Bishop On Harry Reid

[katherine the great]

I don't see anything wrong with expressing one's political views on a blog.  Identifying the democratic party in connection with this question, "Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?" was a no-no.  I personally hate that question and wish they would reword it because I think most of us affiliate in some way with "individuals" whose practices are contrary to the church.  In fact I would dare say we all do on some level.  Unless we live in isolation, it's impossible not to.

[Mystery Meat]

 

"Now we do not care a groat* about your political differences, but we wish to say to you, do not permit trivial matters to influence you in the least, and never, no never, no never drag Priesthood into a political Gentile warfare.  Let no religious test be required, or the holy influence and power of the Priesthood be brought to bear in any political question.  If the intrinsic merits of all such matters will not furnish arguments sufficient--for all necessary purposes--then let them go, for it is better that the whole political fabric, corrupt as we know it to be, should totter and go to destruction, than for one Saint to be offended."

 

Letter of First Presidency (Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Willard Richards) to Orson Hyde, in “Brigham Young Manuscript History,” July 20, 1849, p. 105 (LDS Church Archives).

 

*  "a proverbial name for a small sum" Webster's Dictionary, 1828.

 

 

Oh this quote is so full of win.

[Mystery Meat]

Sadly, I think there are many of either party who are convinced that when Christ comes he will ask the other less than valiant members why they did not support a progressive tax or why they did not oppose affirmative action. My opinion is that God is literally indifferent one way or the other.

[BCSpace]

 I personally hate that question and wish they would reword it because I think most of us affiliate in some way with "individuals" whose practices are contrary to the church.  In fact I would dare say we all do on some level.  Unless we live in isolation, it's impossible not to.

 

 

That's why it's such a good and important question.  It forces us to consider our affiliations and allegiances and whether or not they are in harmony with the doctrines of Gospel.

[Robert F. Smith]

That would make our politics all the same.

I'm not sure that this would be true.  Choosing the right is so frequently a matter of variable opinion.  How is it, for example, that so many Mormon politicians (including some General Authorities) have been Democrats?

 

President James E. Faust (counselor in First Pres), who was an elected Democrat in the Utah State House of Representatives; an Apostle for 29 years.

Elder Brigham H. Roberts (First Council of Seventy), U. S. Rep, Utah, who was not seated as punishment for polygamy

David S. King, U. S. Rep, Utah; Gen'l Superintendent of YMMIA; mission pres, temple pres, and stake patriarch

William H. King, U. S. Senator, Utah

Frank E. Moss, U. S. Senator, Utah

Martha Hughes Cannon, Utah State Senator (defeated her husband, Republican Angus M. Cannon)

Howard Cannon, U. S. Senator, Nevada

Elbert D. Thomas, U. S. Senator, Utah

Ralph Harding, U. S. Rep, Idaho

John Evans, Governor, Idaho

Calvin L. Rampton, Governor, Utah

Herbert B. Maw, Governor, Utah

Henry H. Blood, Governor, Utah

Leonard Boswell, U. S. Rep, Iowa

Wayne Owens, U. S. Rep, Utah

Richard Swett, U. S. Rep, New Hampshire

Eni Faleomavaega, U. S. Rep, American Samoa

Scott M. Matheson, Governor, Utah

Jim Matheson, U. S. Rep, Utah

Morris K. Udall, U. S. Rep, Arizona; presidential candidate (lost to Jimmy Carter by only 1% of nominating votes)

Tom Udall, U. S. Senator, New Mexico

Mark Udall, U. S. Rep, Colorado

Stewart Udall, U. S. Rep, Arizona; U. S. Secretary of Interior

 

Harry Reid is apparently in good company

[BCSpace]

I'm not sure that this would be true.  Choosing the right is so frequently a matter of variable opinion.  How is it, for example, that so many Mormon politicians (including some General Authorities) have been Democrats?

 

 

Choosing obviously is always a matter of opinion. In the case you mention, there can only be one right choice.  The answer as to how in your example is that we have not yet achieved Ephesians 4:11-14.

 

 

Harry Reid is apparently in good company

 

Such a list is absolutely meaningless in determining the rightness or wrongness of the choice, a logical fallacy. Should I prove my case by showing that my list is much larger than yours?  Of course not.

[halconero]

That would make our politics all the same.

 

Outside of the modern, American day examples we have numerous ones throughout the scriptures of the best of God's people setting up various forms of government.

