DiscussMormonism.com

The Church has expanded its statement on political neutrality by adding the following:

"Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position. While the Church may communicate its views to them, as it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent."

The full statement can be read in the news section at LDS.org.

Here's an article about it in yesterday's Deseret News:

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,655191956,00.html

I can't help but wonder if this preemptive clarification is, at least in part, due to the Church's fear of media questions about Romney's temple oaths.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

"Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position. While the Church may communicate its views to them, as it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent."

I can't help but wonder if this preemptive clarification is, at least in part, due to the Church's fear of media questions about Romney's temple oaths.

I don't know. I sort of read it as a stopgap measure to muzzle all those fanatical (and embarrassing) TBMs who are frothing at the mouth that Harry Reid voted against the church's position on the gay marriage bill.

Either that, or give them a wake-up call.

Dr. Shades wrote:I don't know. I sort of read it as a stopgap measure to muzzle all those fanatical (and embarrassing) TBMs who are frothing at the mouth that Harry Reid voted against the church's position on the gay marriage bill.

Either that, or give them a wake-up call.

I agree. I think it's about Sen. Reid.

They might be saying that they will not publicly tell him how to think, but you know sure as hell they will reprimand any elected official that goes against ANY church doctrine. They would come down on that person like a ton of bricks in private, and you all know it. (even if they give an "alternative" reason for the finger wagging)

They might be saying that they will not publicly tell him how to think, but you know sure as hell they will reprimand any elected official that goes against ANY church doctrine. They would come down on that person like a ton of bricks in private, and you all know it. (even if they give an "alternative" reason for the finger wagging)

Who knows it? The aforementioned Reid case, in which he still maintains his stance (and his full fellowship), is a prime example that your hypothesis is wrong.

Dr. Shades wrote:I don't know. I sort of read it as a stopgap measure to muzzle all those fanatical (and embarrassing) TBMs who are frothing at the mouth that Harry Reid voted against the church's position on the gay marriage bill.

I wondered the same thing. I think the Brethren were indeed embarrassed by the publication of the letter written by Reid's former SP stating essentially that Reid had sold his soul to the Devil, based on his vote against the marriage amendment.

Sono_hito wrote:They might be saying that they will not publicly tell him how to think, but you know sure as hell they will reprimand any elected official that goes against ANY church doctrine. They would come down on that person like a ton of bricks in private, and you all know it. (even if they give an "alternative" reason for the finger wagging)

I doubt this. The LDS Church craves public acceptance. It is very insecure about its image, and it knows it cannot manipulate the gentile masses as it manipluates its members. The last thing the Bretheren want is public disclosure that it is browbeating elected officials to tow the line. This might fly in the religiously charged politics of Utah, but it would fly like a lead balloon in the rest of the country. I would imagine that high profile elected officials have a great deal of leeway; more in fact than the rank and file member might enjoy.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:The Church has expanded its statement on political neutrality by adding the following:

"Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position. While the Church may communicate its views to them, as it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent."

The full statement can be read in the news section at LDS.org.

Here's an article about it in yesterday's Deseret News:

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,655191956,00.html

I can't help but wonder if this preemptive clarification is, at least in part, due to the Church's fear of media questions about Romney's temple oaths.

Or perhaps it is to give Harry Reid some wiggle room as well given he voted against the gay marriage deal that the Church sent an apostle to Washington to endorse.

Sono_hito wrote:They might be saying that they will not publicly tell him how to think, but you know sure as hell they will reprimand any elected official that goes against ANY church doctrine. They would come down on that person like a ton of bricks in private, and you all know it. (even if they give an "alternative" reason for the finger wagging)

Really? How do you know this? Can you provide anything more then your speculations?

What about people such as...oh crap...what was his name....The biologist who documented the DNA in native americans and was exed for something else that had occured several years earlier and already cleared.