Should Elder Uchtdorf step down?

[halconero]

12 minutes ago, Durangout said:

Completely serious.  Was there anything non-factual with what I said? 

One of the most fascinating parts to come out of the Jesus Seminar was the decision to translate "Basileia" in the Greek New Testament as Empire rather than Kingdom, as in the "Basileia tou theou," or the Empire of God. For what it's worth, I think it was the correct decision, given the Roman Empire's adoption of the term in its Greek references and later adoption of Greek as its official language. This seems random, but consider the service we render or the votes we give in our political system to men and women of morals or goals that are or seem contrary to the teachings of the Gospel. Bear with me.

The New Testament tells us of several instances where people in service to the Roman Empire converted, with no apparent contradiction between their service to an Empire whose head claimed divine sonship (Augustus titled himself "Son of God," or "Son of the Divine," after his deified adopted father, Julius Caesar) and demanded sacrifice or prayer. Yet the Saviour nor his leadership demanded imperial converts to give up their support or careers in service to the earthly "basileia tou theou" even as they entered into the true and heavenly Empire of God. In fact, they urged financial contributions to an Empire who dominated the lives and crucified thousands across an area from modern England to the suburbs of Baghdad. They invoked Roman citizenship to guarantee their rights. Many of them continued their careers, sometimes in service to the Imperial family themselves, while worship God and His Son.

The point I'm trying to make is that purity testing the political affiliations of members in a complicated world is something the Church has expressly come out against, and you are in no place to judge the temple worthiness of members based on such. While raise many valid points on which the current Administration violates the principles and commandments of the Gospel, there are plenty I could point to on the other side of the aisle. Among these are an increase in civilian casualties in drone warfare, corporate socialism in the form of subsidies during a trade war, the literal disintegration of families at the border, and turning our back on the stranger and the vulnerable via curtailment of the refugee resettlement program (I published on this topic here). How do we weight these against the issues you bring up? Is the weight placed by you on these topics somehow better or wiser than others? Who are you to claim intellectual superiority over the moral weight of these topics?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm also not saying the premium you place on these topics is right. We live in a world in which we must weight not only the good but the evils conducted by various actors in the political sphere, and I will not place blame for someone weighing the scales differently with regards to the Administration, just as Christ did not lay blame when he ordained both a Jewish Zealot and a Roman Tax Farmer to the apostleship.

[JLHPROF]

12 minutes ago, Durangout said:

Somebody please help me understand how an active member of the church can justify supporting abortion and gay marriage?  

The same way they can justify supporting the principles on the other side of the aisle that contradict the gospel.
Both political parties have many beliefs that directly go against principles that God would have us follow.  For most it's choosing the lesser of two evils as they see it.  For a few it's refusing to put their name to evil at all.

[Durangout]

19 hours ago, Amulek said:

You should be banned from the thread because you are incapable of participating in this discussion without losing it?

 

The previous question was: "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?"

Ironically, it is likely because of people like you interpreting the question in this manner that caused it to be changed. 

As an immigrant himself, I don't find it terribly surprising that the Uchtdorf family might trend to the left a bit, politically. 

 

I’m quite confused by your response.

How am I “loosing it”?  Did I yell, use hyperbole or state anything non-factual?

Also please help me understand how I’m interpreting incorrectly Q 7 of the temple recommend.  It seems incredibly clear to me that if you support abortion (other than how the Handbook allows for it) or gay marriage, for example, that you would have to answer “yes” (to either version of the question) thereby disqualifying you for a recommend.

I agree w your last point:  as a European immigrant, it us expected that his views would be left politically.

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, Durangout said:

I’m quite confused by your response.

How am I “loosing it”?  Did I yell, use hyperbole or state anything non-factual?

Also please help me understand how I’m interpreting incorrectly Q 7 of the temple recommend.  It seems incredibly clear to me that if you support abortion (other than how the Handbook allows for it) or gay marriage, for example, that you would have to answer “yes” (to either version of the question) thereby disqualifying you for a recommend.

I agree w your last point:  as a European immigrant, it us expected that his views would be left politically.

Your black and white thinking is abhorrent! 

I think Christ would be so disappointed. I guess you should turn your back on the church as well, because they support abortion in different situations. No black and white there.

I think you better tighten your seat belt because the church will and has already changed a lot with the LGBTQ matters. 