 

Moses/Joshua:

 

- Theocratic tribal confederacy

 

Mosiah:

 

- Semi-inheritable/Semi-elective aristocracy with strong theocratic underpinnings

 

Brigham Young:

 

- Theodemocracy with a good dosage of both capitalistic entrepreneurship and communalism.

[katherine the great]

That's why it's such a good and important question.  It forces us to consider our affiliations and allegiances and whether or not they are in harmony with the doctrines of Gospel.

What organization in America today is truly in harmony with the doctrines of the gospel?  I would guess very few.  I work for a public university and affiliate every day with people whose beliefs and behavior are very much not in harmony with mine.  The times I have questioned the question I have been told that it specifically refers to anti-Mormon groups, but if that is the case, why don't they change the question to reflect that?

[Robert F. Smith]

Choosing obviously is always a matter of opinion. In the case you mention, there can only be one right choice.  The answer as to how in your example is that we have not yet achieved Ephesians 4:11-14.

I'm not sure which case I mentioned that you consider to have only one right choice, nor how in my supposed example we have not achieved unity -- nor which sort of unity you consider that to be.  The Brethren themselves make the point that they frequently disagree with one another, and finally come to full agreement only after long consideration, an agreement which may turn out to be mistaken.  They and we are fallible members of the Body of Christ.

 

In any case, we should not stop reading at Eph 4:14, but continue to the end of that chapter:

15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,

18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:

25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.

26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

27 Neither give place to the devil.

29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:

32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.

 

Such a list is absolutely meaningless in determining the rightness or wrongness of the choice, a logical fallacy.

Wrong, BC.  The list was not presented as an example of how to determine rightness or wrongness of choice-making, but only a problem which an ignorant bishop failed to consider in making a public and partisan value-judgment.  He probably didn't realize that he was the kettle calling the pot "black."  Nor that many good people (including some General Authorities, and some potential converts) do not share his narrow and partisan political views.  Confusing the Church with a political party is not the least of his egregious errors, and it might help him to jettison such nonsense and judge issues solely on their merits.

[BCSpace]

Moses/Joshua:

 

- Theocratic tribal confederacy

 

Mosiah:

 

- Semi-inheritable/Semi-elective aristocracy with strong theocratic underpinnings

 

Brigham Young:

 

- Theodemocracy with a good dosage of both capitalistic entrepreneurship and communalism.

 

 

In the first case, it would be easy to say they had to be that way because they were under a strict law (law of Moses), which subsequently was fulfilled, in other words, it was far less than an ideal system.

 

In the second case, we know from the BoM that God recommended against having a king.

 

I would strongly disagree with your analysis of the BY case.  It might have been that way, but the CHurch warns us not top look to those examples as the way it's supposed to be.

 

The official doctrine is that the Law of Consecration eschews communalism. See the link in my siggy:

 

“They had all things common.” The phrase “they had all things common” ( Acts 4:32 ; see also Acts 2:44 ; 3 Nephi 26:19 ; 4 Nephi 1:3 ) is used to characterize those who lived the law of consecration in ancient times. Some have speculated that the term common suggests a type of communalism or “Christian Communism.” This interpretation is in error. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught the true nature of having all things common: “I preached on the stand about one hour on the 2nd chapter of Acts , designing to show the folly of common stock [holding property in common]. In Nauvoo every one is steward over his own [property].” ( History of the Church, 6:37–38.)

 

http://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichments/enrichment-l-the-law-of-consecration-and-stewardship?lang=eng

 

 

So I think the various examples you gave do not teach us that various (as opposed to one) systems or philosophies are right or correct or harmonious with Gospel doctrine.

[BCSpace]

Choosing obviously is always a matter of opinion. In the case you mention, there can only be one right choice.  The answer as to how in your example is that we have not yet achieved Ephesians 4:11-14.

 

I'm not sure which case I mentioned that you consider to have only one right choice,

 

The choice between today's political parties as you implied.

 

nor how in my supposed example we have not achieved unity -- nor which sort of unity you consider that to be.

 

 

If we all make the right choice, then our politics will all be the same as I mentioned above.

 

The Brethren themselves make the point that they frequently disagree with one another, and finally come to full agreement only after long consideration, an agreement which may turn out to be mistaken.  They and we are fallible members of the Body of Christ.

 

 

Indeed they are. However, they are all agreed on the doctrine which is published, and that is the basis we have for determining right and wrong in any venue.

