It is currently Fri Aug 01, 2014 8:55 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 208 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipli
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:30 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:00 pm
Posts: 9090
Droopy wrote:
No, more like JST Matthew 7:1-2. Why are you defending an organization and philosophy that is dead set against the Gospel of Jesus Christ in almost every possible way? There is even a temple recommend question that directly precludes Democrats and anyone to the left of them (unless they lie or are impossibly ignorant).



I think that would be correct. If I am judging unrighteously, then the onus and opprobrium of so doing falls upon me.

So the question is, am I (and others like Ezra Benson, Spencer W. Kimball, Dallin Oaks, Boyd Packer etc.) judging unrighteously, across a plethora of issues, or not?

We are to judge, and must judge (discriminate, discern, inspect, scrutinize, categorize, make judgements, and come to conclusions on moral, ethical, social, cultural, and political questions and issues) as human beings and as Saints both to negotiate the mortal world rationally and prudently and as a matter of covenant responsibility, but are to judge righteously. So what does that mean? The oath and covenant of the priesthood requires me to "teach, preach, exhort, expound" and "raise a warning voice" to the world, in whatever circumstances I'm in, at all times, and in all places. I am to be a witness of Jesus Christ.

Well, all right. Let's do that then, but nobody said that was going to be the popular thing to do, or politically correct, or that we are always going to make nice when doing so. Sometimes sharp words are required. Sometimes ripping off a mask and pointing out the satanic features lying underneath is required. So that's not going to make one many friends in "the world." So what?

Am I perfect in so doing? Hardly. Am I going to sit idly by while liberals, leftists, secularists, and wolves among the flock attempt a careful, sophisticated and incremental convergence between the Church and Babylon?

Nope.[/quote]


I love it when people who want to be known as active LDS stalwarts have to plead, backpeddle and dance in order to ingnore the plain and simple teaching of Jesus Christ where he said not to judge and that we will be judged with that same judgement with which we judge. How doed Droopy get around the commandment found in D&C 68 about having to forgive all persons?

By the way you hae denigrated John Dehlin in misrepresenting him and calling him a wolf in sheeps clothing. Be honest Droopy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipli
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:06 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:18 am
Posts: 2310
Reposting this here for kicks:

Image

_________________
"We conservatives have an uncanny ability to know what Ronald Reagan would do at any given time. We're talking about hypothetical Super Reagan, the man who never raised taxes or tripled the deficit, and who knocked down the Berlin wall using his nut sack as a wrecking ball." - Stephen Colbert


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipli
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:16 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 12:48 pm
Posts: 1609
Droopy wrote:
ostensibly lying


lol, you wish he was lying. Reid sure has Romney in a corner, doesn't he?

btw, i've heard that Romney didn't pay tithing for all those years he's hiding his tax returns from. i hope he doesn't lose his temple recommend over that -- it would be a real shame.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipli
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:53 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:26 pm
Posts: 3323
Jaybear wrote:
Reid did not say the allegation was true. To prove Reid is lying, you have prove, he was not told, what he said he was told.
I have seen no reason believe Reid was lying.


Nor do I.

Quote:
Frankly, it seems to me that Reid is doing Romney a favor. The rumors are out there, that Mitt is a tax evader. By passing along this allegation, its give Mitt a chance to put the story to bed.

When you say Reid was "wrong", in what context? Legally, he is on square ground. Politically, well, he is not running against Romney and he is not up for election for 4 more years.


It just seems like spreading gossip to me.

_________________
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS

"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipli
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:29 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:57 am
Posts: 2159
Location: Las Vegas, NV
bcspace wrote:
To assert that a Democrat cannot be a good Mormon is merely D&C 88:81

I tremble in fear at what nefarious things are being done within the Church Archives with a vocal Democrat at the helm.

Apostasy from within. Be afraid. Trust no one. Trust nothing.

_________________
"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead." ~Charles Bukowski


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipli
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:39 pm 
Dark Lord of the Sith
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 5:16 pm
Posts: 12563
Location: A castellated abbey
Droopy (All the flavor, but half the calories!) wrote:
Quote:
What I said is exactly what your OP implies, Loran.


My OP mentions nothing about political differences.


Nor does my comment. This is what I said: "Let's note the underlying assumption of the OP: an elected official of the United States government should be subject to ecclesiastical discipline for taking political positions contrary to what church leaders think he should be doing in the scope of his office." You are proposing that Harry Reid should be ecclesiastically disciplined because church leaders would find his political actions to be sinful.