[Meadowchik]

45 minutes ago, Durangout said:

Somebody please help me understand how an active member of the church can justify supporting abortion and gay marriage?  

There are active members who believe in a woman's right to choose and don't believe in banning gay marriage.

Also, a moral position is not always morally a legal position. This should be abundantly obvious to LDS people who believe in helping the poor but not public redistribution of wealth for the poor. On the other hand, an active member can disagree with some moral stances of the church and still believe in the Restoration. There were members who prayed for changes in church positions in the past where such changes have now occurred, by the way.

[longview]

18 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

As I understand it, the Republican platform no longer exists, and has been replaced with a statement that the GOP supports Trump.   I could be wrong; that is what Wiki reports.

 

Many deeply principled conservatives would agree that the Republican Party no longer truly represents them.  The platform is merely giving lip service but the party has largely been taken over by what would be called RINOS (in name only), globalists (those that are willing to cede American sovereignty to a "New World Order" as expressed by both HW and W Bush and other establishment elites), and corrupt representatives that are willing to play second fiddle to the dominant culture in order to have a crack at the lucrative trough.

I recently have been reading of news bulletins that Trump is ordering the Republican Party to stop using his name for fund raising purposes.  He will be supporting his own allies in recruitment and the primary process.

[Harry T. Clark]

On 3/16/2021 at 10:37 PM, Rivers said:

Oh really?

Take a look at Trump's ongoing spat with Romney and look at how the DN, the church's paper, covered that.  The DN frowned on Trump during his entire presidency, never pushing back on the russia collusion story and supported Romney's decision to convict Trump.  The tone of the article article below is one of relief and I think, along with the last four years coverage, shows that the church owned paper didn't ever support Trump.

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/11/7/21554142/election-congressional-leaders-react-presidential-race-jo-biden-mitt-romney-utahns

[The Nehor]

34 minutes ago, longview said:

Many deeply principled conservatives would agree that the Republican Party no longer truly represents them.  The platform is merely giving lip service but the party has largely been taken over by what would be called RINOS (in name only), globalists (those that are willing to cede American sovereignty to a "New World Order" as expressed by both HW and W Bush and other establishment elites), and corrupt representatives that are willing to play second fiddle to the dominant culture in order to have a crack at the lucrative trough.

I recently have been reading of news bulletins that Trump is ordering the Republican Party to stop using his name for fund raising purposes.  He will be supporting his own allies in recruitment and the primary process.

Today they are cheering authoritarian dictator Putin en masse. I almost wish old McCarthy was still alive to see what happened to his party.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Durangout said:

Somebody please help me understand how an active member of the church can justify supporting abortion and gay marriage?  

Don't forget that our church supports abortion, in that we believe and teach that abortion can be the right choice is very limited circumstances (rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother) and therefore should remain legal.

But I think that others have already answered your question so I'll just ditto what they said.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Durangout said:

I’m quite confused by your response.

How am I “loosing it”?  Did I yell, use hyperbole or state anything non-factual?

Also please help me understand how I’m interpreting incorrectly Q 7 of the temple recommend.  It seems incredibly clear to me that if you support abortion (other than how the Handbook allows for it) or gay marriage, for example, that you would have to answer “yes” (to either version of the question) thereby disqualifying you for a recommend.

I agree w your last point:  as a European immigrant, it us expected that his views would be left politically.

A) Your interpretation of Q7 is not the church's interpretation.  B) Your ideas on the topic are not the standard that the church uses to judge if others are temple worthy.   That you didn't realize both A and B, and are confused on why you are getting pushback on them, is a bit concerning.

[HappyJackWagon]

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

Secular political ideologies will always fall short when compared to the gospel of Christ. 

Trying to make a political ideology = our religious theology (as Durangout is doing) doesn't work.  You can't turn something secular into something from God, and you make everything worse for everyone when you try.  The political parties that we have right now belong to the temporal world--they belong to Caesar, so to speak--and we need to remember that and use the good they offer (and they both offer good, and they both support evil) to be wise as serpents but also harmless as doves.

I think that good can be done through support of either party, as long as we don't get confused about what it is we are supporting (and what it's not).

You are absolutely right.

