bcspace wrote:By assuming membership in the Church or holding a TR blesses or excuses one's political beliefs in socialism or the left wing is to erroneously assume that membership and/or a TR is an automatic ticket to heaven or the CK.
I don't believe that membership or a temple recommend is an automatic ticket to anything. I just find it funny that you would send him to a lower kingdom because of his fiscal and economic beliefs. Weird. Of course, you aren't the one who will judge him.
He's a good kid, and I'm happy my niece found someone like him. She was engaged previously to a wealthy attorney who was well-connected in Mormon and conservative circles, but who was, to put it mildly, a complete douchebag. Her husband has a good heart, even though most of our family finds his politics distasteful.
By assuming membership in the Church or holding a TR blesses or excuses one's political beliefs in socialism or the left wing is to erroneously assume that membership and/or a TR is an automatic ticket to heaven or the CK.
I don't believe that membership or a temple recommend is an automatic ticket to anything
Good. Then you agree that it is impossible to justify one's support for Socialism or any other left-wing lunacy on the basis of standing in the Church. The actual yardstick is the doctrine.
I just find it funny that you would send him to a lower kingdom because of his fiscal and economic beliefs.
Satan was cast out of heaven for the same.
Weird. Of course, you aren't the one who will judge him.
According to 1 Cor 6:2, I might.
He's a good kid, and I'm happy my niece found someone like him. She was engaged previously to a wealthy attorney who was well-connected in Mormon and conservative circles, but who was, to put it mildly, a complete douchebag. Her husband has a good heart, even though most of our family finds his politics distasteful.
Some good in someone always means there is a chance to repent.
bcspace wrote:Good. Then you agree that it is impossible to justify one's support for Socialism or any other left-wing lunacy on the basis of standing in the Church. The actual yardstick is the doctrine.
I agree with that. But as far as I can tell, belief in state-sponsored welfare programs--even on a large scale, such as my niece's husband advocates--does not violate church doctrine.
Satan was cast out of heaven for the same.
Heh.
According to 1 Cor 6:2, I might.
I've never read it that way. Verse 4 tells us our judgment is "of things pertaining to this life."
Some good in someone always means there is a chance to repent.
His political beliefs do not require repentance, misguided as I think they may be.
I agree with that. But as far as I can tell, belief in state-sponsored welfare programs--even on a large scale, such as my niece's husband advocates--does not violate church doctrine.
They violate various principles, agency still being one of them that go along with the LoC/UO has outlined in other threads on the subject.
Satan was cast out of heaven for the same.
Heh.
That's right, all things are spiritual. So what if we're talking about temporal salvation or salvation in the kingdom of Heaven? It's all on the same principles.
According to 1 Cor 6:2, I might.
I've never read it that way. Verse 4 tells us our judgment is "of things pertaining to this life."
Nope. It merely tells us that is one of the areas of judgement. See verse 3 for context.
His political beliefs do not require repentance, misguided as I think they may be.
They do so require. He will have to answer for the removal of agency of others by support for socialism in the same way a murderer will have to answer for lives taken. He may also repent and be forgiven so long as there is time to do so.
A lot of people confuse Republican and Democrat parties with conservative and liberal ideologies. In general, Republicans lean more conservative and democrats lean more liberal, but these aren't fringe parties. They are the 2 biggest parties and they represent mainstream america. Both parties straddle the center of the political spectrum, and there are conservatives and liberals in both these parties. There are more hardcore ideological political parties for the extreme liberals and extreme conservatives such as the John Birchers on the right and the Green Party on the left. The republican and democrat parties represent mainstream Americans.
Now, when you talk about conservative and liberal ideologies, you have to further separate it out to social and fiscal issues. The church is obviously socially conservative, as are most christian groups. BC Space might make more sense if he suggested social liberals would have a hard time justifying their membership in the church. But what he fails to understand is you can be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal and be a Republican. It is fairly common, in fact. So if you use party affiliation as a litmus test, these socially liberal republicans would fall through the cracks. Likewise, you can be a fiscal liberal, and socially conservative, and be a Democrat. The litmus test would weed those people out of the church. However, a socially conservative/fiscally liberal Democrat would fit into church doctrine far easier than a socially liberal/fiscally conservative Republican.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
bcspace wrote:They violate various principles, agency still being one of them that go along with the LoC/UO has outlined in other threads on the subject.
Government itself violates agency. What we are talking about is the social contract and how people interpret it.
That's right, all things are spiritual. So what if we're talking about temporal salvation or salvation in the kingdom of Heaven? It's all on the same principles.
If someone is going to be sent to hell for favoring more welfare spending, maybe heaven isn't a place worth going to.
They do so require. He will have to answer for the removal of agency of others by support for socialism in the same way a murderer will have to answer for lives taken. He may also repent and be forgiven so long as there is time to do so.
I'll give you credit for consistency. I just cannot imagine such a strident view of the world. Oh, well, I'm going to hell, anyway.
Government itself violates agency. What we are talking about is the social contract and how people interpret it.
That's right. The less government the better. On the matter of welfare, the doctrine is clear. On the matter of water pipes and cable TV, the doctrine is much less clear.
If someone is going to be sent to hell for favoring more welfare spending, maybe heaven isn't a place worth going to.
That's typically how allocation to the various degrees of glory is seen; a place that you find the most comfortable. See also C.S. Lewis' "The Great Divorce".
I'll give you credit for consistency. I just cannot imagine such a strident view of the world.
When one knows the truth, there can be no alternative. Find some truth I haven't considered if you want to change my mind.
I agree with that. But as far as I can tell, belief in state-sponsored welfare programs--even on a large scale, such as my niece's husband advocates--does not violate church doctrine.
They violate various principles, agency still being one of them that go along with the LoC/UO has outlined in other threads on the subject.
Both the Republicans and Democrats support limitations on agency. If agency is the issue, you should be a libertarian, or an anarchist.
"We have taken up arms in defense of our liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are determined to preserve them, or die." - Captain Moroni - 'Address to the Inhabitants of Canada' 1775
DarkHelmet wrote:Both the Republicans and Democrats support limitations on agency. If agency is the issue, you should be a libertarian, or an anarchist.
Absolute free markets would permit prostitution, drug sales, and abortion on demand. I guess I don't see things in the stark terms BC does: Most people agree that government should provide basic services, including such things as infrastructure and police. Some others believe government should provide for the poor and the sick, but apparently that would entail a violation of agency that building bridges doesn't.