LDS Freedom Forum

I’m not up on this “religious freedom” issue Oakes and the Church speak off, I still have to do my homework on it, but from what I gather I get real uncomfortable when they speak of it because I think they should be propounding “Christian religious freedom” not “religious freedom” which includes Judaism and Islam. I hate to say it but I think Oaks and the Church are for making laws that protect Judaism and Islam contrary to the Book of Mormon counsel that America is reserved for Christians and that Christ is the God of this land and we have a responsibility not to allow these alien religions into this country. In fact the Jews Noahide laws and the Muslim Sharih laws both require that Christians be beheaded for blasphemy against their gods by merely believing in Jesus Christ. This melting pot of Americca is non-sense according to the Book of Mormon.

More and more these Prophets, seers and revelators in S.L.C. in my mind are turning out to be false prophets, seers and revelators.

BeNotDeceived wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 1:25 pm

GeeR wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 12:18 pm Chuck Baldwin! He ran once before in 2008 but didn't have name recognition. The only way to beat Trump as far as I can see is to write in Chuck Baldwin on the ballot. I think Trump can be defeated if word gets out and goes viral that his word doesn’t match his actions—and his actions suggest that he is out to do away with the 2nd amendment.

I was outraged when I saw this video by Pastor Chuck Baldwin on Trump. If I was outraged because I'm a lover of the U.S. Constitution and enjoy what limited freedoms I have under its umbrella, I'm not about to roll over and just say "Oh well, such is politics." I was manipulated and tricked by Trump so I'm not about to let him get away with duping me and jeopardizing my life and the lives of my family--we have to speak up on such an important subject. We have to get the word out.

I'm taking it personal and everybody else in America that was duped by him should take it personal and send a strong message that such trickery will not be tolerated. All people who love their Constitutional rights and freedoms should be outraged and desire to be educated on the merits of Pastor Chuck Baldwin so they can send back to the criminals in Washington that their day is coming when "the slaves will rise up against their [Gadianton] masters." (D&C 87:4)

Any idea if he’s clued in like Carter was about OTEC ?

I had to look it up--Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC). No I don't know what Chuck thinks about it but I am certain it would be a Constitutional point-of-view which limits government in all areas.

GeeR wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 12:18 pm Chuck Baldwin! He ran once before in 2008 but didn't have name recognition. The only way to beat Trump as far as I can see is to write in Chuck Baldwin on the ballot. I think Trump can be defeated if word gets out and goes viral that his word doesn’t match his actions—and his actions suggest that he is out to do away with the 2nd amendment.

I was outraged when I saw this video by Pastor Chuck Baldwin on Trump. If I was outraged because I'm a lover of the U.S. Constitution and enjoy what limited freedoms I have under its umbrella, I'm not about to roll over and just say "Oh well, such is politics." I was manipulated and tricked by Trump so I'm not about to let him get away with duping me and jeopardizing my life and the lives of my family--we have to speak up on such an important subject. We have to get the word out.

I'm taking it personal and everybody else in America that was duped by him should take it personal and send a strong message that such trickery will not be tolerated. All people who love their Constitutional rights and freedoms should be outraged and desire to be educated on the merits of Pastor Chuck Baldwin so they can send back to the criminals in Washington that their day is coming when "the slaves will rise up against their [Gadianton] masters." (D&C 87:4)

Chuck Baldwin would have the least chance in the election than almost anyone I can think of. He now understands that the official story of 9/11 is wrong. Further, he has allied with Christopher Bollyn in targeting the Isrealis/Mossad as the chief architects of the whole 9/11 scenario.

Art Vandelay wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2019, 11:04 am

Vision wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2019, 10:20 am

larsenb wrote: ↑October 21st, 2019, 12:40 pmHow can any reasonable LDS American object to these wonderful sentiments?

Trump said the word pussy so he is forever condemned by LDS folks.

True, Trump is a pompous pig but even a pompous pig produces bacon. I voted for him and I'll vote for him again. He's far from perfect but he's standing up to the deep state and secret combination like no other.

"Pompous pig" is rather hyperbolic for me. I don't see him that way.

GeeR wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2019, 3:41 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2019, 12:09 am

GeeR wrote: ↑October 21st, 2019, 5:49 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑October 21st, 2019, 2:41 pm

Ballard along w/Anderson came out against 'nationalism' with no qualification exactly 2 years ago when it was clearly known that Trump was repeatedly speaking out against the dangers of globalism, and the necessity of protecting our borders and nation.

You forgot to mention that Apostle Cook was in on that heresy too. And President Russell M. Nelson never went to the pulpit to ask them to sit down for teaching false doctrine. Do I smell hypocrisy from all these brethren?

Cook qualified his mention of 'nationalism' by basically condemning the type of nationalism that takes advantage of other nations and acts superior/arrogant toward them. I had no problem with that, personally.

In that case it’s not nationalism, it’s jingoism.

Most definitions of nationalism aren't pejorative. A few are, and you can always add qualifiers to the word to convey your meaning. Cook, very appropriately did this. With jingoism, you're getting into words synonymous with bad nationalism.

ori wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2019, 5:04 pm

Art Vandelay wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2019, 4:31 pm

GeeR wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2019, 4:04 pm A vote for Donald Trump is a vote to destroy the 2nd amendment! Here’s why:

I like Chuck Baldwin but he's over dramatic on this point.

"We can't make it harder for good, solid, law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. We will always uphold the right to self-defense, and we will always uphold the Second Amendment, we will." -Trump

Unfortunately Trump has been supporting red flag laws. I will likely vote for Trump, but I DO. NOT. LIKE. his support of Red Flag laws.

