I am sorry for you that you live your life under such awful suspicions and dark conspiracy theories about the people many of whom are the "salt of the earth" mentioned in the bible. Perhaps one day you will come to see the light again. But it's a hard discipline to come back to, it requires the forsaking of sin and pride.

I wish you the very best shoeshoe, I think this conversation is about concluded.

I don't think so.

Notice how justamere10, when corned, relies on ad hominum attacks on me, trying (rather sanctimoniously) to discredit me simply implying that I'm a paranoid conspiracy theorist, but then makes no attempt at all to refute the argument I made in my last post, much less cite independent evidence to support his claims.

To any others with their head in the sand, who, like justamere10, apparently, refuse to admit the fact that Christianity has in the past, and still has today, elements and groups within it that can (and should) rightly be named fascist and totalitarian (I really don't think justamere10's term "salt of the earth" ought to be used to describe the people who advocate or practice the princicples outlined below ... do you?), I submit the following:

---

Theocracy and Neofascism

Some critics categorize the Christian Reconstructionist movement as a form of totalitarianism or theocratic neofascism. For example, Karen Armstrong sees a potential for fascism in Christian Reconstructionism, and notes that the system of dominion envisaged by Christian Reconstructionist theologians R. J. Rushdoony and Gary North "is totalitarian. There is no room for any other view or policy, no democratic tolerance for rival parties, no individual freedom," (Armstrong, Battle for God, pp. 361-362). Berlet and Lyons have written that the movement is a "new form of clerical fascist politics," (Right-Wing Populism in America, p. 249).

---

Rushdoony and Christian Reconstructionism

According to Rushdoony and other Reconstructionists including Gary North and Greg Bahnsen, the idea of dominion drawn from Genesis 1:28 implied a theonomy ("rule of the law of God"), in which observation of their own strict form of Christianity would be required of all citizens, and moral sins ranging from blasphemy to homosexuality would be punishable by death. Rushdoony wrote that "[m]an is summoned to create the society God requires,"[53] "bringing all things under the dominion of Christ the King."

---

Dominionism as a broader movement

In the context of American evangelical efforts to penetrate and transform public life, the distinguishing mark of a dominionist is a commitment to defining and carrying out an approach to building society that is self-consciously defined as exclusively Christian, and dependent specifically on the work of Christians, rather than based on a broader consensus.

In 2005, Clarkson enumerated the following characteristics shared by all forms of dominionism:
1. Dominionists celebrate Christian nationalism, in that they believe that the United States once was, and should once again be, a Christian nation. In this way, they deny the Enlightenment roots of American democracy.
2. Dominionists promote religious supremacy, insofar as they generally do not respect the equality of other religions, or even other versions of Christianity.
3. Dominionists endorse theocratic visions, insofar as they believe that the Ten Commandments, or "biblical law," should be the foundation of American law, and that the U.S. Constitution should be seen as a vehicle for implementing Biblical principles.

---

The LDS church is certainly not immune from this line of thinking or action, either (see my last post) ... far from it.

I recall one Sunday school teacher (a man I know rather well, the same one who actually once raised his hand in opposition to sustaining a new local church leader on moral grounds, a man who) who taught that "theocracy is superior to democracy," and that "Christianity is superior to all other religions."

After hearing these startling pronouncements from a respected LDS Gospel Doctrine teacher, and after picking my jaw up off the floor, I came to the conclusion that even my own church (and this is certainly true if one looks at the strong theocratic leanings of the territory of early Mormon Utah) has the clear potential for real and terrible totalitarian, terrorist evil. Certainly the Mountain Meadows atrocity (which not even justamere10 can deny, or discredit as mere "suspicion" or "conspiracy theory") was an act of great abject evil committed by leaders and loyal followers of the LDS church ... and, I think, also a terrorist one, intended to scare and intimidate enemies of the church as much as anything else.

"... awful suspicions and dark conspiracy theories ...," justamere10?

No, not at all.

But for extreme fundamentalist Christian fascists, these embarrassing and pesky facts of history (past and present) coupled with the internet, the ultimate "free press," are real problems and real impediments to their goal of fascist, totalitarian "Christian" religious domination.

Which is why they, and those who mention them, must be discredited, even if only by ad hominem attacks and unsupported invective.

Below is a link to a Washington Times article on the Mountain Meadows event:

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/2...story-straight/

There is no excuse for what happened at Mountain Meadows of course. But I think the context is also important when thinking that isolated event that happened well over a hundred years ago is representative of today's Latter-day Saints, or of the Saints living at the time.

The Saints had just been driven from Missouri and Illinois where their property had been stolen, their women raped, and many people murdered. The governor of Missouri had even issued an order to "exterminate" the Saints. Their beloved Prophet and his brother had been murdered while under State protection. Terrible were the struggles and many the deaths as the Saints crossed the prairies on foot to reach the Rocky Mountain retreat the Lord led them to.