In fact, your rant about life not being a cabaret or a circus tent or whatever is all in the context of what public policies a person supports. The meaning of what you are saying is that recognizing a person's freedom to make choices you do not agree with is the same as endorsing the choices they make with that freedom. In other words, people only have the right to act in accordance with your cherished beliefs and religious dogma.

Quote:
Quote:
But I would be thrilled to hear all about how protected political speech under New York Times v. Sullivan and its progeny is a felony. (Hint: you're suggesting that it's a crime for Harry Reid to exercise his right to freedom of speech---"who may himself have committed a felony in so doing.")

And I would also love to hear how political speech by a person who is not a member of the executive branch is in any way relevant to the presumption of innocence in a criminal case, and in what way Mitt Romney is being deprived of due process of law because of Harry Reid's political gamesmanship. Fire away, Droopy!


Reid can exercise all the free speech he so desires, but if Reid is lying about Romney, and is aware of his doing so, then the person at Bain, assuming he exists, who is the source of his claims, if he is lying about Romney, is a felon, and Reid is now an accomplice. This is on top of both very serious public slander (spoken and broadcast character defamation)

Yes, someone claiming I've committed felonious acts publicly is actionable. Nothing changes regarding free speech, but free speech, like all freedoms, has limits. When you yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or incite a riot, you are liable for that speech and its effects. If you defame someone publicly, and especially if you claim someone is guilty of felonious actions, and you are lying.and your purpose is to defame, you are liable for that action.


You are changing your assertion now. At the beginning of this thread, you claimed that Harry Reid's political speech may be criminal:

"Reid has committed a serious crime if he is knowingly lying to slander Mitt Romney in public, as is the person at Bain, if such exists."

Now you've decided that actually Harry Reid committed a tort. This is amusingly ironic, by the way. You have no evidence that Harry Reid's statements are false (because you don't have Mitt Romney's tax records). So if your assertions about the lawfulness of Harry Reid's statements were correct, then by your own standard Harry Reid could sue you for libel per se.

The irony of Droopy's OP is compounded because he is arguing that people should be able to go to court to quash political statements that they don't like, rather than letting political speech stand or fall on its own in the proverbial public square. That is certainly an odd position to take for someone who is so vehemently opposed to the procedure over substance and Socratic inquiry he facetiously imagines to be the rule in a courtroom. Hardly the position we would expect from a self-styled conservative.

But in what I'm sure is a surprising turn of events for readers of this board, Droopy's assertions are not correct. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment protects even false, defamatory statements about public figures. For a public figure to prevail in a defamation case, it is not sufficient to show merely that the statements are false and defamatory per se (i.e., stating that someone has engaged in criminal conduct). The public figure must also show that the speaker acted with actual malice. The reason such speech is protected is to prevent a chilling effect on what Droopy likes to call the "free marketplace of ideas."

New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)

Thus, we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. See Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4; De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, [p271] 365....

Authoritative interpretations of the First Amendment guarantees have consistently refused to recognize an exception for any test of truth -- whether administered by judges, juries, or administrative officials -- and especially one that puts the burden of proving truth on the speaker. Cf. Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 525-526. The constitutional protection does not turn upon "the truth, popularity, or social utility of the ideas and beliefs which are offered." NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 445. As Madison said, "Some degree of abuse is inseparable from the proper use of every thing, and in no instance is this more true than in that of the press." 4 Elliot's Debates on the Federal Constitution (1876), p. 571. In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 310, the Court declared:

In the realm of religious faith, and in that of political belief, sharp differences arise. In both fields, the tenets of one man may seem the rankest error to his neighbor. To persuade others to his own point of view, the pleader, as we know, at times resorts to exaggeration, to vilification of men who have been, or are, prominent in church or state, and even to false statement. But the people of this nation have ordained, in the light of history, that, in spite of the probability of excesses and abuses, these liberties are, in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy.


Droopy's OP positing that tort law (or criminal law---he can't quite decide) should be used to chill political speech that includes allegedly defamatory statements is exactly the opposite of what the Free Speech clause was meant to protect. Again, certainly an odd position to take for someone who fancies himself a lover of the Constitution. But of course this is the same Droopy who is directly contradicting President Monson as to whether a person can take a political or legal position contrary to that of the Church regarding same-sex marriage and still remain a member of the Church in good standing.

Besides all this, I am still excited to see Droopy's explanation of how Harry Reid is depriving Mitt Romney of the presumption of innocence in a criminal proceeding. I mean, besides him showing how that presumption is in any way at all relevant to political speech, Droopy frequently harangues about how case law has corrupted our pure Constitution, as if the principle of stare decisis is a leftist counterculture plot that arose in the 19660's. E.g.,

Quote:
I've never said that you don't understand constitutional law, at least as presently understood within many of our law schools. What I've said is that you have little understanding (or, more likely, have no intention of understanding) the constitution. You're entire past gay marriage schtick is evidence enough of that.