 

 

In any case, we should not stop reading at Eph 4:14, but continue to the end of that chapter:

15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

17 This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,

18 Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:

25 Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.

26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

27 Neither give place to the devil.

29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:

32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.

 

 

 

Agreed.  I don't believe I have come into conflict with this in expressing my opinion on this issue. I don't believe the Bishop in question has either. I would agree that the case of this Bishop highlights an extant stumbling block and I don't believe his intent was to create one, but rather to show what does and does not harmonize with Gospel doctrine.

 

 

Such a list is absolutely meaningless in determining the rightness or wrongness of the choice, a logical fallacy.

 

Wrong, BC.  The list was not presented as an example of how to determine rightness or wrongness of choice-making, but only a problem which an ignorant bishop failed to consider in making a public and partisan value-judgment.

 

I believe now, more than ever, that I am right. If he had taken such into consideration, he might not have spoken his mind as to the truth as he sees it.

 

He probably didn't realize that he was the kettle calling the pot "black."

 

I'd be happy to discuss with you how that isn't the case at all if you get dispensation from the moderation to discuss politics vis a vis LDS doctrine.

 

Nor that many good people (including some General Authorities, and some potential converts) do not share his narrow and partisan political views.  

 

The overall view of the Church is narrow and partisan.  For example, we are the only true and God authorized Church. We only accept our own baptism. One can only receive the highest blessing available by living a certain way. Etc. etc.

 

The only sense we are open is that we welcome all to partake of our "narrow" (according to your logic) view.

 

 

Confusing the Church with a political party is not the least of his egregious errors, and it might help him to jettison such nonsense and judge issues solely on their merits.

 

It doesn't appear that he's done that.  Rather, he's tackled the issue head on by comparing actions with doctrine.

[The Nehor]

If we all make the right choice, then our politics will all be the same as I mentioned above.

 

Indeed, while you and others debate whether to ally with Shiz or Coriantumr a few make the right choice and eschew both and side with Ether.

[Robert F. Smith]

The choice between today's political parties as you implied.

I implied no such thing.  I did not even suggest that the choice between political parties was a matter of right or wrong.  Indeed, I usually consider both parties to be the Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee of skullduggery.  You may choose to root for a particular party based on the same sort of passion which motivates supporters of sports teams, but I don't find that an adequate basis of support for anything.

 

If we all make the right choice, then our politics will all be the same as I mentioned above.

I called this unfounded statement into serious question because even equally faithful Mormons can be members of any (or no) political party.  Opinions among the Brethren are also quite variable.  I don't believe that in this life we are going to find agreement on things like political partisanship.  That you think so is laughable.

 

Indeed they are. However, they are all agreed on the doctrine which is published, and that is the basis we have for determining right and wrong in any venue.

 

Agreed.  I don't believe I have come into conflict with this in expressing my opinion on this issue. I don't believe the Bishop in question has either. I would agree that the case of this Bishop highlights an extant stumbling block and I don't believe his intent was to create one, but rather to show what does and does not harmonize with Gospel doctrine.

In any venue, huh?  Then why don't all issues succumb so easily as you suggest to immediate determination of right and wrong?  What you suggest here is absurd.  Your and that bishop's sincere belief that a particular political party harmonizes with Gospel doctrine is on a par with baying at the moon, but there is indeed that belief among many in the Church.  And for shame!

 

I believe now, more than ever, that I am right. If he had taken such into consideration, he might not have spoken his mind as to the truth as he sees it.

The truth as he sees it?  Well, if that were all that we had to discuss, why would I bother?  We all have versions of the truth as we see it.  Few of us absolutize it as conforming to LDS doctrine.

 

I'd be happy to discuss with you how that isn't the case at all if you get dispensation from the moderation to discuss politics vis a vis LDS doctrine.

What sometimes stupifies me is that I will even hear this in Church, where it clearly does not belong.  I tend to just let it go, ignore it, and perhaps sometimes mention that politics doesn't belong in High Priests or Sunday School.  Since they already know that they are out of order, they quickly stop.  The other day in Springville, while I was waiting for my to-go order in a restaurant, I was buttonholed by someone I did not know and he showered me with his partisan political views.  I smiled, listened politely, and then quickly took my leave.  There was no point in interacting with him on such questions.

