Is Gladys Knight in deep do-do with her Stake Pres?

[_bcspace]

So is the Church lying when it claims political neutrality?

Not at all. It's non sequitur though. One's acceptance of the doctrine, or not, decides one's standing with God. One's political affiliation shows what doctrines one has or has not accepted. Democratic affiliation shows that one disagrees with God on homosexuality and agency to name a few.

[_Drifting]

Does the American electorate know that a vote for Republican is also a vote for Mormonism?

What do you have to say to those GA's of a Democrat persuasion?

[_Bob Loblaw]

You already know I'm right about homosexuality. For socialism, see Enrichment section L in the D&C Institute manual. We could list any number of doctrines that put Democrats in opposition to the gospel ala Romans 1:32 at the very least.

Since when is supporting equal rights for gays is the same as engaging in homosexual behavior? The scripture you quoted says nothing about those who believe others have the right to engage in behavior unapproved of God. It says:

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

I'll break it down for you, as you seem incapable of reading this verse.

1. The people know the judgment of God, that people who commit such things are worthy of death (by the way, do you advocate death for gays?).
2. They "do the same," meaning they themselves engage in sins that are worthy of death.
3. Not only this, but they "have pleasure in them that do" these sins.

According to this verse, this would apply, say, in the example of homosexuality to someone who:

1. Knows that homosexual behavior is wrong.
2. Engages in homosexual behavior.
3. Takes pleasure when other people engage in homosexual behavior.

I can't think of any active Mormons, Democrat or otherwise, who meet the criteria laid out, unless they are doing so surreptitiously, like patriarch Joseph Fielding Smith.

And yes, I'm well aware of the ridiculous spin on the United Order that is "Enrichment section L." More like "Obfuscation section L."

[_bcspace]

Bspace, do recognize a difference between taking a moral position on an issue and advocating a particular public policy in service of that position?

There is no difference.

Clearly, the Lord requires that his Saints regard these acts as sins. But does he further require that they hold certain positions about how these sins are regulated in the public sphere?

How these are regulated in the public sphere can remove one's agency (Socialism) or encourage immorality in the Romans 1:32 sense (homosexuality, sex education, etc.)

You might think it makes no sense to advocate for legally regulated abortion if you are personally anti-abortion, but it might make perfect sense to someone else.

All are judged by the same standard.

If the Democrat's politics are informed by LDS doctrine and moral standards, then at what point is the sin committed?

One would not be a Democrat in that case.

Even if it is monumentally stupid to think that Democratic policies will result in less premarital sex and abortion overall, is stupidity a sin?

I think you're missing the point. Outcome is determined by one's agency. It would be sin to support or encourage a sinful choice in another person.

[_bcspace]

Does the American electorate know that a vote for Republican is also a vote for Mormonism?

Something much closer to LDS values hopefully. True conservatism and Gospel principles can exist in the Republican party. It does not and current cannot exist in the Democratic party.

What do you have to say to those GA's of a Democrat persuasion?

I don't know of any who are, not even MKJ. I know of some who were, and the dead ones could certainly receive a pass since there was a time in their lives when the Gospel could exist in that party. I would consider any one who openly supports the Democratic Party to be an apostate and would not hesitate to call them out on it if given the opportunity.

[_bcspace]

Since when is supporting equal rights for gays is the same as engaging in homosexual behavior? The scripture you quoted says nothing about those who believe others have the right to engage in behavior unapproved of God.

Now you are confusing the wrongness of a behavior with the right to choose to engage in it. I've said nothing about forcing anyone to not choose in some sort of "pre-crime" sense. by the way, gays already have equal rights.

It says:

Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

I'll break it down for you, as you seem incapable of reading this verse.

1. The people know the judgment of God, that people who commit such things are worthy of death (by the way, do you advocate death for gays?).
2. They "do the same," meaning they themselves engage in sins that are worthy of death.
3. Not only this, but they "have pleasure in them that do" these sins.

That's right. See your Lexicon on "pleasure in them that do"; anyone who facilitates the sinful behavior (such as proponents of state sanctioned homosexual marriage).

According to this verse, this would apply, say, in the example of homosexuality to someone who:

1. Knows that homosexual behavior is wrong.
2. Engages in homosexual behavior.
3. Facilitates others in engaging in homosexual behavior.