Then, at the time of the Mountain Meadows event an Apostle had just been murdered in Arkansas where the wagon train came from. And US soldiers were on the way to invade Utah and put down a non-existent "rebellion". Those were times of war, people often do things they wouldn't do in safer more peaceful times.

I continue to think that Mountain Meadows was an evil deed that rests on the heads of local militia and civil leaders, some of whom were leaders in the LDS Church. I also continue to think that the event at Mountain Meadows is not typical of the Saints in those times, and is not at all representative of the Saints in our time.

But you'll have to decide for yourself if you are interested in looking into all sides of history, including the context of the times in which events took place, and extracting from that judgments about people living a hundred or more years later. For example, can you validly blame the grandchildren of Nazi leaders for what took place during World War II, or today's Catholics for the Inquisition and the Crusades hundreds of years ago?

Certainly not.

Buy one can – and should – look to history for hints as to what is likely to occur again, given the same or similar cultural, political, religious, or sociological circumstances or influences, so as to prevent history from repeating itself in terrible but predictable ways.

Do a significant number of similarities exist between orthodox Mormonism today and that of 150 years ago – enough to elicit concern, given the awful consequence mentioned earlier (the Mountain Meadows Massacre), which was at least partly a result of the extreme religious fundamentalism, blind allegiance to religious authorities, and de facto theocracy practiced by the early Mormons in the Utah territory?

Does the potential exist within Christianity today (and in particular within orthodox Mormonism) for the same kind of totalitarian fascism, violence, and terrorism motivated by twisted and dangerous fundamentalist religious beliefs that we see today in the extreme conservative right wing of Islam ("only OUR religion is true, only WE know what is the true will and mind of God ... therefore WHATEVER we do in God's name is justified")?

In answer to both questions, I would say definitely yes. I imagine justamere10 would say no, not at all (from my point of view, a very dangerous and naive conclusion ... given the whole of human religious history, and especially that part corresponding to the current time we're in).

Mormons are great believers in the principle of "free agency", the principle that all of God's children are free to choose for themselves the things that have eternal consequences. If we were forced to do things, God could not exercise a righteous judgment upon us and assign us eternal consequences for our actions. Someone who is raped for example cannot be justly judged guilty of fornication or adultery and assigned eternal consequences for a sin they did not commit of their own free will and choice.

Because we strongly believe that free agency, the freedom to choose, is an eternal principle, there is no compulsion from Church leaders upon the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Each Saint is free to choose the way they will go. In fact, we believe that if any priesthood holder tries to exercise compulsion upon others by virtue of that priesthood, his priesthood authority becomes null and void.

Here, from one of the books in our canon, are principles that govern the behavior of priesthood holders in the LDS church:

"Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen? Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson��" That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God."

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/121/34-38#34

But of course choices have consequences. Choose to step in front of a moving bus and you'll quickly learn that! If a Latter-day Saint chooses to commit adultery for example, the consequences of that choice could include not being worthy to enter the temples, and possibly excommunication, the highest penalty any church in America can impose on its members.

Caring parents teach and encourage their children to do the things the parents feel is for the benefit of the children. However, when parents are not in sight, children get to exercise their own free will and make their own choices. They can choose to be obedient to their parents, or they can choose to disobey. But each choice has consequences.

In that same manner, Heavenly Father has placed us on an earth filled with opposition and contrasts where we must make frequent choices because we have been given the freedom to choose for ourselves. He has placed a veil of forgetting between us and Him so we aren't always aware that He can see what we are doing and thinking, so we are like the child when away from the physical presence of parents, free to choose for ourselves.

So, in the LDS Church there is no compulsion or force imposed on any of the Saints to conform, they are always free to make their own choices. But of course there is encouragement and teaching of what we believe to be correct principles leading to eternal happiness and useful mortal lives filled with contentment.

"Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself."

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/2/27#27

Curious.

Question: How old is the Earth and what is the stance of the Mormon Church regarding evolution?

Bigotry... alive and well in the Church. Queers need not apply.

Slavery... nice touch.

There's that "duality" thing again! Once you suposed "Christains" understand that we are all connected, then maybe you will finally understand that you can move forward once you understand compassion. "There is no salvation without compassion for all living beings ~ Buddha"

Ooooo.... nice denial of Mind.

White or Wheat?

As expected... limited teachings. Never to think for yourself, just "have faith in our teachings" and never explore any other spiritual avenues or knowledge of reality. Or... you are going to Hell in a Hand-basket.

There's that "Duality" thing again.

Why not flip a coin? Heads or Tails?

