ERayR Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 52 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: 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. Who IMNSHO has more than his share of short comings. I am eternally grateful that I have not had to be his bishop. These are judgements that I feel comfortable in making as Harry Reid is a public figure whose actions can and have affected my life and the lives of my family.
thesometimesaint Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 23 minutes ago, ERayR said: The question can be asked "Is dual allegiance a problem for _______________(fill in the blank with any religion you want) politicians? When they come out and say they won't follow the US Constitution they have sworn to uphold it is a problem; Regardless of their religion or the lack thereof. 3
notHagoth7 Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 16 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said: ...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. Would you be livid if he was lining his pockets and the pockets of friends with government money, inside information, contracts, etc? That's what a surprising number of politicians do. U.S. officials. Canadian officials. Olympic organizing officials. Etc., etc. I'd be more concerned about what a representative does with my tax dollars than what he/she might do on their free time. 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. I was vocally opposed to that war (and almost every war) and to detaining and torturing combatants without a trial - was convinced that Iraq was a contrived money/power grab. And history has largely vindicated those impressions. Does that mean good can't come from tragic heartache? That hope can't emerge from ashes? Nope. Perhaps he factored such things into the latter category. Dunno. I'm not him. 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. What troubles you more? That politicians depart from elected office packed with a surprising degree of new-found wealth - often headed for equally-plush employment arrangements (for themselves and for friends/family) with firms/industries they had advocated for while in office? Or that someone aligns their views with a beneficial faith-based organization that doesn't profit that individual one dime? 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? Why censure him? Some Christians wanted aggression in the region in the hopes of spurring on Armaggeddon to hasten Christ's return. I think that's a bizarre reasoning for wanting conflict - but should they too be censured? If not, why? Others wanted was so their friends (and portfolio) could profit substantially from the war effort. Should they too be censured? If not, why? Etc. So how can LDS politicans walk this line? How do you separate religious principles from the political interests of the Church? If I move and run for office in Canada, and by some bizarre stroke of grace win, I'll let you know. (Or, simply read something like N. Eldon Tanner, his life and service.) How does someone separate their own personal interests (religious or otherwise) from the nation's interests? (If they aren't actually serving the needs of the people, that's a hint.) And serving needs doesn't always mean following everything that ones constituents request - because leadership is sometimes necessary instead - for the general welfare of the nation.) Again, I highly recommend the book on Tanner's life. A significant portion relates to the political sphere. 1
notHagoth7 Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: When they come out and say they won't follow the US Constitution they have sworn to uphold it is a problem; Regardless of their religion or the lack thereof. President Jackson comes to mind as an early example of that. Many politicians have unfortunately followed his lead, some for personal gain. (Joseph suggested how citizens should/could respond to such public "servants".) Edited October 4, 2016 by notHagoth7
ERayR Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 13 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: When they come out and say they won't follow the US Constitution they have sworn to uphold it is a problem; Regardless of their religion or the lack thereof. I Did not even intimate such a thing but then there is the problem of which interpretation are you talking about, yours or mine?
cdowis Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: 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. Did the people of Nevada tell him to tell a lie about Romney, and boldly brag about that lie? How very strange for the voters to demand that he commit such an immoral act. Obviously you are unfamiliar with his other political activities which "represented" the people of Nevada but appeared actually to benefit himself and his family financially. Edited October 4, 2016 by cdowis
thesometimesaint Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 24 minutes ago, ERayR said: Who IMNSHO has more than his share of short comings. I am eternally grateful that I have not had to be his bishop. These are judgements that I feel comfortable in making as Harry Reid is a public figure whose actions can and have affected my life and the lives of my family. No doubt, but I'm not in a position to vote for or against Senator Reid. Believe me I don't want any public official having the authority to decide what my religious beliefs have to be. As a public office holder it is his job to effect the lives of our families. IE; I obviously have nothing against Harry Reid's, or Mitt Romney's religion. Politics is a different question. However I fully support them in their Church callings. SEE http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/lds/ci_13629152
rpn Posted October 4, 2016 Posted October 4, 2016 21 hours 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. I watched the whole thing. And he was not saying or angling for a 70's post or anything else. He did do good for conservative Oregon, until there weren't enough conservative votes to elect him. Politics is hard. And yes, one can be square with constituents, God and the church at the same time.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 11 hours ago, Pittsburgher said: 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. Of course we do, but it does depend upon the issue which comes up. Lockstep is not required for there to be tendencies which are obvious, and those tendencies were brought into the court when those judges came. You are not a very good court watcher, if you haven't noticed that many of the most important decisions are decided on only one vote -- in which those tendencies make all the difference. Why do you suppose that there is such partisanship in the Senate over voting for any appointment to that court? Precisely because the decisions made are so ideologically-based. Of course, if you are comfortable with justices all coming from one background (all are former judges, all are ivy league law school grads, etc.) then I pity you and the future of our federal judiciary.
Gray Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 (edited) On 10/3/2016 at 6:51 PM, 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 think this will make it harder for LDS candidates to be elected. Edited October 5, 2016 by Gray
thesometimesaint Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 23 hours ago, notHagoth7 said: President Jackson comes to mind as an early example of that. Many politicians have unfortunately followed his lead, some for personal gain. (Joseph suggested how citizens should/could respond to such public "servants".) True, but we have earlier examples. John Adams infamously signed the Alien and Sedition Acts.
The Nehor Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: True, but we have earlier examples. John Adams infamously signed the Alien and Sedition Acts. He did not go far enough. Nowhere in that act did he fund building a wall to keep out those aliens. Edited October 5, 2016 by The Nehor
notHagoth7 Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: He did not go far enough. Nowhere in that act did he fund building a wall to keep out those aliens. Hard for a prospective president to fund *anything* when he pays zero taxes for years. caveat: language warning for video clip Edited October 6, 2016 by notHagoth7 1
The Nehor Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, notHagoth7 said: Hard for a prospective president to fund *anything* when he pays zero taxes for years. Please do not speak disrespectfully about our future President and future leader of the free world. Namaste. Edited October 6, 2016 by The Nehor 1
notHagoth7 Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Calm said: Language warning forgotten, NotHagoth Oops - it had been several days since I had seen that clip and I had only remembered the gist of the clip, not the verbiage. repenting now 🤔 Edited October 6, 2016 by notHagoth7
thesometimesaint Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 14 hours ago, The Nehor said: He did not go far enough. Nowhere in that act did he fund building a wall to keep out those aliens. Pretty close though. SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonintercourse_Act
hagoth7 Posted October 6, 2016 Posted October 6, 2016 13 hours ago, Calm said: One doesn't expect such things from Canadians. Doesn't expect which? Occasional colorful language? Or occasional repentance? <---occasionally feels a dash of color is needed. Brings a J. Golden Kimball quip to mind...
Recommended Posts