Marlin K Jensen: Large numbers NOT apostatizing

[_Buffalo]

A Democrat cannot possibly answer this question in the negative:

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?

.

By that same token, neither can a Republican, considering their take on illegal immigration. Oh, and war. Especially preemptive war.

[_SteelHead]

I think it perfectly logical to conclude that if BC will deny Pres. Faust a recommend by virtue of being a democrat, then BC ought to turn in his recommend by virtue of paying taxes and providing support to a body that at one time confiscated all of the church's properties.

[_Runtu]

I think it perfectly logical to conclude that if BC will deny Pres. Faust a recommend by virtue of being a democrat, then BC ought to turn in his recommend by virtue of paying taxes and providing support to a body that at one time confiscated all of the church's properties.

My MP was the minority leader in the Idaho legislature, meaning he was a Democrat. He went to a conference in Lima, Peru, where he met President Faust. He said their plane was delayed, and President Faust was tired of sitting, so they walked up and down the terminal for a couple of hours. The subject? Democratic politics and how to improve Democratic prospects among LDS church members.

Who knew they were both apostates not deserving of temple recommends?

[_Buffalo]

I think it perfectly logical to conclude that if BC will deny Pres. Faust a recommend by virtue of being a democrat, then BC ought to turn in his recommend by virtue of paying taxes and providing support to a body that at one time confiscated all of the church's properties.

My MP was the minority leader in the Idaho legislature, meaning he was a Democrat. He went to a conference in Lima, Peru, where he met President Faust. He said their plane was delayed, and President Faust was tired of sitting, so they walked up and down the terminal for a couple of hours. The subject? Democratic politics and how to improve Democratic prospects among LDS church members.

Who knew they were both apostates not deserving of temple recommends?

They should have been excommunicated on the spot!

[_Tobin]

Political affiliation is a direct outward measurement of one's inward spirituality. For example, if one supports the homosexual lifestyle choice and homosexual marriage as legitimate, how is that not connected to one's acceptance or non acceptance of LDS doctrine?

Being a democrat does not make one a supporter of the homosexual lifestyle. You support their right to live how and where they like and to have all the same protections and rights as anyone else. This is hardly counter to Mormonism.

However, I would think of all the political parties, being Democrat is probably most akin to how Mormons should be. They should be for the poor and the little guy. They should be for protecting the earth and keeping it clean and unpolluted and being good stewards.

Republicans are for that too. It is modus operandi that is the problem. The modus operadi of the Democrats is Satan's plan, a removal of agency, and enslavement and a false compassion.

Hardly. Despite Republican proganda to the contrary, the Democratic party is not "Satan's" party. In fact, I would suggest that it is perhaps the Republican party that is truely "Satan's" party. They are for the greedy, slothful, fat rich cats that like to step on everyone else. Seems more akin to Satan's plan than any other party to me.

And being for freewill and free choice. If political affiliations were to have anything to with the church (which I'm not saying they do), I would think being a Democrat would be in the best traditions of being a Mormon.

No, being a Democrat violates LDS doctrine and the Gospel of Jesus Christ in almost every way in both letter and spirit. Socialism, feminism, environmentalism, pacifism, secular humanism, etc. etc.

Again, just more propaganda. The Democratic party is not the socialist party. It is for equal rights, the environment, anti-war (all Mormons should be for that), and human rights. Seems very acceptable for Mormons to belong to me.

[_SteelHead]

Anyone else find it amusing/highly ironic that the guy who says lgt, a limited flood, pre fall death, and evolution are allowed under his definition of doctrine is the same guy that says it is impossible to be a good Mormon and a democrat?

[_Runtu]

I find it highly ironic that in a time when clearly there are more people leaving the church than there were, say, 15 years ago, there are Mormons out there who seem to be encouraging people not to feel welcome in the church. Until the church makes political affiliation or belief a determinant of worthiness or membership, no one has the right to judge members by their political beliefs.

I had a mission companion who was a Trotskyite. Last I checked, he's still active in the church.

