MrShorty reacted to estradling75 in Are Latter-day Saints unified?
There is also the flip side of that... When a faithful member goes to church and participates... How many people might they uplift or strengthen? Even if only a little bit? Our covenants include helping others.
Yet to many members who are under these covenants make church attendance all about them. What they need... what they get... and with such a selfish mindset they end up with nothing but misery. Which is exactly what one should expect from such a covenant violation.
It is one of those gospel paradoxes that those that go to church thinking what can they give, who can they help... tend to get more out of it then those that always are about what they get out of it.
MrShorty reacted to estradling75 in Are Latter-day Saints unified?
I call it the pendulum swing. Yes I realize that needs to be explained. We are suppose to be on the strait and narrow path. But some time, individually, as families, and as a church we can stray from the path. That is when the watchmen (The prophets and apostles) do their job and push us back in the right direction. However many take the current warning and effectively ignore all the other warning and scriptures. This means they go to the another extreme. They do not land on the strait and narrow path but they might be able to wave to it as they cross over it.
In this case our watchmen have been strongly pushing the Family and Individual gospel studies aspect of the Gospel. Maybe they saw us straying thinking the church aspect was all we needed, Or maybe they foresaw the Church aspect being shutdown/greatly limited due to COVID.
Either way now we are seeing the pendulum swing the other direction. Members of the Church forgetting/ minimizing the fact that they Lord and his Gospel requires us to gather together beyond family. (Currently we are being forced not to gather by the Goverment mandates on COVID that is not on us, but on them, and the church is working that as best it can)
The simple fact is the gospel has always being a hybrid Individual, Family, Church thing. And all parts in proper balance are required of the Lord. Those member who think and acting as if the Church is no longer important or necessary are just as wrong minded as those that mistakenly think the church is all we needed.
As for the failing of leaders... Yes it happens and yes they will be held accountable. But the simple fact the sins of one do not excuse the sins of another. Alma's son behavior did not transfer the sins of the disbelieving on to his own head. That sin remained firmly on them, rather he added to the sum total of collected sins with sins of his own. Alma called his son to repentance as he needed to, but that did not kept the others from being condemned for not believing... no matter what justification they used.
Everyone (except Christ) sins. This makes the church a hospital for sinners. Sadly to many people when they see the sins of there follow church members/leaders forget this and use it to justify doing whatever sin they really wished for anyway.
MrShorty reacted to priesthoodpower in Are Latter-day Saints unified?
"..for when they saw your conduct they would not believe in my words."
My mission president shared this with us to show the responsibility we had to not only share the gospel but to not deter anyone from it due to any irreverent behavior. In Alma it was Corinatons pursuit of "harlots", For us in our mission it meant every little thing pertaining to breaking the smallest of rules like being on time to everything, always dressing properly, never having contention etc..
I use this story from my mission to show that the member in leadership had the higher responsibility, he will be held accountable for his action/words toward your brother. No one is perfect and Im sure that the members many good deeds will out weight the bad ones but at the very least Im sure the Lord will take into account this incident on your brothers behalf.
Members being offended at church is a way to common thing and that is why I feel the direction we are heading toward is less church and more God.
MrShorty reacted to SpiritDragon in Are Latter-day Saints unified?
As for the green tea in supplements issue I have often wished that more clarification be given on that front, but I can see why leaving it to individual agency is also a fine idea. I can see the argument from both sides. On the one hand, it is an extract from a particular plant, but not the plant itself, and not being used in the hot drink form, for what that's worth. In this way, it might really be looked at more like taking vitamin C which is also a component of tea. Usually, EGCG is the main compound being referred to as green tea extract and it can be found in other foods such as apples - so does the fact that it was extracted from green tea make it wrong to ingest in and of itself when it's no longer part of the tea?
On the flip side, I completely understand the desire to avoid it as well. Modern revelation has made it clear that coffee and tea are what is referred to specifically by hot drinks, so even if it's not being had in a hot drink form it's still coffee or tea, at least insofar as say having an iced tea or frozen coffee treat. If it's processed, at what point does it (or is there a point) where it would no longer be coffee or tea? Might just be best to avoid it altogether. This position can be strengthened by the idea that for years caffeine was viewed as the culprit, but that may have been a case of members looking to scientifically validate what the lord has said and have nothing to do with what we've been commanded. To my knowledge, we have no specific chemical in coffee or tea that has been validated as the reason to avoid it, so in not knowing what components are the issue, perhaps it's best to avoid anything and everything to do with it.
