Your hateful screeds against the standing president of our nation, lawfully elected (whether you agree with his politics or not) linked with the implication that those who disagree with you are unworthy somehow has driven my decision to drop your blog from mormonblogs. Good luck with your ventures. Your target audience is not one we desire at mormonblogs. My feeling would be the same if this were a left-wing blog calling members unworthy who watch Glenn Beck.
No hard feelings I hope.
No hard feelings I hope.
I wish to give rebuttal to this statement. Not in hopes of getting admitted back on to their blog listing because if this blog is not welcome then perhaps it is not the right place for our site anyway. But the principles at play here seem to be unsettling and therefore I wish to make comment - after all this blog is a blantant giving of my opinion and those who chose to participate.
Being accused of standing opposed to an elected president is not a violation of the 12th article of faith. Nor do I feel it righteous or morally agreeable to stand idly by and allow for the prophetically declared inspired constitution to be trampled, abused, or disregarded by the leaders of this country. Where moral and political opposition is felt, we are encouraged to voice our opinions. The church's involvement in Prop. 8 in California is proof that we as members of the church are to take an active role in standing up for moral principles in our society. Priesthood holders are instructed to be the leaders that this society needs by standing up for the teachings of the church in all our endeavors.
In the article posted Saturday November 28th 2009 discussing an individuals temple worthiness against support of two ideals, abortion and homosexuality, evidence was given to support that both the democratic party and our current president stand in opposition to the church in what I consider to be significant and clear doctrinal principles. I made it very clear that it is not support of the president or the democratic party alone that is a violation of temple worthiness, but support of the principles that these two entities espouse that actively defy the doctrines of the church.
Speaking against the president is not a new thing by members of the church nor do I consider it a violation of christ-like behaviors. Christ himself spoke out against Ceasar, Pilate, and other social and political leaders in his day. Sadducee's, Publicans, and Pharisees, even professors of other religions were constantly denounced and were counseled to repent. Joseph Smith once said of President Van Buren, "he is so much a fop or fool (for he judged our cause before he knew it) we could find no place to put truth into him. We do not say the Saints shall not vote for him, but we do say boldly.... that we do not intend he shall have our votes." He then later stated on a trip home from meeting with the president, "On my way home I did not fail to proclaim the iniquity and insolence of Martin Van Buren, toward myself and an injured people. May he never be elected again to any office of trust or power. (the president) Was not as fit as my dog, for the chair of state; for my dog will make an effort to protect his abused and insulted master, while the present chief magistrate will no so much as lift his finger to relieve an oppressed and perecuted community of freemen."
With regards to the "punishing" of other blogs in a similar fashion were they left wing blogs demonstrating a point of view contrary to the MormonBlog directory, I have to say, that this is a statement of hypocrisy and a double standard that I will hold no reservation speaking against. I have visited other blogs listed on MormonBlogs and found that they not only spoke out strongly against George W. Bush in his presidency, but have spoken out against the church directly. Many of the "left-wing" or liberal blogs listed on the site have openly declared that they find fault with the church. Yet, they continue to be listed. We have spoken in support of the church and with respect to the blog article in question by Angela, the article is a denouncement of principles that should be morally offensive to all church members. I have not made the judgment call that individuals are not worthy, the brethren have been clear in making that distinction. My post is simply a repeat of that information. "Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church."
So to disagree with the information in this post and to the degree that you feel that a statement regarding a judgment on church membership from the church itself is not inline with the feelings of the MormonBlog directory, then perhaps the site should have its name changed. As the "Mormon Church" feels that individuals who support these causes are unworthy of a temple recommend, and they are not worthy of membership in the church.
No hard feelings? Why should I? I have done nothing wrong with my writing. I am a faithful member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and have a testimony that this is the only true church on the earth. That Thomas Spencer Monson is the prophet on the earth today and the leader of God's government on the earth. Abortion is a practice of the devil and is the combination of two of the greatest and most egregious sins one can commit - sexual sin and murder. Practicing homosexuality is a sinful abomination that leads the individual down paths away from God and will disqualify an individual for membership in the church. If there is no value in asking the question "Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?" then why have it in the temple recommend interview? If our answers are to be of no consequence then why does the Lord want that question in there? The question is of utmost spiritual relevance as an improper answer to this question can disqualify an individual for the blessings of temple worship - the highest worship in the church.