[_bcspace]

By that same token, neither can a Republican, considering their take on illegal immigration. Oh, and war. Especially preemptive war.

There is nothing in the Republican platform on immigration that is contrary to LDS doctrine. Even the Utah Compact (which is not doctrine) does not imply against strict border controls or consequences for illegal immigration.

Hinkley, in his doctrinal statements (published by the Church) on War and Peace established the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as not being in opposition to LDS doctrine. In addition, neither of those was pre-emptive.

Being a democrat does not make one a supporter of the homosexual lifestyle.

According to Romans 1:32 it does.

Republicans are for that too. It is modus operandi that is the problem. The modus operadi of the Democrats is Satan's plan, a removal of agency, and enslavement and a false compassion.

Hardly. Despite Republican proganda to the contrary, the Democratic party is not "Satan's" party

Socialism is Satan's plan. Notice that the fundamental principle in the Law of Consecration is private property and the free use of it. Another is an individual's decision as to how much to contribute. Socialism and the welfare state removes all that.

The Democratic party is not the socialist party.

Obamacare, controls on production, supply and price, etc.

It is for equal rights, the environment, and human rights.

I agree the Democrats want these things as much as Republicans. Modus operandi is the key. For example, additional rights or protected class are all in opposition.

anti-war (all Mormons should be for that),

Not at all costs. LDS doctrine provides for war.

Seems very acceptable for Mormons to belong to me.

Only if you cherry-pick. There's a good reason why most Mormons aren't Democrats and that is by simple comparison of policy with doctrine.

I find it highly ironic that in a time when clearly there are more people leaving the church than there were, say, 15 years ago,

Has not been established

there are Mormons out there who seem to be encouraging people not to feel welcome in the church

There is a difference between welcoming in the Church and accepting false doctrines and values and not failing to identify them.

Until the church makes political affiliation or belief a determinant of worthiness or membership, no one has the right to judge members by their political beliefs.

This is not true. We should be making judgements as to what is right and wrong vis a vis doctrine and identifying those exemplify the wrong, such as Democrats, so we don't follow their example.

I had a mission companion who was a Trotskyite. Last I checked, he's still active in the church.

A TR or membership or activity does not tell you what direction a person is headed.

Anyone else find it amusing/highly ironic that the guy who says lgt, a limited flood, pre fall death, and evolution are allowed under his definition of doctrine is the same guy that says it is impossible to be a good Mormon and a democrat?

Truth is truth. LGT, local Flood, Pre Adamites, and evolution are not left wing values nor are they in conflict with LDS doctrine.

[_Buffalo]

By that same token, neither can a Republican, considering their take on illegal immigration. Oh, and war. Especially preemptive war.

There is nothing in the Republican platform on immigration that is contrary to LDS doctrine. Even the Utah Compact (which is not doctrine) does not imply against strict border controls or consequences for illegal immigration.

Hinkley, in his doctrinal statements (published by the Church) on War and Peace established the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as not being in opposition to LDS doctrine. In addition, neither of those was pre-emptive.

On the contrary, the church has come out in favor of illegal immigration. The Book of Mormon is soundly against preemptive war, and the D&C is soundly against all war. The war in Iraq was by definition preemptive, since they had made no attack against us. You lose.

[_bcspace]

On the contrary, the church has come out in favor of illegal immigration.

Hate to disappoint you, but it hasn't.

The Book of Mormon is soundly against preemptive war, and the D&C is soundly against all war.

The scriptures, including the Book of Mormon are all for necessary war,helping your neighbor, and such. As noted before, the current wars have not been pre-emptive and even if they were, current LDS doctrine (Hinckley's War and Peace) implies there is nothing wrong with them in terms of doctrine.

The war in Iraq was by definition preemptive, since they had made no attack against us.

Hate to disappoint you again, but Iraq supported terrorist groups who attacked us and our allies and their own population. In addition, simply removing a tyrant who oppresses his own people is never pre-emptive as there was an attack on people who are, by Gospel definition, our neighbors.

You lose.