While I can understand both sides, I personally opt to avoid supplements with green tea extract or EGCG knowing it was most likely sourced from green tea, but sometimes it can be a real pain because it's in so many things and has caused me to have to find new sources as it's been added to formulations I used to use and enjoy.
MrShorty reacted to prisonchaplain in Becoming like God
Doctrine has been severely downgraded in the last 3-4 generations. Perhaps it held too high a place in past centuries. Seventh-Day Adventists were treated as outsiders, but are now mostly accepted. Arminians (free will) used to be mostly rejected by Calvinists. Catholics were also suspect...and they suspected Protestants. Today, our problem is the opposite. The question of who God actually is seems almost irrelevant to most. Such is the outcome of postmodernism in churches.
@Vort is no post-modern. I've experienced more agreement with him than I suspect he has with some of the more progressive elements in the church. So, the question becomes just how important is the doctrine of God? Very? Sure. Eternal life or damnation? Well...that's the ultimate question. I hate that it divides us, but I also don't want to get it wrong.
MrShorty reacted to Vort in Thought by analogy
I have a dog. To be more precise, my children have a dog, and I pay for it. Let me tell you a little bit about my dog.
This dog is not a stupid animal. She obviously cannot do much of what a human can do; she is utterly unable to speak, she can't really understand what we're saying in anything but the most basic sense, and she's permanently stuck at a level of social awareness that most three-year-old children have gotten beyond. She seems to have only a vague sense of time. She obviously can remember past events, which guide her present actions. But her sense of the future is limited to anticipation of the immediate future, maybe the next few minutes. I can't tell that she spends any time at all pondering something as far away in time as, say, later this evening or tomorrow. But she is quite sensitive to emotion. She can tell when things are relaxed or when there is tension. She can tell when my daughter is upset, or when I'm frustrated, or when someone is angry. Being without language, her range of responses is limited, but she can and does respond to things, sometimes quite enthusiastically, and mostly in ways that would be considered appropriate. While I would only rarely characterize the dog's thinking as logical in any meaningful sense, I would certainly say it is rational.
I honestly do not think my dog is all that different from humans in how she thinks. In fact, I believe that her thinking is very similar to how we think, to the point that I would almost say that her thought processes are subset of our (human) thought processes. I suspect that the reason dog owners can intuit so well how their dogs are feeling is because it's possible for human thought to model dog thought very closely; you just select the doggy-appropriate components of your own human thoughts, and you get a very serviceable dog thought model.
What, then, sets human thought apart from dog thought? How is the human experience fundamentally different from that of a dog? Obviously, our language ability is huge, an immense chasm that separates human brains from dog brains, indeed that separates human brains from the brains of all or at least most other creatures. How about spatial awareness? No, some animals have that in similar measure to human beings, perhaps even more. How about the fact that we are children of God? Well, yes, that certainly must confer some unique attributes, but that begs the question: What are those unique attributes? Agency is a wonderful guess, and I suppose that must be true; we are moral agents, while animals appear not to be. But this is an effect, not an attribute. We are moral agents because we have certain abilities; we don't have those abilities because we are agents. The arrow points the other direction.
So again, what makes human thought unique, different from that of the higher animals that (other than language) seem to have many almost human-seeming mental abilities?
I am slowly becoming convinced that what sets human thought apart from that of higher vertebrates is our ability to abstract patterns out of highly disparate situations and then recognize commonality between those patterns. In short, I think our ability to analogize is a large part of what makes us human. I look at my relationship with my brother, some areas of concord and some of discord. I think of mowing my lawn, how some parts are straightforward and some present challenges. And then my brain somehow takes some problematic aspect of my relationship with my brother and some problematic aspect of mowing the lawn and says, "Hey, Vort! Pay attention! Interacting with your brother IS JUST LIKE mowing your lawn!" I can then respond, "Stupid brain, don't you know that my relationship with my brother is a different class of phenomenon from mowing my lawn? Can't you recognize that the two are completely dissimilar, utterly unrelated?" Or I can respond, "Hey, yeah, there really are similarities. This is worth thinking about." I do not believe that animals can do this to a very great extent, even smart animals.