It is my understanding that the Lord has not revealed anything on the matter. There are LDS members and scientists who believe in evolution, others who don't, and probably many more who ignore it and have no opinion either way. Some LDS authorities have expressed opinions on the matter, but there is no official Church position.

Thanks for a good question.

I'm certain that God loves you Myoho as much as He loves me or anyone else on this board. He has a plan of happiness for each of us. He is approachable in sincere humble prayer no matter what we may have done in this life, He is our Heavenly FATHER.

But in His loving way He will never take away from us our freedom to choose for ourselves to obey or to disobey His instructions (commandments) that are each designed to help guide us Home.

Enjoy the weekend.

Mormon thought, history, and culture is nothing if not a fascinating, surprising, varied mixture (practically to the point of schizophrenia in more than a few instances).

It appears justamere10 is correct in saying that there is wide disagreement among orthodox Mormons on the question of evolution. I had always thought that the official stance of the LDS church was pretty clearly anti-evolution, but perhaps that's not true.

Here's an excerpt from a very interesting 2006 article on the subject:

No definitive LDS stance on evolution, study finds

In the following years, LDS apostles, including B.H. Roberts and James E. Talmage, wrote about the issue and presented their findings to the First Presidency with a leaning toward scientific theory, while junior apostle Joseph Fielding Smith vehemently opposed their views in his own writings and presentations to the First Presidency, Jeffery said. Much of their disagreement came over whether "pre-Adamites" walked the Earth before God created Adam, and whether death of any species had occurred prior to Adam. The debate became so heated that on April 7, 1931, the First Presidency called all the general authorities together and distributed a seven-page memo that "said straight out the church has no position on pre-Adamites or death before the fall of Adam, Jeffery said.

Notice that this article adds weight to my earlier assertion that the ONLY people involved in the formation of LDS church doctrine are general authorities who are entirely of one gender, with the first presidency (and ultimately the prophet of the church) the ultimate authorities on exactly what is and what is not the official "church position" on doctrinal matters like the question of evolution, etc.

Nevertheless, I think it's interesting and important to note that Utah was one of the first places in the U.S. that granted to women the same voting rights as men, fully 50 years before the right to vote would be given to all women in America.

From Wikipedia:

Early victories were won in the territories of Wyoming (1869) and Utah (1870), although Utah women were disenfranchised by provisions of the federal Edmunds-Tucker Act enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1887. The push to grant Utah women's suffrage was at least partially fueled by the belief that, given the right to vote, Utah women would dispose of polygamy. It was only after Utah women exercised their suffrage rights in favor of polygamy that the U.S. Congress disenfranchised Utah women.

Clearly, Mormon Utah wasn't always the bastion of ultra-conservatism that it's become in the last half century or so.

Certainly, two of the most controversial doctrinal problems currently facing the church revolve around homosexuality and same-sex marriage, and the question of whether of not women (as well as men) are to have the priesthood. How these will turn out is anyone's guess.

In my opinion it is not "ultra-conservatism" that is in play among Utah Mormons as much as a strict adherence to the moral values that this nation was founded upon and that worked for hundreds of years. Mormons in general are opposed to fornication, adultery, and anything like unto it which of course would include sexual relations between people of the same gender. It is clear to us that sexual sin (sexual relations outside of traditional marriage) is a very serious sin in the eyes of God. (We believe it to be the second most serious sin right after murder.)

I doubt that Mormons in general would be opposed to women holding the priesthood if the Lord revealed that it was time for that to be. When the revelation was received for blacks to receive the priesthood, although a few members had a hard time with it, most members were filled with joy over the announcement and sustained it as doctrine.

The problem many people who are not active members of the LDS Church have with our beliefs is that we believe firmly that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the restored Church of Jesus Christ from earlier times, and that the Lord continues to direct and guide His Church through a living Prophet and living Apostles. That's His way of doing things and of bestowing a fulness of blessings upon God's children in these latter days, the Fulness of Times.

You needn't believe that, but Mormons do, so keeping that context in mind might be helpful to better understand where we're coming from in matters pertaining to religion.

Different ways of prioritizing values is what I think defines most political philosophies (e.g. conservatism). The prioritization you mention here is pretty much what defines conservatism. Combine that with the fact that Utah is (judging by voting records) the reddest (i.e. most Republican-leaning) state in the U.S., and Utah county, the location of BYU and the seat orthodox Mormon thought, is the reddest county in Utah, together with the overwhelming percentage of Utahns (and especially active Mormons in Utah County and throughout Utah) who think Bush/Cheney have been good for American and good for the world, and I think it's pretty safe to call modern Mormon Utah "ultra-conservative."


It's important to understand that when justamere10 says "Mormons" believe this or that, he's referring to orthodox Mormons, not all Mormons (though a large majority – but not all – would probably fall in line behind justamere10 on most points).

