The LDS Republican Church ?

[_beastie]

You just continue to ignore the fact that the Church has settled, established and clear doctrines, teachings, and philosophy on numerous issues that dovetail closely with politics along an number of dimensions, and that the fact that the Church does not support or defend any particular party or political affiliation has no bearing on the intersection of core political philosophy and gospel teachings.

I agree that a member of the church would be in opposition to church teachings if they encouraged unrestricted abortion. However, that is not what is happening. You refuse to admit that is not what is happening, despite the numerous attempts to help you understand. Members who oppose making adultery illegal are not encouraging adultery.

The difference is in regards to the level of government involvement. Something that republicans supposedly want to keep at a minimum. Supposedly. Supposedly.

I know as well as anyone else observing this discussion that what you are really aiming at (and others such as Loyd Ericson, Quinn, and Pearson, and other liberal LDS) is the disarming of conservative LDS by erasing the clear distinctions and boundaries created by LDS doctrine in relation to the philosophies and belief systems common to the secular world. Whether this manifests itself as an attempt to erase the concept of "official" church doctrine, or the conflation of party affiliation with core political philosophy, the agenda here is of a piece.

Nonsense. I am simply defending my parents, and other LDS who happen to support the democratic party.

Droopy, I’m going to give you some sage advice you’d be well-put to follow, first uttered by a woman who appeared to be as well-placed as you in dispensing moral advice: crack is whack.

Stop smoking it before you post.

[_Droopy]

Droopy,

I thank you for this relatively moderate statement. The "vast majority" is a far cry from "any and all" serious Latter-day Saints. I agree that the majority of Latter-day Saints are pro-life and that church discourse tends to encourage that position. I am just not convinced by the arguments made that criminalization is the best solution. I think opposition to convenience abortion can be legally expressed in other ways.

So do I, as I have stated on numerous occasions. I take a conservative position morally on abortion, and a libertarian position on the best way to negotiate it in a free society. Roe should be overturned as the bad law and constitutional insult to intelligence that it is, and returned to the states for resolution by accountable democratic state legislators and the people. Some states would be very liberal in their policies, and other conservative, under such a system, but this is what the Constitution provides for and would go a long way in denationalizing the ferocity of the culture war that has resulted from Roe.

The Left and people like Beastie will have none of this, however, because so long as it remains a "right" and sealed off from democratic review, it remains beyond the deliberative democratic processes of a free self governing society, exactly where the Left desires it should be.

Neither am I convinced that this is the "united position of the brethren." Like the Fielding Smith position on evolution, it is probably the only one that has been discussed in public.

The Church's position on convenience abortion is the historical official position of the Church, which members take to be the mind and will of the Lord on the matter. JFS's position on evolution was never more than his own personal opinion.

It is, and has been since at least 1973, as the links I previously posted indicate.

[_Droopy]

I agree that a member of the church would be in opposition to church teachings if they encouraged unrestricted abortion. However, that is not what is happening. You refuse to admit that is not what is happening, despite the numerous attempts to help you understand.

Anyone who supports or encourages the "pro-choice" position is, by definition, encouraging and supporting the ideological edifice upon which it is based.

Members who oppose making adultery illegal are not encouraging adultery.

This is an apples and oranges analogy. Adultery involves two consenting adults in a freely willed relationship. Elective abortion involves an unborn human being who was never party to, and could not have been party to, the actions that brought him/her into being.

Go ahead, commit adultery. I have no desire to make that illegal. If your adultery ends in the conception of a child, and you wish to hid your adultery and circumvent its consequences through abortion, I think that should, indeed, be illegal and publishable by law.

The difference is in regards to the level of government involvement. Something that republicans supposedly want to keep at a minimum. Supposedly. Supposedly.

Your rather high level of political naitivity and diminished level of political knowledge is simply stunning Beastie.

Nonsense. I am simply defending my parents, and other LDS who happen to support the democratic party.

You are defending the erasing of the clear boundaries and distinctions created by LDS doctrine with respect to the secular world around it.

[_Droopy]

I think that either the philosophical nuance required to understand Oaks' position on this issue is rather beyond you, or you are simply splitting hairs for the sake of preserving what you have left of your argument.

I'll return to this later.

LOL. Yeah, there's just too much "philosophical nuance" for me to grasp why you use the example of killing a mugger or someone who is physically threatening you to justify killing a baby in abortion. Yeah, that must be it. Nuanced.

That is, of course, is "nuanced" is a code word for "horse-puckey."

But I'm sure you'll return to it after some google searches.

I'm not going to fall into the trap you have set of an absolute, black or white "to kill or not to kill" ethic. That is not Oaks' position, nor mine, nor the Church's.