I recall reading or hearing that someone had talked him out of that position. We can only hope.

h_p wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 8:14 am After seeing what's been happening in Culiacan Mexico recently, I'm praying for the Mexican people. The drug cartels just showed their true power to the world. They're literally a modern-day Gadianton robber band, complete with armored vehicles, .50 caliber machine guns, anti-tank weapons and a complete lack of human decency.

https://whiskeytangotexas.com/2019/10/2 ... -collapse/

The forces that emerged were in the literal sense awesome and awful. Heavy weaponry that would be familiar on any Iraqi, Syrian, or Yemeni battlefield was brought to bear. More and worse: custom-built armored vehicles, designed and built to make a Sahel-warfare technical look like an amateur’s weekend kit job, were rolled out for their combat debut. Most critically, all this hardware was manned by men with qualities the Mexican Army largely lacks: training, tactical proficiency, and motivation.

Then the coup de grace: as the Chapo sons’ forces engaged in direct combat with their own national military, kill squads went into action across Culiacán, slaughtering the families of soldiers engaged in the streets.

This all happened within a day's drive of the US border.

Disturbing. All the more reason to get the border wall up.

larsenb wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 2:21 pm

ori wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2019, 5:04 pm

Art Vandelay wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2019, 4:31 pm

GeeR wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2019, 4:04 pm A vote for Donald Trump is a vote to destroy the 2nd amendment! Here’s why:

I like Chuck Baldwin but he's over dramatic on this point.

"We can't make it harder for good, solid, law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. We will always uphold the right to self-defense, and we will always uphold the Second Amendment, we will." -Trump

Unfortunately Trump has been supporting red flag laws. I will likely vote for Trump, but I DO. NOT. LIKE. his support of Red Flag laws.

I recall reading or hearing that someone had talked him out of that position. We can only hope.

Talked him out of it or threatened him out of it?

The Nehor wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2019, 2:30 pm You should all get together and give a big seminar on Trump’s glorious battle against secret combinations to the apostles. Who needs being a Seer when you can get people who rant about secret combinations and political conspiracies on the Internet? They clearly need an education in this area.
. . . . .

Well for what ever reason, we don't much get warnings/information anymore on the dangers of Secret Combinations. Pres. Benson, was the last to give us a clear, powerful warning of them in his Fall Conference 1988, I Testify talk.

And it IS a major theme of the Book of Mormon, with warnings from Moroni to our day about their dangers to us and conveying a command from God "~that when we see these things come among us, we wake up to our awful situation".

I met a guy in a discussion group who talked about his experience attending a group headed by Reid Benson (as I recall, in any case, a son of Pres. Benson) in Reid's home during the early '90s. This son of Benson apparently said that: "No, Pres. Benson was not senile, he would have dinner with and talk to him every Sunday; rather, the Lord had shut his mouth"; with the implication that the LDS people had been warned enough, and insofar as they hadn't heeded the warnings, they will have to suffer the consequences.

So, Nehor, do you think Moroni was off target, or what??

larsenb wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 2:19 pm

GeeR wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2019, 3:41 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2019, 12:09 am

GeeR wrote: ↑October 21st, 2019, 5:49 pm

You forgot to mention that Apostle Cook was in on that heresy too. And President Russell M. Nelson never went to the pulpit to ask them to sit down for teaching false doctrine. Do I smell hypocrisy from all these brethren?

Cook qualified his mention of 'nationalism' by basically condemning the type of nationalism that takes advantage of other nations and acts superior/arrogant toward them. I had no problem with that, personally.

In that case it’s not nationalism, it’s jingoism.

Most definitions of nationalism aren't pejorative. A few are, and you can always add qualifiers to the word to convey your meaning. Cook, very appropriately did this. With jingoism, you're getting into words synonymous with bad nationalism.

No, no the difference between nationalism and jingoism is that nationalism means a love for ones country and the meaning of jingoism is hate of other countries--not the same at all. In other words there is no "bad nationalism!"

Ezra Taft Benson was talking about not interfering in the business of other nations when others accused that such an attitude is nationalism. Benson then helps us define nationalism from his book An Enemy Hath Done This (p.155-6):

“But that is nationalism,” chants the chorus. “And nationalism fosters jealousy, suspicion and hatred of other countries which in turn leads to war.”(4) How many times has this utter nonsense been repeated without challenge as though it were some kind of empirical and self-evident truth! What kind of logic assumes that loving one’s country means jealousy, suspicion and hatred of all others? Why can’t we be proud of America as an independent nation and also have a feeling of brotherhood and respect for other peoples around the world? As a matter of fact, haven’t

Americans done just that for the past 200 years? What people have poured out more treasure to other lands, opened their doors to more immigrants, and sent more missionaries, teachers and doctors than we? Are we now to believe that love of our own country will suddenly cause us to hate the peoples of other lands?
It was the late Herbert Hoover who pointed out the social poison in the current derision of American nationalism:

We must realize the vitality of the great spiritual force which we call nationalism. The fuzzy-minded intellectuals have sought to brand nationalism as a sin against mankind. They seem to think that infamy is attached to the word “nationalist.” But that force cannot be obscured by denunciation of it as greed or selfishness–as it sometimes is. The spirit of nationalism springs from the deepest of human emotions. It rises from the yearning of men to be free of foreign domination, to govern themselves. It springs from a thousand rills of race, of history, of sacrifice and pride in national achievement. (Quoted by Eugene W. Castle, Billions, Blunders and Baloney, p. 259)

In order for a man to be a good neighbor within his own community, he had better first love his own family before he tries to save the neighborhood. If he doesn’t love his own, why should we believe he would love others? Theodore Roosevelt firmly believed that “it is only the man who ardently loves his country first who in actual practice can help any other country at all.” (P.P.N.S., p. 196)
https://www.latterdayconservative.com/e ... gn-policy/

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 1:06 pm

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 11:23 am

Art Vandelay wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 9:48 am

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2019, 11:46 amI'm not aware of this, but would love to read about what you're referring to.

