection of God and His laws on one side, and with the followers of the Lamb of God on the other.

By comparison, it seems to me the United States has quite a way to go before we reach that point of no return. But there can also be no doubt the population of the United States is, even now, becoming more and more polarized.

Yes but current USA political polarization is a political one, that is not the same thing.

Edited July 26, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[california boy]

You are not addressing me directly, but this strikes so close to home right now that I feel a response is needed, for me at least.

I have "wayward daughters of Zion", as it were. One in particular IDs as "bi. She admits that she's felt physically attracted to both genders. Her current relationship is with another woman. It has a sexual dimension to it, even despite her father's (my) admonition to leave the sex out of it, as they are not even "married" in a civil sense, or anything whatsoever to do with legalizing the relationship. They are just very close friends. "Lovers", I suppose. I said to leave the sex out of it, because I'd say that to a "straight" child too. But fundamentally, when my daughter decided that Mormonism was not for her, she decided that religion in general is not for her. You won't find a more kind, respectful, responsible person than my daughter. She tutors to help immigrants learn English. She is always trying to help those around her feel better about themselves. She's loving to all in the family and respectful of we her parents, etc. and etc. She is a good person in every sense of the word. But she has this blind side: she thinks that sex doesn't matter. I'd be just as upset at her attitude if she focused on a guy.

Now comes the difficulty. We have the typical traditions of family dinners and other gatherings. Regularly we gather as extended family at our house for Sunday dinner. Boyfriends and girlfriends have been included over the years. The greatest majority of family are LDS and actively so. My daughter wants to include her "girlfriend". I am very, very anti including of any bf or gf who is being immoral with my child in family Sunday dinnertime! To knowingly allow this acceptance goes against long-held standards about what role sex plays in the human family. My natural inclination is to agree that sex is just a plaything. My experience says otherwise. "Sexual jealousy" is very real. We are talking about deep-seated biological imperatives. And, in this specific case, we are talking about two females! One is my daughter and the other is a slightly older woman whose family is totally dysfunctional, addicted to substance abuse and in trouble with the law perennially. My daughter thinks she can "help" her gf. But the sex, the biology, will not help. I can only put it to her that way, when I refuse to allow her gf to join "the family" for Sunday dinners and other invited occasions. It won't fly. She will think I am merely being bigoted toward "gays"....

I am kinda surprised that you would be struggling with this question. I assume you believe in Christ and try to follow His example. He was pretty clear on how He handled this situation. Eating with sinners was never a problem for him. Are you trying to be more righteous than Christ himself?? You have to ask yourself the question, "Do I want to follow the Pharisee of Christ's day or do I want to follow Christ himself? What choice would the pharise make? What choice would Christ make.

[teddyaware]

Yes but current USA political polarization is a political one, that is not the same thing.

It's not just political. Though some may want to characterize the growing polarization in the US that way, there's a lot more going on than just a split between advocates of one political party or another. For example, attitudes toward marriage, the family, morality and personal responsibility are all issues that transcend political considerations.

[california boy]

You certainly read more into what I wrote than what I was intending to convey. Reading your response causes me to wonder if there are times when the spirit of man cries out to be heard in spite of what the natural man is thinking.

As to your question, I will not stand in judgment of you or even take a tentative jab at it. The God of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints loves you with a love that is infinite and eternal; the depth of that love is far beyond the comprehension of the mind of man. I'm sure He has good things in store for you. After all, the Saviour has taught us that in His Father's house there are many mansions, a realm of glory in the hereafter perfectly suited to each one of His children's own unique character, personality, spirituality and needs.

I would agree with you. And like you in this post, I am unwilling to divide His children between the righteous and wicked. I have no idea what God has in mind for me. But I put my trust in Him, as we all must.

[Bikeemikey]

It's not just political. Though some may want to characterize the growing polarization in the US that way, there's a lot more going on than just a split between advocates of one political party or another. For example, attitudes toward marriage, the family, morality and personal responsibility are all issues that transcend political considerations.

Well i disagree.

Most other first world nations have managed to make the transition to higher personal freedom, liberty and accountability by extracting the Govt. out of private moral actions with out creating the artificial and fabricated partisanship currently seen in the USA... the reason for these other nations success and the USA failure is very simple. The USA has only two political parties and these parties are greatly advantage by deep polarization. The rest of the first world democracies all have multi-party govts where such a division is virtually impossible to achieve as broad based coalitions are required to govern.

But this would be political so I will let it rest and simply say I think you are mistaken.

[teddyaware]

I am kinda surprised that you would be struggling with this question. I assume you believe in Christ and try to follow His example. He was pretty clear on how He handled this situation. Eating with sinners was never a problem for him. Are you trying to be more righteous than Christ himself?? You have to ask yourself the question, "Do I want to follow the Pharisee of Christ's day or do I want to follow Christ himself? What choice would the pharise make? What choice would Christ make.

