Replies

From the article: One day he's dissing gay activists as immoral "buggers" and perhaps the "greatest threat" to the nation. Then, he's embracing anti-discrimination legislation and conceding the "right" gay residents have to job and housing protections. What swayed state Sen. Chris Buttars? His church. Suddenly, Buttars, R-West Jordan, and his Mormon colleagues on the right who had vigorously -- and vociferously -- opposed such laws faced a choice: Should they back or buck their church?

From the article: "I am a really devout, committed member and believe strongly in the tenets of the religion. I take seriously whatever positions the church takes on a particular issue," says Rep. Ronda Menlove, R-Garland, whose husband is an LDS stake president. "I am also a pragmatist, [so] not all of my votes are driven by what the LDS Church says."

The spirit of Ezra Taft Benson lives on...

I suppose the actions of the lds church in this matter would explain the warm welcome they gave to Dingy Harry Reid and in also giving him a platform in the lds colleges so he could talk to college students.

The lurch into liberalism demonstrated by the church leaders and the subsequent lemmings jumping over the cliff in following their church is of great significance.

The fact that elected mormon representatives of Utah voters are now following in lockstep with their church “leaders” as opposed to following the will of their constituents is quite telling.

Which way is the wind blowing today? Or has the thinking been done and they are not to question or criticize their “leaders” even if the criticism is warranted?

I can’t speak for anything regarding LDS faith and practices.

However, I can say that any Catholic, particularly a Catholic politician, has the obligation to form his conscience according to the teachings of the Church. Once he does that, his actions will naturally follow.

Unfortunately, we have a couple of generations whose consciences were either not formed or malformed.

I pray that the efforts of the Holy Father (and those few bishops who are not suffering from the same malformation as the rest of society) will prove fruitful.

In conclusion let us summarize this grand key, these “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet”, for our salvation depends on them.

1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true. If we want to know how well we stand with the Lord then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His mortal captain—how close do our lives harmonize with the Lord’s anointed—the living Prophet—President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency.

Ezra Taft Benson

(Address given Tuesday, February 26, 1980 at Brigham Young University)

From the article: "If the church takes a position on a public-policy issue contrary to popular sentiment, as a public official, I have two choices: Either I follow the will of the people and be popular or follow my faith leaders, risking the rejection of the voters," says Stuart Reid, a former Salt Lake City councilman. "When faced with this dilemma, it's my guiding principle that devoted Mormons involved in politics should always choose to follow their faith leaders no matter their own personal views or the political consequences."

Now, I just wonder what Mitt Romney's response would be to that? It's one thing for Utah-theocracy politicians to "follow their faith leaders", but how would the flipper talk his way out of that statement in regards to POTUS?

I have a strong suspicion that after four years of the muslim-atheist Obama in office, there will be a strong aversion to electing a president who has taken the vow of consecration in the mormon temple....

"The Law of Consecration

One of the covenants we make with the Lord when we receive our temple endowments is to live the law of consecration. The Lord has called this law a celestial law, under which we give our time, talents, and possessions to build the Lord’s kingdom.

• Read Doctrine and Covenants 88:22 and D&C 105:1–5. Why must we understand the law of consecration and be willing to live it?

Concerning this law the Prophet Joseph Smith said, “A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation” (Lectures on Faith [1985], 69).

As the Prophet explained, we must develop the kind of faith that will lead us to eternal life. Such faith comes as we put the things of God’s kingdom first in our lives. "

VOW of consecration in LDS temple ritual.

"You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion."

NOTE: "The Kingdom of God" described here does not refer to the Kingdom of God as most Christians believe, and ZION is described here: "Zion is often used in this way to refer to the Lord's people or to the Church and its stakes (see D&C 82:14). It has also been used to refer to specific geographical locations. "

Lets see what some of those quotes look like if abortion is replaced with something else abhorent:

“Shea, a Jesuit-trained Catholic, was outraged by the bishops’ opposition to health-care reform because they feared government funds would go toward cannabalism.”

“I am against cannabalism, but I don’t think Dahmer v. Wade should be set aside. It is the law of the land.”

“I would be strongly in favor of counseling any family member about alternatives to cannabalism, and I would encourage fast food take out that would accommodate for that cannabal feast.”

“Yet, legislatively, I don’t believe it is appropriate for the government to be overly engaged in that decision-making for individuals. As a matter of public policy, I have defended a woman’s right to eat other humans.”

Pretty disgusting. Also, according to the Church, the death penalty doesn’t compare to abortion at all, although some bishops would love top give that impression.

Freegards