A tale of two First Presidency letters ....

[_bcspace]

Here's the problem: the FP is explicitly instructing its members on what position to take on a political issue.

Correct.

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?

Should be. But if Harry Reid can get away with bashing the Church, standing in the same city on the same day as LDS officials there to support the marriage amendment, without censure, then perhaps so can everyone else.

[_guy sajer]

Honestly, Bob, you take this waaay too seriously.

I thought by now you could detect my leg-pulling humor. I guess not.

This is too much fun.

I thought YOU could tell MY leg-pulling humor.

Oodles of fun, true enough.

[_bcspace]

There is Mitt conservative and there is Huckabee conservative. Neither is truly conservative but I think Mitt is closer to the ideal.

Hey, neither one could get away with any heel clicking salutes.

I think Mitt could the second time around. Republicans are waking up to the awful reality of their horrendously bad choice.

[_Gadianton]

Rollo,

This shows how deep the Mormon agenda really goes. Trust me, the only thing that stops them from full-on implementing Lucifer's plan, and force everyone to live exactly like they do, is the fact that members can't be manipulated to that degree yet.
And they don't have the power to subvert the rest of the world either. But Claremont is a good first step.

[_The Dude]

Republicans are waking up to the awful reality of their horrendously bad choice.

If you mean Mitt would have had a better shot against Obama, then I agree.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I looked through most of this material. Which one (I couldn't find any) documents a case where a member was disciplined with loss of a temple recommend by posting a lawn sign against Prop 22?

The third link discusses the Hansens, and mentions the lawn sign and informal probation. I'm quite certain I read somewhere about a couple with a "No" lawn sign being called in by their bishop and at least threatened with losing their TR's -- I'll keep looking for it.

I could possibly understand somebody being disciplined for speaking out against the church. The big article you cite quotes a stake president who says there is a difference between one who chooses to oppose Prop. 22 and one who also oppose the Church.

The problem, as I see it, as that when the Church takes such an aggressive position and involves all the members, it would be difficult for a member to oppose Prop. 22 and not be viewed as opposing the Church.

I worked on Prop. 22 -- being called to do so -- even though I am a libertarian and would have otherwise voted against Prop. 22.

You personally opposed Prop. 22, but actually supported it because you were called to support it? Did you tell the guy who called you that you were personally opposed? This kind of intrusion by the Church into one's political beliefs is exactly what I'm talking about. Thanks for the perfect illustration.

[_bcspace]

Republicans are waking up to the awful reality of their horrendously bad choice.

If you mean Mitt would have had a better shot against Obama, then I agree.

Exactly what I mean.

[_rcrocket]

I looked through most of this material. Which one (I couldn't find any) documents a case where a member was disciplined with loss of a temple recommend by posting a lawn sign against Prop 22?

The third link discusses the Hansens, and mentions the lawn sign and informal probation. I'm quite certain I read somewhere about a couple with a "No" lawn sign being called in by their bishop and at least threatened with losing their TR's -- I'll keep looking for it.

Consider the source -- a gay publication. Nonetheless, the third link cites the stake president as seeming to say that the Hansen's probation was more an opposition to the church rather than opposition to old Prop. 22. If the Church takes a stance on a political issue -- say gay rights -- and you come out condemning the brethren (as you do in your anonymous posts), it is a disciplinary offense per se. If you are silent about the brethren but support gay rights, there is no disciplinary offense. At least that is how I read the official CHI.

So your post on this is just hyperbole and reliant upon suspicious sources. How typical of your argument.

I worked on Prop. 22 -- being called to do so -- even though I am a libertarian and would have otherwise voted against Prop. 22.

You personally opposed Prop. 22, but actually supported it because you were called to support it? Did you tell the guy who called you that you were personally opposed? This kind of intrusion by the Church into one's political beliefs is exactly what I'm talking about. Thanks for the perfect illustration.

[/quote]

I also supported the Equal Rights Amendment, but when the Church came out against it I relied upon the Spirit to tell me that the opposition to the ERA was the better course, as I did with Prop 22.

Similarly, I personally opposed a federal defense of marriage act on the grounds of states rights, and have had several conversations with a noted BYU professor on the point, but when the Church came out in support of the federal legislation the Spirit convicted my heart and I supported the Brethren.

[_bcspace]

I also supported the Equal Rights Amendment, but when the Church came out against it I relied upon the Spirit to tell me that the opposition to the ERA was the better course, as I did with Prop 22.

Similarly, I personally opposed a federal defense of marriage act on the grounds of states rights, and have had several conversations with a noted BYU professor on the point, but when the Church came out in support of the federal legislation the Spirit convicted my heart and I supported the Brethren.

I told you he wasn't a good democrat. His application of LDS principles could be better though to avoid being commanded in all things.... lol

;)

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I looked through most of this material. Which one (I couldn't find any) documents a case where a member was disciplined with loss of a temple recommend by posting a lawn sign against Prop 22?

The third link discusses the Hansens, and mentions the lawn sign and informal probation. I'm quite certain I read somewhere about a couple with a "No" lawn sign being called in by their bishop and at least threatened with losing their TR's -- I'll keep looking for it.

Consider the source -- a gay publication. Nonetheless, the third link cites the stake president as seeming to say that the Hansen's probation was more an opposition to the church rather than opposition to old Prop. 22. If the Church takes a stance on a political issue -- say gay rights -- and you come out condemning the brethren (as you do in your anonymous posts), it is a disciplinary offense per se. If you are silent about the brethren but support gay rights, there is no disciplinary offense. At least that is how I read the official CHI.

So your post on this is just hyperbole and reliant upon suspicious sources. How typical of your argument.

Are you denying this happened to Alan Hansen? Once the Brethren enlist the aid of local members in a political battle, including the use of church buildings and directories, wouldn't opposition be expected? This is precisely why I do not believe the Church should get involved in politics beyond stating its position.

I also supported the Equal Rights Amendment, but when the Church came out against it I relied upon the Spirit to tell me that the opposition to the ERA was the better course, as I did with Prop 22.

So did you personally support Prop 22 or not? Did the Spirit tell you the Lord wanted you to support and vote for Prop 22? Or did you simply do it because you were given a calling that required you to support Prop 22?

Similarly, I personally opposed a federal defense of marriage act on the grounds of states rights, and have had several conversations with a noted BYU professor on the point, but when the Church came out in support of the federal legislation the Spirit convicted my heart and I supported the Brethren.

So the Spirit told you the Lord wanted the passage of that act? Did the Spirit also tell you the Lord wants the U.S. Constitution amended to establish traditional marriage? Has the Spirit told you how to vote this fall on the proposed amendment to the CA state constitution?