Elder Oaks promoting political left

[Desert Roses]

The church is intentionally going out of its way to appease the government in order to preserve its tax-exempt status - it's almost as if they are willing to do and/or say anything, no matter how questionable it is to members or contrary to Christ's teachings and will of the Lord in order to keep the church tax-exempt while existing as a corporation sole under the chains of the IRS. Sad... very sad. So not only do we not challenge evil or speak out against anything wrong that might be considered 'political' over the pulpit, we now suck up to Uncle Sam. I'm sure ancient Prophets like Noah, Abinidi and Samuel the Lamanite 'understand'. Do we need to honor, uphold and sustain the law? Yes. But that does not mean we have to take it one step further by essentially abandoning our morals just to stay on the good side of government.

Wow...My brother once observed there are three doors out of the church: The one on the left, the one on the right, and the back door. The left and right are fairly obvious--"ordain women", gay rights, "academic freedom", etc., and the right--polygamists, "fundamentalists", and over-zealous spirituality folks. The back is the sliding out of activity till it no longer matters.

It's been interesting to watch the "left door" folks on this forum, and the more obvious right-door ones, like the Snufferites. But I didn't realize that the door on the right was getting so wide! It reminds me of my father-in-law, who was excommunicated eventually because he could not accept that one of the prophets (I don't recall which one) shook hands with a "known Communist" at some event or another, combined with the "failure" of the leaders to aggressively condemn Russia, China, Cuba, and other Communist nations.

Accusing the leaders of "sucking up" to the government so they can keep tax-exempt status is pretty low, and suggests a lack of humility. Perhaps a re-read of President Benson's talk on pride--April conference, 1989 (it's easily found on lds.org )

[Serragon]

“One generation of homosexual “marriage” would depopulate a nation, and, if sufficiently widespread, would extinguish its people. Our marriage laws should not abet national suicide.” –Dallin H. Oaks Principles to Govern. P. 19. 1984


Elder Oaks I'm a little confused here. You said pro gay marriage laws would be "national suicide" but now your hitting Kim Davis for standing up for her religious beliefs?

This is conflicting, but the views and policies of the church have evolved in step (albeit a little behind) with the cultural climate of the day -- polygamy, interracial marriage, blacks and the priesthood/temple blessings, and now homosexuals.

We as members, who sustain the prophet, believe those changes were divinely inspired/revealed -- not done because of social pressure.

Perhaps Elder Oaks is also inspired? I believe so.

Where's the conflict? He opposed gay marriage and likely still does. Now, its the law of the land and he says that people should follow the law. Why is that in conflict?

I oppose abortion. But, it's the law of the land. If i were a cop, and someone had an abortion, should I arrest them because I think it should be against the law? Or, should I vote for the law to be changed, while enforcing the laws as they are?

Kim Davis should have stood up for her religious beliefs and resigned. A judge ordered her to issue gay marriage licenses; it was immoral for her to refuse. No one says that she HAD to issue the license. She could have just resigned. Then she wouldn't have to issue any licenses.

Is it immoral to refuse the judges order if they don't have the authority to issue the order?

Funny how when building permits are not issued for spurious reasons the clerks are not jailed. Funny how the judges don't require assistant clerks to issue gun permits in DC and Chicago even though the supreme court has found that those laws are unconstitutional.

I smell a double standard here.. Or maybe it is because the judges don't actually have any authority to do those things. The judicial cannot also be the executive.

[Stacy Oliver]

“One generation of homosexual “marriage” would depopulate a nation, and, if sufficiently widespread, would extinguish its people. Our marriage laws should not abet national suicide.” –Dallin H. Oaks Principles to Govern. P. 19. 1984


Elder Oaks I'm a little confused here. You said pro gay marriage laws would be "national suicide" but now your hitting Kim Davis for standing up for her religious beliefs?

This is conflicting, but the views and policies of the church have evolved in step (albeit a little behind) with the cultural climate of the day -- polygamy, interracial marriage, blacks and the priesthood/temple blessings, and now homosexuals.

We as members, who sustain the prophet, believe those changes were divinely inspired/revealed -- not done because of social pressure.