Two very different things, the constitution and constitutional law, depending upon one's approach to "constitutional law." viewtopic.php?f=3&t=21619&p=531148&hilit=+constitutional+law+#p531148


And yet the presumption of innocence, which Droopy has suddenly and irrelevantly become concerned about, is found nowhere within the text of the Constitution. It is instead a procedural right afforded to criminal defendants that has arisen out of case law expanding the rights guaranteed to people beyond those which are articulated in the Constitution itself.

Anyway, I'm sure we will be treated to the informed, well-reasoned response that Droopy has conditioned us to expect.

_________________
And the life of the ebony clock went out with that of the last of the gay. And the flames of the tripods expired. And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.


Last edited by Darth J on Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipli
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:47 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:26 pm
Posts: 3323
Darth J wrote:
Anyway, I'm sure we will be treated to the informed, well-reasoned response that Droopy has conditioned us to expect.


It will probably be something like this.

Image

Tough to argue with that kind of wit.

_________________
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS

"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipli
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:50 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:18 am
Posts: 2310
Darth J wrote:
But in what I'm sure is a surprising turn of events for readers of this board, Droopy's assertions are not correct.

I'm shocked at the possibility.

But there's a first time for everything, I suppose.

_________________
"We conservatives have an uncanny ability to know what Ronald Reagan would do at any given time. We're talking about hypothetical Super Reagan, the man who never raised taxes or tripled the deficit, and who knocked down the Berlin wall using his nut sack as a wrecking ball." - Stephen Colbert


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipli
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 1:54 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:26 pm
Posts: 3323
Dimwit wrote:
The gospel is not a big tent and life is not a cabaret..


Pretty soon it will be a two-person pup tent for you and bcspace. Maybe you can put on your own drag shows.

_________________
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS

"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipli
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:05 pm 
Dark Lord of the Sith
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 5:16 pm
Posts: 12563
Location: A castellated abbey
Bob Loblaw wrote:

Pretty soon it will be a two-person pup tent for you and bcspace. Maybe you can put on your own drag shows.


Careful, Bob. Who knows what can happen between two guys in a tent?

Image

_________________
And the life of the ebony clock went out with that of the last of the gay. And the flames of the tripods expired. And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipli
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 4:19 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:44 am
Posts: 6064
I'm laughing my arse off that these guys are upset with Harry Reid for basing his information on the same kinds of flimsy sources we find in these Right Wing bog posts Droopy and bcspace keep throwing up at us.

The fact is Romney is a despicable liar and this has been proven already. That Droops and bcspace refuse to acknowledge this is just par for the course. I mean really, what did you expect?

The fact is we don't know if Reid's claim is true or not because Romney won't produce the evidence. It is difficult to imagine that NO ONE besides Romney knows the truth to this. I mean, doesn't the IRS know? And isn't the IRS controlled by that evil dictator Obama? You'd think he'd be able to get that information about this claim, as would Reid, with or without Romney's consent. If so, then Obama knows if this is true. Which means he would be setting himself up for a massive embarrassment in the event that Romney reveals his tax returns and proves them all wrong.

This is Romney's golden opportunity to prove Obama and Reid are a bunch of liars who have no clue what they're talking about.

Yet, he still chooses to sit on the evidence.

The stakes have been raised to a new level, and Romney still wants to hide the truth.

What an idiot and a hypocrite. Remember this is the same guy who attacked Ted Kennedy for not releasing his tax returns, and said he would release his tax returns only after Kennedy did. And then when Kennedy did, Romney changed his mind and decided not to. This is the same guy who demanded that his opponent's spouse's tax returns be released. This is the same guy who accused others of having something to hide if they refused to release tax returns.

Like a typical Mormon brain, Romney's operates on the assumption that standards don't apply to them; only to everyone else. The burden of proof is eternally on the shoulders of everyone else. Hence, the idiotic "put up or shut up" approach to the fact that it is Romney who refuses to "put up."

Just look at how Droopy addresses the fact that Romney lied about Obama's attempt to suppress military votes. He says it isn't a lie because standards don't apply when people in his ideological cult are the culprits. They only apply to those outside it.

