Priorities

[MarginOfError]

Hi MOE, :)

If I may, How can the first Presidency of the LDS ( I think that is the very top as far as us mortals go, no?) have NO STANCE on something like this :confused:

I was told by another LDS member that the LDS leadership did indeed have strong stances and offered direction and teachings to their members. I guess that is not the case??:confused:

I can't explain why they have no stance. But looking at official statements, it's a fact--they don't.

However, just because the First Presidency doesn't have an opinion, that doesn't mean that individual members are required to have the same no opinion. Members are free to have whatever opinion they choose. They are not, however, permitted to use their station, status, or calling in the Church to imply that the Church has an opinion.

[hordak]

This fetus would have been someone's son or daughter..... a beloved son or daughter of God......until someone ruthlessly, violently suctioned the life from out of the mother's womb......and statistically it was likely done because the would be mother didn't want to be inconvenienced by her poor decisions.

No argument there. I agree with you 100%.Personally I think abortion is the most selfish, disgusting,vile thing a person can do in most cases. But I'm not talking about the act of abortion itself.I speaking of what to do once the wrong has been done.

[Hemidakota]

I can't explain why they have no stance. But looking at official statements, it's a fact--they don't.

However, just because the First Presidency doesn't have an opinion, that doesn't mean that individual members are required to have the same no opinion. Members are free to have whatever opinion they choose. They are not, however, permitted to use their station, status, or calling in the Church to imply that the Church has an opinion.

Each of member of the Quorum do have opinions, almost every topic but the priority is building the kingdom unless it will effect the longevity of the church. Then they will have to intervene.

[Hemidakota]

No argument there. I agree with you 100%.Personally I think abortion is the most selfish, disgusting,vile thing a person can do in most cases. But I'm not talking about the act of abortion itself.I speaking of what to do once the wrong has been done.

Any sin is disgusting...

[candyprpl]

Just because the First Presidency doesn't have an official stance on the issue doesn't mean that we are not guided. We are guided to read scriptures, study and ponder and pray about these issues and then go where our personal revelations guide us.

Heavenly Father has the power to come down here and take a stance on these issues but doesn't -- why? He loves us and wants us to learn and grow -- we can't do that if He were to just make us choose the right.

I feel (IMHO) that the First Presidency gives this kind of guidance.:)

[bytor2112]

The church doesn't need to issue an official statement. As members we have the Holy Spirit as our companion if we live worthily and he will guide each of us toward truth and light and righteosuness. And everyone is given the light of Christ....whether they choose to follow or not is a different story.

[Wingnut]

And everyone is given the light of Christ....whether they choose to follow or not is a different story.

It goes back to the moral agency that we were discussing on another thread.

[Hemidakota]

Less governing and more attunement to that Spirit is needed in this life.

[Justice]

Are we all done trashing the new President-Elect yet?

Why does a difference in opionin or belief automatically mean someone is trashing a person?

This is getting more and more prevalent in today's society, and I think one of Satan's tools. It keeps the people who understand truth from wanting to express it and "offend" those who teach incorrect principles.

I think it's time those of us who know truth forget that we may be offending the professors of untruth.

The night of the election, after it was over, I asked 5 people at work what they thought of the election results, and 3 of them said something to the effect of, "Well, I don't want to offend anyone, but I was disappointed. But there's nothing we can do about it now."

It is this fear of offending others that made us sit back while they removed prayer from schools, the 10 commandments from the courthouse, legalize abortion, permit same-sex marriage, on and on. Those pushing Satan's agenda don't care one bit who they offend or what freedoms they take away, as long as they get what they want.

They candy coat it with things like "we should be able to choose whether or not we give birth." Well, then we should be able to choose whether or not I come into your house and rob your belongings and threaten your family. Afterall, it's freedom to injure others they're after, isn't it?

I think we need to stop worrying whether or not we are offending others when we speak what we know is true, or push God-centered agendas. The time has long past.