Perhaps Elder Oaks is also inspired? I believe so.

Where's the conflict? He opposed gay marriage and likely still does. Now, its the law of the land and he says that people should follow the law. Why is that in conflict?

I oppose abortion. But, it's the law of the land. If i were a cop, and someone had an abortion, should I arrest them because I think it should be against the law? Or, should I vote for the law to be changed, while enforcing the laws as they are?

Kim Davis should have stood up for her religious beliefs and resigned. A judge ordered her to issue gay marriage licenses; it was immoral for her to refuse. No one says that she HAD to issue the license. She could have just resigned. Then she wouldn't have to issue any licenses.

Not a good comparison at all with the cop. So no Christian can hold the office of clerk without having to violate their religious beliefs? That's how you want to operate the country?

What is wrong with the cop comparison?

With the Kim Davis case, her deputies offered to issue the licenses and she stopped them. I think she's since changed her mind, but that was the problem. If there's someone else who can do it, then let someone else do it. I don't see how that conflicts with what Elder Oaks was saying.

It's like if a Quaker joined the army, then refused to allow his troops to go into battle. It's fine to have Quakers as army docs, but if they're refusing to allow others to follow orders then there's a problem.

[Stacy Oliver]

“One generation of homosexual “marriage” would depopulate a nation, and, if sufficiently widespread, would extinguish its people. Our marriage laws should not abet national suicide.” –Dallin H. Oaks Principles to Govern. P. 19. 1984


Elder Oaks I'm a little confused here. You said pro gay marriage laws would be "national suicide" but now your hitting Kim Davis for standing up for her religious beliefs?

This is conflicting, but the views and policies of the church have evolved in step (albeit a little behind) with the cultural climate of the day -- polygamy, interracial marriage, blacks and the priesthood/temple blessings, and now homosexuals.

We as members, who sustain the prophet, believe those changes were divinely inspired/revealed -- not done because of social pressure.

Perhaps Elder Oaks is also inspired? I believe so.

Where's the conflict? He opposed gay marriage and likely still does. Now, its the law of the land and he says that people should follow the law. Why is that in conflict?

I oppose abortion. But, it's the law of the land. If i were a cop, and someone had an abortion, should I arrest them because I think it should be against the law? Or, should I vote for the law to be changed, while enforcing the laws as they are?

Kim Davis should have stood up for her religious beliefs and resigned. A judge ordered her to issue gay marriage licenses; it was immoral for her to refuse. No one says that she HAD to issue the license. She could have just resigned. Then she wouldn't have to issue any licenses.

Is it immoral to refuse the judges order if they don't have the authority to issue the order?

Funny how when building permits are not issued for spurious reasons the clerks are not jailed. Funny how the judges don't require assistant clerks to issue gun permits in DC and Chicago even though the supreme court has found that those laws are unconstitutional.

I smell a double standard here.. Or maybe it is because the judges don't actually have any authority to do those things. The judicial cannot also be the executive.

In this case, Kim Davis didn't refuse for spurious (but technically valid) reasons. She said that she refused for reasons that the SCOTUS found to be invalid. Any court would have ordered her to issue the license.

The problem in Chicago and DC was the law, not some rogue clerk. If it were, then a judge WOULD order them to comply. The reason the plaintiffs in those cases sued the govt was because the govt was stopping them from getting a gun. In KY, it was Kim Davis, not the govt, that was stopping them. So, she got sued.

[OhioState001]

What is wrong with the cop comparison?

With the Kim Davis case, her deputies offered to issue the licenses and she stopped them. I think she's since changed her mind, but that was the problem. If there's someone else who can do it, then let someone else do it. I don't see how that conflicts with what Elder Oaks was saying.

It's like if a Quaker joined the army, then refused to allow his troops to go into battle. It's fine to have Quakers as army docs, but if they're refusing to allow others to follow orders then there's a problem.

She stopped them because her name would still be on the license. The cop comparison is wrong because no one forced the cop to be involved in an abortion and to violate his religious freedom. Kim Davis is being forced to participate in something that is against her sincerely held religious beliefs. People on here are telling her too bad and to resign her job. That's not how the country operates. The founding fathers knew we couldn't operate without Christian beliefs. We don't force anyone into any one religion and we don't force anyone to believe in God. We make accommodations for Muslims to wear head scarfs and to grow beards in GITMO because we want them to be allowed to practice their religion.

