Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipline?

[_Darth J]

Let's note the underlying assumption of the OP: an elected official of the United States government should be subject to ecclesiastical discipline for taking political positions contrary to what church leaders think he should be doing in the scope of his office.

Consider what that premise implies for a Mitt Romney presidency and the Establishment Clause.

[_Droopy]

Harry Reid is compelled by the oath and covenant of the priesthood to rebuke Mitt Romney.

Yes, I am surprised Droopy doesn't agree with this logic. He has relied on it for years now.

You're not telling me that Droopy operates with a kind of double standard here because Harry Reid is a Democrat, are you?

I can't believe that a principled, learned gentleman like Droopy would ever do such a thing.

You've already shown, with great swelling paragraphs of puffery and petulance, that your understanding of just what the "oath and covenant of the priesthood" is is approximately where Harmony's general knowledge of gospel doctrine is.

At the bottom of the Mariana Trench.

You are the last person in this general region of the Milky Way to lecture anyone on the nature, meaning, and nuances of the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints.

You're the Edmund Blackadder of Mormon anti-apologetics.

[_Droopy]

But does Reid not violate his temple recommend requirements when he openly supports gay marriage.

Yes.

 Isn't that a direct contradiction to the teachings of the prophet?

Yes, all of them.

 Isn't he supposed to sustain such teachings?

Yes, but he has another god now, known as power, and its only begotten Son is the Democratic party, and its a jealous, jealous god.

[Guest]

Let's note the underlying assumption of the OP: an elected official of the United States government should be subject to ecclesiastical discipline for taking political positions contrary to what church leaders think he should be doing in the scope of his office.

You're reading comprehension is deteriorating on an hourly basis.

Or...wait...you could also be lying to create an impression on readers who haven't actually read the entire thread. Yes, much more likely than reading comprehension problems.

[_Kishkumen]

You've already shown, with great swelling paragraphs of puffery and petulance, that your understanding of just what the "oath and covenant of the priesthood" is is approximately where Harmony's general knowledge of gospel doctrine is.

Hohoho!!!

My swelling paragraphs?!?!?!?!?

Droopy, the only things you have swelling are your paragraphs, your waste-line, and your ass. At this point the paragraphs are in the lead.

As for your knowledge of the oath and covenant of the priesthood, well, you are welcome to it sir, because the priesthood is really only active in those who know how to behave as Christians, and in that category the two of us are probably on equal footing. So rant and pontificate all you like, but you fail basic discipleship of Christ so badly, that your oath and covenant are hardly anything you need to worry about yet. Time to go back to Primary for you.

Better yet, you should probably resign from the Church before you do your eternal salvation too much harm. At least that way your supposed knowledge wouldn't weigh against you so heavily.

[_Darth J]

But does Reid not violate his temple recommend requirements when he openly supports gay marriage.

Yes.

No.

Thomas S. Monson named as new LDS Church president

Regarding another question about whether church members could disagree with the faith's opposition to legalizing same-sex unions and still remain in good standing, he said the answer "depends on what the disagreement is."

"If it's an apostasy situation, that would not be appropriate. If it's something political, there is room for opinion here and there on either side."

[_Darth J]

You're reading comprehension is deteriorating on an hourly basis.

What I said is exactly what your OP implies, Loran. But I would be thrilled to hear all about how protected political speech under New York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny is a felony. (Hint: you're suggesting that it's a crime for Harry Reid to exercise his right to freedom of speech---"who may himself have committed a felony in so doing.")

And I would also love to hear how political speech by a person who is not a member of the executive branch is in any way relevant to the presumption of innocence in a criminal case, and in what way Mitt Romney is being deprived of due process of law because of Harry Reid's political gamesmanship. Fire away, Droopy!

[_Philo Sofee]

Harry Reid is compelled by the oath and covenant of the priesthood to rebuke Mitt Romney.

Yes, I am surprised Droopy doesn't agree with this logic. He has relied on it for years now.

You're not telling me that Droopy operates with a kind of double standard here because Harry Reid is a Democrat, are you?

I can't believe that a principled, learned gentleman like Droopy would ever do such a thing.

Perhaps he needs a church court discipline action committee himself eh?

[_Sethbag]

How is it a violation of the Law of Chastity to support gay marriage?

Isn't gay marriage a lot more in keeping with the Law of Chastity that unmarried gay fornication?

Is not the covenant in the temple to have sexual relations only with one's spouse, to whom one is legally and lawfully married? It seems to me Reid is actually supporting the right of gay persons to obey the Law of Chastity.

[_kjones]

Harry Reid is a fighter and a tough campaigner--but no more so than the Republicans. I remember the Swift Boats ads in 2004, which sank John Kerrey. Harry Reid's accusations against Romney are mild, by comparison. But "accusations" is too strong a word. Reid says he doesn't know whether Romney paid taxes during the years in question, but he'd like to know. So would I, and so would a lot of other people. All Romney has to do, if he did pay these taxes, his produce his returns. What's the big deal?

I remember in 2000 when the then moderate John McCain threatened to derail George W. Bush's nomination in SC (or someplace like that) and then suddenly there were robo-calls going out to the Repub faithful that John McCain had fathered a child with a black woman, etc., etc. This was one of the nastiest political tricks in the history of politics, but it worked and John McCain faded from view and dubya won the nomination. McCain's wife was reportedly reduced to tears by the robo-calls and insinuations, as was the child he supposedly fathered (an adopted girl from India).

And on the other matter, the gay marriage issue.... Lots of good active temple rec holding LDS hold the same views Harry Reid does on this issue, and their bishops and SPs are simply not interested in pursuing the matter and neither is the church....