_________________
"Faggotry of all sorts isn't going to change LDS doctrine" - bcspace


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipli
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 4:23 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:26 pm
Posts: 3323
Kevin Graham wrote:
Just look at how Droopy addresses the fact that Romney lied about Obama's attempt to suppress military votes. He says it isn't a lie because standards don't apply when people in his ideological cult are the culprits. They only apply to those outside it.


Unfortunately this is a known phenomenon. People are OK with their own candidate lying or shading the truth but not the other candidate.

http://danariely.com/2012/07/30/partisa ... of-ethics/

_________________
"It doesn't seem fair, does it Norm--that I should have so much knowledge when there are people in the world that have to go to bed stupid every night." -- Clifford C. Clavin, USPS

"¡No contaban con mi astucia!" -- El Chapulin Colorado


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipli
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:20 pm 
Nursery

Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 2:50 am
Posts: 2
Droopy wrote:
Quote:
You haven't read up on your swifties in the time since 2004, have you? And the only things you seem to know about John Kerrey are the things you hear from Republican approved media (Fox "Fair and Balanced", the talk shows, maybe) sources. It would be like someone going to the Tanners to learn about Joseph Smith.


Their claims regarding Kerry's medals and other aspects of his conduct while in Vietnam still stand as evidentially substantive and unrefuted, if not directly proven claims, and more importantly, his pivotal role in the Winter Soldier political theater, his friendly liaisons with the North Vietnamese leadership against his own country and in their behalf while the war was still in progress (and while he was still in the navel reserves), and his association with the most extreme anti-American, pro-communist elements of the New Left at the time are historical facts beyond serious argument.

He chose his own path then, and it came back to haunt him, no matter how he tried to sanitize his own history.

Quote:
Harry Reid is not doing anything different than a Repub would be doing, if the tables were switched.


Except that no Republican presidential candidate or president in recent memory has or is doing such stuff. This kind of behavior is confined almost exclusively within the Democratic party, which raises serious questions regarding the entire moral condition of that party and the ideology that drives desperate power madness of this kind.

Quote:
(The only difference is, you wouldn't be whining about it now, you'd be applauding.)


I'm not a Republican, and not particularly a fan of Mitt Romney. You're already running on fumes.

Quote:
You see the "swifties" as having been only telling the truth, doing their patriotic duty, etc., etc., and T. Boone Pickens, who funded the whole thing, as a patriot. Why, because you are a right wing Republican and this is the right wing Republican narrative re: the "swifties". The Democrats, for their part, accept a different narrative. Which narrative you accept depends on what your prejudices are, which party you identify with.


In other words, you don't know what you're talking about, haven't done any substantive reading on the subject, and have nothing to bring to the table but ad hominem circumstantial innuendo.

The head of that group, John O'Neill, a black Vietnam Veteran and lifelong Democrat, debated Kerry in 1971 on the Winter Soldier agitprop and his association with the radical Left. O'Neill started the Swift Vets for Truth, with other vets, many conservative but containing some clear Democrats as well, because Kerry was an utter phony who, like many on the Left at that time, had openly supported and shilled for America's enemies during that war, and had become a legitimate fifth column within America seeking the defeat of the United States and the conquest and subjugation of South Vietnam by the Stalinist North.


John O'Neill and the Swift Boat Veterans for "truth" were hardly concerned with the truth. I could give you many examples.

But one thing that can't be argued is . . . . . . . O'Neill is a white guy, not black.

Doug Reese


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipli
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:29 pm 
CTR B
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Korriban
bcspace wrote:
To assert that a Democrat cannot be a good Mormon is merely D&C 88:81

Quote:
I really think Droopy needs to read Matthew 7:3-5 and deeply ponder its profound message.


No, more like JST Matthew 7:1-2. Why are you defending an organization and philosophy that is dead set against the Gospel of Jesus Christ in almost every possible way? There is even a temple recommend question that directly precludes Democrats and anyone to the left of them (unless they lie or are impossibly ignorant).


It would make more sense if you were to refer to the Gospel of Jesus Christ according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ according to Jesus Christ is not necessarily synonymous with the Gospel of Jesus according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

You're a smart guy BC. I doubt you would make the mistake of conflating the two.

_________________
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-Theodore Roosevelt


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipli
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:32 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:42 pm
Posts: 13724
Location: Koloburbia
Droopy wrote:
The question is now "Can one be considered a faithful Latter day Saint and at the same time be Harry Reid?"



That is a meaningful question. Considering all the abuse Reid has taken from his fellow Mormons, what drives him to remain a faithful member of the Church? From the point of Nevada political expediency, Reid would be better off divesting himself of the Church. If he was bitter toward the Church, what better way to display the bitterness than to show the Church as a vested political entity that does not embrace diversity. This message would be very influential outside of the United States, where conservative political stances already cast us as being undesirable. But oh no, Reid insists on being a faithful Mormon. Time for benighted TBMs to take matters into their own hands!!!