Since gay marriage has been supported by the Supreme Court gay couples should always be allowed to get licenses. We should not force people who do not want to violate their religious beliefs to do so. I entirely disagree with Oaks statement and fear he is caving in to the PC police.

Why wouldn't he just come out and say we need to work together to come to a solution where a clerk's religious beliefs are not infringed while still allowing gays to get licenses? Meanwhile the Pope of all people took a stand for conscientious objectors.

[Zathura]

Clearly we are supposed to compare their words to the scriptures. Why wouldn't you compare their words to the scriptures? If Thomas Monson tells you to kill anyone who isn't Mormon, would you do it? Of course not, because that contradicts the scriptures.
What a horrifying belief that is, to assume that we shouldn't even question and compare the words of those 15 men to the words of the scripture. This belief will NOT help you progress one bit.

From President Wilford Woodruff --

“I will refer to a certain meeting I attended in the town of Kirtland in my early days. At that meeting some remarks were made that have been made here today, with regard to the living prophets and with regard to the written word of God. The same principle was presented, although not as extensively as it has been here, when a leading man in the Church got up and talked upon the subject, and said: ‘You have got the word of God before you here in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants; you have the written word of God, and you who give revelations should give revelations according to those books, as what is written in those books is the word of God. We should confine ourselves to them.’

“When he concluded, Brother Joseph turned to Brother Brigham Young and said, ‘Brother Brigham I want you to go to the podium and tell us your views with regard to the living oracles and the written word of God.’ Brother Brigham took the stand, and he took the Bible, and laid it down; he took the Book of Mormon, and laid it down; and he took the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and laid it down before him, and he said: ‘There is the written word of God to us, concerning the work of God from the beginning of the world, almost, to our day. And now,’ said he, ‘when compared with the living oracles those books are nothing to me; those books do not convey the word of God direct to us now, as do the words of a Prophet or a man bearing the Holy Priesthood in our day and generation. I would rather have the living oracles than all the writing in the books.’ That was the course he pursued. When he was through, Brother Joseph said to the congregation; ‘Brother Brigham has told you the word of the Lord, and he has told you the truth.’” (Conference Report, October 1897, pp. 18–19.)

Lol.. I knew that you would bring up this quote.

Wilford Woodruff said this in 1897.
Joseph Fielding Smith said this sometime between 1930-1950?

So if Brigham said a living prophet's words are more important that a dead ones in 1897, and the Joseph Fielding Smith( A living prophet while Brigham was dead) said 50 years later that even HIS OWN WORDS mean nothing if they don't match what the Bible and BOok of Mormon teach, then by Brigham's own teaching, Joseph Fielding SMith's words are more important that Brigham's and is correct by default, and we do indeed need to measure everything our leaders say and compare them to the scriptures.

Ironically, your quote still shows that what I said is true.

[Zathura]

I pray that your heart isn't too hardened and set upon these 15 men that you cannot understand this.

You're condescension is almost too much to stomach. You remind of those spoken of that "draw near to me with their lips but their hearts are far from me".

I know my state before God my friend.

I have nothing but love for you.

[Zathura]

I pray that your heart isn't too hardened and set upon these 15 men that you cannot understand this.

You're condescension is almost too much to stomach. You remind of those spoken of that "draw near to me with their lips but their hearts are far from me".

My friend, let us follow Jeremy's example.

I should find it humorous how the universe has a way of fulfilling the law of "what goes around, comes around". Unfortunately, truth be told, it is rather disgusting to me when I see my ignorant and arrogant self show up and assume the intentions of someones heart.

[Sunain]

With the Kim Davis case, her deputies offered to issue the licenses and she stopped them. I think she's since changed her mind, but that was the problem. If there's someone else who can do it, then let someone else do it. I don't see how that conflicts with what Elder Oaks was saying.

This is where I completely agree with President Oaks. She should have said I can't sign this marriage certificate because it goes again my morals. Someone else in the office could have signed it for her. Her opposition would still be made known but would not have been as big an issue.