 

The overall view of the Church is narrow and partisan.  For example, we are the only true and God authorized Church. We only accept our own baptism. One can only receive the highest blessing available by living a certain way. Etc. etc.

You have falsely taken my comment on "narrow and partisan political views" and deleted the "political" in order to justify discussion of doctrine, which was not at issue.  This is in conflict with LDS policy and with Eph 4.  I'm not sure what the mods here think.

 

The only sense we are open is that we welcome all to partake of our "narrow" (according to your logic) view.

 

It doesn't appear that he's done that.  Rather, he's tackled the issue head on by comparing actions with doctrine.

I note that you have attributed a number of views to me here which I do not have.  You might want to reread Ephesians 4.

 

As to the bishop in question, his comments were an example of pure politics under the guise of LDS doctrine, the same sort of thing which one expects from anti-Mormons who condemn Mormon politicians for being Mormon under a like subterfuge (Mitt Romney was vicitimized by them).  They also did not bother to consider Ephesians 4.

[Robert F. Smith]

Indeed, while you and others debate whether to ally with Shiz or Coriantumr a few make the right choice and eschew both and side with Ether.

Book of Mormon to the rescue!

[teddyaware]

Legally this bishop may do so regarding his opinion. What he said, however, flies right in the face of the official position of political neutrality of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Your post causes me to realize a line can be crossed where wicked laws and wicked governmental practices can no longer be protected under the banner of partisan political choice. For example, if a political party espouses and promotes the mass murder of a certain ethnicities or religious groups, how can anyone in their right mind think such genocide can or should be protected simply because such criminal behavior grows out of some so-called political theory. In our day, government sanction and financial support for abortion comes very, very close to governmental support for mass murder of the innocent. Have we become so inured to this deadly abomination that we will now say that a member of the Church can remain a member in good standing, and escape condemnation, as long as such genocide can be shown to be part of some political philosophy?

Alexander Pope's famous dictum comes to mind:

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien

As to be hated needs but to be seen;

Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,

We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

In this same manner, are some Latter-day Saints being carefully led down to hell, all in the name of protecting some "sacrosanct" but deadly form of political doctrine?

[The Nehor]

Your post causes me to realize a line can be crossed where wicked laws and wicked governmental practices can no longer be protected under the banner of partisan political choice. For example, if a political party espouses and promotes the mass murder of a certain ethnicities or religious groups, how can anyone in their right mind think such genocide can or should be protected simply because such criminal behavior grows out of some so-called political theory. In our day, government sanction and financial support for abortion comes very, very close to governmental support for mass murder of the innocent. Have we become so inured to this deadly abomination that we will now say that a member of the Church can remain a member in good standing, and escape condemnation, as long as such genocide can be shown to be part of some political philosophy?

 

So far as we know in God's eyes abortion is not murder and the Church does not treat it as such.

 

That being said it is a sin, and a serious one that almost universally results in regret and sorrow.

 

It is not confined to one party in the United States although it is more prevalent in one. That being said, does this mean we automatically have to support the party opposed to it in all circumstances or that people who agree with other precepts of the party can work within it to effect change? I would say no. As I alluded above I am sure both Coriantumr and Shiz both had some good ideas about government but that does not mean we should join their genocidal war.

 

The defining element of US politics today is hatred. All humility is gone. Both sides are convinced they could build a utopia if they could just convert or destroy the other side. The other side is the enemy and devotion to the cause covers a multitude of sins and excuses much. I have seen many members of the Church turn political affiliation into an idol.

 

Meanwhile the prophets tell us that the great evils and goods of our day are born in the homes of the people. We have little to fear from politics if we do what is right and no hope from political victory if we fall into iniquity.

[Damien the Leper]

Lets stay on topic, please. I didn't open the thread to discuss politics but the ethical implications of the bishops actions.

[teddyaware]

So far as we know in God's eyes abortion is not murder and the Church does not treat it as such.

 

That being said it is a sin, and a serious one that almost universally results in regret and sorrow.

 

It is not confined to one party in the United States although it is more prevalent in one. That being said, does this mean we automatically have to support the party opposed to it in all circumstances or that people who agree with other precepts of the party can work within it to effect change? I would say no. As I alluded above I am sure both Coriantumr and Shiz both had some good ideas about government but that does not mean we should join their genocidal war.

 

The defining element of US politics today is hatred. All humility is gone. Both sides are convinced they could build a utopia if they could just convert or destroy the other side. The other side is the enemy and devotion to the cause covers a multitude of sins and excuses much. I have seen many members of the Church turn political affiliation into an idol.