*snip*
transcript is here-
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... University

Thank you for that. It's good to know one of them gets it.

Although, now that I think about it, Oaks doesn't get it either. Far from. When he attacked Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis for obeying her conscience, her Christian faith, and the scriptures, for not issuing "marriage" licenses to gays. Shame on Oaks. Perfect example of the leaders speaking out of both sides of their mouths. Prop 8 in 2008 - then in 2011 the Oaks talk you posted above - then in 2015, condemning Davis for doing what was 100% right and good and correct - then in 2017, his flaming BYU-H speech. Methinks the Church/Oaks flip-flops more than even Mitt, and that's saying something.

There is a difference and it's huge.
Kim Davis worked for and represented the state. The state can't claim religious freedom. Had Kim been an employee of a church and refused to marry a gay couple, then I bet Oaks would've been on her side.

larsenb wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 2:38 pm

The Nehor wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2019, 2:30 pm You should all get together and give a big seminar on Trump’s glorious battle against secret combinations to the apostles. Who needs being a Seer when you can get people who rant about secret combinations and political conspiracies on the Internet? They clearly need an education in this area.
. . . . .

Well for what ever reason, we don't much get warnings/information anymore on the dangers of Secret Combinations. Pres. Benson, was the last to give us a clear, powerful warning of them in his Fall Conference 1988, I Testify talk.

And it IS a major theme of the Book of Mormon, with warnings from Moroni to our day about their dangers to us and conveying a command from God "~that when we see these things come among us, we wake up to our awful situation".

I met a guy in a discussion group who talked about his experience attending a group headed by Reid Benson (as I recall, in any case, a son of Pres. Benson) in Reid's home during the early '90s. This son of Benson apparently said that: "No, Pres. Benson was not senile, he would have dinner with and talk to him every Sunday; rather, the Lord had shut his mouth"; with the implication that the LDS people had been warned enough, and insofar as they hadn't heeded the warnings, they will have to suffer the consequences.

So, Nehor, do you think Moroni was off target, or what??

Something I wondered about when he would just sit there silent, during church services. Coincidentally my PB was on one of his last birthdays. Perhaps a foreshadow of the moons shadow silently crossing our nation on a subsequent prophets last birthday. You really can’t make this stuff up.

GeeR wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 2:55 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 2:19 pm

GeeR wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2019, 3:41 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2019, 12:09 am
Cook qualified his mention of 'nationalism' by basically condemning the type of nationalism that takes advantage of other nations and acts superior/arrogant toward them. I had no problem with that, personally.

In that case it’s not nationalism, it’s jingoism.

Most definitions of nationalism aren't pejorative. A few are, and you can always add qualifiers to the word to convey your meaning. Cook, very appropriately did this. With jingoism, you're getting into words synonymous with bad nationalism.

No, no the difference between nationalism and jingoism is that nationalism means a love for ones country and the meaning of jingoism is hate of other countries--not the same at all. In other words there is no "bad nationalism!"

Ezra Taft Benson was talking about not interfering in the business of other nations when others accused that such an attitude is nationalism. Benson then helps us define nationalism from his book An Enemy Hath Done This (p.155-6):

“But that is nationalism,” chants the chorus. “And nationalism fosters jealousy, suspicion and hatred of other countries which in turn leads to war.”(4) How many times has this utter nonsense been repeated without challenge as though it were some kind of empirical and self-evident truth! What kind of logic assumes that loving one’s country means jealousy, suspicion and hatred of all others? Why can’t we be proud of America as an independent nation and also have a feeling of brotherhood and respect for other peoples around the world? As a matter of fact, haven’t

Americans done just that for the past 200 years? What people have poured out more treasure to other lands, opened their doors to more immigrants, and sent more missionaries, teachers and doctors than we? Are we now to believe that love of our own country will suddenly cause us to hate the peoples of other lands?
It was the late Herbert Hoover who pointed out the social poison in the current derision of American nationalism:

We must realize the vitality of the great spiritual force which we call nationalism. The fuzzy-minded intellectuals have sought to brand nationalism as a sin against mankind. They seem to think that infamy is attached to the word “nationalist.” But that force cannot be obscured by denunciation of it as greed or selfishness–as it sometimes is. The spirit of nationalism springs from the deepest of human emotions. It rises from the yearning of men to be free of foreign domination, to govern themselves. It springs from a thousand rills of race, of history, of sacrifice and pride in national achievement. (Quoted by Eugene W. Castle, Billions, Blunders and Baloney, p. 259)

In order for a man to be a good neighbor within his own community, he had better first love his own family before he tries to save the neighborhood. If he doesn’t love his own, why should we believe he would love others? Theodore Roosevelt firmly believed that “it is only the man who ardently loves his country first who in actual practice can help any other country at all.” (P.P.N.S., p. 196)
https://www.latterdayconservative.com/e ... gn-policy/

Can't disagree. There are some dictionaries that have picked up on the pejorative definitions, however. Then there is the taint due to the Hitler association.

Art Vandelay wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 3:12 pm

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 1:06 pm

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 11:23 am

Art Vandelay wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 9:48 am
*snip*
transcript is here-
https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... University

Thank you for that. It's good to know one of them gets it.

Although, now that I think about it, Oaks doesn't get it either. Far from. When he attacked Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis for obeying her conscience, her Christian faith, and the scriptures, for not issuing "marriage" licenses to gays. Shame on Oaks. Perfect example of the leaders speaking out of both sides of their mouths. Prop 8 in 2008 - then in 2011 the Oaks talk you posted above - then in 2015, condemning Davis for doing what was 100% right and good and correct - then in 2017, his flaming BYU-H speech. Methinks the Church/Oaks flip-flops more than even Mitt, and that's saying something.