I'm not a Democrat, Republican, or any other party. The only organization I have allegiance to is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. I vote principles when I cast my vote. In fact, I voted for 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans, and 4 people belonging to other smaller parties in my local elections. So please don't misunderstand my words as criticizing any party or person individually. I do what I can to stand against anything I believe to be untrue.

[Guest ceeboo]

It is this fear of offending others that made us sit back while they removed prayer from schools, the 10 commandments from the courthouse, legalize abortion, permit same-sex marriage, on and on. Those pushing Satan's agenda don't care one bit who they offend or what freedoms they take away, as long as they get what they want.

I think we need to stop worrying whether or not we are offending others when we speak what we know is true, or push God-centered agendas. The time has long past.

Hello Justice,

I agree 100 % :)

I would add that not only are we " so called Christians " sitting back, But we are more and more commonly looking the other way. It is very sad to me, that many of us Christians find excuses or reasons to justify our " so called " political choices we claim to have.

The very first and most important thing we must stand for is " God centered " policy and agendas. The Republican, Democrat, Independent thing SHOULD ( IMHO ) take a distant back seat to a Country and a World that is becoming more and more focused on " Me " and further and further away from the Lord.

SAD, IMHO, that we Christians put things like economics, health care, jobs, and other selfish policies on an equal ( or in many cases ) higher priority scale than the very commands, laws, and teachings of our King and Savior of ALL MANKIND, JESUS CHRIST.

Sorry to be so direct and possibly offensiveto some BUT I BELIEVE IT TO BE CRUTIAL TO STAND TALL ( UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE ) FOR CHRIST. Especially in todays lost and broken world !!!!

God bless,

Carl

Edited November 15, 2008 by ceeboo

[Wingnut]

The night of the election, after it was over, I asked 5 people at work what they thought of the election results, and 3 of them said something to the effect of, "Well, I don't want to offend anyone, but I was disappointed. But there's nothing we can do about it now."

Being disappointed is one thing. Continuing to create discussion that (on the surface) appears to be for the sake of whining that one's candidate didn't win and now the country is going to you-know-where in a handbasket is another. I have no problem with people who express disappointment.

And you may have noticed throughout the rest of this thread that I've moved on anyway.

[bytor2112]

Wingnut....the country is going to you know where in a handbasket and has been for a while......Obama is just a new driver heading us in the same direction. The OP is really about abortion and not so-much Obama....except for his views regarding the issue. As a LDS and as an American I am ashamed of abortion and really don't want my tax dollars used to support it...do you? Would you give a friend money to get an abortion? I am betting that you wouldn't. Then why should we support it being done through the government(and I am not saying that you do support it)? I must say....I wish the argument was over right and wrong and not right and left. As for the election I have moved on as well.......until the next campaign season begins in a couple of years. Ugghhh. Edited November 15, 2008 by bytor2112

[pam]

I just briefly skimmed through this thread so if my remarks are not in line I apologize. I read a couple of questions or remarks about why the First Presidency doesn't take more of a stand on moral issues. Or why the "Church" doesn't.

I can only add my two cents here for what they are worth. The "Church" is it's members. The First Presidency guides us and teaches us to follow the Spirit. The First Presidency gives us words of counsel that I believe come from our Heavenly Father. It's up to us to use that counsel and stand up for what we believe and be vocal.

So while the "Church" (as many perceive) may not be extremely vocal about moral issues..again the Church is it's members. If we sit back apathetic to the things that are happening in our country and in the world is it the Church' fault? In a way it is. We are the Church. We as members of the Church need to stand up for the things we believe. We need to follow the counsel of the First Presidency. We need to follow the Councel of the Lord.

The election is done. Now we as members need to pray for our President Elect. That he will make choices that protect our religious freedoms. That he will make choices that will unite not tear down our country.

Edited November 15, 2008 by pam

[Guest ceeboo]

I must say....I wish the argument was over right and wrong and not right and left.

I too wish that the argument was over right and wrong and not clouded over our own selfish and bias political views and opinions.