He also said it was even worse that the governor try to use his position to overrule a law. I agree here as well with President Oaks, he doesn't have the authority to do so even though it is right.

Believers also should submit to a law once it is sustained by the highest available authority, he said.

This is what I don't agree with at all. [-( We believe in sustaining righteous laws. We should be fighting even harder now that this law is passed!

Did members of the church submit to the extermination order by Governor Boggs? Does that mean people in communist countries shouldn't rebel for freedom and democracy?

As a Church we should get comfortably complacent in our relationship with Babylon?

The Viking blood in my veins is calling me to arms, to defend the "Liberties of the Gospel"

My Scottish blood is boiling too. We are to call all people to repentance, including the government and the president. "We are all enlisted till the conflict is o'er;."

Christ said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. That's the gist what Oaks is saying IMO.

Is its Caesar's right to make a law contrary to the laws of God? He has the right to do so, its not morally right, but God has said judgements will be brought if it is done.

[h_p]

Funny how when building permits are not issued for spurious reasons the clerks are not jailed. Funny how the judges don't require assistant clerks to issue gun permits in DC and Chicago even though the supreme court has found that those laws are unconstitutional.

I smell a double standard here.. Or maybe it is because the judges don't actually have any authority to do those things. The judicial cannot also be the executive.

"We may have cultural differences, but we should not have 'culture wars.'" --Elder Oaks

"You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." --Leon Trotsky

[Stacy Oliver]

What is wrong with the cop comparison?

With the Kim Davis case, her deputies offered to issue the licenses and she stopped them. I think she's since changed her mind, but that was the problem. If there's someone else who can do it, then let someone else do it. I don't see how that conflicts with what Elder Oaks was saying.

It's like if a Quaker joined the army, then refused to allow his troops to go into battle. It's fine to have Quakers as army docs, but if they're refusing to allow others to follow orders then there's a problem.

She stopped them because her name would still be on the license. The cop comparison is wrong because no one forced the cop to be involved in an abortion and to violate his religious freedom. Kim Davis is being forced to participate in something that is against her sincerely held religious beliefs. People on here are telling her too bad and to resign her job. That's not how the country operates. The founding fathers knew we couldn't operate without Christian beliefs. We don't force anyone into any one religion and we don't force anyone to believe in God. We make accommodations for Muslims to wear head scarfs and to grow beards in GITMO because we want them to be allowed to practice their religion.

Since gay marriage has been supported by the Supreme Court gay couples should always be allowed to get licenses. We should not force people who do not want to violate their religious beliefs to do so. I entirely disagree with Oaks statement and fear he is caving in to the PC police.

Why wouldn't he just come out and say we need to work together to come to a solution where a clerk's religious beliefs are not infringed while still allowing gays to get licenses? Meanwhile the Pope of all people took a stand for conscientious objectors.

Your view of history is simply wrong. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said a long time ago, “The petitioner (a police officer)
may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.” Kim Davis has a right not to be involved in gay marriage, but she doesn't have a right to be a clerk.

The GITMO detainees don't have a choice not to be detainees. So we accommodate them because (1) it doesn't substantially interfere with anyone else's rights and (2) there's no alternative for them. Kim Davis's situation is completely different.

The Pope went out of his way to say that he didn't support what Kim Davis was doing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... -position/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kim Davis's deputies DID try to come up with a solution that wouldn't interfere with her rights. She's the one who stopped it.

[Serragon]

What is wrong with the cop comparison?

With the Kim Davis case, her deputies offered to issue the licenses and she stopped them. I think she's since changed her mind, but that was the problem. If there's someone else who can do it, then let someone else do it. I don't see how that conflicts with what Elder Oaks was saying.

It's like if a Quaker joined the army, then refused to allow his troops to go into battle. It's fine to have Quakers as army docs, but if they're refusing to allow others to follow orders then there's a problem.