To all in the blog world who wish to discuss politics, society, or matters of the law, please come and participate. We will disagree - so what. It is not only my right as a citizen of this country to express my opinion, but I feel it my obligation to stand for high moral conduct as espoused by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Had my comments been inflammatory due to a false claim or false information, I would feel that our expulsion from this directory would be justified. Instead, I feel like saints in other times and places that have seen undue persecution for standing up for moral and gospel principles. Perhaps the comments of others could be construed to match this description, but then again, all should be entitled to their opinion, even those who feel that being Mormon and naked in public is in accord with gospel principles.
To show no hard feelings I will leave the link to the MormonBlog directory up on our site as I feel that people should be allowed to find sources where others are free to express their opinions. These links should be available to all of our readers as well.
As the co-founder of this blog and slightly more abrasive member I always find it funny when people who advocate the open exchange of ideas further clarify that they are for the open exchange of ideas they approve of. James and I have talked in the past about deleting postings from people we didn't agree with or thought took things too far but we didn't. The reason why is the want this to be an open place to talk, sometimes hotly, about the issues of the day. If Mormon Blogs isn't about that that's cool, good luck in the future with trying to limit the expression of ideas. It's worked well in the past for others so I'm sure it will work like gang busters for you as well
ReplyDeleteOOOOOOO..... you made Angela MAD. She is now bashing you on her own blogs. oops, should I not have said that? I mean, that would point out her talking hatefully about another member of the church which she is adamantly against. Must be a mistake, she must mean it only as a judgement against your bad behavior. No that can't be it she doesn't believe in passing judgement on another's behavior either. Man I am confused....
ReplyDeleteNow, in all fairness, I should point out that the post over on that site is by someone self-styled as "Batman" rather than Angela.
ReplyDeleteJust for the record.
Yes, but this is hardly public knowledge to anyone that doesn't read our blogs IM. She obviously made it known to them in some form because Batman doesn't seem to post on either of our sites.
ReplyDeletefyi, Batman is John Dehlin, one of the most well-recognized names in the entire bloggernacle, and the Admin of MormonMatters.org.
ReplyDelete(I don't care about the argument going on, just letting you know for information's sake)
And since MormonMatters and MormonBlogs are basically hooked at the hip, well...that's why Batman is posting on this.
ReplyDeleteRobin,
ReplyDeleteI know this is going to sound sarcastic but are you the robin to his Batman? Not trying to be funny but do you have some tie to this guy? Apparently John isn’t OK with apposing views to his being put out there on his site?
Should we be scared of Brother Dehlin? Is he going to get his techno nerds to come fight us? If so let him know I a super ripped and do all kinds of MMA stuff.
As much as I disagree with James, it is my wish that he be allowed to come back. Darn!
ReplyDeleteShunned by the aggregators? Welcome to the club! Blogging rule #1: Accept editorial control from no one.
ReplyDeleteRegarding censorship, no-one is censoring you. Folks are not promoting your viewpoint by giving it wider access, but that isn't censorship. Nor is it an attack on the free exchange of ideas. It's a refusal to promote an approach to the Gospel that the admin, for whatever reason, fines antithetical to the goals of that particular aggregator.
ReplyDeletemy position was not with respect to censorship as much as it appeared to be a hypocritical judgment to be upset at someone for displaying a lack of tolerance by not being tolerant.
ReplyDeleteMy response to "What's OK?"
ReplyDeleteI was surprised when this response appeared in a discussion on “A Resurrection of Reaganism?” on our blog:
“December 03, 2009
Anonymous said…
The Spirit of the Law is no longer allowed on the Mormon Blog. Are you afraid you are next? Molly did show a picture of Brother Reid with middle fingers, and you do believe that he is not a true Mormon. It seems that you are right on the line for what James did by saying Obama supporters are not worthy to hold a temple recommend.”