 

Meanwhile the prophets tell us that the great evils and goods of our day are born in the homes of the people. We have little to fear from politics if we do what is right and no hope from political victory if we fall into iniquity.

 

Too simplistic and naïve. When the people don't do what is right their homes, (remember most families in this country are not active LDS) corrupt governments and secret combinations, set up to get unrighteous control over the reins of secular power, become God's primary scourging agents...

9 And behold, that great city Jacobugath, which was inhabited by the people of king Jacob, have I caused to be burned with fire because of their sins and their wickedness, which was above all the wickedness of the whole earth, because of their secret murders and combinations; for it was they that did destroy the peace of my people and the government of the land; therefore I did cause them to be burned, to destroy them from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up unto me any more against them. (3 Nephi 9)

 

If the prophetic warnings of the Book of Mormon are to be taken seriously, it seems the righteous need to be vigilant to make sure that all elements of society, not just individual homes and families, remain solidly in the camp of righteousness. The city of Jacobugath was singled out by the Lord as the most wicked of all the Nephite cities because it became the primary seat of corrupt Nephite governmental power.

 

This bishop was wrong to use his position as a low level leader of the Church in an attempt to add weight to his condemnation of Harry Reid, but once our modern Moroni's are no longer able to speak truth to power, destruction awaits at the doors...

24 Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up.

25 For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies; even that same liar who beguiled our first parents, yea, even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning; who hath hardened the hearts of men that they have murdered the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out from the beginning. (Ether 8:24-25)

According to the Book of Mormon, as the above passages testify, the voice of warning needs to be extended beyond the walls of our homes.

[The Nehor]

 Too simplistic and naïve. When the people don't do what is right their homes, (remember most families in this country are not active LDS) corrupt governments and secret combinations, set up to get unrighteous control over the reins of secular power, become God's primary scourging agents...

 

Which is an argument to do right in your homes, not an argument that we need to fight political battles.

 

 9 And behold, that great city Jacobugath, which was inhabited by the people of king Jacob, have I caused to be burned with fire because of their sins and their wickedness, which was above all the wickedness of the whole earth, because of their secret murders and combinations; for it was they that did destroy the peace of my people and the government of the land; therefore I did cause them to be burned, to destroy them from before my face, that the blood of the prophets and the saints should not come up unto me any more against them. (3 Nephi 9)

 

If the prophetic warnings of the Book of Mormon are to be taken seriously, it seems the righteous need to be vigilant to make sure that all elements of society, not just individual homes and families, remain solidly in the camp of righteousness. The city of Jacobugath was singled out by the Lord as the most wicked of all the Nephite cities because it became the primary seat of corrupt Nephite governmental power.

 

Actually, that is wrong. Jacobugath was the refuge of the wicked people who killed the chief judge and destroyed the government of the Nephites, causing them to fracture into political groups. They were singled out for destroying the government, not corrupting it (though it was also corrupt, that wasn't just their fault).

 

I also worry when anyone argues that we must be vigilant and make sure that all elements of society stay righteous as if it is something we can enforce. Both sides of the political aisle in the United States want to mitigate the "sins" of the people; they are just selective as to which sins fall under personal choice and which must be proscribed by law.

 

 This bishop was wrong to use his position as a low level leader of the Church in an attempt to add weight to his condemnation of Harry Reid, but once our modern Moroni's are no longer able to speak truth to power, destruction awaits at the doors...

24 Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up.

25 For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies; even that same liar who beguiled our first parents, yea, even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning; who hath hardened the hearts of men that they have murdered the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out from the beginning. (Ether 8:24-25)

According to the Book of Mormon, as the above passages testify, the voice of warning needs to be extended beyond the walls of our homes.

 

I have seen no evidence that Harry Reid is part of a great combination that is spilling blood or aiming to overthrow the liberty of all lands so stating that this blog post is some kind of prophetic warning is....well......insane.

[Calm]

I believe it was Alma who when he saw the wickedness of his people did not choose to use his governmental power to require people to live a more moral life, but instead resigned his governmental post...the highest in the land iirc, and thus the one he could have wielded the most influence through the goverment to the people, choosing to use his church and missionary work as a way to reach out to people so their hearts would be changed.

It would seem Alma wasn't all that secure in a government imposed morality keeping the people safe from the path of wickedness.