The fundamentalist religious point of view that forms the foundation of orthodox Mormonism is clearly and I think fairly expressed in this quote by justamere10.

As he says, no one else need believe that the LDS church is the one and only true church on Earth, as orthodox Mormons do, but it is helpful to realize that they do sincerely believe this, in order to understand them, their thinking, and their behavior.

Those of us who are parents have probably experienced a child rejecting his or her favorite drink because it was delivered for example in a red cup instead of in the more familiar blue cup the child had become accustomed to. But it remained the same drink.

In like manner, if one does not deliberately politicize everything the Latter-day Saints do, one can learn more about and perhaps benefit from our religious beliefs rather than focussing on the manner of delivery. When we as human beings focus our awareness on one thing, we are blinding ourselves to other things around us.

There have been only a few writers in this thread, but 10,000 plus thread views indicates to me that there may be hundreds of people reading this who are interested in what the Saints believe and do.

It is my hope that some of you who are silently reading will come and worship with us some Sunday to observe and decide for yourself what kind of people we really are when the truth is known.

Below is a link to a worldwide LDS Meetinghouse locator. You can type in your own address and find the nearest meetinghouse and the time meetings start. The public is always invited to our Sunday meetings.

http://maps.lds.org/

Some of you may prefer to anonymously browse at http://www.mormon.org to learn more about what the Mormons believe about God, where we came from, why we're here on earth, and where we're going after we die.

I don't expect everyone to agree with the religious beliefs of active Latter-day Saints, that's just the way human nature works. But regardless of your beliefs and opinions, I appreciate your participation in this thread as a writer or as a silent reader. You have vastly exceeded my anticipations when I started this "Ask a Mormon" thread, this is a very responsive community.

Enjoy the day.

Political affiliation so closely reflects core values truly held by an individual or group that one is usually predictive of the other.

We know there's air all around us, even though we can't see it, by effects it produces (e.g. the waving of flags in the breeze, the blowing of leaves across the ground, etc.). It's easy to misunderstand reality (or to be mislead) if we don't pay close attention to the observable effects of otherwise invisible forces. For example, people tend to not be entire objective or truthful when discussing themselves or groups to which they belong. This is human nature.

Actions speak louder than words, and so, it's critical to pay attention more to what people (and groups) actually DO than to what they SAY, if the goal is to get reliable data about which values they really, truly hold (as opposed to more socially acceptable values they may outwardly profess). Repeated patterns of behavior betray the truth about the values held by an individual or group. "By their fruit ye shall know them."

Choice of political philosophy is likewise based on one's core values. Neoconservatives support George Bush and Dick Cheney because, when compared to the list of things neoconservatives consider to be most important, Bush/Cheney reflect those values. That is, neoconservatives are happy with the "fruit" (i.e. patterns of behavior) they see growing on the Bush/Cheney tree. We each choose our "tree" based on the "fruit" we like best (according to our values).

A terribly over-weighted preference toward one rather narrow band of the political spectrum by the vast majority of the members of any particular group is not irrelevant to a discussion of the true values held by that group; on the contrary, it's a very good indicator of the true core values held in common by members of that group.

I think this is all pretty obvious.

It's undeniable (based on voting records) that the values held by Mormons lead them (overwhelmingly) to support leaders like Bush and Cheney, who personify the neoconservative far right of the Republican Party. We can conclude, therefore, that the true core values of the vast majority of orthodox Mormons (who probably voted for Bush/Cheney 95% of the time in 2004) are pretty similar to those held by George Bush and Dick Cheney (despite what orthodox Mormons may or may not say outwardly).

Therefore, one can, by looking at the behavior of George Bush and Dick Cheney, get a pretty good idea as to the true values of orthodox Mormons (which, in my experience, are quite often remarkably similar to those of Bush/Cheney), ... or of the members of any other group who almost universally support these two men.

The question then becomes:

Are the values held by X, as made clear by their repeated patterns of public and private behavior, values with which I care to be associated? The answer to that question, then, gives a good indication as to whether one will be comfortable closely associating with any organization that overwhelmingly supports X ... as the Mormon orthodoxy, for example, has almost uniformly supported Bush and Cheney.

I think that most active members of Christian churches in America tend to favor and vote for politicians who present themselves as defenders of the moral values and way of life taught by Jesus Christ, and the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. It is probable that those are the values most Christians commonly look for in politicians. Obviously, politicans who seek to secularize society and do away with God and the traditional values of our nation will not get the vote of informed Christians.

If there are more politicians in one political party who represent the values Christians cherish, it is likely that there would be more votes for those politicians from Christians regardless of the name of the political party the politicians happen to affiliate with.