Interestingly, Jehovah's Witness' don't vote or participate in man-run government for precisely the reason that they are all corrupt and imperfect. IMO they miss the point and their lack of participation only hurts them. So even while recognizing the limitations of government or any political party as being imperfect, it would seem wise to continue engaging.

[Raingirl]

2 hours ago, Durangout said:

Completely serious.  Was there anything non-factual with what I said? 

Well, for one, as has already been pointed out to you, Elder Uchtdorf didn’t make the donation. 

Edited March 19, 2021 by Raingirl

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, Harry T. Clark said:

Take a look at Trump's ongoing spat with Romney and look at how the DN, the church's paper, covered that.  The DN frowned on Trump during his entire presidency, never pushing back on the russia collusion story and supported Romney's decision to convict Trump.  The tone of the article article below is one of relief and I think, along with the last four years coverage, shows that the church owned paper didn't ever support Trump.

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/11/7/21554142/election-congressional-leaders-react-presidential-race-jo-biden-mitt-romney-utahns

There are myriad subjects on which the Deseret News is apt to take an institutional position on its editorial page. It’s a newspaper, and that’s what newspapers do. 
 

But you and others are mistaken to draw the inference that a position taken by the newspaper necessarily binds the Church to that position. The vast majority, in fact, are positions on which the Church has remained aloof. Furthermore, I know from personal observation that the Church leaders do not ordinarily micromanage how the newspaper covers this or that topic. Like others have done, you are reading too much into the Church’s ownership of the Deseret News. 
 

I would go batty if the above were not the case, because I desire to stay aligned with the prophets and apostles in their formal positions, and the Deseret News often takes positions with which I disagree. 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Durangout said:

that you would have to answer “yes” (to either version of the question) thereby disqualifying you for a recommend.

I don't think the recommend process is that black and white and I am positive that those in leadership positions have some leeway in authorizing recommends.
Based on anecdotal evidence from this board alone they have quite a bit of leeway.

[Scott Lloyd]

35 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You are absolutely right.

Interestingly, Jehovah's Witness' don't vote or participate in man-run government for precisely the reason that they are all corrupt and imperfect. IMO they miss the point and their lack of participation only hurts them. So even while recognizing the limitations of government or any political party as being imperfect, it would seem wise to continue engaging.

I think the Brethren do a good job in delineating what the Church  will and will not take a position on when it comes to public affairs. They state upfront that they only do so on what they define as  moral issues or issues in which the Church has a vital interest, such as religious liberty. 
 

They do, however, encourage individual members to engage in public affairs on their own as it suits their own consciences, and that’s a good thing. 

Edited March 19, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

22 hours ago, Amulek said:

Honest question: Do you believe Church Legal and Public Affairs were involved without the knowledge and approval of President Nelson?

I mean, do you really think there is some attorney or PR guy out in SLC right now who knows all the particulars of the situation - necessary, no doubt, in order to craft the perfectly ambiguous non-admission-admission you have been complaining about - and yet the prophet, himself, is actually in the dark about what actually transpired?

 

No.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, longview said:

Many deeply principled conservatives would agree that the Republican Party no longer truly represents them.  The platform is merely giving lip service but the party has largely been taken over by what would be called RINOS (in name only),

I cannot express how much I hate that term.  It's a ridiculous insult hurled by the most right wing, borderline conspiracy theorists  at anyone who expresses a modicum of moderation in their conservative views.
In my experience anyone who tosses the term RINO around should not claim to represent deeply principled conservative values.

When did the world become so stuck in the fringes?

[Kenngo1969]

22 hours ago, Durangout said:

Q:  What did he actually do?  
 

A:  He donated to powers that promote the gay agenda, abortion, corrupt elections, violence, transgenderism, pornography, the curtailment of individual rights, socialism, the disintegration of the family, abdication of personal responsibility, corruption of gender roles...EVERYTHING that is anti God’s plan of salvation.

Put that way it seems pretty clear what should happen.

He was demoted once when he was released from the 1st Presidency.  Make no mistake that wasn’t just a “release”.  However he won’t be released because of this.  The Church seems much too concerned about saving face since Pres Hinckley’s days.

This is question 7 in the temple recommend:

“Do you support or promote any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to those of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?”

Based on this alone, no Democrat should hold a recommend little alone be in The 12.

 

I think that if there's a officeholder, a politician, or a pundit alive with whom someone agrees on absolutely everything, the person who is in agreement should have his head examined.