FIFY

And yes, I'm well aware of the ridiculous spin on the United Order that is "Enrichment section L." More like "Obfuscation section L."

I take you don't accept the official doctrine on the LoC. That puts you in direct opposition to LDS doctrine on a major issue (agency) and in the LDS sense, you are also in opposition to God.

[_DarkHelmet]

I would love it if the church started disciplining Democrats and purging the unrepentant from their ranks, while reinforcing their bunkers and hunkering down for a long fight. I don't know why we are fighting BC Space on this issue. The more BC Spaces in the church, the harder it is for the church to mainstream. Imagine if this message board existed in the early 1970s and people were debating whether you could support civil rights (ETB called it part of communist plot) and/or argue in favor of ending the priesthood ban and remain in good standing. What side do you think BC Space would come down on?

[_Bob Loblaw]

That's right. See your Lexicon on "pleasure in them that do"; anyone who facilitates the sinful behavior (such as proponents of state sanctioned homosexual marriage).

1. Knows that homosexual behavior is wrong.
2. Engages in homosexual behavior.
3. Facilitates others in engaging in homosexual behavior.[/quote]

FIFY[/quote]

This "fixes" nothing for you. Unless someone knows it's wrong, engages in it, and facilitates others, there's no condemnation.

I take you don't accept the official doctrine on the LoC.

Knowing your track record on doctrine, I don't believe you have much to say about anything "official" on the law of consecration or any other teaching of the LDS church. That you and some 20th-century Utah bureaucrats want to spin it into a not-utopian-socialist project does not make the United Order "free market."

That puts you in direct opposition to LDS doctrine on a major issue (agency) and in the LDS sense, you are also in opposition to God.

1. You know unbridled capitalism, which would involve the exploitation of child labor, is wrong.
2. You engage in unbridled capitalism.
3. You encourage and facilitate others in their pursuit of unbridled capitalism.

To suggest that children should not work in sweatshops is to deprive them and their employers of their agency, which puts you in opposition to the doctrine of the church.

[_Darth J]

Bspace, do recognize a difference between taking a moral position on an issue and advocating a particular public policy in service of that position?

There is no difference.

That must be why the Church says that alcoholic beverages should be completely banned, since they are contrary to the Church's teachings.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7002 ... tml?pg=all

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that Utahns, including those who work in the hospitality industry, can come together as citizens, regardless of religion or politics, to support laws and regulations that allow individual freedom of choice while preserving Utahs proven positive health and safety record on limiting the tragic consequences of overconsumption of alcohol."

Oh, whoops. Well, at least the Church hasn't lobbied in favor of increasing the number of liquor licenses available in Utah because City Creek needs them.

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/state/ ... EkGXQ.cspx

Outcome is determined by one's agency. It would be sin to support or encourage a sinful choice in another person.

Therefore, Heavenly Father is a sinner, because he proposed a plan that would give us the agency to sin, and thus supported our sinful choices.

"Chapter 3: Jesus Christ, Our Chosen Leader and Savior," Gospel Principles, (2009)

We understood that we would have to leave our heavenly home for a time. We would not live in the presence of our Heavenly Father. While we were away from Him, all of us would sin and some of us would lose our way.

Supporting the freedom to make choices is the same as supporting sinful choices, so that means that Lucifer's plan was more righteous than Heavenly Father's.

"Chapter 4: Freedom to Choose," Gospel Principles, (2009)

Agency was one of the principal issues to arise in the premortal Council in Heaven. It was one of the main causes of the conflict between the followers of Christ and the followers of Satan. Satan said, “Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor” (Moses 4:1). In saying this, he “rebelled against [God] and sought to destroy the agency of man” (Moses 4:3). His offer was rejected, and he was cast out of heaven with his followers (see D&C 29:36–37).

[_Darth J]

anyone who facilitates the sinful behavior (such as proponents of state sanctioned homosexual marriage).

It's unfortunate that your dogma cancels itself out, bcspace. Your basis for prohibiting same-sex marriage is that it is contrary to your religious beliefs. But your church also teaches that God inspired the U.S. Constitution. The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment prohibits the government from basing laws on religious teachings. So in order to fulfill one of your dogmas---that same-sex marriage must be opposed on religious grounds---you violate another: that the Constitution is a divinely-inspired document that forbids the kinds of state establishment of religion that you are proposing.