Will we be held accountable for our political/social beliefs and actions?

[MarginOfError]

You realize you are responding to my most recent post where I mention President Bush, right?

I also mention voting for war in my first post.

You're right and I apologize for this oversight. At the same time, I think it's fair to point out that I didn't use any quotes from you. You've been a little more explicit in your unsurety than some.

[LittleWyvern]

I may as well stop voting then. I've yet to find a political candidate whose political platform I found to be completely inline with Gospel teachings. When I vote, I vote for who I believe falls the closest, which means most of the time I vote Dem, but I have voted Rep and third party as well. No one political party holds sole claim to the high ground of morality.

This is why my answer to this question is "only up to a point, and even then it's not very much." When we are held accountable for our actions, it usually implies we are free to choose exactly what we want to do. With politics (and perhaps especially with politics), there's only a very limited range of options, which subverts our free agency in that sphere and reduces, I think, how much we are held accountable for our choices.

We also have to consider that there's hardly ever a sense of complete, black and white, right vs. wrong here. Free agency also depends on there being "right" and "wrong" choices. However, the Church has specifically said that there are principles compatible with the Gospel in most political parties.

So... will we be held eternally accountable for our political decisions? Maybe, but only a small amount in some very limited situations. I don't think it's something we need to particularly worry about as long as we are at least thinking about our decisions. Yes, we may come up with different answers after thinking about an issue, but that's just fine with me.

Edited March 14, 2013 by LittleWyvern
I can't grammar.

[Anddenex]

I never said I objected to this. In fact, I have supported this claim. What I have tried to illustrate is that there is an undercurrent of "voting conservative equals righteous and voting liberal equals wicked." You tacitly endorsed that view by explicitly thanking mirkwood for his list of quotes (all of which espouse conservative ideals) and expressing your anticipation of Zion where, it would seem from your comments, you believe these principles will be instituted.

Thank you for clarification. Yes, I endorse mirkwoods comments which are given by men I support and men I agree with. However, I don't believe I "tacitly" endorsed -- I openly endorsed these words.

I thoroughly believe every word which was spoken by these men with regard to our government. However, I don't place them in either liberal or conservative meanings, but I do place them in truth.

Yes, correct, I do hope Zion will be established and I look forward to either being a part of its establishment, or watching it happen in paradise. Yes, and I believe in Zion there will be no political parties, only people who are concerned with truth and following God.

I'm sorry if you feel I've misrepresented any themes that run through your overall message. But the themes I presented were honestly the themes I extracted from your posts.

All good. Please note, in case you weren't aware, I am not affiliated with any party. I am not Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Constitutionalist. If there were a party, I would be considered American.

The only comment I made that I feel could have been taken as taking sides, is the Harry Reid comment, however I can also same the same for Orin Hatch. Orin Hatch being in a position of leadership will have to account directly for decisions he makes also as a leader.

Regardless, thanks for clarifying that you don't feel qualified to state whether a person's voting preferences qualify as sin.

I think sin is sin. If our voting preferences represent sin, whether Republican, Democrat, etc... is between the individual and the Lord.

I am just hoping, and confident, that in addition to my voting preferences, individuals sins as Nephi said, which do easily beset him...that I too and others will be able to "know in who we trust" and hear the wonderful words found in D&C 45: 3-5.

I believe in Mosiah words that we are accountable to the Lord for our thoughts, words, and deeds. I believe part of these deeds are our voting habits. :)

[mirkwood]

MOE: I posted quotes that are damning to both sides of the political spectrum. The fact that you felt it was a direct attack on you and your political philosophies is very interesting and suggests you may be uncomfortable with some of your positions and where they line up with gospel principles. I know I felt that way at one time with some of my political positions. At the very least anyone should be using such quotes to examine where you stand in your support of politicl ideologies.

If it makes you feel better, I was attacking devilish principles wherever they may lie or in whichever parties philosophies, not you.

I do not consider myself a member of either party. I hold to a certain set of values and impose them into politics (much to many people's chagrin). I have voted left, right and center in many elections. I do as our leaders have counseled and seek after good leaders and then support them. I generally don't care what party they belong to as their principles will be their principles no matter what letter they put after their name. In some cases that letter will dictate thier principles. Both parties have issues. I believe one party has greater issues within it's principles and tend to be more supportive of devilish principles. I also believe the groundroots members of one party strive harder to correct such problems then the other.

