LDS Church expands statement on political neutrality ...

[_harmony]

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.

Simon Southerton?

[_Mephitus]

heh, i was writing that thread at work and didn't have my sources on hand. Yeah, S. Southerton.

Though other sources are more of a "grape vine" style of rumor I've been told by TBM's that are very uneasy to speak dirrectly about what happened.(since it was "private" and they shouldn't know to begin with)

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

Simon Southerton was not an elected official. He was a member that came out in open apotasy. You said elected leaders who do not follow the church line will surely be reprimanded. Scary Harry seems to have faired ok as far as we can tell.

[_harmony]

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.

Simon Southerton was not an elected official. He was a member that came out in open apotasy. You said elected leaders who do not follow the church line will surely be reprimanded. Scary Harry seems to have faired ok as far as we can tell.

I think the new statement is to get the members to quit speculating about LDS elected officials' church standing. Every time Sen Reid votes for women's rights or against marriage, LDS members start calling for his head, speculating that he should be ex'ed, etc. I think the church is right, to essentially tell them to mind their own business and that they will not be subject to church oversight for doing their job.

If Romney's going to have a shot at the nomination, LDS members need to shut the heck up about his flip flops. It's one thing when your enemy questions you; it's another thing altogether when it's your friend asking the hard questions.

[_Brackite]

Hi there,

I am not for gay marriages, however what Senator Harry Reid just basically did in this regards was voted against an amendment that would have ban gay marriages in all 50 states. If that amendment was passed, than none of the states would be able to decide if they want to allow gay marriages or not. I believe that the states should decide whether or not they want to allow gay marriages, and I believe that the Federal Government and the Federal Judges should now pretty much stay out of this issue and let each individual state decide on this issue.

[_Coggins7]

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.

No Rollo, its actually that the church is concerned about Romney's connection to the Bavarian Illuminati, the Knights Templer, The Skull And Bones Sciety, and Hamas.

This is why people with serious intellects don't take you, or people like you seriously. We're laughing behind your back Rollo. This was all hashed out before on another thread (many weeks ago) and as was pointed out then, there is nothing in said oaths that has any bearing on one's competance to hold political office, nor anything in them that would cause any conflict between the Constitution (which the vast majority of elected officials in Washington ignore routinely anyway), and the Church.

You're a figment of your own imaginaiton Rollo. This could actually be fun if it weren't so sick.

I've been through them, and I know what's in them. I also know what the church teaches regarding politics and one's obligations as a citizen, at least in essentially democratic countries.

Try again.

Loran

[_Mister Scratch]

I've been through them, and I know what's in them. I also know what the church teaches regarding politics and one's obligations as a citizen, at least in essentially democratic countries.

Loran

Would that include behind-the-scenes puppeteering by the Brethren to alter the political outcomes of such things as the ERA?

[_Coggins7]

Would that include behind-the-scenes puppeteering by the Brethren to alter the political outcomes of such things as the ERA?

In other words, the General Authorities of the church have no business involving themselves in the political or cultural life of their country. Nor do conservatives...any conservatives, right Scratch?

The ERA, just for a littel historical and idological reminder, was a document so far out of harmony with the founding principles of this nation, not to mention the Constitution which is the legal codification of those principles, that to not have involved themselves in its ultimate defeat (which was a democratic defeat Scratch; it didn't have a prayer in the arena of ideas or in Congress) would have been a derilection of their status as citizens in a representative democracy and as supporters of constitutional government (and make no mistatke folks, those who wrote and supported the ERA believe in neither).

Another phony argument from the fringes of modern poliitical discourse.

Loran

[_Mister Scratch]

Would that include behind-the-scenes puppeteering by the Brethren to alter the political outcomes of such things as the ERA?

In other words, the General Authorities of the church have no business involving themselves in the political or cultural life of their country.

Not if they want to remain tax-exempt, or if they want to continue hiding their dubious spending of Church finances.

