DiscussMormonism.com

What decisions would those be? 1 Corinthians 6:2

Who is going to Hell.

Your passage about the saints judging the world applies to the end of the world time

That's right. In other words, they will judge who is going to hell.

not here and now nor does it apply to one saint-Gazelam, judging the eternal position of another saint, Reid.

You;ve obviously not read the surrounding verses.

That they believe excommunicating Reid would cause even more damage than that. I disagree. I think they are thinking in terms of potential converts. I believe principles are more important than any cost benefit analysis.

Well that is nice to see. You apply your harsh and condemning attitude to everyone equally.

I do not exempt anyone including myself from the principles I am taught and believe in. They certainly aren't harsh at all unless one goes against them.

So are you implying that the top leadership have a double standard in this area. They let Reid off the hook because the PR debacle would be horrible but were this you or me we would get the ax? What does the say about how the top leaders are with principles? You seem to be saying that they are more concerned about growth and profits than principles.

The Lord Himself judges people according to their thoughts, desires, and the weakness they may have been given, so in many ways, everyone is judged differently. The only standard that applies to all is the gospel and whether or not one has received it, has accepted or rejected it, and is doing their best to live it or denigrate it.

I mention this because I do not believe apparent double standards are always actual double-standards. But yes, I do disagree with the bretheren on this issue and if I were in their midst, I would oppose the current course on this issue unless there was some specific revelation otherwise.

Are you telling us that when the prophet speaks, the thinking has been done?

I've never thought that to be the case. Rather, I adhere to the scripturally based principle of what is and is not doctrine. The left wing agenda violates doctrine in almost every way.

bcspace:

Was Harry Reid elected by the voters of Nevada to represent their interests, or was he elected by the LDS Church to represent its interests?

Is he representing who he was elected to represent?

The whole thing serves to illustrate once again that one cannot be (present tense) a Democrat and a good Mormon at the same time. No exceptions.

Nonsense. My parents have been active, faithful Mormons since they day they were baptized (thanks partly to my "member missionary" efforts with them) about 30 years ago. They've served in many leadership and teaching positions since that time. They've faithfully attended the temple, although it's a three hour drive. They both spend many hours in community service, particularly in working in facilities dedicated to helping the poor. Right now they are serving a mission for the church.

They are also democrats, and have been as long as I remember. Their political opinions have been strongly influenced by the Book of Mormon, which stridently preaches against greed and neglect of the poor and needy. They are very open about their political persuasion, and will gladly do verbal "fisticuffs" with the ignorant loud-mouths in their ward who proclaim that one cannot be a Democrat and a good Mormon at the same time. In fact, they believe that the practices of the current Republican party is in direct opposition to the teachings of the Book of Mormon. But they don't go around proclaiming that one cannot be a Republican and a good Mormon. They leave that to loud-mouth buffoons. They're sane and reasonable people, which means they understand that decent people can have very different views and opinions about politics.

Jason Bourne wrote:

The Nehor wrote:
I disagree with this. There have been many LDS throughout the country who have spoken against the Church's actions and I haven't heard about any discipline for it. I know of a few cases personally and I know their Bishop knows but nothing happened.

Brother Reid is not safe because of his position. He's safe because it seems no one is in danger.

What about this:

365 Gay: News
Subscribe
Mormon Says Church threatens excommunication for supporting gay marriage
By 365gay Newscenter Staff
09.24.2008 2:50pm EDT

(Hastings, Nebraska) For more than 20 years, Andrew Callahan has been a devoted member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter–day Saints. But now the Hastings, Nebraska man is being hauled up before a disciplinary hearing that could result in his excommunication from the Mormon faith.

His crime: opposing a call by Mormon leaders to support a proposed constitutional amendment in California to ban same-sex marriage.

http://www.365gay.com/news/mormon-says- ... -marriage/

Yeah, but this guy isn't doing what Harry Reid or many others are doing. They stated they disagreed. This guy is rallying support within the Church, is engaged in a letter-writing campaign to CHANGE THE CHURCH'S STANCE, and is actively trying to trump the leaders of the Church with his views.

He formed a dissident group. To quote the airplane staff on SNL: "Buh-Bye."

Was Harry Reid elected by the voters of Nevada to represent their interests, or was he elected by the LDS Church to represent its interests?

I answered this already on, I believe, post #21.

The whole thing serves to illustrate once again that one cannot be (present tense) a Democrat and a good Mormon at the same time. No exceptions.

Nonsense. My parents have been active, faithful Mormons since they day they were baptized (thanks partly to my "member missionary" efforts with them) about 30 years ago.

Active and faithful only on the surface if their politics contradicts the doctrine.

They've served in many leadership and teaching positions since that time. They've faithfully attended the temple, although it's a three hour drive. They both spend many hours in community service, particularly in working in facilities dedicated to helping the poor. Right now they are serving a mission for the church.

This only shows they're on the right path. It does not necessarily indicate which direction they're going.

They are also democrats, and have been as long as I remember.

If it only goes back 30 years. I'd say they've been apostates for as long as you can remember because they have been acting in opposition to the Church. It's not necessarily intentional, but being blinded by the craftiness of men is no excuse.

Their political opinions have been strongly influenced by the Book of Mormon, which stridently preaches against greed and neglect of the poor and needy.

The Book of Mormon also stridently preaches against the greed of the poor, champions agency and personal responsibility, and does not propose any sort of socialist system. Your parents have only selectively accepted the Book of Mormon.

They are very open about their political persuasion, and will gladly do verbal "fisticuffs" with the ignorant loud-mouths in their ward who proclaim that one cannot be a Democrat and a good Mormon at the same time.

It would only take me two seconds to shut them down by simply teaching the doctrine. I've never allowed false doctrine to gain the upper hand in class. Socialism (among other things) has no place in the Church.

In fact, they believe that the practices of the current Republican party is in direct opposition to the teachings of the Book of Mormon.

Sustainable examples are pretty hard to come by. On the other hand, the Democratic party violates LDS doctrine on almost every twist of the agenda.

But they don't go around proclaiming that one cannot be a Republican and a good Mormon.

That's because there is nothing to sustain that pov.

They leave that to loud-mouth buffoons. They're sane and reasonable people, which means they understand that decent people can have very different views and opinions about politics.

By your description, they're moral relativists which is also contrary to the gospel. Opinions are not all equally valid and the gospel is black and white.

Actually, the Book of Mormon does teach a form of socialism.

Perhaps the church leadership should add a new question to the temple recommend interview: Do you receive social security benefits?

At the very least, if your opinion is the One True Opinion as you seem to think, people who answer affirmatively should be denied temple recommends.

Naw. BCSpace isn't that consistent Beastie. Afterall, the Republican party and most Republican representatives at least say they support social security. Yet he doesn't think one can't be a faithful Mormon and support them. It's just a manifestation of how his absolutist "socialism" argument really is a post hoc rationalization for his partisan hackery.

If you were to draw out a continnum with 0 being absolutely no socialist policies and 100 being total command economy, the difference between the Republicans and Democrats as a whole would be something like 32 vs. 38. Yet while the slight increase in socialist policy in the Democratic platform is anti-gospel, the multitude of socialist programs the Republicans support (and there are a billions and billions of dollars of them) is peechy.

(On an aside, if you take into account the voluminous military spending that really is just corporate welfare for defense contractors, in pure dollar terms there's a decent chance the Republicans actually favor more dollars spent on socialism per capita than liberal Democrats. It'd be hard to quantify, but it isn't obvious enough to even be cut and dry.)

Yeah, I didn't expect any consistency from bcspace on this issue at all.

Didn't Mormons generally support FDR through the New Deal?