The idea that you would want members of a message board to contact your local leaders seems to me an attempt to validate your political positions. Such a call should be rebuffed on the spot, whetjher it was right or not. I think if you commit adultery that you will be held accountable too. Neither of those beliefs involve me calling your local leaders, who if I (or anyone else) were stupid enough to do so, would hopefully rebuff me on the spot.

[MarginOfError]

MOE: I posted quotes that are damning to both sides of the political spectrum. The fact that you felt it was a direct attack on you and your political philosophies is very interesting and suggests you may be uncomfortable with some of your positions and where they line up with gospel principles. I know I felt that way at one time with some of my political positions. At the very least anyone should be using such quotes to examine where you stand in your support of politicl ideologies.

If it makes you feel better, I was attacking devilish principles wherever they may lie or in whichever parties philosophies, not you.

I do not consider myself a member of either party. I hold to a certain set of values and impose them into politics (much to many people's chagrin). I have voted left, right and center in many elections. I do as our leaders have counseled and seek after good leaders and then support them. I generally don't care what party they belong to as their principles will be their principles no matter what letter they put after their name. In some cases that letter will dictate thier principles. Both parties have issues. I believe one party has greater issues within it's principles and tend to be more supportive of devilish principles. I also believe the groundroots members of one party strive harder to correct such problems then the other.

The idea that you would want members of a message board to contact your local leaders seems to me an attempt to validate your political positions. Such a call should be rebuffed on the spot, whetjher it was right or not. I think if you commit adultery that you will be held accountable too. Neither of those beliefs involve me calling your local leaders, who if I (or anyone else) were stupid enough to do so, would hopefully rebuff me on the spot.

I'll need you to clarify a few things, then, mirkwood. The quotes you gave suggested that anything approaching socialist policies is an evil that we must work against. Would you consider Obamacare a socialist policy. If you do, would you then consider that my advocacy for Obamacare is advocacy for evil? If you don't, then the matter is irrelevant.

Am I a little sensitive on the topic. Yeah, you bet I am. I have spent a great deal of time and effort evaluating my religious and political ideals in order to find the positions that I feel satisfy my religious, civic, and moral convictions. In the run up to the past election and continuing afterward, I have been openly accused of violating the tenets of Christianity/Mormonism by supporting my political beliefs...including in a stake priesthood meeting where the evil of groups that oppose prayer in public schools was laid out over the pulpit. (For the record, I oppose prayer in public schools). Some have even stated in no uncertain terms that my pro-choice stance should disqualify me from being able to hold a temple recommend.

Do I feel guilty for my political beliefs? No.

Do I feel offended by others' political beliefs? No.

Do I feel offended that political beliefs have become a litmus test of personal commitment to the gospel? Yep.

This is what I oppose. My invitation to report my beliefs and statements to my leaders isn't a request for validation, it's a request for people who make implications of that our political preferences are an indication of our worthiness to evaluate just how strongly they feel about that.

Also, this suggestion that I get this worked up over political beliefs means that I must feel guilty about my beliefs--I consider that a deflection to prevent oneself from having to evaluate whether their own statements are sending the wrong message.

[JimmiGerman]

You kind of miss my question. I don't think we will ever be held accountable by the church for our social impact. I'm talking about when we stand with the savior and we review our life.

I know that we are subject to kings, magistrates etc etc..

But what if we have a choice in the direction society goes?

If we have a choice in the direction mentioned, why shouldn't we be held responsible for the results of our voting or indirect consequences of our decisions? But more exactly I would say that we can only be hold responsible for those results of the direction society goes we can foresee or guess or agree with. Developments or results of our choice we are not able to foresee or even to imagine might not be subject to our accountability. That's my opinion.

[selek]

The bottom line is that we, as Saints, are commanded to be good and faithful stewards of the talents and rights given to us by God, and to be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves".

We are told repeatedly throughout the Scriptures that we will be held accountable not only for what talents we are given- but also for what outcomes we generate with those same talents.

