TheSkepticChristian Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 (edited) I don't want this thread to become a debate about the political issues! Many LDS say that you can't be a good Mormon if you are a Democrat. Now Dr. Daniel C. Peterson is saying that BYU students are apostates! Was he just joking because he disagrees with Sanders? No! He wrote Quote Does anybody else out there who cares about BYU and the future of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints find this at least a little bit, umm, problematic? Does anyone wonder what our students have been taught at home, and what they’re being taught in their political science and history and American Heritage classes? I wonder what Presidents David O. McKay and Ezra Taft Benson might have said about this. Dr. Peterson also wrote somewhere else that if Sanders and Trump win, that will be "irrefutable proof that God is angry at the United States." It is sad that the man that once helped me strengthen my testimony (years ago) is now calling me an apostate! Edited February 21, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian
TheSkepticChristian Posted February 21, 2016 Author Posted February 21, 2016 (edited) If someone here knows his Bishop or Stake President, please talk to one of them immediately! Edited February 21, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian 1
Popular Post Meadowchik Posted February 21, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 21, 2016 Good grief. I'm not so disturbed by support for Sanders . It is the support for Donald Trump which is so disgusting. I do think that Trump is enhancing Sander's appeal. But, as a conservative who is appalled by the level of support for Donald Trump, I also have to take some responsibility. In 2008 when Obama ran, I let suspicions about his Alinsky ties fuel an unalloyed dislike for the candidate, then the president. Since then, I know that even being anti-Obama can be carried to a dangerous extreme. This is what is happening with many Trump supporters, in my opinion. To them, Obama is akin to the anti-Christ, therefore the false logical leap is made that ANYone (on the "right") must be better. I now believe that we'd be better off with a third term of Obama than Donald Trump as president. With Sanders, although I am unwilling to categorize socialism as pure evil, I'm still not a socialist, but, I'd accept Bernie Sanders instead. Why? I believe in the smoothing and correcting effect of statesmanship combined with the balance of powers. From what I can tell, Bernie Sanders is invested in statesmanship as a core principle. Faced with our choices, I've realized that such a quality trumps party and also a great deal of other ideology. I want a statesman for president first...it is a deep and crying shame that such a requirement would actually disqualify major competition at this point in the election cycle, but it disqualifies Trump. You wanna get a bit scared? What does a president have the power to do when he has little to no skill or interest in statesmanship? 6
mnn727 Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 (edited) I'm getting tired of all the political talk at Church and even in the Temple. I just had to talk an old friend from a former ward into not stopping going to Church because of all the political talk. This Sister works in the Temple and it seems that all the talk there in between session is political and vitriolic.(IE 'if you don't like this party you don't know anything' type of talk) Same thing in her Ward (and frankly my current Ward is worse). People, we are in Church to worship God and become more Christ-like, leave the politics elsewhere! Edited February 21, 2016 by mnn727 4
Teancum Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 Dan Peterson is promoting the gospel of republican conservatism. He is in direct conflict with statements of the church that constantly proclaim that a person can be a member in good standing and hold a variety of political views. There are many mqmber of the church that live in nations that have many of the things Bernie Sanders promotes and are social democracies. Countries like Norway, Spain, Sweden and France. Canada as well. Is a member in there nations that provide universal health care and public universities that do not charge tuition apostate if they are happy with and support such positions? Hardly. As well traveled as Dan is his view in this brief blog seem rather provincial at best. 1
Meadowchik Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Teancum said: Dan Peterson is promoting the gospel of republican conservatism. He is in direct conflict with statements of the church that constantly proclaim that a person can be a member in good standing and hold a variety of political views. There are many mqmber of the church that live in nations that have many of the things Bernie Sanders promotes and are social democracies. Countries like Norway, Spain, Sweden and France. Canada as well. Is a member in there nations that provide universal health care and public universities that do not charge tuition apostate if they are happy with and support such positions? Hardly. As well traveled as Dan is his view in this brief blog seem rather provincial at best. I had that thought as well: There are communists, socialists, nationalists, and greens here in France, but nobody asks about political party in temple recommend interviews. Edited February 21, 2016 by Meadowchik 1
Bobbieaware Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 6 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said: I don't want this thread to become a debate about the political issues! Many LDS say that you can't be a good Mormon if you are a Democrat. Now Dr. Daniel C. Peterson is saying that BYU students are apostates! Was he just joking because he disagrees with Sanders? No! He wrote Dr. Peterson also wrote somewhere else that if Sanders and Trump win, that will be "irrefutable proof that God is angry at the United States." It is sad that the man that once helped me strengthen my testimony (years ago) is now calling me an apostate! Were the Book of Mormon's 'king-men' apostates? They sure we're treated as if they were apostates.
