Robert F. Smith Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 On 12/8/2015 at 0:15 PM, TheSkepticChristian said: .............................................................................. Do we also need to defend the religious freedom of the FLDS Church? ......................................................... We need to defend the religious freedom of all those other religions which obey the law. It is part of our Scriptural Canon (Articles of Faith). 2
Robert F. Smith Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 12 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I spoke with my Dad last night about this. He's pro-Trump and from his generation holds some pretty strong opinions about Muslims and the direction the world is coming to. He's a very strong orthodox member, and I told him about the church's statement and he pretty much just dismissed it. Which I found surprising, but ultimately I remember him dismissing some of the church's more moderate statements during illegal immigration debates in the past as well. I'm glad the church made this statement yesterday, but I wonder how much of an impact it will have on those conservative members who listen to talk radio and already have strong opinions about these topics. Trump didn't create this view point out of thin air. Many citizens already held these beliefs and Trump is just echoing their sentiments. Those foolish members who fail to follow council from the Brethren can do what some members did when the 1978 revelation on priesthood came forth: They can repent, or they can find a nice place somewhere else. I wish them well. 1
Buckeye Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 14 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I think with my Dad and others like him, they have a distrust of the PR wing of the church, and they don't consider those statements as authoritative. If this statement was made by President Monson in general conference, I think my Dad would take it more seriously. What does your Dad think of the Joseph Smith quotes? Most members I know give at least as much importance to Smith's writings as to anything the current prophet says.
hope_for_things Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 1 hour ago, Buckeye said: What does your Dad think of the Joseph Smith quotes? Most members I know give at least as much importance to Smith's writings as to anything the current prophet says. I'll have to ask him if he read the statement after we talked, I encouraged him to do so. My guess is that he'd say he agrees with the underlying principles of the Joseph Smith quotes, but that he feels the situation with the Muslim extremists factions is very different, and requires us to take unique action to protect against the threats out there. He sees this as all a fulfillment of prophesy and leading up to the end times. So his views about a perceived Muslim threat that justifies treating them differently, is all backed by scriptural prophecy about the last days. This is where religion can be dangerous in my opinion.
hope_for_things Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Those foolish members who fail to follow council from the Brethren can do what some members did when the 1978 revelation on priesthood came forth: They can repent, or they can find a nice place somewhere else. I wish them well. Do you think that this statement about religious freedom and equal treatment will be widely discussed and emphasized among Sunday attending members? That's the problem with statements like this, I just don't see it penetrating the culture of the membership very effectively for members like my Dad. Start having local leaders discuss this on Sunday and especially have some talks about it during general conference where the prophets are discussing these issues directly, not just a church statement, and then I think you'll see a cultural shift.
CV75 Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 41 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I'll have to ask him if he read the statement after we talked, I encouraged him to do so. My guess is that he'd say he agrees with the underlying principles of the Joseph Smith quotes, but that he feels the situation with the Muslim extremists factions is very different, and requires us to take unique action to protect against the threats out there. He sees this as all a fulfillment of prophesy and leading up to the end times. So his views about a perceived Muslim threat that justifies treating them differently, is all backed by scriptural prophecy about the last days. This is where religion can be dangerous in my opinion. I don't think religion is dangerous, but the misapplication by the devotee certainly is. 1
hope_for_things Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 2 minutes ago, CV75 said: I don't think religion is dangerous, but the misapplication by the devotee certainly is. How do you separate the two? History seems to contain plenty of examples of organized religion being a catalyst for immoral movements.
CV75 Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 39 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: How do you separate the two? History seems to contain plenty of examples of organized religion being a catalyst for immoral movements. I would do it by examining the religion and comparing its professed fruits with its actual fruits and whether it is undermining or strengthening the lives, limbs (property included) and liberties of people in the broader community. By far, most religions help their communities; a state religion that doesn't can be challenged politically by those affected. I don't think it matters what one's religion is, and I wouldn't judge anyone according to the standards of his religion, but if he is undermining anyone's life, limb or liberty, he needs to be stopped. The Book of Mormon makes no distinction between religiously-inspired, tradition-inspired, and criminally-inspired combinations (secret and otherwise) that threaten the saints' life, limb and liberty, but the saints' response to any of them needs to be guided by the top (prophets). Violence on such a large, organized level in the name of religion is often an extremely complex interaction of circumstances and so it is wise to have high regard for the wisdom of the Lord's servants. Otherwise, I think individuals and not their faith should be held accountable and condemned for the violence they commit, according to the laws of the land. Historically, organized religion typically plans and commits atrocities through the arm of the state or a competing or "ghost" state. By this time the religion has been co-opted by the state (per Revelation) so it can be hard to tell one from the other. Maladjusted individuals typically do not; they are trying to resolve their sense of self hate, disenfranchisement, powerlessness, and hopelessness through violence, and ironically attribute their actions to the call of a religion (that on some level I'm sure they know, hence their sense of isolation) would reject it.