I was even more surprised when I discovered (from this response) that “The Spirit of the Law” was delisted. We share a common political viewpoint, and I have, in fact, found the blog controversial, which is another reason it appealed to me. Living in the real world dictates that we live with controversial and varying topics, political views, religious views, etc. It doesn’t mean that we agree with them. We can choose to walk away and not participate, which is apparently what mormonblogs did.
FWIW, all of us have a certain level of intolerance for differing viewpoints.
To address #2, the complainee’s comment:”I didn’t feel like it was something that should be trumpeted as representative of Mormon belief or thought because it only vaguely addresses the gospel and almost all posts are anti-Obama.” Our blog is ENTIRELY anti-Obama. We question his every move and will continue to do so. Some of our posts NEVER address the Gospel. This doesn’t make me less Mormon, less faithful, less valiant. It makes me conservative.
It was a mistake to remove the blog. We vote bring it back. We conservatives make good liberal blog fodder during a liberal administration. It’s a healthy opposition.
I don’t think we should go down without a fight. Let me know if we’re delisted and need not have any hard feelings.
Kudzu Molly, thank you for your support. From what I have read on the multiple sites that this topic has been addressed on (it caused a much bigger wave than I could have ever imagined) including a comment by the moderator of the MormonBlogs directory, most people, even those that disagree with the post, feel that it was a mistake to take it off the list.
ReplyDeleteIt would appear that this same (obviously proud of their beliefs) anonymous individual is commenting on both of our blogs and causing a mess of things. It's funny how so many people think that my post was so disgusting yet they can't stop talking about it.
With that being said, our site is still not back on the MormonBlogs directory as of Friday December 4th. Make no mistake about it, the bloggernacle is predominatly liberally minded individuals and it is a telling statement that even to their own admission that they were wrong, they are still not adding us back. Quite a telling action if you ask me. So be it.
I feel no sense of loss as a result. But I have to say, of all the things to become a minor blog celebrity over, I am glad it was done in opposition to evil and sinful practices. I would rather be known as someone who defended the principles of their faith, than the person who crapped on their own religion.
James, for what it's worth, you posted what many of us have wondered silently but just never posted. Reid is my number one challenge. There's a good reason I haven't been translated yet :)
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to hear DeBroux's take on all of this.
I did not cause a mess on both of your blogs. I only pointed out what I didn't agree with.
ReplyDelete"Christ himself spoke out against Ceasar, Pilate, and other social and political leaders in his day."
ReplyDeleteReally? Where? It seems Jesus was quite submissive to the Romans.
Interpreting your avoidance of the rest of the argument, I can judge, Dan, that your intention is not to find the truth of what I am saying but to try and punch holes in any part of my argument you might consider weak. Very pharisee like of you. But to show that I am not ignorant in my position here goes:
ReplyDeleteDrawing on the parable in Luke 20: 9-18 that could be interpreted as a stab on the government of Caesar (too long to post here) we read in Luke 20:19-22 the following reaction-
19 And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them.
20 And they watched him, and sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor.
21 And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly:
22 Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no?
23 But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me?
24 Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar’s.
25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s.
The people evidently understood Christ's teachings to be in opposition to Caesar and the government he established - this is why they constantly challenged Christ in this vein. This idea is also supported when the populous stated up at Jesus' trial to Pilate saying, "If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar." (John 19:12) With one of the chief priests stating, "We have no king but Caesar." (John 19:15)
While we may not have all his direct teachings opposing the evils of Caesar (John 21:25), the effect of his teachings are present and the reactions of the people were interpreted to be in opposition to the rule of Caesar. I don't feel that Christ was ignorant of how the people would react to his words just as he was not ignorant of their intentions in trying to trip him up in argument.