She stopped them because her name would still be on the license. The cop comparison is wrong because no one forced the cop to be involved in an abortion and to violate his religious freedom. Kim Davis is being forced to participate in something that is against her sincerely held religious beliefs. People on here are telling her too bad and to resign her job. That's not how the country operates. The founding fathers knew we couldn't operate without Christian beliefs. We don't force anyone into any one religion and we don't force anyone to believe in God. We make accommodations for Muslims to wear head scarfs and to grow beards in GITMO because we want them to be allowed to practice their religion.

Since gay marriage has been supported by the Supreme Court gay couples should always be allowed to get licenses. We should not force people who do not want to violate their religious beliefs to do so. I entirely disagree with Oaks statement and fear he is caving in to the PC police.

Why wouldn't he just come out and say we need to work together to come to a solution where a clerk's religious beliefs are not infringed while still allowing gays to get licenses? Meanwhile the Pope of all people took a stand for conscientious objectors.

Your view of history is simply wrong. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said a long time ago, “The petitioner (a police officer)
may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.” Kim Davis has a right not to be involved in gay marriage, but she doesn't have a right to be a clerk.

The GITMO detainees don't have a choice not to be detainees. So we accommodate them because (1) it doesn't substantially interfere with anyone else's rights and (2) there's no alternative for them. Kim Davis's situation is completely different.

The Pope went out of his way to say that he didn't support what Kim Davis was doing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... -position/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kim Davis's deputies DID try to come up with a solution that wouldn't interfere with her rights. She's the one who stopped it.

you do not have a right to be a cop. A cop is a hired position. Kim Davis is an ELECTED Official. The difference is night and day! The people picked her, and only the people can remove her.

Her deputies are hired positions (just like a cop). They have no authority to implement a plan.

If the people of her county are unhappy with the job she is doing, then they can remove her.

[OhioState001]

What is wrong with the cop comparison?

With the Kim Davis case, her deputies offered to issue the licenses and she stopped them. I think she's since changed her mind, but that was the problem. If there's someone else who can do it, then let someone else do it. I don't see how that conflicts with what Elder Oaks was saying.

It's like if a Quaker joined the army, then refused to allow his troops to go into battle. It's fine to have Quakers as army docs, but if they're refusing to allow others to follow orders then there's a problem.

She stopped them because her name would still be on the license. The cop comparison is wrong because no one forced the cop to be involved in an abortion and to violate his religious freedom. Kim Davis is being forced to participate in something that is against her sincerely held religious beliefs. People on here are telling her too bad and to resign her job. That's not how the country operates. The founding fathers knew we couldn't operate without Christian beliefs. We don't force anyone into any one religion and we don't force anyone to believe in God. We make accommodations for Muslims to wear head scarfs and to grow beards in GITMO because we want them to be allowed to practice their religion.

Since gay marriage has been supported by the Supreme Court gay couples should always be allowed to get licenses. We should not force people who do not want to violate their religious beliefs to do so. I entirely disagree with Oaks statement and fear he is caving in to the PC police.

Why wouldn't he just come out and say we need to work together to come to a solution where a clerk's religious beliefs are not infringed while still allowing gays to get licenses? Meanwhile the Pope of all people took a stand for conscientious objectors.

Your view of history is simply wrong. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said a long time ago, “The petitioner (a police officer)
may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be a policeman.” Kim Davis has a right not to be involved in gay marriage, but she doesn't have a right to be a clerk.

The GITMO detainees don't have a choice not to be detainees. So we accommodate them because (1) it doesn't substantially interfere with anyone else's rights and (2) there's no alternative for them. Kim Davis's situation is completely different.

The Pope went out of his way to say that he didn't support what Kim Davis was doing. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morn ... -position/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kim Davis's deputies DID try to come up with a solution that wouldn't interfere with her rights. She's the one who stopped it.

“The Pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Mrs. Davis and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects.”

That doesn't mean that the pope does not support Kim Davis and he has gone out of his way to support conscientious objectors.

[Serragon]

Is it immoral to refuse the judges order if they don't have the authority to issue the order?

Funny how when building permits are not issued for spurious reasons the clerks are not jailed. Funny how the judges don't require assistant clerks to issue gun permits in DC and Chicago even though the supreme court has found that those laws are unconstitutional.

I smell a double standard here.. Or maybe it is because the judges don't actually have any authority to do those things. The judicial cannot also be the executive.

