Popular Post 6EQUJ5 Posted October 3, 2016 Popular Post Posted October 3, 2016 This came up in the thread about the leaked video and thought it deserved its own. There wasn't anything in the videos that is salacious or all that interest. But I was very disturbed by Gordon Smith's comments. And I will admit that were I a citizen of Oregon I would be absolutely livid. Gordon Smith was not elected to represent the interests of the Church. He was elected to represent the State of Oregon. What would he do if the wishes of his State differed from the Church? Would he represent the people who elected him or would he serve the Church? I get the feeling he puts the Church first, then the State he was to represent. He talks about the Iraq war. The people of Oregon were generally opposed to that war if my memory is correct. Yet, he voted in favor of war -- which will always result in bloodshed and the suffering of innocents -- because it would open up Iraq to LDS converts? To me that is a horrible reason to go to war. FWIW, I supported the war personally. He also talks about working with Indian officials to serve the interests of the Church. That's time he should have been working for the State of Oregon. Anyway, do LDS politicians have a problem? I try and support politicians who live faithful and good lives (and I would put Smith in this category) and I think it is great for politics to be influenced by faithful principles. But I think it is completely out of line for an LDS politician to act as a lobbyist for the Church. Just like I would oppose a Catholic who lobbied for the interests of the specific interests of the Vatican. I know Smith is retired but I wouldn't be surprised if he receives a censure from the US Senate. His actions were really out of line. So how can LDS politicans walk this line? How do you separate religious principles from the political interests of the Church? 5
6EQUJ5 Posted October 3, 2016 Author Posted October 3, 2016 Sorry mods. Not sure why my topic showed up so many times!!!
cdowis Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 (edited) "I take my marching orders from the Prophet. Perhaps you could consider my faithfulness when there is an opening in the Seventies." Edited October 4, 2016 by cdowis 2
Duncan Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 Just now, cdowis said: "I take my marching orders from the Prophet. Perhaps you could consider my faithfulness when there is an opening in the Seventies." he said that? I didn't watch it, the gravy for my poutine is ready
cdowis Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 1 minute ago, Duncan said: he said that? I have a very dry sense of humor, in case you haven't noticed. But, yeah, that is what he was saying. 1
The Nehor Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 It is a problem for some and not for others. We have many instances of LDS politicians going against general church counsel. I think of President Grant who was very pro-League of Nations but Reed Smoot, LDS senator, was very opposed to the idea without a radical overhaul of the concept.
James Tunney Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 He did seem to be politicking for a calling and thought this was a non-public meeting. So, i took what he said with a big grain of salt. Im sure his staff didnt wait around for the church liason to give them marching orders. That struck me as the kind of obvious tounge and cheek hyperbole that politicians say.
Calm Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 30 minutes ago, cdowis said: I have a very dry sense of humor, in case you haven't noticed. But, yeah, that is what he was saying. "the essence" of what he was saying
Calm Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 27 minutes ago, The Nehor said: It is a problem for some and not for others. We have many instances of LDS politicians going against general church counsel. I think of President Grant who was very pro-League of Nations but Reed Smoot, LDS senator, was very opposed to the idea without a radical overhaul of the concept. Harry Reed....
cdowis Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 12 minutes ago, Calm said: Harry Reed.... Yep, he has been very successful in building a wall separating morality from his political activities.
Duncan Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 (edited) His ego is distracting but I listened to it and honestly I don't even know what a senator is.... Edited October 4, 2016 by Duncan 1
strappinglad Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 Think Mike Duffy, Duncan, but make him elected.