Ultimately I think many would be willing to argue that Jesus' crucifiction was because the upper social and political classes and especially Herod and Caesar were afraid of Christ. They were not ignorant of his presence or of the following he was accumulating. The power he was wielding stood opposed to Caesar and their dominant government. It was what Christ taught about being the real king that caused (in part) his temporal death. Caesar certainly was not a friend or someone that was in support of Christ or such opposition would not have happened and Christ's life would have been spared.
wow James, you actually think Caesar even heard of Jesus Christ? Just look at the writings of Josephus to learn that the Romans cared not one whit of Jesus because he truly was not a threat to them. Look at any of the Roman writers of the time. Not one of them, except for Josephus even makes mention of Christ, and Josephus only in passing. Jesus Christ was a local matter, an intra-Jewish battle over who gets to speak for the Jews. It's ironic, because you are actually taking sides with the Pharisees and Sadducees who were desperately trying to paint Jesus as fighting against the Romans in the hopes that the Romans would come and destroy Jesus. But sadly that was never the case. There is no scriptural evidence that Jesus fomented an insurrection against the Roman Empire. Sadly, your interpretation of the "give unto Caesar" scripture is very poor. Don't you get that the two scriptures from John that you use to supposedly back your claim are the charges made by Caiaphas and the Jews who opposed Jesus who did all they could to paint Jesus as an insurrectionist against Rome? Is your understanding of scripture this poor? You state:
ReplyDelete"The people evidently understood Christ's teachings to be in opposition to Caesar and the government he established"
But have nothing to back this. The "render unto Caesar" scripture does not back this assertion. It's actually opposite of what you claim. "Render unto Caesar" has always been understood to mean "be subject to earthly rulers." It never meant "oppose earthly rulers at every whim." I have no idea what is going on with conservatives these days, but this is terrible logic you follow here, James.
Finally, you say:
"Interpreting your avoidance of the rest of the argument, I can judge, Dan, that your intention is not to find the truth of what I am saying but to try and punch holes in any part of my argument you might consider weak"
Not at all. I really don't care if your blog is on Mormon Blogs or not. It matters not one whit to me. But I found your argument that Christ spoke out against Rome to be false, and thus I called you out on it. :)
RE: There is no scriptural evidence that Jesus fomented an insurrection against the Roman Empire.
ReplyDeleteI never claimed that he did. Jesus merely spoke against the evils of Caesar and other evils of those in social power. Straw argument on your part - try again.
RE: "Render unto Caesar" has always been understood to mean "be subject to earthly rulers." It never meant "oppose earthly rulers at every whim."
That may be how you recognize it, but I have heard several interpretations to this scripture. One of them is an admission that Caesar is not a king that is worthy of tribute and that God is the only one worth tribute. In this way Christ was inviting people to make a choice, to declare who they worship. I have also heard that All things are God's and therefore, just like tithing, Christ is saying that we should be willing to return unto God what is his in a declaration of our priorities. This would also imply that Caesar has nothing of himself, therefore we should render him nothing. I have also heard that this speaks to the evils of certain taxation because Caesar is essentially taxing away and collecting on money that is not his. He is taking away from those who have earned. Take your pick, but there are more interpretations than just the one you offer.
To borrow from the Sterling Sill post, Christ was saying that we can declare who we pay tribute to-who we make our hero. The people who chose to support Caesar did so in opposition to the work of God. No man can serve two masters. What Christ taught was allegiance is expressed through out actions, whom we sacrifice our possessions to.
You have as much proof that Caesar didn't know about Christ as I guess I do that he did. I have shown that the people interpreted Christ's teachings to be in opposing to Caesar as demonstrated in the text of the new testament quoted before. Whether Caesar knew of him of him or not is irrelevant to my original commentary in this post. His teachings were still interpreted by those in his day as being in opposition to Caesar. This was my original argument and the reason that brought it up in the first place. Whether Caesar knew about Christ is not appurtenant to the point at hand.
Since the reason I gave this statement was to defend my RIGHT and RESPONSIBILITY to question and keep accountable our elected officials- occasionally speaking against their actions. It is not "un-mormon" or "unchrist-like" to speak out against an elected officials actions. The principle was that it is not uncommon or out of place for us to make commentary against those in governmental power, especially if they stand against gospel principles and doctrines. Plus I doubt Obama knew what I wrote nor would he care, but it doesn't change the fact that I wrote what I did. Just like it doesn't disprove the fact that Christ disclosed his displeasure with Caesar and other corrupt government types even if Caesar didn't know of him.