That includes being informed and prudent voters.

If we choose elected representatives and other leaders who proclaim Godly principles and then betray our trust, the sin is theirs.

If, on the other hand, we choose elected leaders and public policies which directly contradict Godly principles and divine law- or who have demonstrated a tendency towards such behavior in the past- the sin is on our heads, because we should have known better.

The old axion, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me" definitely applies.

I find it deeply interesting that the usual suspects who were so quick to suggest that we might have blood on our hands for supporting "unjust wars" were equally quick to object to the idea that they might be held accountable for supporting policies which have spilled the blood of FIFTY-FIVE MILLION innocent children.

Despite the "I don't want to argue whether abortion is wrong" mea culpa, the attempted moral equivalency argument was neither particularly subtle nor particularly honest.

In that regard, it was of a piece with the "how dare you presume that my support for godless policies might somehow reflect on my dedication to the Gospel!" rant.

We are told throughout Scriptures that we can- and should- judge prophets by the fruits they produce.

Why should politicians- and those who support them- be judged any differently?

Edited March 14, 2013 by selek

[LittleWyvern]

If we choose elected representatives and other leaders who proclaim Godly principles and then betray our trust, the sin is theirs.

If, on the other hand, we choose elected leaders and public policies which directly contradict Godly principles and divine law- or who have demonstrated a tendency towards such behavior in the past- the sin is on our heads, because we should have known better.

(snip)

Why should politicians- and those who support them- be judged any differently?

When I get into a situation where I need to vote between Satan and Jesus, I'll use this advice.

[Wingnut]

When I get into a situation where I need to vote between Satan and Jesus, I'll use this advice.

Oh wait, didn't that already happen?

[mirkwood]

The quotes you gave suggested that anything approaching socialist policies is an evil that we must work against. Would you consider Obamacare a socialist policy. If you do, would you then consider that my advocacy for Obamacare is advocacy for evil?

Obamacare = Socialism.

Socialism = Statism

Statism = The war in heaven over free agency.

“The scriptures tell us about the war in heaven over free agency—similar to the war we are going through now, where the devil's program was guaranteed security as opposed to the Lord's program of letting each choose for himself even if he makes the wrong choice. Once you understand these scriptures you will understand why the Presidents of the Church have opposed Communism, Socialism, and the Welfare State and you will see why you must oppose them, too, if you are in harmony with the word of the Lord.” Ezra Taft Benson, BYU Speeches, December 10, 1963, p. 17.

Statism removes my free agency at many levels. It is the plan Satan offered up in the pre-mortal existence. Compulsion, the removal of agency, is a devilish principle.

"There can be no compulsion in the kingdom of God. In the very beginning the Lord gave to man his freedom to act for himself to be an agent unto himself with the privilege, but not the right, to choose evil if he so desired, or to accept the truth which would make him free." Joseph Fielding Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation, Vol. 2, p. 191-192.

Support for socialism/statism is support for devilish principles. If you support Obamacare, then by default, you are in support for socialism. God will hold anyone supporting such principles accountable. It is up to Him to decide what that entails, not me, but there will be an accounting for it.

[MarginOfError]

I don't see in this thread where anyone implied that your voting practices will do any such thing.

Given the two quotes below, now do you see it?

The bottom line is that we, as Saints, are commanded to be good and faithful stewards of the talents and rights given to us by God, and to be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves".

We are told repeatedly throughout the Scriptures that we will be held accountable not only for what talents we are given- but also for what outcomes we generate with those same talents.

That includes being informed and prudent voters.

If we choose elected representatives and other leaders who proclaim Godly principles and then betray our trust, the sin is theirs.

If, on the other hand, we choose elected leaders and public policies which directly contradict Godly principles and divine law- or who have demonstrated a tendency towards such behavior in the past- the sin is on our heads, because we should have known better.

The old axion, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me" definitely applies.

I find it deeply interesting that the usual suspects who were so quick to suggest that we might have blood on our hands for supporting "unjust wars" were equally quick to object to the idea that they might be held accountable for supporting policies which have spilled the blood of FIFTY-FIVE MILLION innocent children.