Duncan Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 Just now, strappinglad said: Think Mike Duffy, Duncan, but make him elected. ah! he's not crooked but he's shady
waveslider Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 Just about every politician I have ever seen has their own personal agendas that often override the will of the people they are supposed to represent. I don't know why this is surprising that one would want to do something in the church's favor over the peoples'. This is all part of the problems this country has..... a corrupt government that is constantly overreaching, and infringing upon the rights of the citizens. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said: This came up in the thread about the leaked video and thought it deserved its own. There wasn't anything in the videos that is salacious or all that interest. But I was very disturbed by Gordon Smith's comments. And I will admit that were I a citizen of Oregon I would be absolutely livid. Gordon Smith was not elected to represent the interests of the Church. He was elected to represent the State of Oregon. What would he do if the wishes of his State differed from the Church? Would he represent the people who elected him or would he serve the Church? I get the feeling he puts the Church first, then the State he was to represent. He talks about the Iraq war. The people of Oregon were generally opposed to that war if my memory is correct. Yet, he voted in favor of war -- which will always result in bloodshed and the suffering of innocents -- because it would open up Iraq to LDS converts? To me that is a horrible reason to go to war. FWIW, I supported the war personally. He also talks about working with Indian officials to serve the interests of the Church. That's time he should have been working for the State of Oregon. Anyway, do LDS politicians have a problem? I try and support politicians who live faithful and good lives (and I would put Smith in this category) and I think it is great for politics to be influenced by faithful principles. But I think it is completely out of line for an LDS politician to act as a lobbyist for the Church. Just like I would oppose a Catholic who lobbied for the interests of the specific interests of the Vatican. I know Smith is retired but I wouldn't be surprised if he receives a censure from the US Senate. His actions were really out of line. So how can LDS politicans walk this line? How do you separate religious principles from the political interests of the Church? Not likely to be separable. That is why we need a good mix of people in gov't from various backgrounds. We already know, for example, that decisions by Roman Catholic justices of the U.S. Supreme Court often favor RC doctrine. Thus, with the court currently having only Roman Catholic (5) and Jewish (3) juistices, we should probably have a better mix. Edited October 4, 2016 by Robert F. Smith 3
The Nehor Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Not likely to be separable. That is why we need a good mix of people in gov't from various backgrounds. We already know, for example, that decisions by Roman Catholic justices of the U.S. Supreme Court often favor RC doctrine. Thus, with the court currently having only Roman Catholic (5) and Jewish (3) juistices, we should probably have a better mix. Agreed let's knock them down to two each and get two Muslim judges eager to implement Sharia Law and a white supremacist neo-pagan Odin worshipper. That should round out the situation a little.
The Nehor Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 4 hours ago, Calm said: Harry Reed.... I have been informed by many LDS that he is some kind of minion of darkness. Is he vulnerable to silver? Garlic? Wooden stakes? Just wondering in case I am ever around him.
6EQUJ5 Posted October 4, 2016 Author Posted October 4, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Not likely to be separable. That is why we need a good mix of people in gov't from various backgrounds. We already know, for example, that decisions by Roman Catholic justices of the U.S. Supreme Court often favor RC doctrine. Thus, with the court currently having only Roman Catholic (5) and Jewish (3) juistices, we should probably have a better mix. Brother Smith -- I think you misread my post. I was speaking about LDS politicians representing the interests of the Church organization. If you re-read it you will see I make a distinction between acting on religious principle and acting on behalf or for the interests of a Church org. So your mention of Catholics and Jews on the SC as an answer to my question doesn't make any sense. Unless you are arguing that Catholics on the SC act on behalf of the Vatican. But I am curious about your answer the question I actually asked. Edited October 4, 2016 by 6EQUJ5
Robert F. Smith Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 1 minute ago, 6EQUJ5 said: Brother Smith -- I think you misread my post. I was speaking about LDS politicians representing the interests of the Church organization. If you re-read it you will see I make a distinction between acting on religious principle and acting on behalf or for the interests of a Church org. So your mention of Catholics and Jews on the SC as an answer to my question is doesn't make any sense. Unless you are arguing that Catholics on the SC act on behalf of the Vatican. But I am curious about your answer the question I actually asked. I did not misread your post. My comments apply generally, and it is a fact of life that people bring loyalties and preferences to their jobs -- even when they are representing the people at large. It is very naive to think that they would not do so. That is why I mentioned the need for a mixture of backgrounds and interests. For example, Supreme Court justices do not have to take orders from the Vatican in order to favor Roman Catholic doctrine, because some of them already believe in that doctrine. This is how things work in the real world. 1
stemelbow Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 13 hours ago, The Nehor said: It is a problem for some and not for others. We have many instances of LDS politicians going against general church counsel. I think of President Grant who was very pro-League of Nations but Reed Smoot, LDS senator, was very opposed to the idea without a radical overhaul of the concept. Well if polygamy wasn't still the problem along with the priesthood ban I'd say those were the days--when LDS could feel a little more open about their opinions.