Beyond the core Christian values sought by religious people are things like lower taxes, less interference by government and bureaucrats, etc.

Those things are all significant to individual Christians, but the Latter-day Saints do not vote as a block for any particular political party. The Church as a whole maintains a neutral stance on party affiliation, but does speak out when it's a matter of immoral behavior (sin - the business of churches) that is being promoted by political and/or judicial entities.

But why are we speaking about the ever changing politics of man when there is such a wealth of knowledge to be gained about God and things of an eternal nature?

Your clear implication is that conservatism is closer to the teachings of Jesus Christ than is liberalism. I do not think I could possibly disagree with you more.

Anyone who thinks for a minute that the values and behaviors championed by today's ultra-conservative Republican Party are most like those that Christ Himself taught really should spend some time studying the material presented at the following site:

http://www.liberalslikechrist.org/index.htm.

The likely result, I believe, is that an open minded person holding such a mistaken view will be quickly disabused of this grossly incorrect, inverted notion of what comprises Christian values (i.e. Christ's own values).


Because politics is action, action exposes one's true values and commitments ("actions speak louder than words"), demonstrated behavior is more important than doctrine and dogma, actual integrity is more important hypocritical pronouncement of faux-religious platitudes ...

and because, in my opinion (call me strange): anyone who commits or supports the war crime called torture (oh, excuse me, "enhanced interrogation"), elimination of habaes corpus rights, pathological lying to the nation and to the world, on-going destruction of hard won Constitutional freedoms and cherished national values right before our very eyes, the open use of the most offensive profanity on the august floor of the U.S. Senate and elsewhere, and a variety of other immoral, unethical, and criminal conduct while calling himself a "Christian" and a "defender" of the Constitution doesn't understand the very first thing about either God or Christ.

Thanks for voting GWB.





I didn't get a tax cut. As a matter of fact, for every kid you pop out my taxes go up, and yours go down. Is that fair? Personally, I think for every child you have your taxes should increase.

Funny how conservatives privatize the profits, socialize the loss and yet they STILL want tax payers to subsidise their private schools.



Yeah... sure they don't.



Worth repeating here:

We witness a disastrous hardening of two of the world’s major religions - Islam and Christianity, into rigid fundamentalism, in which each aggressively proclaims its beliefs, zealously proselytizes, and even takes up arms against its rivals.

A fundamentalist and intolerant stance, taken by any religion, is offensive to followers of other faiths and to those of no faith at all. Overzealous attempts at conversion disturb peaceful coexistence.

Intolerance is essential only to monotheism. An only God is by nature a jealous God who will not allow another to live. When a religion sees its scripture as revealed and divinely inspired, it finds a basis for exclusivity and intolerance.

Justification for intolerance is provided by the very nature of a Supreme Being who is described as a jealous and angry being, who punishes those who defy Him with eternal damnation.

There are stories in the Bible which describe God as committing genocide on unbelievers with violence toward men, women, children, and even the unborn. The Koran says: “Slay unbelievers wherever you find them, and drive them out of the places they drove you from . . . Fight them until idolatry is no more and God’s religion is supreme.”


Because Tinkerbell does not exist. Theism is a figment of a limited imagination. Treat it what it is, a set of ancient rules to keep the ignorant in check.

Start exploring your own mind Justamere10. Take responsibility for yourself. Isn't that the "Conservative" mantra?

It seems that in the mind of some of those writing in this thread politics is everything and cannot be separated from one's religious beliefs and practices.

It is my opinion that most grassroots Americans probably look upon politics as something they need to study up on a week or so before the election so they can cast a reasonably informed vote. What they want from politicians more than anything is to be protected from those who would destroy our way of life, and they want to be left alone to live their own lives the way they choose to live them. In other words, I think most people just want politicians and bureaucrats to get out of their faces...

I know you have the right to do whatever on this board the moderators don't object to, but I suggest that those who filter the world through the eyes of politicians start a thread in a political forum and discuss their views there so we can get back to a discussion about God and our relationship with Him in the RELIGION forum.

Scriptures Declare who the Lord Really Is:

"Willingly we share scriptures of the Restoration with people across the world. The Book of Mormon records the personal ministry of the resurrected Lord to people of ancient America. Ponder these everlasting truths that He proclaimed:

"'Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. I was with the Father from the beginning. . . .

" '. . . The scriptures concerning my coming are fulfilled. . . .

" 'I am the light and the life of the world.'

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

Religion is a professed statement of one's core beliefs, principles, and values. Politics is evidence of one's actual core beliefs, principles, and values.

Only hypocrites and deceivers can separate them.


