DiscussMormonism.com

The LDS Church has officially declared political neutrality here:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official- ... neutrality

Meanwhile, the Catholics have decided to take on the task of publicly asking Paul Ryan to change his position on federal funding for the less fortunate.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/ ... -the-poor/

Do you think the LDS Church, despite their stand on politics should do as the Catholics?

One of their policies is to:

Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church.

Will the LDS Church join the Catholics in their efforts to get Ryan to change?

Some nuns have a great idea:

...recently, a group of nuns and the Franciscan Action Network have asked Romney to shadow them for a day visiting the poor in order to better understand how his policies affect low income individuals. So far, both Romney and Ryan have dismissed and ignored the calls for compassion from the religious community.

quark wrote:Meanwhile, the Catholics have decided to take on the task of publicly asking Paul Ryan to change his position on federal funding for the less fortunate.

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/ ... -the-poor/

This simply does not have the same importance as standing against gay marriage. It's not like these people congregate at Temple Square to keep warm in winter.

As usual, liberals and anti-mormons, Catholic or otherwise need to understand the difference between helping the poor and using "Government" especially the Federal Government beyond it's Constitutional limits to help the poor as a standard policy.

It's one thing to help in national emergency's, it's another to help the poor when LOCAL communities and people should be doing so.

Nanny state is not the governments job.

Of course the LDS Church shouldn't take a political stand. It has a long and storied tradition of eschewing putting any pressure on anyone, so that they may exercise their 'free agency'. No pressure put on parents to put pressure on their children, to mold them into morgbots. No, none.

Of course if that were true, an SL Tribune article might be headlined, "Of 200,000+ mission aged Mormons, in the past 12 months 15 chose to serve full-time missions."

Obviously it must be more important in god's concept of free agency that one have no divine pressure as to whether to vote for a Republican or a Democrat than what that person should do with two years of his life or 18 months of hers. The Mormon god is inconsistent to the point of absurdity.

Do you think the LDS Church, despite their stand on politics should do as the Catholics?

No. Government dole is contrary to LDS doctrine.

Premise 1: Neither KIng Benjamin nor King Mosiah, though they preached much about helping the poor, instititued government programs or heavy taxes for doing so but instead worked with their own hands and encourage individuals to do the same. In other words, the poor are helped by individuals and groups not connected to the government and they help themselves by going to work.

Premise 2: The fundamental principle of the Law of Consecration is private property and the free use of it. Also there is the doctrine of no forced actions. Within the doctrine is the rejection of Socialism and public welfare as well as a rejection of the notion that the first Christians, in Acts 4, did not institute a communal system.

Jesus said "the poor ye always have with you". The question is will charity be denied and all be made poor under Socialism or will there be poor with the opportunity to rise or fall under free market capitalism and charitable individuals and groups as is the Gospel?

Lucifer promised salvation to all with a process that actually enslaved all and gave them nothing of value. Therefore the notion that a system must save all the poor temporally is a false notion contrary to the Gospel.

bcspace wrote:
No. Government dole is contrary to LDS doctrine.

Premise 1: Neither KIng Benjamin nor King Mosiah, though they preached much about helping the poor, instititued government programs or heavy taxes for doing so but instead worked with their own hands and encourage individuals to do the same. In other words, the poor are helped by individuals and groups not connected to the government and they help themselves by going to work.

Why don't the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 Apostles of today follow the examples of Benjamin and Mosiah - where they have day jobs to earn and did their 'Church leadership job' as a free of charge calling (like everyone else in the Church)?

Drifting wrote:

bcspace wrote:
No. Government dole is contrary to LDS doctrine.

Premise 1: Neither KIng Benjamin nor King Mosiah, though they preached much about helping the poor, instititued government programs or heavy taxes for doing so but instead worked with their own hands and encourage individuals to do the same. In other words, the poor are helped by individuals and groups not connected to the government and they help themselves by going to work.

Why don't the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 Apostles of today follow the examples of Benjamin and Mosiah - where they have day jobs to earn and did their 'Church leadership job' as a free of charge calling (like everyone else in the Church)?

Shhhh, Drifting. You're blowing their cover. The LDS Church hierarchy just uses Benjamin and Mosiah as tools to leverage obedience/10% out of the rank and file TBMs. Heaven forbid the LDS hierarchy should lead by following the examples of the Mormon scriptures--hell, even JSJr didn't do that and he's the one that concocted the Benjamin and Mosiah stories.

Why don't the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 Apostles of today follow the examples of Benjamin and Mosiah - where they have day jobs to earn and did their 'Church leadership job' as a free of charge calling (like everyone else in the Church)?

Are any of them heads of state?

quark wrote:The LDS Church has officially declared political neutrality here:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official- ... neutrality

You will notice that his in only neutrality with regard to the institutional church (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints) and political parties and candidates. It has no relation to individual members and their participation in the political process, nor to the institutional church with regard to ideological concerns and conflicts within the larger society.

You have made a category error here. The question should not be "Should LDS take a political stand." Latter day Saints themselves are not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints.

Do you think the LDS Church, despite their stand on politics should do as the Catholics?

We already have a welfare system, in which we provide "the Lord's way," and not the world's way, which has shown itself, to the degree it has been instituted, to be an abject failure, in an overall sense, and a very bad idea (that idea being any kind of "safety net" managed, governed, and funded at the federal level).

...recently, a group of nuns and the Franciscan Action Network have asked Romney to shadow them for a day visiting the poor in order to better understand how his policies affect low income individuals.

Hmmm...a dynamic, growing economy, vastly increased job opportunities, lower taxes, a decrease of mindless business regulation (the direct consequences and compliance costs of which are, in effect, a form of government taxation), general price deflation, and a broadening tax base to fund necessary social services.

Yes, sounds very bad for the poor.

[quote="bcspac