James,
ReplyDelete"I never claimed that he did. Jesus merely spoke against the evils of Caesar and other evils of those in social power. Straw argument on your part - try again."
once again, you show no examples of this. And it isn't a straw man. You state that you believe Jesus's teachings were to be interpreted as "in opposition to Caesar and the government". That would be considered an insurrectionist in any dictatorship (of which Caesar's Rome would be a prime example). Thus no straw man. If you don't like the position you take, don't take it. :)
"That may be how you recognize it, but I have heard several interpretations to this scripture. One of them is an admission that Caesar is not a king that is worthy of tribute and that God is the only one worth tribute."
Really? Show me a scholar of worthy repute who makes this claim. Otherwise the only person you probably heard this from was your invisible friend Bob when you were eight years old. ;)
"This would also imply that Caesar has nothing of himself, therefore we should render him nothing."
This directly contradicts Jesus's quite clear words. "render unto Caesar." How can you therefore make a claim that Jesus actually meant "render NOTHING unto Caesar?"
"I have also heard that this speaks to the evils of certain taxation because Caesar is essentially taxing away and collecting on money that is not his."
Once again, in direct contradiction to Jesus' words. Jesus specifically states "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's!" How can you thus claim that Jesus taught that that particular coin was not Caesar's coin? I mean, com'on dude, this is elementary stuff!
"To borrow from the Sterling Sill post, Christ was saying that we can declare who we pay tribute to-who we make our hero."
Christ said no such thing. You are depressing me with your terrible analysis here James.
"You have as much proof that Caesar didn't know about Christ as I guess I do that he did. I have shown that the people interpreted Christ's teachings to be in opposing to Caesar as demonstrated in the text of the new testament quoted before."
hahahahaha! You showed examples of Christ's enemies. The two examples you show are the following:
"12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.
13 ¶ When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.
14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar."
Those would be Christ's enemies who make those claims. And of course they are lies. That you infer that Christ's enemies were right is appalling.
"His teachings were still interpreted by those in his day as being in opposition to Caesar. "
Yeah, heh, according to the enemies of Jesus Christ!
A lot of "straw" flying around. Neither one of you are going to convince each other of your own perspective so I propose you give it up. James - Dan is clearly on the verge of apostasy so unless you're arguing to convince him of his wrongs, move on.
ReplyDeleteGWH,
ReplyDeleteI thought you weren't persecuting the more liberal leaning Mormons?
You call that persecution? There's a difference between persecution and a call to repentence. I'm calling it like it is.
ReplyDeleteum, you weren't calling me to repentance. You were making a statement.
ReplyDelete" Dan is clearly on the verge of apostasy"
That's not a call to repentance. Hell, it's not even directed at me! Seriously Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin have fried your brain cells dude.
You need to repent and come back from your apostate stance in regards to gospel principles. Is that direct enough for you Dan?
ReplyDeleteSince you are not my bishop, your words have no meaning to me and no effect. :)
ReplyDeleteHow old are you, Dan? Apparently no one can call you to repentence because you don't listen to your bishop either.....Typical liberal, emotional and irrational. Must be nice to live in your bubble of knowing everything even if it doesn't jive with reality.
ReplyDeletehuh?
ReplyDeletedo you know me personally and who my bishop is? If you don't, you have no idea if I listen to him or not. Silly conservative.
Dan, who cares if a scholar reads the scriptures one way and not this way? Does a scholar make it doctrine? Not hardly. Joseph was revealed the truth of the gospel plan because scholars and religionists could not come to an agreement. Instead he read and prayed to learn principles of godliness and it was revealed to him. So I don't care if a scholar sees it the same way. How do you know I am so wrong? Because some scholar told you? Scholars are wrong all the time.
ReplyDeleteYour only refute to alternate interpretations of the scriptures, ones that have merit I might add, is that a scholar didn't say it first. Are scholars the source of doctrine? "yea, even babes did open their mouths and utter marvelous things." (3 Nephi 26:16)
You are a proud, contentious individual who finds too much pleasure is stirring up others to anger. What is the need that you have to make everyone see things the way you do?
I am insulted that you would degrade my interpretations of the scriptures when there is nothing wrong with what I wrote. Those passages could mean the things that I wrote - they seem like viable interpretations that should find no opposition from you as they don't seem to attack your beliefs or your social-political stances. Yet you still attack me as I pursue a greater understanding of the words of Christ.
