More Bad News for Mormonism and Politics

[_MCB]

I agree, CK. I just completed a review of the JoD in chronological context with events happening in Utah and the US. Although the cultural context remains, the Feds pretty well de-fanged theocracy.

BCspace is a throw-back-- way back to Joseph Smith who was a very treasonous fellow.l

[_bcspace]

You are in apostasy. You should repent.

I have proposed nothing contrary to LDS doctrine.

From the Church Handbook of Instructions (2010), Book 2, page 189:
"the Church is neutral regarding political parties, political platforms, and candidates for political office. The Church does not endorse any political party or candidate. Nor does it advise members on how to vote. . . . Church leaders and members should also avoid statements or conduct that might be interpreted as Church endorsement of any political party, platform, policy, or candidate."

Correct. We don't ask one's political affiliation in the TR interview. That doesn't mean a Democrat is not lying to pass it.

As for abortion, you misstate the Church's stance as unqualified opposition. In this you do err (or lie).

I have misstated nothing. However, you have forgotten to state certain things regarding the Church's position on abortion. Here is the entire quote:

21.4 Policies on Moral Issues
21.4.1 Abortion

The Lord commanded, “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it” (D&C 59:6). The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience. Members must not submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion. The only possible exceptions are when:

1. Pregnancy resulted from forcible rape or incest.
2. A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy.
3. A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

Even these exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons responsible have consulted with their bishops and received divine confirmation through prayer.

Church members who submit to, perform, arrange for, pay for, consent to, or encourage an abortion may be subject to Church discipline.

As far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion.

What I said is directly meshed with "The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience".

The Church's position is much more likely to be acceptable in the Democratic party than in the Republican party.

Well no. The Church , as one can now see (no thanks to your selective quoting) is opposed to elective abortion or as I phrased it, abortion as a general method of birth control. It is also opposed to those who support and encourage (Romans 1:32). The Church's stance is not welcome at all in the Democratic Party.

[_bcspace]

Official doctrine does not include "it goes without saying." It is only official doctrine if it is published by the church. So unless you can find it written down in a church publication that the Democratic party is one of the groups that members cannot associate with, it is only your opinion. I believe it was JT Ready's opinion, too. I think he read the same books that you read.

There is no need to specifically state the Democratic Party because one can go line by line down the list of their modus operandi and compared directly with LDS doctrine.

It is not possible in any way shape or form for a Democrat to be in good standing with the Lord (LDS doctrine) merely by the Romans 1:32 principle let alone the actual practice of such apostasy.

[_Sophocles]

Bspace, is there an appropriate political party in every country of the world to which LDS members may belong and be worthy of a temple recommend?

Or are some countries so liberal that LDS members must abstain from politics altogether or risk associating with groups in opposition to the teachings of the church?

For example, abortion is legal and widely available in Japan, and as far as I can tell there are no political parties in Japan that oppose it. Does a Japanese member of the church run afoul of the TR question by affiliating with any of the Japanese parties? Does merely being a tax-paying citizen of Japan constitute affiliation with a group that opposes LDS teachings?

[_CaliforniaKid]

What I said is directly meshed with "The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience".

Does this just mean that it opposes abortion, or that it actually opposes the legality of abortion? Many Democrats believe abortion should be rare and heavily regulated, but not illegal.

The Church's stance is not welcome at all in the Democratic Party.

See here for a list of 20 pro-life Democrats in Congress, as of 2009. The notion that pro-lifers are not welcome in the Democratic party is simply ridiculous.

[_Equality]

What I said is directly meshed with "The Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience".

Not so. You placed no qualifiers on your statement that the church opposes abortion. I quoted the relevant portions of the CHI that demonstrate the church does, in fact, not oppose abortion in all circumstances and that the church's stance on abortion is more liberal than the Republican party's. Now that you've been proven wrong, you want to change history (it seems to be a natural Mormon impulse). None of the parts of the CHI that I left out alter the simple fact that the church's position is more nuanced than what you suggested and more liberal than the Republican party's platform position. The church does not oppose, per se, abortion in cases of forcible rape, where the life or health of the mother is endangered by continuing the pregnancy, or where a medical determination is made that the fetus is not viable post-birth. The Republican party makes no exception for rape, the health of the mother, or medically determined non-viability.

[_Equality]

[
There is no need to specifically state the Democratic Party because one can go line by line down the list of their modus operandi and compared directly with LDS doctrine.

It is not possible in any way shape or form for a Democrat to be in good standing with the Lord (LDS doctrine) merely by the Romans 1:32 principle let alone the actual practice of such apostasy.

This statement is an example of your apostasy. I refer you again to the CHI, which states:

the Church is neutral regarding political parties, political platforms, and candidates for political office. The Church does not endorse any political party or candidate. Nor does it advise members on how to vote. . . . Church leaders and members should also avoid statements or conduct that might be interpreted as Church endorsement of any political party, platform, policy, or candidate.

Church Handbook of Instructions (2010), Book 2, page 189:

[_Kevin Graham]

Face it bc, you just got owned.

[_Fiannan]

The church is very pro-Latino immigrant now, though. They're the only population in the US where missionaries are having success due to the lack of access to education.

Not sure education is everything you think it is. For instance, our missionaries do pretty well in Russia but very badly in Sweden. Russians are an educated people as are Swedes, but Swedish society does not encourage independent thought or truly investigating anything beyond what the government and its centralized school system promotes. It is one area where socialism took a deep mental root in the psychie of the people thanks to a hyper-authoritarian brand of Lutheranism that essentially was marginalized and pretty much extinguished by the government. In Russia the people were highly spiritualistic even before communism took over by force. The Russian mind is still open to what many would consider quirky ideas but those particular ideas also encourage higher order and abstract thinking processes that their Swedish counterparts generally lack. So while Russians are extremely well educated they are also open to new ideas.

I would say this applies to many Hispanic converts. My understanding is that the more Indian peoples who are kept in a state of poverty by their overlords generally are not as receptive to the Gospel (they hold tight to their Catholicism) as the Mestizo middle class who really are quite educated. Not sure how receptive the small upper-class white elite in Latin America are to the Gospel.

[_krose]

The church is very pro-Latino immigrant now, though. They're the only population in the US where missionaries are having success due to the lack of access to education.

Not sure education is everything you think it is. For instance, our missionaries do pretty well in Russia but very badly in Sweden.

I agree that it's not so much about education as it is about class and money. People who are either poor or in emotionally stressful situations are much more likely to turn to religion, including a higher susceptibility to missionary efforts.

But I would like you to support your statement about missionary success in Russia, if you would. What does "pretty well" mean?

I don't know about Russian growth numbers, but my own anecdotal evidence (a missionary relative) tells me that growth in neighboring Ukraine is pretty dismal. The only people who were receptive were, for the most part, African immigrants. As a missionary myself in Japan, I taught mostly teenagers who were looking for friends. The few adults who listened were very poor, and were often quirky and out of sync with society. There was no success at all with those who were well educated or financially comfortable.

One thing I do know is I'm not buying your psychoanalysis of the Swedish and Russian people.