thesometimesaint Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 (edited) Despite repeated warnings by the GA's that the Church does not take a stance on partisan politics. We do have some members that will not heed the warnings. Edited February 21, 2016 by thesometimesaint 3
Popular Post BlueDreams Posted February 21, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 21, 2016 (edited) I agree with meadowchik....Trump is by far the worst candidate to choose. I'm more horrified by those who are trump supporters than any other candidate. So I look at the BYU poll and am just glad that only 3.67% of byu students in this poll would vote for trump. Of course I would be happier if it was closer to 0, but you can't have a perfect world... As for DCP and his assumptions for Bernie supporters....I think it's more of a generational removal from what's facing my generation. I was talking to a (lds, fairly more conservative) friend just yesterday. And we were both for a single payer system, which surprised me, until I realized she's feeling the real burn and problem with our hodge-podge business oriented health care system still has. Most of our generation also benefited from the age-raise to our parent's health care. And frankly I would currently be uninsured right now (or with really crappy insurance) if we'd had our previous system a decade or so ago without the expansion, subsidies, and currently medicaid as I work to increase my client hours. I don't think my friend would describe herself as a democrat most days, but she's a pragmatist. And the pragmatic truth is that there are few ways we can scrimp in the same way our parents did to make it on our own because the basic bills (medical insurance, college bills, car payments (if one has a car), housing, etc) are far more than the actual income for most people in their 20's, single, married, or starting a family. And we were fairly lucky in the sense that our parents have taken care of some of our bills and we live in a relatively low cost area. Now that I think of it, all but maybe one of my closest friends have had to rely on some form of systemic ties to make ends meet. Whether that be family, church, or social welfare program (wic, Medicaid, etc)...and sometimes all three. This isn't a magical move to apostasy, IMO, It's feeling the real burn of our bank accounts and the disparities that are tied far less with whether we worked hard or not, but which field we're in and what socioeconomic ties we have. I find the assumption that we should worry about anybody's testimony based on political ideology ridiculous....minus if you're a Trump supporter . And to be clear of my biases - moderately liberal, and the random political tests usually have me with 93+% agreement rate with both Hillary and Bernie. Edited February 21, 2016 by BlueDreams 7
JLHPROF Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 In an effort to maintain "I don't want this thread to become a debate about the political issues! " let's leave specific candidates out of this. And let's look at the principle here. If a candidate (whichever one) encourages principles and practices that go against the Church or the Gospel, then to support that candidate and their policies unavoidably would put one in a state of apostasy, just as accepting an alternate religion would. For a Saint to support a pro-choice, pro-SSM, or many other candidates is to support a candidate that advocates against the gospel. That's an apostate act. My wife and I have discussed this - she is very much from the "you HAVE to vote, it's your civic duty" belief. I have stated categorically that I will not attach my assent in ANY way to a leader who promotes a principle I believe to be evil. It would be completely hypocritical to do so - lesser of two evils is still choosing an evil. So is Peterson advocating against a specific candidate/party, or is he simply referring to principles advocated by a candidate that are in violation of the established gospel. Because voting against gospel principles IS apostasy.