In this case, Kim Davis didn't refuse for spurious (but technically valid) reasons. She said that she refused for reasons that the SCOTUS found to be invalid. Any court would have ordered her to issue the license.

The problem in Chicago and DC was the law, not some rogue clerk. If it were, then a judge WOULD order them to comply. The reason the plaintiffs in those cases sued the govt was because the govt was stopping them from getting a gun. In KY, it was Kim Davis, not the govt, that was stopping them. So, she got sued.

You are creating distinctions where there are none.

[ebenezerarise]

Lol.. I knew that you would bring up this quote.

Sounds like you have a good grasp and admiration for your own understanding. Good luck with that.

[Zathura]

Lol.. I knew that you would bring up this quote.

Sounds like you have a good grasp and admiration for your own understanding. Good luck with that.

Do you need a hug buddy?

:ymhug:

[buffalo_girl]

"A county clerk's recent invoking of religious reasons to justify refusal by her office and staff to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples violates this principle."

Far worse, he said, are governors or attorneys general who refuse to enforce or defend a law they oppose on personal secular or religious grounds, a reference that could include the Obama administration's past refusal to defend DOMA and some conservative governors' refusal to abide by federal marriage rulings.

Well...this sword cuts both ways!

I'm just wondering where State's Rights - as guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution for the United States - apply.

He repudiated the "culture wars," which he defined as the collision of two values, freedom from discrimination and the free exercise of religion. Those conflicts undermine collaboration.

"Differences on precious fundamentals are with us forever," he said. "We must not let them disable our democracy or cripple our society. This does not anticipate that we will deny or abandon our differences, but that we will learn to live with those laws, institutions and persons who do not share them.

"We may have cultural differences, but we should not have 'culture wars.' "

Let's pray that these 'cultural differences' don't lead us to blithely harmonize divine law with civil laws protecting the right of GOVERNMENT to spy upon, imprison without trial, torture, confiscate property, and disappear those suspected of being a threat to its AUTHORITY.

Now, there's a 'cultural difference' to think about!

Could this be the reason Christian leadership is remaining silent about these more egregious crimes committed by Ruling Authority based upon The Patriot Act and countless supporting legislation & Executive Orders being enacted against those considered 'outsiders', 'constitutionalists', farmers, and other ID'd 'trouble makers'?

"These two realms should have a mutually supportive relationship."

...the floods of ungodly men affright me. Psalms 18:4

[ilovetherain]

Elder Oaks supports the Constitution. He isn't supporting homosexuals.

I truly believe that more than one of the 15 wanted to pull from BSA, but I believe it is the Lord who did not want to AT THIS TIME. My belief is because many of these boys and young men HAVE NO STRONG MALE INFLUENCES in this lives - their homes are destroyed, their fathers are addicts, they feel alone, and Scouts is the only thing holding them together. There is still a great need for scouts. Not every boy has a dad at home, and when they don't scouts is huge for them. I believe it is the Lord that loves these boys that instructed our 15 to stay in BSA FOR NOW. I was for them pulling from it, but I quickly humbled myself to see the bigger picture.

[jockeybox]

If the current "king, president, ruler, or magistrate" decides to make unlawful...say some strange marriage practice, like polygamy, what's a young church to do, even if they felt the practice necessary for salvation?

Who governs this people?

[Col. Flagg]

The church is intentionally going out of its way to appease the government in order to preserve its tax-exempt status - it's almost as if they are willing to do and/or say anything, no matter how questionable it is to members or contrary to Christ's teachings and will of the Lord in order to keep the church tax-exempt while existing as a corporation sole under the chains of the IRS. Sad... very sad. So not only do we not challenge evil or speak out against anything wrong that might be considered 'political' over the pulpit, we now suck up to Uncle Sam. I'm sure ancient Prophets like Noah, Abinidi and Samuel the Lamanite 'understand'.

Who says our tax exempt status is in jeopardy? Have they taken away the tax exempt status from any church? Even the Westboro Baptist?

Who says it's not? There are a lot of organized groups trying to get the church's 501c3 status revoked right now, mostly stemming from Prop 8 years ago.

