DiscussMormonism.com

http://mormontopics.org/eng/politics

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints encourages its members to participate in the political process wherever they live. The Church wants its members to be well informed, to vote and otherwise contribute to principles of good citizenship. In all of the nations in which the Church is established, it is neutral in matters of party politics.

In Politics, the Mormon Church Does Not:

• Endorse, promote, or oppose political parties, candidates, or platforms.

• Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for partisan political purposes.

• Attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether or not a candidate for office is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

• Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader.

This from Mormon.org

Got it BC and Droopy if you are lurking. You are in opposition to LDS official doctrine by taking the position LDS democrats should not hold temple recommmends. Repent. Now.

But in 2012 was the first time that a presidential contender has been Mormon, the first time that Idaho Republicans have caucused for delegates and the first time the Mormon Church has asked its wards and auxiliaries in Idaho not have meetings on the night of a party's presidential caucus--though the Idaho Democrats had caucused for then 20 years.

Not the first time the LDS Church has said one thing, done another. Par for the course.

Got it BC and Droopy if you are lurking. You are in opposition to LDS official doctrine by taking the position LDS democrats should not hold temple recommends. Repent. Now.

No need. "Democrat", "Liberal", "Socialist" are just catchall words to categorize the wicked. Just because the Church is publicly neutral doesn't mean it accepts the doctrines of those groups. In addition, I have never sat anyone down and because they are Democrat, denied them a TR.

While it is true that a Democrat is not worthy to hold a TR, you're approaching this from the wrong angle, the Church angle rather than the God angle. A TR merely says you have said you accept the path, it does not say what direction on that path you're taking. Holding a TR commits you to the doctrine and since this is not minor doctrine we are talking about, a Democrat is by nature unworthy to hold a TR. The Church doesn't make that judgement but the doctrine and scriptures do.

I can tell you from experience that most members and those in leadership hold this view. The Democrats in the congregation know it and that is why they are afraid to speak up and defend their view; because they know they are in opposition to the Church.

bcspace wrote:

Got it BC and Droopy if you are lurking. You are in opposition to LDS official doctrine by taking the position LDS democrats should not hold temple recommends. Repent. Now.

No need. "Democrat", "Liberal", "Socialist" are just catchall words to categorize the wicked. Just because the Church is publicly neutral doesn't mean it accepts the doctrines of those groups. In addition, I have never sat anyone down and because they are Democrat, denied them a TR.

While it is true that a Democrat is not worthy to hold a TR, you're approaching this from the wrong angle, the Church angle rather than the God angle. A TR merely says you have said you accept the path, it does not say what direction on that path you're taking. Holding a TR commits you to the doctrine and since this is not minor doctrine we are talking about, a Democrat is by nature unworthy to hold a TR. The Church doesn't make that judgement but the doctrine and scriptures do.

I can tell you from experience that most members and those in leadership hold this view. The Democrats in the congregation know it and that is why they are afraid to speak up and defend their view; because they know they are in opposition to the Church.

Enjoy hell, unrighteous dominion [personal attack deleted].

Enjoy hell, unrighteous dominion [personal attack deleted].

Just applying 1 Corinthians 6:2. I have merely compared the Socialist policies of the Democrats with doctrine. Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin.

Pious bcspace wrote:No need. "Democrat", "Liberal", "Socialist" are just catchall words to categorize the wicked. Just because the Church is publicly neutral doesn't mean it accepts the doctrines of those groups. In addition, I have never sat anyone down and because they are Democrat, denied them a TR.

While it is true that a Democrat is not worthy to hold a TR, you're approaching this from the wrong angle, the Church angle rather than the God angle. A TR merely says you have said you accept the path, it does not say what direction on that path you're taking. Holding a TR commits you to the doctrine and since this is not minor doctrine we are talking about, a Democrat is by nature unworthy to hold a TR. The Church doesn't make that judgement but the doctrine and scriptures do.

I can tell you from experience that most members and those in leadership hold this view. The Democrats in the congregation know it and that is why they are afraid to speak up and defend their view; because they know they are in opposition to the Church.

Thank you for keeping what-a-real-mormon-member-is-like REAL for the lurkers to see.

I would have an exmo-GASM if you would also show how misogyny is a typical trait of Mormon males.

sock puppet wrote:But in 2012 was the first time that a presidential contender has been Mormon, the first time that Idaho Republicans have caucused for delegates and the first time the Mormon Church has asked its wards and auxiliaries in Idaho not have meetings on the night of a party's presidential caucus--though the Idaho Democrats had caucused for then 20 years.

Not the first time the LDS Church has said one thing, done another. Par for the course.

I agree!

I can't wait for the public backlash from stories of the MANY local ward houses being used to rally Mormon block support for Romney.

Blind Mormon zeal could prove to cost Romney a huge loss.

sock puppet wrote:But in 2012 was the first time that a presidential contender has been Mormon, the first time that Idaho Republicans have caucused for delegates and the first time the Mormon Church has asked its wards and auxiliaries in Idaho not have meetings on the night of a party's presidential caucus--though the Idaho Democrats had caucused for then 20 years.

Not the first time the LDS Church has said one thing, done another. Par for the course.

I don't believe Romney is the first contender...didn't Joseph Smith have a go?

Drifting wrote:

sock puppet wrote:But in 2012 was the first time that a presidential contender has been Mormon, the first time that Idaho Republicans have caucused for delegates and the first time the Mormon Church has asked its wards and auxiliaries in Idaho not have meetings on the night of a party's presidential caucus--though the Idaho Democrats had caucused for then 20 years.

Not the first time the LDS Church has said one thing, done another. Par for the course.

I don't believe Romney is the first contender...didn't Joseph Smith have a go?

Serious contender?

sock puppet wrote:

Drifting wrote:I don't believe Romney is the first contender...didn't Joseph Smith have a go?

Serious contender?

Depends on who gets to decide what constitutes 'serious'!