There is a difference and it's huge.
Kim Davis worked for and represented the state. The state can't claim religious freedom. Had Kim been an employee of a church and refused to marry a gay couple, then I bet Oaks would've been on her side.

I see. Then an LDS doctor who works for a public hospital should be forced to murder unborn babies. Got it.

Sincere prayers for our country - warmed my heart....

https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/ ... hite-house

Wednesday, 23 October 2019
Prayers for the President Continue in Washington and the White House
Written by Bob Adelmann

From the beginning of his presidency, Donald Trump has encouraged prayers for himself and for the country. The TV evangelist who brought Trump to faith in Jesus Christ, Paula White, played a key role during his inauguration and then again during the president’s reelection rally in Orlando last June.

She was God’s tool in bringing Trump to faith, she explained:

He was watching Christian television and [after calling me on the phone] he repeated back to me, literally verbatim, three of my sermons on the value of vision, and we started talking about God and the things of God.

I’ve had the wonderful privilege of not only being a friend but being a spiritual adviser and praying over him, his family [and] his staff. It’s been amazing to just watch him walk out his faith.

When quizzed about his conversion by NBC News, White added: “I know that Donald is saved. He’s absolutely received Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.”

Last May, Vice President Mike Pence, himself an unabashed claimer of the name of Jesus, told Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) that “There’s prayer going on on a regular basis in this White House. And it’s one of the most meaningful things to me.” He added: “I’ve lost count of the number of times that the president has nudged me or nudged another member of the Cabinet and said, ‘Let’s start this meeting with prayer.’”

In the last couple of weeks, evidence that the president hasn’t backed away from his commitment has popped up in some unlikely places. After finishing a speech to the Young Black Leadership Summit two weeks ago, a young woman interrupted him, shouting “Let me pray for you!”

The president stopped the music and invited the woman, Mahalet (shown), an Ethiopian immigrant adopted by a Christian family in Indiana, to come up onto the stage. The president turned the microphone over to her:

I’m not really good with prayers or anything like that but I just want to say thank you, Mr. President. I know we have a political warfare [going on] right now, but I strongly believe that it is a spiritual one as well.

And I want to make sure that, I mean, I know that Americans are gonna wake up and we’re gonna get back to looking to God instead of social media and we’re gonna look back to Jesus because Jesus saves and this country was founded upon the Constitution, was built on godly principles and we’re gonna fight for that. And I just want to encourage you guys to pray every day for this nation.

Then she began her prayer, saying "I love God and I want to pray real quick”:

Dear God, I’m not really good at this. But I just want to say thank You so much for giving us this opportunity to be in the White House. Thank You for giving us a great leader like Trump, Mr. Donald Trump, and I would like to thank You for waking up our nation.

God, I believe that you gave him to us and I believe that he’s gonna accomplish so much more. I know You have more for us. Jesus, I ask You to protect us and walk with us. In Jesus’ name.

The president gave her a hug and then tweeted, “So amazing!”

On Saturday, October 12, Pastor Andrew Brunson, who was imprisoned in Turkey for more than two years, prayed for the president at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C.:

Father God, I ask now for an impartation of Your Holy Spirit, may the fullness of the Spirit of Jesus rest upon President Trump that he be anointed with wisdom and understanding, with Your counsel and might, with knowledge and fear of the Lord….

Bring into the light all deception and intrigue, expose and reverse the plans of those who would harm President Trump and this nation. In the name of Jesus, I break off all voices and influences that do not come from You, father God….

God, You have raised President Trump to govern at a time when there is a resurgence of oppression. Only You Lord Jesus Christ can anoint him to have victories over strongholds and to establish justice for the needy. Give him strength and courage to persevere in the constant battle that surrounds him and refresh him.

Trump responded: “I want to thank you for that beautiful prayer, it means a lot. Our rights come from God Almighty and they can never be taken away. Together we will protect those God-given rights.”

Three days later, exactly one year after being released from his Turkish prison cell, Pastor Brunson delivered the opening prayer for the Senate:

Our Heavenly Father: May Your holy name be honored. May Your name be held in high regard in this Senate. We give thanks to You for You are good. And Your steadfast love endures forever. You have watched over this nation in various times of peace, prosperity, turmoil, and war. May we continue to look to You and be a people who seek Your face.

On Monday, the president nudged Dr. Ben Carson, head of HUD, to offer a prayer at the opening of a Cabinet meeting at the White House. Prayed Carson:

Our kind Father in Heaven, we’re so thankful for the many blessings that You have bestowed upon us in this country and we’re thankful for the people of courage who have been here before us, who have fought hard for the rights of our country.

And we thank You for President Donald Trump, who also exhibits great courage in face of constant criticism. And we ask that You would give him strength to endure and the wisdom to lead, and to recognize You as the sovereign of the universe with the solution to everything. And the people around the president — the vice president, the Cabinet, the advisors — give us all an understanding heart and a compassionate heart. Those are the things that will keep America great.

And help us all to recognize as a nation that separation of church and state means that the church does not dominate the state, and it means the state does not dominate the church. It doesn’t mean that they cannot work together to promote godly principles of loving your fellow man, of caring about your neighbor, of developing your God-given talents to the utmost so that you become valuable to the people around you, and having values and principles that govern your life.

And if we do those things, then we will always be successful. And we thank You for hearing our prayer, in Your holy name. Amen.

Despite the deliberate silence from the mainstream media, the spirit and power of prayer continues to permeate the Trump administration.

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 4:39 pm

Art Vandelay wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 3:12 pm

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 1:06 pm

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 11:23 am

Thank you for that. It's good to know one of them gets it.