I have a lot of thoughts on this topic. I'm creating this thread as a place to explain, examine, and hash out some of these thoughts. I had a fascinating conversation a few minutes ago with my 14-year-old, having to do with (I'm writing this so I don't forget) comparing operation of the human brain to the seven-level OSI model and supposing that conscious decision-making, personality, and processing of perception is sort of the "topmost layer" of this model. Consequences of this idea are highly intriguing to me. But it's all analogy.
Whether this thread goes anywhere, whether anyone cares about it, whether I even get back to it, remains to be seen. But I think the idea has merit and is worth exploring. Obviously, since I'm posting this, I don't expect this to be just me sounding off. I welcome anyone else's insights into this idea.
MrShorty reacted to NeuroTypical in LDS view on Contraception
"Based on the above statements"? What an odd thing to say. You're not quoting scripture, you're quoting church policy, based on God's commandments.
Plus, nothing about the above statements you quoted, say anything about the number of children. The closest is "Decisions about birth control and the consequences of those decisions rest solely with each married couple."
So I'd have to say no, based on the statements you quote, a couple who has children is not violating God's commandment to have children.
Color me perplexed at the question.
MrShorty reacted to Just_A_Guy in LDS view on Contraception
Mormons—like most groups bound by a common ideology—often fail to live up to our highest principles. But we are told, in no uncertain terms, to avoid unnecessary judgments of others who are outside of our “stewardship” (even more so when we don’t have the facts); and I think dealing in hypotheticals like this comes uncomfortably close to the line.
If the player were me: I’d probably have more kids. If the player (or his wife) were someone close to me, I’d probably try (if they were willing to talk about it) to get a fair sense of their considerations and thought processes, and if a suitable occasion presented itself I might perhaps gently encourage them to consider the possibility of having more.
But then, I have six kids as it is; and I don’t make anywhere near five million bucks.
MrShorty reacted to estradling75 in nothing and everything
I think the parable of the Talents applies here. Some people start off with more then others. Others ended up with more then others. But that did not seem to really matter to the Lord. Those that diligently tried to do the will of their Lord pleased him no matter the results. Those that did not try, did not please the Lord.
In this world some of us might start off in what appears to be a more advantageous position, or a more disadvantageous position. The only way it matters is in how it affect our willingness to try to do the will of the Lord. That means there is no "collective answer" to the question. But rather a bunch of highly individualized answers
MrShorty reacted to Connie in nothing and everything
We should be very careful about saying the circumstances we live in don’t matter in an eternal perspective. Eternal perspective is God’s perspective. And His purpose was to send us here to “prove us” (see Abraham 3:25). He does this through “trying our patience and faith” (see Mosiah 23:21). And that is accomplished through circumstance. Our individualized process of salvation will often include circumstantial commandments.
For example, He told Lehi to leave his home in Jerusalem and take his family to a far away land. Should Lehi have just stayed because changing his circumstance “didn’t really matter” in an eternal perspective? Obviously it mattered in God’s perspective. He is the one who told him to do it.
We are seeking to build God’s kingdom on earth. How do we build a Celestial society without striving to change Telestial circumstance? Exaltation does not happen in isolation. Service is a huge part of it. Take Joseph in Egypt. Should he have remained in prison because circumstances “don’t matter?” No. He became the best prisoner he could be, and he used his spiritual gifts and talents to get himself out and become a blessing to not only his own family but all of Egypt.
“This life is the time to prepare to meet God” (Alma 34:32). We are to “act” and not just “be acted upon” (see 2 Nephi 2:16).
MrShorty reacted to askandanswer in nothing and everything
Thanks @Just_A_Guy I mostly agree with what you've said here. The point I'm thinking about here is the idea that if all people, regardless of their circumstances in life have an equal opportunity for salvation, then the circumstances of one's life become minutely relevant, at best, so there's no point in getting too concerned about them. In fact, if it becomes the case that working on changing one's circumstances in life lessens one's focus on salvation, or becoming, then placing an unbalanced emphasis on achieving such a change could be detrimental - and yet that is what so many of us seem to attach such a high priority to. To put it into a practical context, perhaps the person in solitary confinement has just as much opportunity for salvation as the person running for political office, as does the person running a major corporation, as does the begger in the street. And yet, typically, there focus would be on changing the circumstances of their life by getting out of solitary, and regaining their freedom, or winning the election, or increasing the annual dividend, or finding the next meal. None of those things, in an eternal perspective, matter very much but that seems to be where most of our efforts go.
