Marlin K Jensen: Large numbers NOT apostatizing

[_Buffalo]

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

Hate to disappoint you, but it hasn't.

Incorrect. The church has come out STRONGLY in favor of illegal immigration.

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 doctrine resides in the standard works. In 30 years no one will be quoting Hinckley, but they'll still quote the Book of Mormon.

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.

WE supported their attacks on their own population. Hate to disappoint you.

[_SteelHead]

If pres. Faust can be a democrat, and an apostle then member of the first presidency, while everyone knows he is a democrat.... Then your assertion is wrong. It is possible to be a good Mormon and a democrat.

Which in turn makes suspect your rationale and pronouncement on any other topic.

[_bcspace]

If pres. Faust can be a democrat, and an apostle then member of the first presidency, while everyone knows he is a democrat.... Then your assertion is wrong. It is possible to be a good Mormon and a democrat.

Impossible when one compares doctrine with what the Democrat party believes. Faust comes from an era when Democrats were actually fairly conservative. No longer.

[_bcspace]

Hate to disappoint you, but it hasn't.

Incorrect. The church has come out STRONGLY in favor of illegal immigration.

Repeating it doesn't make it true.

The doctrine resides in the standard works. In 30 years no one will be quoting Hinckley, but they'll still quote the Book of Mormon.

The doctrine is established by the FP and Qo12. We're still quoting the Ensign for 40 years ago. The Book of Mormon is never used alone.

WE supported their attacks on their own population.

No we did not. But for a while, Iran was thought to be partly responsible for the Halabja attack which turned out to be incorrect.

[_moksha]

Dead serious. A Democrat, in virtually every way, is in diametric opposition to the Church on critical doctrines.

Ah, you are talking about the Law of Tax Exemptions as well as the Law of No Fluoride in Drinking Water. Once the Church officially merged with the John Birch Society, this diametrical induced opposition by Democrats, Liberals and those without cerebral implants was a fait accompli.

[_brade]

it is not possible for a good Mormon to be a Democrat.

When people say to me, “How do you rationalize being a Democrat?” I just say I take everything that’s true and good and hang onto it. And the basic, historically the basic foundational principles of the Democratic Party have appealed to me more. But that’s a matter really of personal choice, it has nothing to do with our salvation.

But I think I could safely say that one of the things that prompted this discussion in the first place was the regret that’s felt about the decline of the Democratic Party and the notion that may prevail in some areas that you can’t be a good Mormon and a good Democrat at the same time. There have been some awfully good men and women who have, I think, been both and are both today. So I think it would be a very healthy thing for the church—particularly the Utah church—if that notion could be obliterated.

Get in line Jensen! Right, bcspace? On this particular issue, Jensen's beliefs are heretical. Right?

[_bcspace]

Dead serious. A Democrat, in virtually every way, is in diametric opposition to the Church on critical doctrines.

Ah, you are talking about the Law of Tax Exemptions as well as the Law of No Fluoride in Drinking Water.

Nope. I've never had a cavity in my life. Probably as a result of genetics and growing up with fluoride in the water.

Once the Church officially merged with the John Birch Society, this diametrical induced opposition by Democrats, Liberals and those without cerebral implants was a fait accompli.

No, it's a result of members comparing LDS doctrine with liberal philosophy increasingly adopted by the Democrats.

As for the John Birch Society, while I am not a member of it, I'll be willing to bet at this very moment you don't know a single thing it stands for besides being anti Communist. You can't even list a position of the JBS you might disagree with. But you will now be making use of google to see if you can find something so you can pretend you do......

[_bcspace]

When people say to me, “How do you rationalize being a Democrat?” I just say I take everything that’s true and good and hang onto it. And the basic, historically the basic foundational principles of the Democratic Party have appealed to me more. But that’s a matter really of personal choice, it has nothing to do with our salvation.

But I think I could safely say that one of the things that prompted this discussion in the first place was the regret that’s felt about the decline of the Democratic Party and the notion that may prevail in some areas that you can’t be a good Mormon and a good Democrat at the same time. There have been some awfully good men and women who have, I think, been both and are both today. So I think it would be a very healthy thing for the church—particularly the Utah church—if that notion could be obliterated.

Jensen is wrong on all counts and I notice the Church didn't back him up on the SLTrib interview.

[_Drifting]

When people say to me, “How do you rationalize being a Democrat?” I just say I take everything that’s true and good and hang onto it. And the basic, historically the basic foundational principles of the Democratic Party have appealed to me more. But that’s a matter really of personal choice, it has nothing to do with our salvation.

But I think I could safely say that one of the things that prompted this discussion in the first place was the regret that’s felt about the decline of the Democratic Party and the notion that may prevail in some areas that you can’t be a good Mormon and a good Democrat at the same time. There have been some awfully good men and women who have, I think, been both and are both today. So I think it would be a very healthy thing for the church—particularly the Utah church—if that notion could be obliterated.

Jensen is wrong on all counts and I notice the Church didn't back him up on the SLTrib interview.

bcspace, I think you'd best hand your recommend in...

I have given the following counsel to Church members—those who have committed themselves by upraised hands to sustain their church leaders:

“Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true. As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947,

“‘When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’ (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24.)” (Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985.)

[_ludwigm]

The statement supposedly by Elder Dallin Oakes--"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true."--is being used in a sig line. There is no source cited, so I don't know if it is correct or not. But ASSUMING it is correct, I would like to discuss the idea.
...
The criticism sets you on a path that could eventually lead you out of the Church.

I assume it was correct.

(http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... =a&start=0)
There were 211 posts.