Additionaly, I would love to see an argument over the stance and examples we as Christians should ( or should not ) be taking over these very deep moral issues.

To be clear, I fall solidly on the side of the " SHOULD " be taking. After all, IMHO, ceeboo is first and formost a Christ follower and a distant second a political label.

[Guest ceeboo]

I can only add my two cents here for what they are worth. The "Church" is it's members. The First Presidency guides us and teaches us to follow the Spirit. The First Presidency gives us words of counsel that I believe come from our Heavenly Father. It's up to us to use that counsel and stand up for what we believe and be vocal.

So while the "Church" may not be extremely vocal about moral issues..again the Church is it's members. If we sit back apathetic to the things that are happening in our country and in the world is it the Church' fault? In a way it is. We are the Church. We as members of the Church need to stand up for the things we believe. We need to follow the counsel of the First Presidency. We need to follow the Councel of the Lord.

Good morning my favorite cookie friend :)

Ceeboo is not trying to be contentious, I am simply asking for your perspective on this :)

What are the words of counsel you are given ???

How can the Church NOT be vocal in regards to moral issues ?? ( What could possibly be more important to a body of Christ then that )??? If NOT this, what are they vocal on ??

What if the members have different " follow the Spirit " views ??

Please forgive me on this, I simply do not get the " lack " of a stance by the Leaders.

I am not saying that there are not many Catholics that cast a vote against the teachings of the Catholic Church ( I know some and have heard their " blah blah blah". I am saying that the Church ( as well as the Leaders, Pope, Bishops, Priests ) are completly together as well as guide us in these very important moral issues. They DO NOT waver, under any circumstance.

They do EXACTLY what I feel they should do as our Leaders of our body of Christ and do indeed set an example to ALL the world to see. Regardless of any consequences. It IMHO, is not to be popular to all BUT INDEED TO STAND WITH THE LORD AND AGAINST ALL THAT GOES AGAINST THE LORD.

Peace,

Carl

Edited November 15, 2008 by ceeboo

[pam]

Hello my Catholic friend.

You aren't being contentious at all. In fact you are asking very valid questions. If I may answer you later this evening I will attempt to explain what I mean. I find I am out of time at the moment as I have to head to work. But I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your questions.

[Guest ceeboo]

Hello my Catholic friend.

You aren't being contentious at all. In fact you are asking very valid questions. If I may answer you later this evening I will attempt to explain what I mean. I find I am out of time at the moment as I have to head to work. But I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your questions.

Thanks !!!!:)

Have a great day at work :):):)

[Wingnut]

As for the election I have moved on as well.......until the next campaign season begins in a couple of years. Ugghhh.

You mean next year?

(I really hope not...I ditto the aforementioned 'Ugghhh'.)

[Justice]

Being disappointed is one thing. Continuing to create discussion that (on the surface) appears to be for the sake of whining that one's candidate didn't win and now the country is going to you-know-where in a handbasket is another. I have no problem with people who express disappointment.

And you may have noticed throughout the rest of this thread that I've moved on anyway.

I never said I was disappointed. I never said who I voted for. And, I thought I clearly expressed that it's not the candidates that I'm concerned about, but the principles.

That the country is going to you-know-where in a handbasket is all about the issues and not specific people. The President is checked and we have somewhat of a balance. I don't think Obama will be the downfall of America. However, if we further legalize abortion, same-sex marriage; continue to remove God from schools and courthouses, then we will get what's coming to us... justly.

I really don't care what party or political affiliation people are, what I care about are the issues and principles that they promote.

Again, when we say we are for or against principles, why do people have to take that as trashing a person?

[Wingnut]

I never said I was disappointed. I never said who I voted for. And, I thought I clearly expressed that it's not the candidates that I'm concerned about, but the principles.

I wasn't speaking specifically to or about you.

Again, when we say we are for or against principles, why do people have to take that as trashing a person?

Again, I've moved on already.

[Justice]

I wasn't speaking specifically to or about you.

Okay, my bad. I just figured since you quoted me you were directing your comments to me. But, I re-read what you said and it can be taken as a general comment.