MrShorty reacted to Just_A_Guy in nothing and everything
The trouble I have with answering the question is, it assumes “salvation” is merely the act of achieving a “finish line” that leaves all who cross it in identical situations more-or-less on the same timeline. Thus, the correct answer (“yes”) sounds horrendously unfair.
”Salvation” is maybe better perceived as a process of “becoming”, and that’s going to be a very individualized process. What works to fully refine one person, may not work for another; and thus it probably isn’t particularly useful to get hung up on the idea of “fairness” or “equality” where the experiences of mortality are concerned.
MrShorty reacted to Traveler in Rejoice With Me! Two Milestones Almost Reached
I currently drive a car (GMC Suburban) that is 28 years old. It has a tape deck that no one can use any more - the tapes are all worn out and it is too difficult to replace them. I have taken excellent care of the car and on average it cost me about $500 a year for repairs. I still change the oil every 5,000 miles (I use synthetic oil). My mechanic loves it more than I do. It is a work horse that pulls my trailer - my kids borrow it almost as much as I use it. It needs a new wire harness for the positive side of the battery and replacement fuse for the cigarette lighter - my wife tried to run a food blender on a converter plugged into the cigarette lighter. I have decided it best to not let anyone use the cigarette lighter any more. People ask why I do not replace my car and get a new one. I respond that it does not make sense to pay $70,000 for a car that will do no more than my current car and my phone.
The one car I wish I had kept was a 1957 Triumph TR3A. I purchased it while I was single and in the army and had it until my wife became pregnant and said it was too difficult to get in and out of. If I had kept it I would have put it on a aluminum frame and upgraded the engine and transmission (and just about everything else) except the exterior look. It is by far the funnest and most enjoyable car I have ever ridden in and it could be started with a crank - which I did only once. When I learned where the term "cranky" came from.
MrShorty reacted to MarginOfError in LDS view on Contraception
The policy description under Birth Control was updated just a few weeks ago. The current policy is in the General Handbook, section 38.6.4
This does not represent a major change from the previous policy; with the only noticeable difference being that the previous policy explicitly encouraged members considering surgical sterilization to seek counsel from their priesthood leaders. The new policy implicitly removes priesthood leaders from the decision making process.
MrShorty reacted to NeuroTypical in Are Latter-day Saints unified?
I figure the gospel pavilion is wide enough to cover all sorts of God's children, with all sorts of differing beliefs, even some pretty dang divided beliefs. That said:
Yeah, it's not that simple. Kind of like how scripture is full of commandments to both not judge, and judge righteously, we see similar admonitions about resisting/contending/fighting/arguing.
D&C 71:5-11: Now, behold this is wisdom; whoso readeth, let him understand and receive also; For unto him that receiveth it shall be given more abundantly, even power. Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest."
1 Peter 3:15: "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"
1 Thessalonians 5:21: "Prove all things; hold fast to which is good."
It's important to not engage in in-fighting about gospel-related matters. We are often supposed to fight and contend and stand and argue on lots of other topics with lots of other folk.
MrShorty reacted to Just_A_Guy in Three Official Proclamations
1. In the first 50 years of the LDS Church, congregations might vote on literally anything. Just like some modern Evangecal preachers might punctuate a passionate sermon with a “can I get an amen?”, early LDS leaders often would teach a sermon and then invite the congregation to take a “sustaining vote”, recommitting themselves individually and collectively to the principle in question.
On the other hand, LDS scripture dictates that the Church should be run by “common consent”. The contours of that, both in theory and in historical practice, are fuzzy; but the general modern interpretation is that new leaders and new scriptural canon must be accepted by a sustaining vote of the congregation to which it applies.
2. First off, as a point of pedantry—OD-1 technically encompasses only the announcement signed by President Woodruff. The rest of the material in the D&C is explanatory material, and its canonical status is perhaps a little less certain.