It also seems an appropriate appraisal of where our time is best spent in persuading people to do go.

"For about nine years Alma served as both the high priest over the church and the chief judge or governor over a new political system of judges among the Nephites. He was well educated, the keeper of sacred and civil records, an inspiring orator, and a skillful writer. As a young civil and religious leader, he faced a number of challenges. Several religio-political factions were emerging in Nephite society, notably the Zoramites, Mulekites, members of the church, and an anti-church group, the followers of Nehor (see Book of Mormon Peoples). Maintaining Nephite leadership over all these groups proved impossible. In a landmark case in his first year as chief judge, Alma held the popular Nehor guilty of enforcing priestcraft with the sword, which resulted in his execution (Alma 1:2-15). This soon led to civil war with Alma himself slaying the new rebel leader, one of Nehor's protegés, in battle (Alma 2-3). There followed a serious epidemic of pride and inequality among many in the church (Alma 4) and the secession of the arrogant Zoramites. "Seeing no way that he might reclaim [the people] save it were in bearing down in pure testimony against them" (Alma 4:19), Alma resigned his position as chief judge and devoted himself completely to the work of the ministry (Alma 4:19;31:5). His religious work, especially in the Nephite cities of Zarahemla (Alma 5, 30) and Gideon (Alma 7), the Nehorite stronghold of Ammonihah (Alma 8-16), and the Zoramite center in Antionum (Alma 31-35), revitalized the church and set the pattern of administration for the next century down to the coming of Christ."

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Alma_2

[teddyaware]

Which is an argument to do right in your homes, not an argument that we need to fight political battles.

 

 

Actually, that is wrong. Jacobugath was the refuge of the wicked people who killed the chief judge and destroyed the government of the Nephites, causing them to fracture into political groups. They were singled out for destroying the government, not corrupting it (though it was also corrupt, that wasn't just their fault).

 

I also worry when anyone argues that we must be vigilant and make sure that all elements of society stay righteous as if it is something we can enforce. Both sides of the political aisle in the United States want to mitigate the "sins" of the people; they are just selective as to which sins fall under personal choice and which must be proscribed by law.

 

 

I have seen no evidence that Harry Reid is part of a great combination that is spilling blood or aiming to overthrow the liberty of all lands so stating that this blog post is some kind of prophetic warning is....well......insane.

It's interesting to see how people on this board put words in another posters mouth, thereby setting up strawmen in order to make their opponents positions seem more radical and unreasonable. To both you and Calmoriah, I never said anything about using the government to coerce some form of "righteous" regime upon a society. I was simply trying to say that we the people must fight for good government by the means providentially provided to us by the divinely inspired Constitution of the United States. You know -- freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the common man to run for office and, of course, taking advantage of the process of supporting and helping to elect righteous representatives.

And by the way, it was Moroni who said both the Jaredites and the Nephites were destroyed by secret combinations and political machinations of darkness.

21 And they (devil inspired secret combinations) have caused the destruction of this people of whom I am now speaking (the Jaredites), and also the destruction of the people of Nephi. (Ether 8:21)

It is also ridiculous to not at very least place destroying  a government on an even plane with corrupting a  government. Isn't the final destruction of a free system of government the last step in the process of deliberately corrupting that government? And it was wicked king Jacob who finally destroyed the system of laws (like our Constitution) that once united the Nephite people under the banner of personal freedom. Only God knows what Jacob and his fellow conspirators would have inflicted upon the tattered remnants of the Nephite nation if they had been given the chance to work their evil before the Lord first intervened with His judgments of destruction upon them... I really had to scratch my head with this one.

It's also important to point out that, according to the Book of Mormon, the corruption of the US government, as well as the other  governments of the world, will eventually lead to the nations of the world gathering their forces and uniting in order to persecute and fight against the Restored Church of Christ, no doubt leading to many martyr's deaths among the saints...

13 And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to fight against the Lamb of God. (1 Nephi 14)

Just because the present ongoing process of the corrupting of the world's political systems has not yet led to many martyrdoms among the Latter-day Saints , that doesn't mean it isn't going to happen sometime in the future.

"But the vision of the future is not all sweetness and light and peace. All that is yet to be shall go forward in the midst of greater evils and perils and desolations than have been known on earth at any time.

As the Saints prepare to meet their God, so those who are carnal and sensual and devilish prepare to face their doom.