It all depends. There are times when the Lord's people are expected to actively engage with the world for the gospel's sake, and there are other times when the Lord commands his people to separate themselves from the wicked. For example, in the very last days, when the world is fully ripening in iniquity, during the climatic scenes that precede the second coming the Lord, the people who have not gathered themselves to Zion will be at constant war with one another. In those days, the only place where peace and safety will be found will be in Zion; and the people who will be gathered there will be those who obeyed the commandment to come out from Babylon and flee unto the Zion of God...

"68 And it shall come to pass among the wicked, that every man that will not take his sword against his neighbor must needs flee unto Zion for safety.

69 And there shall be gathered unto it out of every nation under heaven; and it shall be the only people that shall not be at war one with another.

70 And it shall be said among the wicked: Let us not go up to battle against Zion, for the inhabitants of Zion are terrible; wherefore we cannot stand.

71 And it shall come to pass that the righteous shall be gathered out from among all nations, and shall come to Zion, singing with songs of everlasting joy." (D&C 45)

[teddyaware]

Well i disagree.

Most other first world nations have managed to make the transition to higher personal freedom, liberty and accountability by extracting the Govt. out of private moral actions with out creating the artificial and fabricated partisanship currently seen in the USA... the reason for these other nations success and the USA failure is very simple. The USA has only two political parties and these parties are greatly advantage by deep polarization. The rest of the first world democracies all have multi-party govts where such a division is virtually impossible to achieve as broad based coalitions are required to govern.

But this would be political so I will let it rest and simply say I think you are mistaken.

Righteousness and the things of the soul transcend politics. When the second coming approaches, the main point of separation will be those who believe in and practice righteousness under God and those who don't. Politics will primarily be incidental. That's what the scriptures say, and I believe them.

[Bikeemikey]

Righteousness and the things of the soul transcend politics. When the second coming approaches, the main point of separation will be those who believe in and practice righteousness under God and those who don't. Politics will primarily be incidental. That's what the scriptures say, and I believe them.

Oh I fully agree. That the separation in the USA right now is not righteousness...

[teddyaware]

Oh I fully agree. That the separation in the USA right now is not righteousness...

To me, righteousness is playing a major role in today's polarization. Much of the moral battle may be being fought under political banners, but distill things down and righteousness vs. unrighteousness is still the main issue. For example, those who reverence the sanctity of human life and those who largely don't may argue their positions under certain political banners, but respect for the sanctity of human life and lack of the same transcends mere political debate.

[Bikeemikey]

To me, righteousness is playing a major role in today's polarization. Much of the moral battle may be being fought under political banners, but distill things down and righteousness vs. unrighteousness is still the main issue. For example, those who reverence the sanctity of human life and those who largely don't may argue their positions under certain political banners, but respect for the sanctity of human life and lack of the same transcends mere political debate.

Yes it does transcend the political debate... in fact all the polling data shows that sanctity for human life is actually equally respected across both sides of the political spectrum - even though some politicians get great advantage by stating that this is not the case. In fact, there are almost no humans who do not have a sanctity for human life... those that do not are commonly referred to as psychopaths.

[california boy]

It all depends. There are times when the Lord's people are expected to actively engage with the world for the gospel's sake, and there are other times when the Lord commands his people to separate themselves from the wicked. For example, in the very last days, when the world is fully ripening in iniquity, during the climatic scenes that precede the second coming the Lord, the people who have not gathered themselves to Zion will be at constant war with one another. In those days, the only place where peace and safety will be found will be in Zion; and the people who will be gathered there will be those who obeyed the commandment to come out from Babylon and flee unto the Zion of God...

"68 And it shall come to pass among the wicked, that every man that will not take his sword against his neighbor must needs flee unto Zion for safety.

69 And there shall be gathered unto it out of every nation under heaven; and it shall be the only people that shall not be at war one with another.

70 And it shall be said among the wicked: Let us not go up to battle against Zion, for the inhabitants of Zion are terrible; wherefore we cannot stand.

71 And it shall come to pass that the righteous shall be gathered out from among all nations, and shall come to Zion, singing with songs of everlasting joy." (D&C 45)

In my opinion, you have to do a lot of pretzel twisting to try and ignore the actions and teachings of Christ on this issue. Do you think Christ considered "fleeing to Zion" rather than sitting down with sinners for dinner? And just where on this earth do you feel the scriptures are counseling this father to flee to, rather than include his daughter and the sinner she lives with to dinner? To Utah? Are you really going to counsel someone to go against the example of Christ Himself while He was on this earth in favor of a dubious interputation of one of HIs prophets?

I personally think when someone ignores what Christ himself taught and the example He set while on this earth and decides to act in just the opposite from His example, they put themselves in very dangerous company. Of course you can justify just about any position by finding a scripture as your justification for any action including murder, slavery, and yes shunning your own children from dinner, but at some point, doesn't one have to ask themselves if they are out of sync with the very basic message of Christ Himself? How did "As I have loved you, love one another" get so complicated? When in doubt, wouldn't it be better to error on the side of asking yourself "What would Christ do?"