Second: in point of fact, the explanatory statement speaks of “confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice)”. In other words: Woodruff sensed that most of the Church was perfectly willing to stop entering new plural marriages but was waiting for guidance from the church leadership. IIRC Woodruff himself had authorized relatively few plural marriages during his tenure as president, and had authorized none for about a year before the Manifesto. (I should note that individual apostles had done so through this period, and continued to do so afterwards; in those days the apostles were much more willing to act independently of the church president’s authority). But institutionally, from Woodruff’s perspective: what was at play as of October 1890 was not really the ongoing practice of polygamy; but the Church’s theoretical right to maybe resume the practice at some undefined point in the future. Woodruff (under, I believe, divine guidance) felt it wasn’t worth it. He saw temple worship as the culmination of the “restoration” that Mormonism encompassed—to his mind the point of being a Mormon wasn’t just to save the living people around you, but your dead ancestors who had gone before. That could not happen without temples. (There’s a book called “Wilford Woodruff’s Witness” by Jennifer Ann Mackley that gets into this, if you’re interested.)
I think it’s also worth noting just how tightly the federal government was clamping down in Mormonism. Mormons—polygamist or not—couldn’t vote in Idaho, and the feds were looking at expanding that nationwide. Women’s suffrage in Utah had been revoked. Mormons couldn’t immigrate. Missionaries going abroad couldn’t count on the assistance or protection of the US government or embassies or consulates abroad. The Church institutionally had been disincorporated; any successor institutions were banned from owning property whose value exceeded $50,000 in total (and the Feds were, I believe, getting ready to move that amount down to zero); nearly all its buildings and properties (tithing yards, church farms and animal herds, Indian farm ministries, schools, a number of local meetinghouses, the Church historian’s office, Church-owned quarries and construction enterprises, the Perpetual Emigration Fund), except the temples, were already in receivership; and the courts had just ruled that the legal strategies and arguments the church had deployed to try to save its three operating temples as well as the nearly-completed Salt Lake temple and the other structures on the temple block, were invalid.
Even more than that: As a community Mormonism was (and is) held together largely by leadership in its highest echelons who crisscrossed Utah Territory, the United States, and the world; visiting congregations, offering love and support and news from congregations elsewhere, resolving doctrinal questions, and reinforcing the members’ sense of purpose. That could not happen purely by letter; especially in the 1890s. Remember, Mormonism’s raison d’etre was the idea that primitive Christianity fell into error and ultimately lost its divine authority, in large part because its leadership had eventually been prevented from doing the kind of roving ministry that characterized the lives of Paul in ancient times and Brigham, Heber, and Parley in the 19th century. Church members in the 1880s certainly looked to God for protection; but from a material standpoint they did see the actions of the federal government as being quite capable of resulting in the complete dissolution of the LDS Church—which, as a number of congresscritters in Washington openly confessed, was indeed the underlying intent of these federal actions.
MrShorty reacted to Just_A_Guy in Book of Mormon white supremacy??
Granted; but I understood you as saying that non-racial “power abuse” is just as bad as race-based.
I can only cite to Jacob 3 so many times here, you know.
Yes, thats how we justify it. That’s how many segregationists justifies their preferences, too.
The purpose for my saying this isn’t to suggest that the Church is right or wrong for having separate branches; or that the Nephites were right or wrong to segregate from the Anti-Nephi-Lehis. My purpose is to out that defining “abuses of power” is an inconveniently slippery business; and all too often when we try to identify “abuses” we wind up falling into the trap of concluding that “it’s different when THEY do it”.
MrShorty reacted to Just_A_Guy in Book of Mormon white supremacy??
I largely agree; with the following caveats:
—“Power abuses”, very often, are in the eye of the beholder. The Lamanites sincerely believed themselves to be the victims of Nephite usurpations (see Mosiah 10). In Alma 50, Moroni launches a pre-emptive war against Lamanites living in the east wilderness. Mormon hints, in Alma 43:30, that Moroni’s defensive strategies may not have fallen under the prevailing concept of “just war” as the Nephites and Lamanites has thitherto understood the notion.
4 Nephi 1, and the rantings of antichrists like Korihor, show that nonbelievers in a majoritarian Zion society often tend to consider themselves oppressed—and will develop a hatred for the Saints as a result. Certainly, we want to be open to the idea that there are things we can do better. On the other hand, we don’t need to immediately be swept into a wave of oikophobia just because some malcontents who have consistently refused to do the things we have done, start claiming that they are abused or oppressed because they don’t have all the things we have.