The way ahead is dark and dreary and dreadful. There will yet be martyrs; the doors in Carthage shall again enclose the innocent. We have not been promised that the trials and evils of the world will entirely pass us by." (Bruce R. McConkie, April 1980 Gener4al Conference, The Coming Tests and Trials and Glory).

Do you also find "insane" the following quote from President Ezra Taft Benson's final General Conference address, wherein he solemnly testifies that the deadly, worldwide secret combination prophesied in Ether 8: secret was even then (in 1988) gaining power and control over the United States?

"I testify that wickedness is rapidly expanding in every segment of our society. (See D&C 1:14–16; D&C 84:49–53.) It is more highly organized, more cleverly disguised, and more powerfully promoted than ever before. Secret combinations lusting for power, gain, and glory are flourishing. A secret combination that seeks to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries is increasing its evil influence and control over America and the entire world. (See Ether 8:18–25.) (Ezra Taft Benson, I Testify)

[Kenngo1969]

I don't see anything wrong with expressing one's political views on a blog.  Identifying the democratic party in connection with this question, "Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?" was a no-no.  I personally hate that question and wish they would reword it because I think most of us affiliate in some way with "individuals" whose practices are contrary to the church.  In fact I would dare say we all do on some level.  Unless we live in isolation, it's impossible not to. [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.]

At the risk of diminishing my already vanishingly-small self by disagreeing with Katherine the Great , I don't think that's necessary: You're right that being "in the world but not of the world" dictates that we interact in some way with people whose beliefs and actions are not in harmony with those espoused by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  But "interacting with" =/= "affiliating with," and "interacting with" =/= "supporting."  The question is designed to persuade us to examine our relationships to determine if we interact with them in a way that facilitates the advancement of their views.  (And to avoid the inevitable argument, the Church's perennial election-season announcement that principles consistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ can be found in the platforms of many, or most all, political parties carries with it the implication that principles which are not wholly in harmony with Church teachings can be found in those parties' platforms, as well.  One should follow one's conscience in determining what causes to support while realizing that God's Ideal Government will be neither primarily Republican, nor primarily Democrat, nor primarily affiliated with any other man-made political organization, but rather a Theocracy of which He Himself is in charge.

[tonie]

 

This bishop was wrong to use his position as a low level leader of the Church in an attempt to add weight to his condemnation of Harry Reid, but once our modern Moroni's are no longer able to speak truth to power, destruction awaits at the doors...

 

 

This Bishop is in no way a modern Moroni.  

 

The Bishop, oversteps his mantle, in a vain attempt to exercise dominion over someone not within his stewardship.

The Bishop double speaks by lambasting the Democratic party, and its platform, but then with subtle cunning craftiness claims "I have no problem with an average Mormon in the pew who supports the Democratic Party...". Excuse me Bishop yes you do have a problem with Democrats.

 

The Bishop then has the audacity to call Ried a prositute; I have to ask, how much does Mark Paredes get paid by the Jewish Journal to peddle and pimp his views under the guise of being a Bishop of the LDS Church. Also speaking of being affiliated or support groups opposed to the teaching of the Church, does Judaism accept Christ as the Lord and Savior of the earth - a center teaching and belief of the LDS Church? A quick search also reveals that Judaism teaching "There will be no more torah", thus rejecting modern revelation and scripture.

[tonie]

And to avoid the inevitable argument, the Church's perennial election-season announcement that principles consistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ can be found in the platforms of many, or most all, political parties carries with it the implication that principles which are not wholly in harmony with Church teachings can be found in those parties' platforms, as well.  One should follow one's conscience in determining what causes to support while realizing that God's Ideal Government will be neither primarily Republican, nor primarily Democrat, nor primarily affiliated with any other man-made political organization, but rather a Theocracy of which He Himself is in charge.

 

Heretic! Heretic! Heretic! Your heresy is more obvious when we see the subtle craftiness in you bearing the mark the of the beast in your screen name; 1969....as I taught my son this morning "A '9' is a '6' upside down."

 

so whose name do you profess in your screen name?

 

[Kenngo1969]

Heretic! Heretic! Heretic! Your heresy is more obvious when we see the subtle craftiness in you bearing the mark the of the beast in your screen name; 1969....as I taught my son this morning "A '9' is a '6' upside down."

 

so whose name do you profess in your screen name?

 

You got me!  I shall now slink off to some dark corner of the Seventh Circle of Hell!