Despite the "I don't want to argue whether abortion is wrong" mea culpa, the attempted moral equivalency argument was neither particularly subtle nor particularly honest.

In that regard, it was of a piece with the "how dare you presume that my support for godless policies might somehow reflect on my dedication to the Gospel!" rant.

We are told throughout Scriptures that we can- and should- judge prophets by the fruits they produce.

Why should politicians- and those who support them- be judged any differently?

Obamacare = Socialism.

Socialism = Statism

Statism = The war in heaven over free agency.

“The scriptures tell us about the war in heaven over free agency—similar to the war we are going through now, where the devil's program was guaranteed security as opposed to the Lord's program of letting each choose for himself even if he makes the wrong choice. Once you understand these scriptures you will understand why the Presidents of the Church have opposed Communism, Socialism, and the Welfare State and you will see why you must oppose them, too, if you are in harmony with the word of the Lord.” Ezra Taft Benson, BYU Speeches, December 10, 1963, p. 17.

Statism removes my free agency at many levels. It is the plan Satan offered up in the pre-mortal existence. Compulsion, the removal of agency, is a devilish principle.

"There can be no compulsion in the kingdom of God. In the very beginning the Lord gave to man his freedom to act for himself to be an agent unto himself with the privilege, but not the right, to choose evil if he so desired, or to accept the truth which would make him free." Joseph Fielding Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation, Vol. 2, p. 191-192.

Support for socialism/statism is support for devilish principles. If you support Obamacare, then by default, you are in support for socialism. God will hold anyone supporting such principles accountable. It is up to Him to decide what that entails, not me, but there will be an accounting for it.

[selek]

Do I feel guilty for my political beliefs? No.

Do I feel offended by others' political beliefs? No.

Do I feel offended that political beliefs have become a litmus test of personal commitment to the gospel? Yep.

1 Nephi 16:2-3

For all your personal indignation about the idea of someone being judged for their political views, you've yet to provide any evidence indicating that such an approach is intrinsically incorrect or fundamentally wrong.

Despite your insistence on assuming the mantle of victimhood on this topic, you've yet to address the fundamental doctrinal truths which support such an approach.

Rather than addressing the substance of the arguments being offered, you're tryng to spin them as personal attacks.

That IS deflection- something you've claimed to resent.

[Wingnut]

1 Nephi 16:2-3

>snip<

Rather than addressing the substance of the arguments being offered, you're tryng to spin them as personal attacks.

You just referred to MOE as "wicked" -- how is that not a personal attack?

[annewandering]

Unbelievable

Anne, it's just an example...I’ve changed it to “stuff” so that I don’t offend your political sensitivities.

The difference between truth and lies is nothing to do with my political sensitivities although I am flattered that you soften your providing false examples is to not offend my 'political sensitivities'.

Stuff that is a lie is still a lie no matter what its called.

Change that phrase to my moral sensitivities. Thanks.

[MarginOfError]

Well, on that line of logic, anyone who opposes Obama's immigration reform plan is also wicked.

[annewandering]

1 Nephi 16:2-3

For all your personal indignation about the idea of someone being judged for their political views, you've yet to provide any evidence indicating that such an approach is intrinsically incorrect or fundamentally wrong.

Despite your insistence on assuming the mantle of victimhood on this topic, you've yet to address the fundamental doctrinal truths which support such an approach.

Rather than addressing the substance of the arguments being offered, you're tryng to spin them as personal attacks.

That IS deflection- something you've claimed to resent.

Selek, have you ever stopped and stepped back and examined what and how you say things? You do attack and you do it in such a way that every single liberal person, not just me or MOE, know exactly what you mean. You have picked up your talking points from the conservative bandwagons and are freely spreading them around. The phones was such a good example. One that is hard to take back now.

I actually am conservative on some issues but I do like to see what their proponents have to say about them. Its called education. Like you might do on the phone issue. And others.

I had stopped reading this thread but I see you are not alone in your attacks. Feel free to add your name here if you are doing the same thing.

Edited March 14, 2013 by annewandering

[Anddenex]

Well, on that line of logic, anyone who opposes Obama's immigration reform plan is also wicked.