Although, now that I think about it, Oaks doesn't get it either. Far from. When he attacked Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis for obeying her conscience, her Christian faith, and the scriptures, for not issuing "marriage" licenses to gays. Shame on Oaks. Perfect example of the leaders speaking out of both sides of their mouths. Prop 8 in 2008 - then in 2011 the Oaks talk you posted above - then in 2015, condemning Davis for doing what was 100% right and good and correct - then in 2017, his flaming BYU-H speech. Methinks the Church/Oaks flip-flops more than even Mitt, and that's saying something.

There is a difference and it's huge.
Kim Davis worked for and represented the state. The state can't claim religious freedom. Had Kim been an employee of a church and refused to marry a gay couple, then I bet Oaks would've been on her side.

I see. Then an LDS doctor who works for a public hospital should be forced to murder unborn babies. Got it.

I don't disagree that it's a slippery slope but Kim Davis wasn't forced to do anything. Dr.'s aren't forced to abort babies.

There's still a difference. Was she forced to perform a marriage? No. She wasn't even asked to. Her job was to issue marriage licenses. She failed.
Comparing a Dr. performing an abortion to Kim Davis not issuing a license is comparing apples to oranges.

If you work at McDonalds and someone orders coffee should you be allowed to refuse to serve them because you're LDS? Yes! Can you lose your job because of it? Also Yes! However, if you own your own restaurant can you refuse to serve coffee? Absolutely! You don't have to offer it. A church doesn't have to marry gay people. However, because it's now unfortunately legal, the government MUST. They HAVE to issue a marriage license. Why? It's the LAW. If you work for the government you can't discriminate the application of the law. If you work at the DMV (the government) and someone wants to register a Yugo and you have an issue with Yugo's because they're lemons should you be allowed to refuse to register the car? Yes! Should you be fired because of it? Yes! The DMV must issue the registration if all the requirements are met. Same thing with a marriage license.

Your logic is that it was OK for Lois Learner of the IRS to discriminate against conservative businesses because she was liberal and didn't like conservatives.

We don't have to get dramatic to see that Kim Davis needed to issue the legal license to gay couples. She can disagree with gay marriage until she's blue in the face but it's still legal and a government license needed to be issued. If she had a problem, she should've quit or asked to be transferred.

larsenb wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 4:29 pm

GeeR wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 2:55 pm

larsenb wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 2:19 pm

GeeR wrote: ↑October 22nd, 2019, 3:41 pm

In that case it’s not nationalism, it’s jingoism.

Most definitions of nationalism aren't pejorative. A few are, and you can always add qualifiers to the word to convey your meaning. Cook, very appropriately did this. With jingoism, you're getting into words synonymous with bad nationalism.

No, no the difference between nationalism and jingoism is that nationalism means a love for ones country and the meaning of jingoism is hate of other countries--not the same at all. In other words there is no "bad nationalism!"

Ezra Taft Benson was talking about not interfering in the business of other nations when others accused that such an attitude is nationalism. Benson then helps us define nationalism from his book An Enemy Hath Done This (p.155-6):

“But that is nationalism,” chants the chorus. “And nationalism fosters jealousy, suspicion and hatred of other countries which in turn leads to war.”(4) How many times has this utter nonsense been repeated without challenge as though it were some kind of empirical and self-evident truth! What kind of logic assumes that loving one’s country means jealousy, suspicion and hatred of all others? Why can’t we be proud of America as an independent nation and also have a feeling of brotherhood and respect for other peoples around the world? As a matter of fact, haven’t

Americans done just that for the past 200 years? What people have poured out more treasure to other lands, opened their doors to more immigrants, and sent more missionaries, teachers and doctors than we? Are we now to believe that love of our own country will suddenly cause us to hate the peoples of other lands?
It was the late Herbert Hoover who pointed out the social poison in the current derision of American nationalism:

We must realize the vitality of the great spiritual force which we call nationalism. The fuzzy-minded intellectuals have sought to brand nationalism as a sin against mankind. They seem to think that infamy is attached to the word “nationalist.” But that force cannot be obscured by denunciation of it as greed or selfishness–as it sometimes is. The spirit of nationalism springs from the deepest of human emotions. It rises from the yearning of men to be free of foreign domination, to govern themselves. It springs from a thousand rills of race, of history, of sacrifice and pride in national achievement. (Quoted by Eugene W. Castle, Billions, Blunders and Baloney, p. 259)

In order for a man to be a good neighbor within his own community, he had better first love his own family before he tries to save the neighborhood. If he doesn’t love his own, why should we believe he would love others? Theodore Roosevelt firmly believed that “it is only the man who ardently loves his country first who in actual practice can help any other country at all.” (P.P.N.S., p. 196)
https://www.latterdayconservative.com/e ... gn-policy/

Can't disagree. There are some dictionaries that have picked up on the pejorative definitions, however. Then there is the taint due to the Hitler association.

Some one this forum, I think it was this forum, pointed out that Google’s definition of nationalism has been tampered with recently. He said the words xenophobia, chauvinism and jingoism has been added to it as synonyms that weren’t there before. So the powers that be are surreptitiously changing our definitions of words just like they changed the definition of the word gay and marriage, so beware of this slight-of-hand. I believe our general authorities have bought into it and tried to promote the idea in general conference back in 2116 which means they are now part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

Art Vandelay wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 5:25 pm

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 4:39 pm

Art Vandelay wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 3:12 pm

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 1:06 pm

Although, now that I think about it, Oaks doesn't get it either. Far from. When he attacked Kentucky County Clerk Kim Davis for obeying her conscience, her Christian faith, and the scriptures, for not issuing "marriage" licenses to gays. Shame on Oaks. Perfect example of the leaders speaking out of both sides of their mouths. Prop 8 in 2008 - then in 2011 the Oaks talk you posted above - then in 2015, condemning Davis for doing what was 100% right and good and correct - then in 2017, his flaming BYU-H speech. Methinks the Church/Oaks flip-flops more than even Mitt, and that's saying something.

