Jason Bourne wrote:I see nothing political about a Church encouraging the people to take a position on what it views as a moral issues. Why all the hub bub about Church's being silent on the issue?
Here's the problem: the FP is explicitly instructing its members on what position to take on a political issue.
This is where the line is most definitely crossed. If the church as a general body wants to lobby or contribute money to a cause, then I just shrug my shoulders and say "Whatever." But when the church's leadership starts sending out letters telling members to give money (nicely described as "means") and time to promote the measure at the direction of local leaders, well, then, we've got a priesthood directive on how members should vote on a ballot measure during an election (which is clearly political).
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
Jason Bourne wrote:I see nothing political about a Church encouraging the people to take a position on what it views as a moral issues. Why all the hub bub about Church's being silent on the issue?
Here's the problem: the FP is explicitly instructing its members on what position to take on a political issue.
This is where the line is most definitely crossed. If the church as a general body wants to lobby or contribute money to a cause, then I just shrug my shoulders and say "Whatever." But when the church's leadership starts sending out letters telling members to give money (nicely described as "means") and time to promote the measure at the direction of local leaders, well, then, we've got a priesthood directive on how members should vote on a ballot measure during an election (which is clearly political).
You've self-defined a moral issue as "political."
OK, I'll bite. What is wrong with a church taking a "political" stand? Gee-- hundreds of other organizations do so as well, who rely upon membership donations, dues or the like: The Knights of Columbus, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Shriners, the AFL-CIO, the Heritage Foundation, to name a few.
You are probably a member of the California Bar Association. It uses your money to lobby for gun control and abortion rights, among other things. So what?
rcrocket wrote:You've self-defined a moral issue as "political."
OK, I'll bite. What is wrong with a church taking a "political" stand? Gee-- hundreds of other organizations do so as well, who rely upon membership donations, dues or the like: The Knights of Columbus, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Shriners, the AFL-CIO, the Heritage Foundation, to name a few.
You are probably a member of the California Bar Association. It uses your money to lobby for gun control and abortion rights, among other things. So what?
I have no problem with the church as an institution taking a political stand. I've said that. I have a problem with the church telling individuals how they should vote and that they should follow their local leaders' directives on how to pass a ballot measure.
I am a member of the California Bar, and am aware that it lobbies for various issues. But it does not instruct me to lobby for those causes. And I also have the option of checking that little box on my renewal form that lets me deduct some portion of my bar fees used for lobbying, so that I don't financially support such activities if I so wish. I'm still considered a full fee-payer if I do so. Does the church also provide such options? Nope.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)
Then, resign from the Church. If you disagree with how its leaders use your funds, then you implicitly believe that their claim to being led by God is false.
Your anonymous hit pieces against the Church further demonstrates your hostility. You may think you are anonymous, but God knows you.
Rollo Tomasi wrote:Actually, it was not a hypothetical. The last time CA went through this, with Prop. 22, some LDS members who publicly voiced their opposition (and, yes, some with lawn signs) were called in by local LDS leaders (and some had their TR's taken).
I don't believe it. I am willing to be educated to the contrary.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Jason Bourne wrote:I see nothing political about a Church encouraging the people to take a position on what it views as a moral issues. Why all the hub bub about Church's being silent on the issue?
Here's the problem: the FP is explicitly instructing its members on what position to take on a political issue. What happens if a member takes a contrary view, and the Church finds out about it -- will that member be disciplined for going contrary to an explicit FP instruction? With this latest letter, is it even possible for a faithful member to put a "NO to the gay marriage amendment" in his/her front yard, or will that be considered public opposition to the Brethren, and grounds for discipline?
Unlikely to be any discipline. Following World War I the First Presidency and the Twelve made it clear that they were pro-League of Nations. We had LDS Congressmen that were against it. No discipline ensued.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
rcrocket wrote:Then, resign from the Church. If you disagree with how its leaders use your funds, then you implicitly believe that their claim to being led by God is false.
Your anonymous hit pieces against the Church further demonstrates your hostility. You may think you are anonymous, but God knows you.
Meh. I don't give the church money anymore, so that's not the issue. I was just responding to your comparison of my membership in the CA bar to what the church does.
I doubt that my comments can ever actually amount to "hit pieces", but I'm not worried about some magical being on a secret planet being displeased with me.
rcrocket wrote:Then, resign from the Church. If you disagree with how its leaders use your funds, then you implicitly believe that their claim to being led by God is false.
Why should he resign? Perhaps the leaders should resign.
Your anonymous hit pieces against the Church further demonstrates your hostility. You may think you are anonymous, but God knows you.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Jason Bourne wrote:I see nothing political about a Church encouraging the people to take a position on what it views as a moral issues. Why all the hub bub about Church's being silent on the issue?
Here's the problem: the FP is explicitly instructing its members on what position to take on a political issue. What happens if a member takes a contrary view, and the Church finds out about it -- will that member be disciplined for going contrary to an explicit FP instruction? With this latest letter, is it even possible for a faithful member to put a "NO to the gay marriage amendment" in his/her front yard, or will that be considered public opposition to the Brethren, and grounds for discipline?
Unlikely to be any discipline. Following World War I the First Presidency and the Twelve made it clear that they were pro-League of Nations. We had LDS Congressmen that were against it. No discipline ensued.
I hope you're right, but the Prop. 22 battle showed otherwise.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)