hope_for_things Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 15 minutes ago, CV75 said: I would do it by examining the religion and comparing its professed fruits with its actual fruits and whether it is undermining or strengthening the lives, limbs (property included) and liberties of people in the broader community. By far, most religions help their communities; a state religion that doesn't can be challenged politically by those affected. I don't think it matters what one's religion is, and I wouldn't judge anyone according to the standards of his religion, but if he is undermining anyone's life, limb or liberty, he needs to be stopped. The Book of Mormon makes no distinction between religiously-inspired, tradition-inspired, and criminally-inspired combinations (secret and otherwise) that threaten the saints' life, limb and liberty, but the saints' response to any of them needs to be guided by the top (prophets). Violence on such a large, organized level in the name of religion is often an extremely complex interaction of circumstances and so it is wise to have high regard for the wisdom of the Lord's servants. Otherwise, I think individuals and not their faith should be held accountable and condemned for the violence they commit, according to the laws of the land. Historically, organized religion typically plans and commits atrocities through the arm of the state or a competing or "ghost" state. By this time the religion has been co-opted by the state (per Revelation) so it can be hard to tell one from the other. Maladjusted individuals typically do not; they are trying to resolve their sense of self hate, disenfranchisement, powerlessness, and hopelessness through violence, and ironically attribute their actions to the call of a religion (that on some level I'm sure they know, hence their sense of isolation) would reject it. I largely agree with your comments here. I believe all institutions (public or private) should be held accountable for policies that are harmful, but that accountability comes in many different forms. The ultimate authority should be the principles of morality and ethics, those principles that we believe align with the divine. The challenge is understanding the will of the divine and adjusting accordingly.
Gray Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: How do you separate the two? History seems to contain plenty of examples of organized religion being a catalyst for immoral movements. It's not just religion. Any group with a strong ideology has the potential for putting its particular world view above the importance of human life/dignity/well-being. We see that all the time in political groups and nationalist ideologies. Of course if the main facet of your group's ideology is the promotion of human life/dignity/well-being above all other considerations, your group (religious, political, or otherwise) is probably not at risk for being a catalyst for violence. Edited December 10, 2015 by Gray
CV75 Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 55 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I largely agree with your comments here. I believe all institutions (public or private) should be held accountable for policies that are harmful, but that accountability comes in many different forms. The ultimate authority should be the principles of morality and ethics, those principles that we believe align with the divine. The challenge is understanding the will of the divine and adjusting accordingly. I think D&C 134 offers a good balance between human and divine moral and ethical standards and authorities by recognizing that God’s children tend to gravitate toward one or the other, and yet strive to live in peace. Verse 10 implies (by limiting the power and authority of the religion, much like the Constitution limits the power and authority of the government) that civil entities may “try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them” for “disorderly conduct”. In this case I’d say disorderly conduct includes the array of any anti-social acts.
TheSkepticChristian Posted December 10, 2015 Author Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) 14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: We need to defend the religious freedom of all those other religions which obey the law. It is part of our Scriptural Canon (Articles of Faith). polygamy was not legal in the 19th century. How about the religious freedom to smoke marijuana? Some religions believe it, and some people need it. The law of the land is not GOd. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQS3KEGtdBI Edited December 10, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian
TheSkepticChristian Posted December 10, 2015 Author Posted December 10, 2015 23 hours ago, oremites said: The church never fought against the right of other religions to perform or endorse SSM. Let other religions perform all the SS marriages they want. We didn't care. They fought against the rest of us being legally forced to recognize those marriages. In other words, their religious beliefs have been forced on us. LOL and many LDS say that our government is persecuting our religion for legalizing SSM>
Russell C McGregor Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 On 08/12/2015 at 8:15 AM, TheSkepticChristian said: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-statement-religious-freedom-pluralism?cid=social_20151208_56114146&adbid=10153562121672013&adbpl=fb&adbpr=53305042012 Do we also need to defend the religious freedom of churches that perform Same-Sex marriages and have adoption centers for SSM couples? Do we also need to defend Atheism (many here see it as a religion)? Do we also need to defend the religious freedom of the Satanic Church? Do we also need to defend the religious freedom of the FLDS Church? Is the religious freedom of Churches that practice SSM under threat by some force? Such as, just for example, the coercive power of the state? Or perhaps not?