In any case, we realy need to be more worried about what we vote for and not what party a particular person belongs to, or how they promise to fix America's finances. The only way to fix our finances is to repent. The Book of Mormon makes it perfectly clear that any nation who occupies this land must serve the God of the land, Jesus Christ, or their wealth will become "slippery" and they will be destroyed from off the face of the land.

[pam]

Okay Ceeboo I promised I would attempt to answer your question. Hopefully I won't make it more confusing as it is late into the evening.

I can't answer why The First Presidency (leaders of the LDS Church) aren't more vocal in the public eye. However they are vocal to it's members.

There are many ways they accomplish this. We have our General Conference which is held twice a year. We have Church Magazines that come out monthly. Here the leaders are given the opportunity to counsel and to advise on many of the moral issues that we all face. Not just LDS but issues everyone faces.

Moral issues such as (not an all inclusive list) same sex marriage, pornography, chastity, drug use, alcoholism, sexual and physical abuse between spouses, child molestation and abuse. The list goes on.

They also teach and expand our knowledge of doctrinal issues. They teach us and counsel us on how to live by the Spirit. How to be more Christ like and to be followers of Christ.

Now this is where my thoughts about how we, as members, ARE the Church. It is up to us as members to take their advise and counsel. We, as members, have a responsibility to make moral issues our concerns. We have a responsibility to vote against those issues we find harmful to our freedoms of religion and that are against the moral issues we are taught.

We, as members, have a responsibility to be examples in our community, in our country, and to others around the world. In this way we are also the voice of "The Church."

It's my opinion that in this way the leaders of the LDS Church are vocal. Vocal through it's members. That is the frontline of the LDS Church. It's members. We are what the rest of the world sees on a day to day basis.

Yes members feel the Spirit in different ways. We have free agency to choose whether we follow the counsel given or we don't. We have the choice to follow our Church Leaders or not. We have a choice to follow what is taught in the Scriptures or not.

So to say that the Leaders don't take a stance is probably not an accurate statement. Though I can understand where you are coming from. Stances must be made by the members guided by the counsel we are given.

Hopefully that didn't just confuse the issue. Sometimes I have a horrible time getting my thoughts together. I know what I want to say..just doesn't always come across in written form.

[Moksha]

The man has not even taken office yet!!! For heaven's sake!

That logic is irrelevant. This is politics and make 'em up as you go mudwrestlin'.

[Guest ceeboo]

Hi Pam,

Thanks for the response :)

I do appreciate your time and effort in offering your perspective to me.

I, much better know, understand your points ( Leadership, guidance, and " front line " ).

Thanks again for sharing with me.

For what it is worth, ceeboo thinks you did an admirable job of explaining and did not confuse me at all.

God bless,\Carl

[PeterVenkman]

I think a lot of the perspectives that have been shared throughout this thread illustrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the law at issue.

This is how I understand it: When President Bush first took office, his first step was to cut any and all funding for planned parenthood in countries outside of the United States. Since Planned Parenthood includes abortion as one option in its pregnancy option counseling, Bush found that Planned Parenthood supported abortion, and therefore cut support in any other country.

Obama has pledged that he would reverse this decision, but I think you are overstating the issue by saying Obama is the most hyper liberal man in the universe and will not be happy until fetuses are completely disregarded. After all, according to wikipedia, planned parenthood is not simply an abortion factory. "Services include abortion services, contraceptive (birth control) services; emergency contraception; screening for breast, cervical and testicular cancers; pregnancy testing and pregnancy options counseling; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases; sexuality education, menopause treatments; vasectomies and tubal ligations, and more."

Citizens of other countries sometimes cannot get these services anywhere else, and yet they are sometimes needed. I think it was bad for Bush to cut funding for such an important international program, and I am personally happy that Obama will put it back into action.

With regard to one comment that our government shouldn't give our tax money to any other country, my response that if you really believe this then you should be very very angry with every single penny that is being thrown at Iraq.