Please, disagree, but stop dissecting every sentence that I say and twist and turn it into something ugly mean and hateful. Even if you were to feel successful at disproving me, you have offered nothing of value in return. You and GWH can do your little pissing match all you want, just count me out. I feel justified in what I wrote. If you are unwilling to see or accept it, that fine. Just do me a favor, try and keep your poisonous ill spirited words to yourself. They are hardly inspired words as they do nothing but demean and degrade. Frankly I am really not that interested in dragging it on any further with you.
Since you seem unwilling to support prophets and apostles I feel that your apostate spirit is not one I wish to take lightly or reserve any call or warning with the path you seem to be heading. Take this as my final thought on the issue Dan; From Ezra Taft Benson:
“The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich. The learned may feel the prophet is only inspired when he agrees with them; otherwise, the prophet is just giving his opinion—speaking as a man. The rich may feel they have no need to take counsel of a lowly prophet”
James you dolt,
ReplyDelete"Dan, who cares if a scholar reads the scriptures one way and not this way? Does a scholar make it doctrine? Not hardly. Joseph was revealed the truth of the gospel plan because scholars and religionists could not come to an agreement. Instead he read and prayed to learn principles of godliness and it was revealed to him. So I don't care if a scholar sees it the same way. How do you know I am so wrong? Because some scholar told you? Scholars are wrong all the time."
Pick a prophet then. Seriously.
" I feel justified in what I wrote. If you are unwilling to see or accept it, that fine. Just do me a favor, try and keep your poisonous ill spirited words to yourself. They are hardly inspired words as they do nothing but demean and degrade. Frankly I am really not that interested in dragging it on any further with you."
That's because you made points you cannot back with any credible source. No prophet, no scholar, nobody with any credibility thinks like you do, that Jesus was some insurrectionist, or that the enemies of Jesus Christ were right. So instead of digging in, which would have been wrong of you to do, you instead attack the messenger. It's perfectly fine. I'm in the right. A few swipes at me mean absolutely nothing. You sided with the enemies of Jesus Christ. I think you need to take more time studying the scriptures and stop trying to put your conservative ideology first. It's destroying your understanding of the Gospel.
"Take this as my final thought on the issue Dan; From Ezra Taft Benson:"
By all means, show me a prophet who says as you do, that the enemies of Jesus Christ were right, that Jesus was an insurrectionist against Caesar. I dare you. You won't, though. You know you are wrong and are instead stepping away. Fine by me.
Dan, I never made the argument that Jesus was an insurrectionist. So there is no need to support an argument I was never making. He was no more an insurrectionist than Joseph was when he spoke against the evil practices of the President in his day. They were calling evil practices to repentance. I was accused of speaking ill of our president and was censured by the MormonBlogs site for doing so. I was simply demonstrating that it was not unheard of from someone much more righteous than myself. This was not a post about insurrection or saying that Christ taught it. So drop it already.
ReplyDeleteYou are a child and you have insulted my own ability to read scriptures and draw a principle from it. I am over you setting up a false argument, trying to pass it off like it is mine, and then degrading me for not proving your false argument correct.
Thank you for calling me a dolt. It Made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
OK i just have to throw this in here. the 12th article of faith has been mentioned as being violated by speaking against the actions and views of the political leader of our country. Are you people serious? We are subject to rulers, meaning we follow and uphold the laws of our land. If I remember correctly The very first amendment in the bill of rights says we have freedom of speech. The supreme court uses this as the determination if the speech is truly outside the realm of free speech "the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
ReplyDeleteI am pretty sure congress would laugh at James' post if someone told them it was a threat to the safety of Obama or any American citizen. Especially since James found that supporting Obama was just fine in the eyes of the Lord. It was support of abortion or gay marriage that was questionable.
So really James has not acted in opposition to the 12th article of faith, in fact by using his rights in this country he is honoring that AoF more than those who refuse to use those rights even when their conscience calls for them to do so.
If the owners of this blog that were involved with this incident are still around, I would like to talk to them. My name is "Bruce" and I can be reached at millennialstar. (i.e. millennialstar.org) Hopefully you can figure out my email address from that, or else contact me by posting a comment on one of my posts.
ReplyDelete