_________________
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipli
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:17 pm 
Nursery

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 5:50 pm
Posts: 1
Regarding the Harry Reid fellow, and if he were to be chastised or similar, by "the Church".
It is important to keep in mind that there is not actually an entity "the Church" but are in fact many separate corporations created by men, that claim to represent a Church entity.
Of late it appears "the Church" entity is in fact a complex of fictional creations from PR department to industrial strength corporate farming and seemingly all things peripheral thereto .
So if an so called Church entity, being a corporately glorified form and being, were to chastise Harry Reid, such entity does so chastise in the name of and on its own limited liability. Apart from the other church corp entities.
So if such an event transpired, it would have an out or retraction readily at tentacle by the mega corp church complex.
Interestingly, Jesus when confronted in the temple with the sort of people that demand worship to corporate beings and other graven images,,, he threw them out. He somehow was not beholden to nor dependant in any way to a corpse fiction to " spread the word",,,,,likely He remains walking in the same manner, eh.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipli
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:24 pm 
CTR B
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:44 pm
Posts: 156
Location: Korriban
I am so grateful that nowhere in the TR interview is this question implied:

"Does your political leanings and principles stand in harmony with the same leanings and principles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

_________________
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-Theodore Roosevelt


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipli
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:03 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:52 am
Posts: 7306
Valentinus wrote:
I am so grateful that nowhere in the TR interview is this question implied:

"Does your political leanings and principles stand in harmony with the same leanings and principles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"


In a bcspace world it does:

"do you affiliate with any organization whose teachings are contrary tothe teachings of the Church?"

"Erm...yes...I'm a Democrat..."

_________________
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.”
Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric

"One, two, three...let's go shopping!"
Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipli
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:24 pm 
tired, less active investigator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:07 am
Posts: 6665
Location: Hungary
Drifting wrote:
Valentinus wrote:
I am so grateful that nowhere in the TR interview is this question implied:

"Does your political leanings and principles stand in harmony with the same leanings and principles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"


In a bcspace world it does:

"do you affiliate with any organization whose teachings are contrary tothe teachings of the Church?"

"Erm...yes...I'm a Democrat..."

In Hungary, the case is more difficult.

We have two right wing party:
- Christian Democratic People's Party (Kereszténydemokrata Néppárt, KDNP)
- Hungarian Civic Union (Fidesz, Magyar Polgári Szövetség) is a major national conservative political party in Hungary. Their original name was: FIDESZ, comes from Alliance of Young Democrats (Fiatal Demokraták Szövetsége) - unfortunately they have became older, so the word "young" must have been eliminated...

BTW these two have 2/3 majority, so they can build something mixture of fascism and socialism. Our prime minister is called - europawide - MiniDuce.

_________________
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipli
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 9:25 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 12:48 pm
Posts: 1609
Tobin wrote:
And the whole idea that Reid is going to be disciplined by the Church for outsmarting Romney is ludicrous. We need more Mormons in the Church like Harry Reid and fewer like Mitt Romney.


and there's no doubt that the brethren in Salt Lake would include themselves in that 'we' (at least the sharper and more high ranking among them).

conservative stuffed-suit politicians like Romney are a-dime-a-dozen within Mormonism, so it's people like Reid and Echo Hawk who (due to their scarcity) are far more valuable to Church HQ in terms of managing their public image. in the same way that the GOP needs a few token African-Americans in their tent to insulate them from charges of racism, the church knows they need a few high profile Democrats within the ranks. additionally, new converts today (just as in the 19th century) are drawn largely from the poorer classes. and these folks, whether in the US or abroad, are more likely to have politics that align with labor rather than capital.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is Harry Reid Now Moving Toward Official Church Discipli
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 11:04 am 
2nd Quorum of Seventy

Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 6:34 pm
Posts: 717
Quote:
are drawn largely from the poorer classes. and these folks, whether in the US or abroad, are more likely to have politics that align with labor rather than capital.


From any one here who has created and provided jobs. Id sure love to know how  labor can exist without capital first.  Should I just wait for Harry to explain it?

_________________
"It's not so much that FARMS scholarship in the area Book of Mormon historicity is "rejected' by the secular academic community as it is they are "ignored". [Daniel Peterson, May, 2004]


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 208 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Craig Paxton, DrW, Fence Sitter, Google [Bot], Jaybear, No_Hidden_Agenda and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group