This is only true of lazy freeloaders in America who don't rightly value democracy and have little gratitude or appreciation for the priceless rights and freedoms so many have fought and died for (certainly, such indolence and ignorance of civic duty is not a "conservative" value you support, justamere10 ... is it?):

“Politics ought to be the part-time profession of every citizen who would protect the rights and privileges of free people and who would preserve what is good and fruitful in our national heritage.” — Dwight D. Eisenhower

It is at best disingenuous to restrict discussion of what people believe to be ultimately true, that is, of one's core beliefs, principles, and values, in any way at all. The call to do so prioritizes mere words above the reality of one's actions, a stance which is inherently hypocritical and inconsistent with sincere religious commitment, a red flag that warns us to suspect the spirituality maturity of the person making such a call.

Amen. Well said, Myoho.


What he said.

Unfortunately, myoho, honest and probing self-examination is anathema to true fundamentalists. In fact, the whole point of attraction to fundamentalist world views may be the ability to hide, to ditch the ethical and moral requirement to honestly search and probe one's own motives (i.e. to take responsibility for one's self).

Nowhere in the opening post is mention of this thread being intended to be one in which to discuss political views. It is intended to be a place in which to learn about the religious beliefs and practices of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Most people can easily differentiate between theology and politics, they are separate fields of study, separate faculties in universities.

SALT LAKE CITY - Prompted by their church's support for a California initiative to ban gay marriage in the state, some Mormons are voicing their opposition to the proposed ban on the Internet -- saying in cyberspace what they might not be able to express in church buildings.

"We need a place where people can have a discussion and get information," said Laura Compton, a contributor at MormonsforMarriage.com, adding that people need to know the information is "not coming from an anti-Mormon place."

MormonsforMarriage is one of a handful of Web sites to spring up since June, when top Mormon leaders distributed a letter to be read from California pulpits to call the faith's 750,000-plus members there to contribute money and time to help pass Proposition 8.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/services/ne...0,4808706.story

Ask A Mormon? OK


Do members of the Mormon church, by and large, and the church itself, not differentiate between heterosexuals and homosexuals (leave out the issue of marriage for the moment), regards whether or not they are loved by your God and accepted equally and unconditionally by Him and the church?

Period...

We believe that God loves ALL of His children unconditionally.

We know that He has given us instructions (better known as "commandments") that if followed will lead us closer to Him and to an eternity living in His presence. But He gives us the power to choose for ourselves if we will keep His commandments or reject them.

One of the most serious of all the commandments, for a lot of reasons that even mortals can understand, is to refrain from sexual relations outside the bonds of matrimony.

I think you are asking if those who have sexual relations outside of marriage, including with people of the same gender, are accepted by the LDS Church.

My response is yes, they are accepted as God's children and loved as such. But they are also subject to the consequences of breaking serious commandments. Those consequences could include being denied a temple recommend, and possibly being excommunicated from the church. It would make little difference if the person who committed the sin was engaging in heterosexual or homosexual relations, sin is sin, and sin is the business of churches, particularly when it involves their members.

Wrong. Here's an excerpt from the opening post:


Yes – "things they wonder about regarding the LDS church ..."

Like, for example, why there's such a HUGE political imbalance within the LDS church that's overwhelmingly supportive of an administration so wicked as to include torturers, war criminals, habitual liars, and killers of the Constitution, and how this is in any way consistent with the values that Jesus taught?

Why is it that these Mormons mentioned in the article cited above by Tyo on 8/25/08 "might not be able to express" what they really feel "in church buildings" ... and have to resort to meeting anonymously in cyberspace to honestly share their genuine opinions?

Although the question really says it all, all by itself ... the answer is that (in my experience, and that of many others) Mormon culture places a high premium on conformity and control, to the point of being autocratic and repressive (and, therefore, hypocritical ... given the church teaching that freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights are literally sacred things).

Following up on that, it may be very instructive to readers who want to see for themselves how Mormons who disagree with justamere10 are handling the tremendous pressure within the LDS church to conform and "follow the prophet" rather than the promptings of their own consciences (links below are from the site mentioned in the article Tyo linked to earlier):

Mormons for Marriage

How Do You Respond in Church?

This is exactly what i was thinking too. Authority seems to trump conscience here well as form a barrier or filter between the individual and his or her Creator.

I would only add that Justamere has steadfastly maintained the separation of Church and state, for which I applaud him. In connection with this I believe he has maintained that the Mormon Church does not officially meddle in politics, leaving it instead up to the individual to decide which candidates and issues to support and which to oppose. In the interest of the orthodoxy which he claims to uphold he might have to rethink this.

The divinely chosen and inspired leaders of the Mormon Church, the views and actions of whom are by definition orthodox, have taken a clear position on a political issue and caused a letter to be read from the pulpit encouraging their obedient flock to donate time and money in support of that position. I'm not sure how much more political or orthodox you can get.

great, so all the homosexual couple has to do is get married in your church then they are not breaking any of your laws?

when will you be having your first same sex marriage ceremonies celebrating this? I would love to see one.