stemelbow Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 I listened to most of it and he was saying his loyalty was first and foremost to the Church and it's whims than to anyone else. The whole voting for the war thing sounded incredibly stupid. He didn't think it was a good idea but he voted for the war because he thought it would open up the area for the Church to move in with missionaries? he was either incredibly stupid, or incredibly heads in the clouds with no feet on the ground, which probably just means stupid. I'd guess the latter. 1
Pittsburgher Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 12 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Not likely to be separable. That is why we need a good mix of people in gov't from various backgrounds. We already know, for example, that decisions by Roman Catholic justices of the U.S. Supreme Court often favor RC doctrine. Thus, with the court currently having only Roman Catholic (5) and Jewish (3) juistices, we should probably have a better mix. The Catholics on the Supreme Court don't walk in lockstep, by any means. Thomas and Alito have a lot different perspectives on the cases coming before the body, than does Sotomayor. America really doesn't have a situation where the justices vote based on their religious faiths.
snowflake Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 15 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said: 15 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said: This came up in the thread about the leaked video and thought it deserved its own. There wasn't anything in the videos that is salacious or all that interest. But I was very disturbed by Gordon Smith's comments. And I will admit that were I a citizen of Oregon I would be absolutely livid. Gordon Smith was not elected to represent the interests of the Church. He was elected to represent the State of Oregon. What would he do if the wishes of his State differed from the Church? Would he represent the people who elected him or would he serve the Church? I get the feeling he puts the Church first, then the State he was to represent. He talks about the Iraq war. The people of Oregon were generally opposed to that war if my memory is correct. Yet, he voted in favor of war -- which will always result in bloodshed and the suffering of innocents -- because it would open up Iraq to LDS converts? To me that is a horrible reason to go to war. FWIW, I supported the war personally. He also talks about working with Indian officials to serve the interests of the Church. That's time he should have been working for the State of Oregon. Anyway, do LDS politicians have a problem? I try and support politicians who live faithful and good lives (and I would put Smith in this category) and I think it is great for politics to be influenced by faithful principles. But I think it is completely out of line for an LDS politician to act as a lobbyist for the Church. Just like I would oppose a Catholic who lobbied for the interests of the specific interests of the Vatican. I know Smith is retired but I wouldn't be surprised if he receives a censure from the US Senate. His actions were really out of line. So how can LDS politicans walk this line? How do you separate religious principles from the political interests of the Church? I was very concerned when Mr.Romney ran for president about the possible conflict of interests between being LDS and as President of the U.S. ....I always wondered which master would he serve (just kidding I knew which master he would serve). However, our own personal worldviews affect our decisions much more than we might be willing to admit, so I am not surprised that a politician would be a bit deceitful in "representing" the people of Oregon.
thesometimesaint Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 (edited) 14 hours ago, cdowis said: Yep, he has been very successful in building a wall separating morality from his political activities. Senator Reed represents the people of Nevada, and has sworn to uphold the US Constitution while serving as Senator; Not the expansion of the Mormon Church through war. Elder Reed is a faithful member of the Church. Edited October 4, 2016 by thesometimesaint 1
ERayR Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 16 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said: This came up in the thread about the leaked video and thought it deserved its own. There wasn't anything in the videos that is salacious or all that interest. But I was very disturbed by Gordon Smith's comments. And I will admit that were I a citizen of Oregon I would be absolutely livid. Gordon Smith was not elected to represent the interests of the Church. He was elected to represent the State of Oregon. What would he do if the wishes of his State differed from the Church? Would he represent the people who elected him or would he serve the Church? I get the feeling he puts the Church first, then the State he was to represent. He talks about the Iraq war. The people of Oregon were generally opposed to that war if my memory is correct. Yet, he voted in favor of war -- which will always result in bloodshed and the suffering of innocents -- because it would open up Iraq to LDS converts? To me that is a horrible reason to go to war. FWIW, I supported the war personally. He also talks about working with Indian officials to serve the interests of the Church. That's time he should have been working for the State of Oregon. Anyway, do LDS politicians have a problem? I try and support politicians who live faithful and good lives (and I would put Smith in this category) and I think it is great for politics to be influenced by faithful principles. But I think it is completely out of line for an LDS politician to act as a lobbyist for the Church. Just like I would oppose a Catholic who lobbied for the interests of the specific interests of the Vatican. I know Smith is retired but I wouldn't be surprised if he receives a censure from the US Senate. His actions were really out of line. So how can LDS politicans walk this line? How do you separate religious principles from the political interests of the Church? The question can be asked "Is dual allegiance a problem for _______________(fill in the blank with any religion you want) politicians? 2
Recommended Posts