There is a difference and it's huge.
Kim Davis worked for and represented the state. The state can't claim religious freedom. Had Kim been an employee of a church and refused to marry a gay couple, then I bet Oaks would've been on her side.

I see. Then an LDS doctor who works for a public hospital should be forced to murder unborn babies. Got it.

I don't disagree that it's a slippery slope but Kim Davis wasn't forced to do anything. Dr.'s aren't forced to abort babies.

There's still a difference. Was she forced to perform a marriage? No. She wasn't even asked to. Her job was to issue marriage licenses. She failed.
Comparing a Dr. performing an abortion to Kim Davis not issuing a license is comparing apples to oranges.

If you work at McDonalds and someone orders coffee should you be allowed to refuse to serve them because you're LDS? Yes! Can you lose your job because of it? Also Yes! However, if you own your own restaurant can you refuse to serve coffee? Absolutely! You don't have to offer it. A church doesn't have to marry gay people. However, because it's now unfortunately legal, the government MUST. They HAVE to issue a marriage license. Why? It's the LAW. If you work for the government you can't discriminate the application of the law. If you work at the DMV (the government) and someone wants to register a Yugo and you have an issue with Yugo's because they're lemons should you be allowed to refuse to register the car? Yes! Should you be fired because of it? Yes! The DMV must issue the registration if all the requirements are met. Same thing with a marriage license.

Your logic is that it was OK for Lois Learner of the IRS to discriminate against conservative businesses because she was liberal and didn't like conservatives.

We don't have to get dramatic to see that Kim Davis needed to issue the legal license to gay couples. She can disagree with gay marriage until she's blue in the face but it's still legal and a government license needed to be issued. If she had a problem, she should've quit or asked to be transferred.

Ah yes, slippery slopes and fine lines, supporting evil, lukewarm, on the fence, etc. etc. - the things that will separate us from the true people of God one day soon....

Also, about doctors not being forced to perform abortions against their conscience - it's not as black and white as you claim - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/opin ... ients.html

I have to wonder why Oaks choose to speak out about David at all in the first place? As an acting apostle - why say anything at all about that non-LDS situation in Kentucky? No LDS people involved, that I'm aware of. The LDS Church, not involved at all. Was it to garner a thumb's-up from the gay crowd? Since in several of his Conference talks, he has brought up the fact that our Church still considers same-sex sex a sin - did he feel the need to throw the LGBT et al, crowd a bone? For the life of me, I can't figure out why an apostle would feel the need to even comment on the Davis case for any other reason (and don't even bother with, "He's an attorney" - spare me). There's just no positive to it any way you look at it.

Anyway, his flip-flops rival Mittens.

GeeR wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 5:47 pm , , , , Some one this forum, I think it was this forum, pointed out that Google’s definition of nationalism has been tampered with recently. He said the words xenophobia, chauvinism and jingoism has been added to it as synonyms that weren’t there before. So the powers that be are surreptitiously changing our definitions of words just like they changed the definition of the word gay and marriage, so beware of this slight-of-hand. I believe our general authorities have bought into it and tried to promote the idea in general conference back in 2116 which means they are now part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

My sense is that the PTB inject the new meanings into the psyche of the population through the media, then change the dictionary meanings to fit.

I've heard nary a peep about nationalism one way or another since the talks in 2017. My sense (again) is that they got quite a bit of unexpected blow back on their usage.

larsenb wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 11:18 pm

GeeR wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 5:47 pm , , , , Some one this forum, I think it was this forum, pointed out that Google’s definition of nationalism has been tampered with recently. He said the words xenophobia, chauvinism and jingoism has been added to it as synonyms that weren’t there before. So the powers that be are surreptitiously changing our definitions of words just like they changed the definition of the word gay and marriage, so beware of this slight-of-hand. I believe our general authorities have bought into it and tried to promote the idea in general conference back in 2116 which means they are now part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

My sense is that the PTB inject the new meanings into the psyche of the population through the media, then change the dictionary meanings to fit.

I've heard nary a peep about nationalism one way or another since the talks in 2017. My sense (again) is that they got quite a bit of unexpected blow back on their usage.

A blow-back well deserved, I might add, and a blow-back that manifest that the church has been compromised too, I might add. I used to take everything spoken at General Conference at face value and I think most of the Saints are in that frame of mind at present. Now it’s time to wake up members! You’re responsible for your own salvation—remember Lehi was mislead by a prophet figure in the Book of Mormon. (I Nephi 8:5-8)

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 6:43 pm

Art Vandelay wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 5:25 pm

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 4:39 pm

Art Vandelay wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 3:12 pm

There is a difference and it's huge.
Kim Davis worked for and represented the state. The state can't claim religious freedom. Had Kim been an employee of a church and refused to marry a gay couple, then I bet Oaks would've been on her side.

I see. Then an LDS doctor who works for a public hospital should be forced to murder unborn babies. Got it.

I don't disagree that it's a slippery slope but Kim Davis wasn't forced to do anything. Dr.'s aren't forced to abort babies.

There's still a difference. Was she forced to perform a marriage? No. She wasn't even asked to. Her job was to issue marriage licenses. She failed.
Comparing a Dr. performing an abortion to Kim Davis not issuing a license is comparing apples to oranges.