You are pesistent shoeshoe, I'll grant you that. Perhaps our conversation is not yet over, though I'm sure it is crystal clear to everyone where each of us stands with regard to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

I don't think you'll get many brownie points for arguing with me about what my intentions were when I started this thread - they were certainly not to get into a discussion about politics, there are many other forums designed for that.

As everyone knows, there are many individual members of the Baptist church, the Catholic Church, the LDS church etc. who vote for politicians who are affiliated with one or the other of the political parties. But that has little if anything to do with their membership in a specific Christian denomination, it has much more to do with how the politicians present themselves on issues of importance to those individuals.

You have certain opinions of what our nation's president has done during his term, others have contrary opinions, that's the way America is. And because we have the constitutional right to do so, it's ok in our country to express those opinions, many Americans have died to defend and maintain such freedoms for us. But expressing opinions of course does not make them true or accurate, even though what you say may or may not be true or accurate, there will always be others who disagree just as strongly as you may agree.

As I stated earlier, members of the LDS Church do not vote as a block for one or the other of the major political parties. But as probably most other Christians do, we tend to vote for politicians who present themselves as defenders of the teachings of Jesus Christ.

You seem to have a hard time accepting it shoeshoe, possibly because you know your political views are probably popular on this particular board, but we're here in this thread to write and read about the religious beliefs and practices of members of the LDS Church, not to express and discuss political opinions.

Yes indeed, the question really says it all, and your interpretation of that question again reveals clearly that you choose to see your world filtered through the eyes of politicians. Most people do not, most people want to not have their lives interfered with by politicians and bureaucrats.

Latter-day Saints do not discuss politics inside their meetinghouses because when they are there they are intent on learning more about and worshiping God, not politicians!

Outside of church meetings, Latter-day Saints are much like other people. Sometimes they discuss politics and political issues, sometimes they discuss restaurants and places to eat, sometimes they discuss child rearing, schools, sports, the weather....

Like it is with people who happen to be affiliated with other religious denominations, or unaffiliated, some Latter-day Saints when they are not attending Church meetings are actively involved in things of a political nature, they may be on parent teacher associations, boards of this or that, etc.

The USA Bill of Rights is NOT in our canon. Latter-day Saints do NOT consider it to be a "literally sacred thing". But we do think the original founders of this nation were inspired of God to create such a constitution and checks and balances that worked so well for centuries. Because this nation was so unique and allowed for religious expression, the Lord's Church was able to be restored and although it was almost immediately persecuted and its members slain and driven, it has thrived and is now a worldwide church, as prophecy indicated it would.

Mormon culture is supportive of those things that defend and maintain the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Would you expect members of the Church of JESUS CHRIST to be otherwise? We would be hypocrites indeed if we spent our time in church meeting worshiping the Savior then for the rest of the week developed a culture that went contrary to His teachings. What you choose to view as "conformity", "control", "autocratic", "repressive", "hypocritical" is actually the evidence of a group of people who really DO believe in God and Jesus Christ and the Christian way of life. Nothing is forced upon them, they freely choose to do so.

I respect your choice to disbelieve what we believe, and to no longer affiliate with us...

Your links, as can be expected, are to non-LDS sites that are agenda-driven and promote opinions, ideas, and actions that are contrary to the beliefs of almost ALL active members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I acknowledge that there some people who value their membership in the LDS Church so much that they will try to change the church rather than accept certain of God's commandments, in particular those to refrain from fornication and adultery.

As an active member of the LDS Church for 40 years I have never once experienced that "tremendous pressure" that shoeshoe mentions quite frequently. I have always felt free to choose my own relationship with God and Jesus Christ.

But I can understand that those who want to change the church so it conforms to their own ideas of what God wants His children on earth to do and not to do could feel such a pressure or cognitive dissonance because they surely understand that it's just not going to happen.

Members of Christian churches who choose to live lives that are not in conformity with the teachings of Jesus Christ are free to find contentment elsewhere. Should they choose to repent of their sins they would probably be welcome back in most churches, certainly in the LDS Church. Until such time, why fight against the things they once believed to be true?

Thank-you for this thoughtful message Tyo. I'll express my own opinions in response, with respect for your own beliefs and opinions.

You seem to assume, perhaps because your own opinions are contrary to many LDS beliefs, that Latter-day Saints do not follow their conscience, allowing instead "authority" to trump the conscience.

It's true that faithful Saints do recognize the authority of God, and that His word trumps all others. But unlike the way it is in some churches with paid professional ministers, nothing comes between faithful Latter-day Saints and God.