OK.... But they've, without exception, gone nowhere. You're accusing the Brethren of acting out of fear of something that has never happened. I think that they are more sensible than that.

I wish that were so, but Stacy, they've been doing everything in their power to protect their tax-exempt status for a LONG time - just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it never will as that is exactly what they are trying to prevent.

[Col. Flagg]

The church is intentionally going out of its way to appease the government in order to preserve its tax-exempt status - it's almost as if they are willing to do and/or say anything, no matter how questionable it is to members or contrary to Christ's teachings and will of the Lord (

Oh? What would YOU know about what the will of the Lord is to the Church?

Wow. =;

I'm serious, Col. Who are you to receive this for the Church? The Prophet of the Lord, who I heard you sustain once upon a time, got up in Conference and not once but twice said no tithing funds were used on City Creek. Yet here you remain YEARS later complaining about the same things, spreading the same disinformation, and dissing the Church as if you alone have knowledge nobody else has.

So I'm calling you on it. Who do you think you are to speak for the Lord or to know his will for HIS Church???

I'm not claiming to speak for the Lord or his church, but I sure as hell think I know who the Lord and our Savior are and what they expect from his Saints and servants. The Lord does not compromise morality, but that is exactly what his servants are doing... in the name of money... this does not concern you?

[Santiagodeleon107]

The church is intentionally going out of its way to appease the government in order to preserve its tax-exempt status - it's almost as if they are willing to do and/or say anything, no matter how questionable it is to members or contrary to Christ's teachings and will of the Lord in order to keep the church tax-exempt while existing as a corporation sole under the chains of the IRS. Sad... very sad. So not only do we not challenge evil or speak out against anything wrong that might be considered 'political' over the pulpit, we now suck up to Uncle Sam. I'm sure ancient Prophets like Noah, Abinidi and Samuel the Lamanite 'understand'. Do we need to honor, uphold and sustain the law? Yes. But that does not mean we have to take it one step further by essentially abandoning our morals just to stay on the good side of government.

I agree, the Church seems to listen more to their p.r. lawyers than their own members. Ironically the one thing that could lead to their tax exemption being endangered was their very heavy handed involvement in forcing the Utah legislature to pass that very liberal and pro-gay non-discrimination law in March 2015.

[zionminded]

Since LDS people are to be subject to laws of government, the Mormons should have surrendered themselves to Governor Boggs when he gave the extermination order, that ordered all Mormons to be killed. It was the law of the land and those wicked people disobeyed and fled Missouri. Now they will go to hell.

Hmm

Or leave the boundaries of the state, which they did.

[zionminded]

Are we so certain that celibate homosexual relations in a civil "marriage" are as "evil" as we have made them out to be? I would be the first person to tell you marriage between a man and a women is required for the CK.

Yes, we are. It goes against the plan of salvation. There is no procreation in "homosexuality". I too am dismayed and suffering a crisis in faith of our leaders in the move towards the support of homosexual marriage, because if they support the Boy Scouts of America at this point, support of homosexual marriage is not far behind. What happened to following Gods plan, as we more and more follow mans plan...............

We invite people with addictions to be healed in Christ, and give them a place at the table. Why not same gender attraction individuals?

[Santiagodeleon107]

Once again Elder Oaks continues to move more and more to the political left, especially on the issues of gay "rights"
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=37033080&nid=12 ... d=queue-16" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As someone who has lived as a Mormon my entire life in Utah I am shocked how far to the left politically that my "leaders" have moved. Not only does this new position toward the "center" goes against everything I have been taught in the church, it goes against the teachings of the scriptures and common sense.

Oaks=Disgrace

Once again we see an apostle criticized against a personal filter. Oaks is a disgrace? Who do you think YOU are? Just because he stakes a position different than your own doesn't necessarily make him wrong and it most certainly doesn't warrant this kind of un-Christlike condemnation.

I find it continually disappointing that there are those out there like you who hold apostles and prophets up like television shows to be reviewed.

When I wrote this I was upset by Oaks's comments from the article and his recent actions and comments in supporting gay "rights" perhaps Oaks=Disgrace was a bit harsh.