Popular Post Meadowchik Posted February 21, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 21, 2016 5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: In an effort to maintain "I don't want this thread to become a debate about the political issues! " let's leave specific candidates out of this. And let's look at the principle here. If a candidate (whichever one) encourages principles and practices that go against the Church or the Gospel, then to support that candidate and their policies unavoidably would put one in a state of apostasy, just as accepting an alternate religion would. For a Saint to support a pro-choice, pro-SSM, or many other candidates is to support a candidate that advocates against the gospel. That's an apostate act. My wife and I have discussed this - she is very much from the "you HAVE to vote, it's your civic duty" belief. I have stated categorically that I will not attach my assent in ANY way to a leader who promotes a principle I believe to be evil. It would be completely hypocritical to do so - lesser of two evils is still choosing an evil. So is Peterson advocating against a specific candidate/party, or is he simply referring to principles advocated by a candidate that are in violation of the established gospel. Because voting against gospel principles IS apostasy. Nah, perhaps it might be apostasy if you vote for a candidate for the express purpose to bring about evils warned of by God and prophets...but voting for someone because you believe they're the best available option given current conditions and the political process in which you participate? That's not wrong; it's good citizenship. 5
thesometimesaint Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: In an effort to maintain "I don't want this thread to become a debate about the political issues! " let's leave specific candidates out of this. And let's look at the principle here. If a candidate (whichever one) encourages principles and practices that go against the Church or the Gospel, then to support that candidate and their policies unavoidably would put one in a state of apostasy, just as accepting an alternate religion would. For a Saint to support a pro-choice, pro-SSM, or many other candidates is to support a candidate that advocates against the gospel. That's an apostate act. My wife and I have discussed this - she is very much from the "you HAVE to vote, it's your civic duty" belief. I have stated categorically that I will not attach my assent in ANY way to a leader who promotes a principle I believe to be evil. It would be completely hypocritical to do so - lesser of two evils is still choosing an evil. So is Peterson advocating against a specific candidate/party, or is he simply referring to principles advocated by a candidate that are in violation of the established gospel. Because voting against gospel principles IS apostasy. Thank you for having so much confidence in my ability to choose the best candidate that you are willing to give your franchise to me.
TheSkepticChristian Posted February 21, 2016 Author Posted February 21, 2016 17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: If a candidate (whichever one) encourages principles and practices that go against the Church or the Gospel, then to support that candidate and their policies unavoidably would put one in a state of apostasy, just as accepting an alternate religion would. For a Saint to support a pro-choice, pro-SSM, or many other candidates is to support a candidate that advocates against the gospel. That's an apostate act. My wife and I have discussed this - she is very much from the "you HAVE to vote, it's your civic duty" belief. I have stated categorically that I will not attach my assent in ANY way to a leader who promotes a principle I believe to be evil. It would be completely hypocritical to do so - lesser of two evils is still choosing an evil. So is Peterson advocating against a specific candidate/party, or is he simply referring to principles advocated by a candidate that are in violation of the established gospel. Because voting against gospel principles IS apostasy. Please stop embarrassing yourself!
JLHPROF Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Nah, perhaps it might be apostasy if you vote for a candidate for the express purpose to bring about evils warned of by God and prophets...but voting for someone because you believe they're the best available option given current conditions and the political process in which you participate? That's not wrong; it's good citizenship. 3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Thank you for having so much confidence in my ability to choose the best candidate that you are willing to give your franchise to me. If both the democrat and republican candidates are pro-choice, and I vote for the "best candidate" I have unavoidably given my support to abortion. I would abstain. It's not good citizenship to help a wicked man gain power. And if BOTH candidates (cough**Sanders/Trump**cough) in this ridiculous two-party system are wicked men or support wicked principles, I have no reason to vote and assent to their wickedness.
thesometimesaint Posted February 21, 2016 Posted February 21, 2016 3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: If both the democrat and republican candidates are pro-choice, and I vote for the "best candidate" I have unavoidably given my support to abortion. I would abstain. It's not good citizenship to help a wicked man gain power. And if BOTH candidates (cough**Sanders/Trump**cough) in this ridiculous two-party system are wicked men or support wicked principles, I have no reason to vote and assent to their wickedness. There are other political parties, even lone individual candidates, in this country. Why not vote for one of them?
Recommended Posts