[_beastie]

I'm not going to fall into the trap you have set of a absolute, black or white "to kill or not to kill" ethic. That is not Oaks' position, nor mine, nor the Church's.

I support the ethics of killing someone in an act of self-defense, which your examples used. Since we agree on that point, obviously the issue isn't "to kill or not to kill." I just don't see how your example of self-defense are appropriate when the individual being killed is an unborn baby.

I guess you didn't find any ready-made answers to this one in your tried-and-true right wing sources, eh? So no answer at all.

Figures.

[_beastie]

by the way, I have to go babysit my granddaughter. I'm sure that droopy will try to use my silence to make a case for his victory. That is probably the best he can do.

[_Droopy]

by the way, I have to go babysit my granddaughter. I'm sure that droopy will try to use my silence to make a case for his victory. That is probably the best he can do.

I don't need your silence for this. Your posts are quite adequate to that task.

[_John D the First]

Droopy,

I thank you for this relatively moderate statement. The "vast majority" is a far cry from "any and all" serious Latter-day Saints. I agree that the majority of Latter-day Saints are pro-life and that church discourse tends to encourage that position. I am just not convinced by the arguments made that criminalization is the best solution. I think opposition to convenience abortion can be legally expressed in other ways.

So do I, as I have stated on numerous occasions. I take a conservative position morally on abortion, and a libertarian position on the best way to negotiate it in a free society. Roe should be overturned as the bad law and constitutional insult to intelligence that it is, and returned to the states for resolution by accountable democratic state legislators and the people. Some states would be very liberal in their policies, and other conservative, under such a system, but this is what the Constitution provides for and would go a long way in denationalizing the ferocity of the culture war that has resulted from Roe.

The Left and people like Beastie will have none of this, however, because so long as it remains a "right" and sealed off from democratic review, it remains beyond the deliberative democratic processes of a free self governing society, exactly where the Left desires it should be.

Neither am I convinced that this is the "united position of the brethren." Like the Fielding Smith position on evolution, it is probably the only one that has been discussed in public.

The Church's position on convenience abortion is the historical official position of the Church, which members take to be the mind and will of the Lord on the matter. JFS's position on evolution was never more than his own personal opinion.

It is, and has been since at least 1973, as the links I previously posted indicate.

Well this is a surprise...it looks like we agree on more than I thought. Yes it is likely the brethren unanimously oppose convenience abortion, as do I. My point was that I don't think they have a unanimous personal position on how to legislate that belief.

Cheers,

[_Brackite]

How about "When the whip comes down"?

I see it's still impossible to be a good Mormon and a good Democrat at the same time.

I do think that one can be a Democrat and a good Mormon. However, I do not think that one can be a Liberal and a Progressive and also be a good Mormon. Not every Democrat is a Liberal and a Progressive. A good example of a Conservative Democrat and a good Mormon is Congressman Jim Mattheson of Utah.

[_Themis]

All you have demonstrated here is that the Wiki definition is little more than a friendly regurgitation of the NOW, NARL, and Planned Parenthood definition, and in the process demonstrated why Wiki is not always a good place to go for definitions.

And you have yet to demonstrate why the definition is incorrect.

As it appears that Elder Oaks has now, with a good degree of conclusiveness, shown unambiguously that neither Themis of Beastie have the slightest idea what they are talking about regarding either the "pro-choice" label or the Church's position on abortion re the political/social world, I think it safe to say that this aspect of the discussion has run its course.

You have shown unambiguously that you don't have good reading or comprehension skills. I have not argued what the church's position is on abortion, or that they encourage members to follow. Oaks is expressing his opinion on the matter, which most members would agree with. What you have again failed to do is show how the church would consider a member not in good standing based on there political view of pro-choice. And by good standing I mean some sort of church discipline. I would consider any member who can get a temple recommend to be in good standing.

Here is an interesting part of the stance from one of your links I find interesting

“As the matter stands today, no definite statement has been made by the Lord one way or another regarding the crime of abortion. So far as is known, he has not listed it alongside the crime of the unpardonable sin and shedding of innocent human blood. That he has not done so would suggest that it is not in that class of crime and therefore that it will be amenable to the laws of repentance and forgiveness.”

Either you need a serious remedial education on rudimentary LDS doctrine and established Church counsel, or you are not arguing in good faith here.

I think you may be the one in need of some education.

The vast majority of serious LDS would follow the united position of the Brethren.

Which of course means that there is a least a small minority of serious LDS who may disagree with certain policies and positions of the church, many of which the church does not require one to agree with in order to be a member in good standing.