Russell C McGregor Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 On 09/12/2015 at 6:53 AM, HappyJackWagon said: These quotes apply to others...not the church. If the church believed in the universal application of religious liberty they would not have been fighting against the legal right of other religions to perform and endorse SSM. Remember, they have fought against SSM and therefore religious liberty of other churches THIS year. I honestly don't think they see how this applies to anyone other than themselves. CFR that the Church ever fought "against the legal right of other religions to perform and endorse SSM."
Zakuska Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 20 minutes ago, TheSkepticChristian said: polygamy was not legal in the 19th century. How about the religious freedom to smoke marijuana? Some religions believe it, and some people need it. The law of the land is not GOd. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQS3KEGtdBI I've heard rumor of the church allowing for Medical Mary Jane in stakes in Colorado.
VideoGameJunkie Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 So is the church saying not to vote for Trump?
Buckeye Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 25 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: So is the church saying not to vote for Trump? No. It reaffirmed neutrality as to political candidates. The church is taking a stand on the political issue of discriminating against people based on their religion. The church opposes policies such as those proposed by Mr. Trump that would discriminate against Muslims.
Tacenda Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 Joseph Smith: 10/14/1838 -- "I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was 'the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.' So shall it eventually be with us." Did Joseph really say the above? I saw it quoted in a comment to this article...http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865643394/Herbert-takes-a-courageous-stand-on-Syrian-refugees.html
Buckeye Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 15 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Joseph Smith: 10/14/1838 -- "I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was 'the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.' So shall it eventually be with us." Did Joseph really say the above? I saw it quoted in a comment to this article...http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865643394/Herbert-takes-a-courageous-stand-on-Syrian-refugees.html A quick google search shows that the quote is found in Brodie's No Man Knows My History as well as some other books. It's probably legit. Smith taught some really great things. He also was prone to teach polar opposites at time. This seems to be one example.
Robert F. Smith Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 6 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Do you think that this statement about religious freedom and equal treatment will be widely discussed and emphasized among Sunday attending members? That's the problem with statements like this, I just don't see it penetrating the culture of the membership very effectively for members like my Dad. Start having local leaders discuss this on Sunday and especially have some talks about it during general conference where the prophets are discussing these issues directly, not just a church statement, and then I think you'll see a cultural shift. I always recall my mother's words when I showed her the Life magazine color photos of the murder of young Emmett Till (he was 15 then, just like me): "Sometimes it takes people a long time to change." My Mom lived and breathed the LDS faith her entire life, but was very kind and patient with those who were slow to understand what that really means.
Russell C McGregor Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 1 hour ago, Buckeye said: A quick google search shows that the quote is found in Brodie's No Man Knows My History as well as some other books. It's probably legit. Smith taught some really great things. He also was prone to teach polar opposites at time. This seems to be one example. The fact that Brodie believes it is hardly a vote of confidence. The actual source is Thomas B. Marsh, in a statement intended to inflame the Missourians. There are no comparable statements found in any contemporary sources friendly to Joseph.
Avatar4321 Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 23 hours ago, Zakuska said: If they do their not following the Doctrines and Covenants we have made as a people. It's also why I think we as a people "over stepped our bounds" getting involved with Prop. 8 in California. joseph smith must have really ignored this when he got involved in presidential politics. Course I have yet to see anything from the scriptures to support this position 1
Zakuska Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said: joseph smith must have really ignored this when he got involved in presidential politics. Course I have yet to see anything from the scriptures to support this position D&C 134 "We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others…. We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed [prohibited] in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied." Edited December 10, 2015 by Zakuska
Russell C McGregor Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Zakuska said: D&C 134 "We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others…. We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed [prohibited] in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied." Thank you. Thus, Prop 8 passes both tests. Edited December 10, 2015 by Russell C McGregor Spelling
Recommended Posts