If you work at McDonalds and someone orders coffee should you be allowed to refuse to serve them because you're LDS? Yes! Can you lose your job because of it? Also Yes! However, if you own your own restaurant can you refuse to serve coffee? Absolutely! You don't have to offer it. A church doesn't have to marry gay people. However, because it's now unfortunately legal, the government MUST. They HAVE to issue a marriage license. Why? It's the LAW. If you work for the government you can't discriminate the application of the law. If you work at the DMV (the government) and someone wants to register a Yugo and you have an issue with Yugo's because they're lemons should you be allowed to refuse to register the car? Yes! Should you be fired because of it? Yes! The DMV must issue the registration if all the requirements are met. Same thing with a marriage license.

Your logic is that it was OK for Lois Learner of the IRS to discriminate against conservative businesses because she was liberal and didn't like conservatives.

We don't have to get dramatic to see that Kim Davis needed to issue the legal license to gay couples. She can disagree with gay marriage until she's blue in the face but it's still legal and a government license needed to be issued. If she had a problem, she should've quit or asked to be transferred.

Ah yes, slippery slopes and fine lines, supporting evil, lukewarm, on the fence, etc. etc. - the things that will separate us from the true people of God one day soon....

Also, about doctors not being forced to perform abortions against their conscience - it's not as black and white as you claim - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/opin ... ients.html

I have to wonder why Oaks choose to speak out about David at all in the first place? As an acting apostle - why say anything at all about that non-LDS situation in Kentucky? No LDS people involved, that I'm aware of. The LDS Church, not involved at all. Was it to garner a thumb's-up from the gay crowd? Since in several of his Conference talks, he has brought up the fact that our Church still considers same-sex sex a sin - did he feel the need to throw the LGBT et al, crowd a bone? For the life of me, I can't figure out why an apostle would feel the need to even comment on the Davis case for any other reason (and don't even bother with, "He's an attorney" - spare me). There's just no positive to it any way you look at it.

Anyway, his flip-flops rival Mittens.

Where did he flip-flop?

Maybe you're not aware of the context of which he mentioned Kim Davis' situation. He didn't mention her name specifically, tho mentioned the scenario. He was speaking at the annual Sacramento Court/Clergy Conference at Congregation.

“Office holders remain free to draw upon their personal beliefs and motivations and advocate their positions in the public square. But when acting as public officials they are not free to apply personal convictions — religious or other — in place of the defined responsibilities of their public offices”
“A county clerk’s recent invoking of religious reasons to justify refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples violates this principle.” -Oaks

Art Vandelay wrote: ↑October 24th, 2019, 10:43 am

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 6:43 pm

Art Vandelay wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 5:25 pm

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 4:39 pm

I see. Then an LDS doctor who works for a public hospital should be forced to murder unborn babies. Got it.

I don't disagree that it's a slippery slope but Kim Davis wasn't forced to do anything. Dr.'s aren't forced to abort babies.

There's still a difference. Was she forced to perform a marriage? No. She wasn't even asked to. Her job was to issue marriage licenses. She failed.
Comparing a Dr. performing an abortion to Kim Davis not issuing a license is comparing apples to oranges.

If you work at McDonalds and someone orders coffee should you be allowed to refuse to serve them because you're LDS? Yes! Can you lose your job because of it? Also Yes! However, if you own your own restaurant can you refuse to serve coffee? Absolutely! You don't have to offer it. A church doesn't have to marry gay people. However, because it's now unfortunately legal, the government MUST. They HAVE to issue a marriage license. Why? It's the LAW. If you work for the government you can't discriminate the application of the law. If you work at the DMV (the government) and someone wants to register a Yugo and you have an issue with Yugo's because they're lemons should you be allowed to refuse to register the car? Yes! Should you be fired because of it? Yes! The DMV must issue the registration if all the requirements are met. Same thing with a marriage license.

Your logic is that it was OK for Lois Learner of the IRS to discriminate against conservative businesses because she was liberal and didn't like conservatives.

We don't have to get dramatic to see that Kim Davis needed to issue the legal license to gay couples. She can disagree with gay marriage until she's blue in the face but it's still legal and a government license needed to be issued. If she had a problem, she should've quit or asked to be transferred.

Ah yes, slippery slopes and fine lines, supporting evil, lukewarm, on the fence, etc. etc. - the things that will separate us from the true people of God one day soon....

Also, about doctors not being forced to perform abortions against their conscience - it's not as black and white as you claim - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/opin ... ients.html

I have to wonder why Oaks choose to speak out about David at all in the first place? As an acting apostle - why say anything at all about that non-LDS situation in Kentucky? No LDS people involved, that I'm aware of. The LDS Church, not involved at all. Was it to garner a thumb's-up from the gay crowd? Since in several of his Conference talks, he has brought up the fact that our Church still considers same-sex sex a sin - did he feel the need to throw the LGBT et al, crowd a bone? For the life of me, I can't figure out why an apostle would feel the need to even comment on the Davis case for any other reason (and don't even bother with, "He's an attorney" - spare me). There's just no positive to it any way you look at it.

Anyway, his flip-flops rival Mittens.

Where did he flip-flop?

Maybe you're not aware of the context of which he mentioned Kim Davis' situation. He didn't mention her name specifically, tho mentioned the scenario. He was speaking at the annual Sacramento Court/Clergy Conference at Congregation.

“Office holders remain free to draw upon their personal beliefs and motivations and advocate their positions in the public square. But when acting as public officials they are not free to apply personal convictions — religious or other — in place of the defined responsibilities of their public offices”
“A county clerk’s recent invoking of religious reasons to justify refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples violates this principle.” -Oaks

Perhaps he should have commented on the Lerner situation (and 100 more), as well, then.

larsenb wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 11:18 pm
My sense is that the PTB inject the new meanings into the psyche of the population through the media, then change the dictionary meanings to fit.

Larsenb, this is amazingly insightful, thanks I'll remember this.