The ERA, just for a littel historical and idological reminder, was a document so far out of harmony with the founding principles of this nation, not to mention the Constitution which is the legal codification of those principles, that to not have involved themselves in its ultimate defeat (which was a democratic defeat Scratch; it didn't have a prayer in the arena of ideas or in Congress)

No; the ERA was on the verge of being ratified. The FP decided at the last second that they did not like it, and the Church's grassroots political campaign (during which, among other things, Pres. Hinckley rather sneakily tried to downplay Church association with the campaign even as he was directing it from behind the scenes) was arguably the deciding factor in the ERA's defeat. The Church stooped to some pretty low tactics in achieving this victory, too, such as lying to Relief Society women by telling them that pornographic films were being screened at pro-ERA meetings, or claiming that pro-ERA factions consisted entirely of lesbians.

[_Coggins7]

Coggins7 wrote:

Quote:
Would that include behind-the-scenes puppeteering by the Brethren to alter the political outcomes of such things as the ERA?




In other words, the General Authorities of the church have no business involving themselves in the political or cultural life of their country.

Not if they want to remain tax-exempt, or if they want to continue hiding their dubious spending of Church finances.

Quote:

So, the leaders of the church as individuals, and as representatives of the church, give up their First Amendment rights by...being members and leaders of a church? That's very interesting Scratch, and again indicative of the totalitarian mentality that lurks behind the smiling face of many compassionate and tolerant "liberals" Just to educate you a little (as if this will do any good), a church can only lose its tax exempt status if it lobbies for or uses its chuch buildings to support or oppose specific candidates for office. Nothing in present law can prevent church leaders from using what influence they have, as individual American citizens or as representitives of a faith community, to influence the outcome of legislation on important issues of the day. Your implication that free speech is only for the Left is just another indication of what "liberalism" really is.

The ERA, just for a littel historical and idological reminder, was a document so far out of harmony with the founding principles of this nation, not to mention the Constitution which is the legal codification of those principles, that to not have involved themselves in its ultimate defeat (which was a democratic defeat Scratch; it didn't have a prayer in the arena of ideas or in Congress)

No; the ERA was on the verge of being ratified. The FP decided at the last second that they did not like it, and the Church's grassroots political campaign (during which, among other things, Pres. Hinckley rather sneakily tried to downplay Church association with the campaign even as he was directing it from behind the scenes) was arguably the deciding factor in the ERA's defeat. The Church stooped to some pretty low tactics in achieving this victory, too, such as lying to Relief Society women by telling them that pornographic films were being screened at pro-ERA meetings, or claiming that pro-ERA factions consisted entirely of lesbians.

In reality, the ERA didn't have a prayer among the general public once it bacame known what it was actually attempting to do and what kind of changes it would impose on American culture and politics. Congress responded to a massive groundswell of resistance to the imposition of radical feminist ideology upon American culture, including a pivitol aspect of the ERA, federally funded convienence abortion on demand. Our society wasn't quite ready for constitutionally supported legal infanticide at that time.

Your implication that the church had some kind of major role in the defeat of the ERA is really comic. I'm sure that it had some effect (of which I am proud), but the entire conservative base of the courntry, including evangelicals, conservative Catholics, and others rose in oppositon to the constiutional impostion of one of the most extreme forms of cultural Marxism over the entire nation.

I think your claim of the church lying to anybody is pure hokum Scratch, as well as filled with the same guile to claim sullies the church. It wouldn't surprise me at all if pornographic movies were shown at some pro ERA meetings. These are LIBERALS Scratch! These were the creators and children of the sexual revolution. Porn is healthy, progressive, enlightened, and a sign of a mature, sophisticated society. The early feminist movemnet wasn't a neo-Pagan lesbian cult, as it is, for the most part, now. Much of its core ideology was based around an ethos of anti-family, anti-marriage pan sexual hedonism (in service of destroying the romantic and psychological bonds which tend Old Testament lead men and woman to enter into long term committed relationships that produce children and focus the lives of the individuals involved toward the home as opposed to the atomized, all sufficient self) in which modular, serial sexuality combined with material success in the corporate world were held out has by far desireable to home and hearth. Feminism was closely allied with the "new morality" of the day.

If it is true that the church had a major hand in defeating this all out assault on a free, civil, and morally coherant society, that God be thanked for their efforts.

Loran