The Saints believe that having had hands laid upon their heads by authorized Melchizedek Priesthood holders in the ordinance of "confirmation" they are entitled to the constant companionship and guidance of the Holy Spirit who speaks for God our Heavenly Father. We have that entitlement only for so long as we keep God's commandments and are receptive and obedient to the counsel we receive by that still small voice of personal revelation.

That voice could trump but probably never contradicts the "Light of Christ" known as "conscience" which is given to all at birth and remains with us unless we completely sear it with deliberate consistent sinful deeds. It never contradicts revelations given to the Lord's chosen living Prophet who has the same connection with God, but speaks for the entire Church.

I maintain that the LDS Church does not "meddle in politics" but that politicians and judges sometimes meddle in religion!

Sin IS the business of churches. When politicians and legislators attempt to force their own secular opinions on society, churches and faithful members of churches WILL speak out in opposition to what the politicians and judges are doing, or trying to do with ultimately shackles, prisons, and guns to enforce their dictates.

Marriage is the business of churches, a sacred religious ordinance. The state had no business interfering with marriage, but has done so for decades and now is making very aggressive moves to thrust the mailed secular arm even deeper into things that should be the exclusive province of institutions that focus on our relationship with God.


"Know ye not, my son, that these things (sexual sin) are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?" Alma 39: 5

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/39/5#5

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18: 22

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/lev/18/22#22

Sin IS the business of churches...

It is normal to love people of the same gender, there is no sin in that. In fact God commands us to love everyone as ourselves. And yes, apparently some people have a greater sexual attraction to people of the same gender than they do for people of the opposite gender. There is nothing sinful in having such tendencies.

What is sinful is when people of either gender choose to actually engage in physical sexual relations with someone who is not their legally and lawfully wedded spouse.

Now that a few judges have apparently succeeded in making legal the "marriage" of people of the same gender, churches that adhere to the definition above, including the LDS Church, are going to have to come up with a more clearly defined definition of what constitutes "legal and lawful" marriage.

In my opinion the state has no business forcing people to accept the state's definition of marriage and will be vigorously opposed when people who accept the teachings of Jesus Christ come to fully realize the implications of the ruling of those secular judges.

I think I can very safely predict that there will be no "marriages" of same gender people in the LDS Church. That would be clearly an abomination in the eyes of the God whom we know.

and you and I know a very different God, how can there be more than one???


it is sad that you have violated Jesus's command not to judge others, but with your religion and so many others, judging people is a full time job...

And they are very good at it.

Does the God you know say it's ok for people to have sexual relations outside of marriage?

It almost seems that you want to blame someone else for the choices people make when they do things that are known to be sinful in the eyes of God.

People do sometimes choose to do things that are known to be sinful, regardless of their religious affiliation, or none at all. It is only because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ that we can choose to repent and forsake sin and even though we sinned in the past, still have a chance at living with God forever.

the God I know doesnt care much about sin other than when it comes to murderers like certain politicians and liars and hypocrites...the God you believe in was written about by men who at the time didnt have a clue the extent that evolution and science would bring us to, would they have known I suspect they would have been embarrassed to write about sin the way they did...

I wasn't talking about individual sin I was talking about institutional sin.

This is an excellent point. Mormonism was created during the "Great Awakening" in America in the first half of the 19th Century and remains very much a product of its time.

Not the same God then. The God I know does provide instructions (commandments) that if obeyed will help His children on earth get to know Him and to live in a state of happiness forever. The God I know speaks to a living Prophet and living Apostles in OUR time. But He hasn't changed those commandments much...

So if "institutions" sin, are they then judged of God and condemned to live in hell or a lesser heaven than are human beings? Individuals die individually, and are judged as individuals according to the way they lived their lives. I'm not aware of how it is with institutions.

I apologize for being facetious, just couldn't help it, maybe I'm institutionalized that way. :-)

I'm impressed, I wasn't aware of that. But if The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints really is the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Former Day Saints as Mormons declare it is, then perhaps that "Great Awakening" took place some two thousand years ago when Jesus Christ set up His Church on a foundation of apostles and prophets, as it exists today. And if it was true then, why shouldn't the truth still be a product of our time?

Oh I'm just saying that Mormonism has a real 1830s feel about it. Just as Scientology reeks of the 1950s. Seventh Day Adventism is a product of the same general period. I don't accept the "truth" of any of it so there is really no point in taking the discussion in that direction.

Ok, we needn't go in that direction but your comment seems to be a putdown ("reeks") as if there is something wrong with members of the LDS Church because in your opinion they have an "1830s" feel about them and the 1830s was not a very good feel compared to what people feel today. :-)

But I certainly respect your choice to disbelieve what the Saints believe, no problem, choices are part of God's plan.