Then I am happy to say, "I of myself am a wicked man..." (emphasis added)

[selek]

You just referred to MOE as "wicked" -- how is that not a personal attack?

I referenced scripture citing an eternal principle and called into question MoE's argument and conduct.

But I'm quite certain he appreciates your support in trying to distract from the principle by buying into the pretense of victimhood.

In point of fact, neither you nor MoE HAVE addressed the substance of my arguments.

Laman and Lemuel didn't particularly like it when Nephi spoke eternal truths to them, either.

I get that you don't like the idea that some one might be judged for their political views- but that doesn't make it wrong.

[Wingnut]

In point of fact, neither you nor MoE HAVE addressed the substance of my arguments.

I haven't even been arguing with you.

Laman and Lemuel didn't particularly like it when Nephi spoke eternal truths to them, either.

I suppose you're Nephi, in this situation?

[MarginOfError]

Then I am happy to say, "I of myself am a wicked man..." (emphasis added)

tsk tsk tsk

LDS leader (President Uchtdorf) backs outline of Obama immigration plan - CacheValleyDaily.com : Local News

(I offer this playfully. I'm not particularly bothered by your opposition...but I don't really have strong feelings on the subject anyway)

[annewandering]

I referenced scripture citing an eternal principle and called into question MoE's argument and conduct.

But I'm quite certain he appreciates your support in trying to distract from the principle by buying into the pretense of victimhood.

In point of fact, neither you nor MoE HAVE addressed the substance of my arguments.

Laman and Lemuel didn't particularly like it when Nephi spoke eternal truths to them, either.

I get that you don't like the idea that some one might be judged for their political views- but that doesn't make it wrong.

Wow, Selek. I am almost tempted to toss a few scriptures at you so you can see the error of your ways as well. Tempted but I really try to avoid scripture bashing. Time to go get me some of that nice homemade chicken soup sitting in the fridge waiting for me!

[Windseeker]

The difference between truth and lies is nothing to do with my political sensitivities although I am flattered that you soften your providing false examples is to not offend my 'political sensitivities'.

Stuff that is a Obama is still a Obama no matter what its called.

Change that phrase to my moral sensitivities. Thanks.

I don't appreciate you accusing me of spreading lies because I refer to a government giving away free phones.

I agree that it may have been a false reason not to vote for Obama, but then it was also a false reason why many voted for Obama.

The Government Lifeline Benefit Program provides a free cell phone and 250 free minutes each month to people in certain government programs, such as Food Stamps. Do your moral sensitivites prevent you from seeing that Obama is responsible for a 70% increase in the number of people on food stamps.

I lived thru the 80's and Reagan and I don't remember people on foodstamps rockin 80's cell phones like Michael Douglas

If the govenment was providing these then we would have been bankrupt a long time ago.

Edited March 14, 2013 by Windseeker

[selek]

Selek, have you ever stopped and stepped back and examined what and how you say things? You do attack and you do it in such a way that every single liberal person, not just me or MOE, know exactly what you mean.

That's three in a row now who don't want to address the substance of my argument, but would rather whinge about how "mean" I am and how I say "hard things" to them- exactly the behavior I referenced with the scripture I cited.

Laman and Lemuel didn't want to deal with the eternal principles and law that Nephi was addressing- so they instead whined that he was being mean to them.

You, MoE, and Wingnut are all doing the same dance- but the rain just isn't coming.

NONE of you has shown where my arguments are doctrinally or scripturally incorrect.

My posts have been limited to addressing the arguments made in this thread, and to examining how those arguments have been applied.

But rather than addressing those points- and the eternal truths being explored- you'd much rather pretend that you are somehow being victimized.

[MarginOfError]

Then I refer you back to this post.

http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/52484-will-we-held-accountable-our-political-social-beliefs-actions-7.html#post738255

[Anddenex]

tsk tsk tsk

LDS leader (President Uchtdorf) backs outline of Obama immigration plan - CacheValleyDaily.com : Local News

(I offer this playfully. I'm not particularly bothered by your opposition...but I don't really have strong feelings on the subject anyway)

Playfully accepted. As I hope it is realized my response was banter as well.