—I think Jacob 3 establishes a prima facie case that racism was a problem in early Nephite times; though we don’t really know the countours/applications of that racism other than that it led to generic Nephite “revilings” (whatever that meant). It may also be worth noting that there seems to be no evidence that the Nephites made a wholesale effort to integrate Anti-Nephi-Lehites into their own mainstream society—they lived separately and away from the Nephite population centers; and, when their descendants entered military service, they fought in separate units. George Wallace would have approved.
MrShorty reacted to Jamie123 in socialism
You make some good points - I'm not saying I'm necessarily right, and you're necessarily wrong. Our perspective is coloured by what we've been conditioned to consider "normal" - which is why debate like this is important to help us think "out of the box".
I would say this though in response to:
You certainly would get to "pick" if you had the money. And even now people still get to pick Eton or Harrow or Winchester or Malvern or Westminster or Rugby or Charterhouse...etc. etc... for their kids' education if they can afford the fees. By making all schools fee-paying you'd certainly offer a wealth of "choice" to the rich, at the expense of giving no choice whatsoever to the poor. And for the poorest, the one choice available would be "no school at all". We'd be back to Oliver Twist times, with gangs of school-age urchins roaming the streets "picking a pocket or two", working for Fagin and living on moldy sausages and gin.
MrShorty reacted to Jamie123 in socialism
Absolutely. If everyone were Christlike, there would be no need for socialism. Similarly, if everyone were honest, there would be no need for police, and the rhetoric of the BLM people would be spot on!
But I cannot equate having a conscience with "Christianity". It's a clear fallacy that without believing in God, you can have no sense of right or wrong. Is Richard Dawkins dragged before the beak every other day for beating up old ladies and stealing their pensions? No, I don't think he is, is he?
MrShorty reacted to Jamie123 in socialism
I wouldn't describe myself as a socialist exactly, but I've grown up in a society which is more socialist than the USA, so a lot of "socialist" ideas seem like common sense to me. But of course, that's my upbringing talking.
Socialized healthcare for example: in the States, a great many people moan about how unfair it is that well-to-do people should be forced to pay the bulk of the cost of healthcare which will be made available to poor people, who couldn't otherwise afford it. But very few of these same people complain about paying pro rata for policing, education, prisons, the army, navy, air force, coast guard, public libraries, the fire service and the law courts - things which exist for the benefit of the rich AND the poor.
No rich person ever says: "O poor pitiful me, having to pay my tax dollars* for the police to investigate a break-in at my poor neighbour's tumble-down, rat-infested hovel, when I'm so lucky that my gold-plated mansion has never been burgled."
Our system (which some would label "socialist") merely adds healthcare to that already long list of publicly funded services which all but the loony-extreme Republican would defend. And in the UK this been accepted for many years: even Margaret Thatcher - the least socialist prime minister we've had in recent history - never suggested abolishing the NHS, any more than she suggested "defunding the police".
I presented this argument on this very forum about 10 years ago, to be rebutted with the suggestion that "policing, education...blah blah blah...etc. etc." are necessary for "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and that public healthcare (for some inarticulable reason) is not.
* Why is it Americans pay "taxes" for things they approve of, and "tax dollars" for things they don't?
MrShorty reacted to estradling75 in The Plan of Salvation
For as much as we know about the pre-existence there is more we do not know.
Many of your question about exact details we do not know.
However lets clarify come misunderstandings you do have. I make all kinds of plans... and I usually find out very quickly that they will not work. While we are commonly told that Satan had a plan.. everything we seen and learn at are taught tells us his plan would not work. Thus Satan has a plan but there is every indication that his "promises" were lies.
For those that followed him everything points to them having full Light and Truth and choosing to embrace and side with Darkness and Lies. Why does anyone one do that?.. I have no idea but people do all the time.
Finally angels are not a different type or class in the Restored Gospel theology. They are simply people like us but in a Pre-Mortal or Post Mortal state, who have an assignment to do something among mortals.
MrShorty reacted to ldsguy422 in Liberals in the Church
I feel like the ward I live in is pretty close to 50-50 on Democrats and Republicans. Members bring up politics far too often, IMO. Whenever I'm teaching a Sunday School class and someone interjects with a political comment, I usually respond by saying, "Hey, if you have something political to say, please save it for a testimony meeting." Politically-charged comments are inevitably going to irritate someone in the class. Most people can see that my comment is facetious, and it quickly diffuses an otherwise tense situation.