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 24th, 2019, 2:07 pm

Art Vandelay wrote: ↑October 24th, 2019, 10:43 am

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 6:43 pm

Art Vandelay wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 5:25 pm
I don't disagree that it's a slippery slope but Kim Davis wasn't forced to do anything. Dr.'s aren't forced to abort babies.

There's still a difference. Was she forced to perform a marriage? No. She wasn't even asked to. Her job was to issue marriage licenses. She failed.
Comparing a Dr. performing an abortion to Kim Davis not issuing a license is comparing apples to oranges.

If you work at McDonalds and someone orders coffee should you be allowed to refuse to serve them because you're LDS? Yes! Can you lose your job because of it? Also Yes! However, if you own your own restaurant can you refuse to serve coffee? Absolutely! You don't have to offer it. A church doesn't have to marry gay people. However, because it's now unfortunately legal, the government MUST. They HAVE to issue a marriage license. Why? It's the LAW. If you work for the government you can't discriminate the application of the law. If you work at the DMV (the government) and someone wants to register a Yugo and you have an issue with Yugo's because they're lemons should you be allowed to refuse to register the car? Yes! Should you be fired because of it? Yes! The DMV must issue the registration if all the requirements are met. Same thing with a marriage license.

Your logic is that it was OK for Lois Learner of the IRS to discriminate against conservative businesses because she was liberal and didn't like conservatives.

We don't have to get dramatic to see that Kim Davis needed to issue the legal license to gay couples. She can disagree with gay marriage until she's blue in the face but it's still legal and a government license needed to be issued. If she had a problem, she should've quit or asked to be transferred.

Ah yes, slippery slopes and fine lines, supporting evil, lukewarm, on the fence, etc. etc. - the things that will separate us from the true people of God one day soon....

Also, about doctors not being forced to perform abortions against their conscience - it's not as black and white as you claim - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/opin ... ients.html

I have to wonder why Oaks choose to speak out about David at all in the first place? As an acting apostle - why say anything at all about that non-LDS situation in Kentucky? No LDS people involved, that I'm aware of. The LDS Church, not involved at all. Was it to garner a thumb's-up from the gay crowd? Since in several of his Conference talks, he has brought up the fact that our Church still considers same-sex sex a sin - did he feel the need to throw the LGBT et al, crowd a bone? For the life of me, I can't figure out why an apostle would feel the need to even comment on the Davis case for any other reason (and don't even bother with, "He's an attorney" - spare me). There's just no positive to it any way you look at it.

Anyway, his flip-flops rival Mittens.

Where did he flip-flop?

Maybe you're not aware of the context of which he mentioned Kim Davis' situation. He didn't mention her name specifically, tho mentioned the scenario. He was speaking at the annual Sacramento Court/Clergy Conference at Congregation.

“Office holders remain free to draw upon their personal beliefs and motivations and advocate their positions in the public square. But when acting as public officials they are not free to apply personal convictions — religious or other — in place of the defined responsibilities of their public offices”
“A county clerk’s recent invoking of religious reasons to justify refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples violates this principle.” -Oaks

Perhaps he should have commented on the Lerner situation (and 100 more), as well, then.

Except Oaks was talking about church and state, not liberals and conservatives. Lerner, a liberal, targeted conservatives, not religion. It would've been out of context for Oaks to talk about Lerner. If you read his speech, you'll see why he included the county clerk incident.
And to be clear, he was not on official church business. He was speaking his opinion at a court and clergy conference. Apostles can still have personal opinions.

Art Vandelay wrote: ↑October 25th, 2019, 9:48 am

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 24th, 2019, 2:07 pm

Art Vandelay wrote: ↑October 24th, 2019, 10:43 am

EmmaLee wrote: ↑October 23rd, 2019, 6:43 pm

Ah yes, slippery slopes and fine lines, supporting evil, lukewarm, on the fence, etc. etc. - the things that will separate us from the true people of God one day soon....

Also, about doctors not being forced to perform abortions against their conscience - it's not as black and white as you claim - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/13/opin ... ients.html

I have to wonder why Oaks choose to speak out about David at all in the first place? As an acting apostle - why say anything at all about that non-LDS situation in Kentucky? No LDS people involved, that I'm aware of. The LDS Church, not involved at all. Was it to garner a thumb's-up from the gay crowd? Since in several of his Conference talks, he has brought up the fact that our Church still considers same-sex sex a sin - did he feel the need to throw the LGBT et al, crowd a bone? For the life of me, I can't figure out why an apostle would feel the need to even comment on the Davis case for any other reason (and don't even bother with, "He's an attorney" - spare me). There's just no positive to it any way you look at it.

Anyway, his flip-flops rival Mittens.

Where did he flip-flop?

Maybe you're not aware of the context of which he mentioned Kim Davis' situation. He didn't mention her name specifically, tho mentioned the scenario. He was speaking at the annual Sacramento Court/Clergy Conference at Congregation.

“Office holders remain free to draw upon their personal beliefs and motivations and advocate their positions in the public square. But when acting as public officials they are not free to apply personal convictions — religious or other — in place of the defined responsibilities of their public offices”
“A county clerk’s recent invoking of religious reasons to justify refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples violates this principle.” -Oaks

Perhaps he should have commented on the Lerner situation (and 100 more), as well, then.

Except Oaks was talking about church and state, not liberals and conservatives. Lerner, a liberal, targeted conservatives, not religion. It would've been out of context for Oaks to talk about Lerner. If you read his speech, you'll see why he included the county clerk incident.
And to be clear, he was not on official church business. He was speaking his opinion at a court and clergy conference. Apostles can still have personal opinions.

That is true - it's just sad that so many members hang on to their every word (said anywhere, in any capacity) and assume they are all from God/God's opinion. It's obvious, they are not.