Do Mormons Support Obama

[Starfish]

As said in the other thread, I now wonder about Obama's honesty. He says he had not heard Wright say this stuff. He's known Wright for the 20 years of Obama's Christian history. He was married and his daughters were baptized in this church. He said his pastor was like an uncle and mentor. How could he possibly not have ever heard of some of these speeches? His pastor was just dropped (yesterday?) from an unpaid position in his campaign.
Obama's claims are unbelievable and suspicious.

 

[Bishka]

As said in the other thread, I now wonder about Obama's honesty. He says he had not heard Wright say this stuff. He's known Wright for the 20 years of Obama's Christian history. He was married and his daughters were baptized in this church. He said his pastor was like an uncle and mentor. How could he possibly not have ever heard of some of these speeches? His pastor was just dropped (yesterday?) from an unpaid position in his campaign.
Obama's claims are unbelievable and suspicious.

Funny enough isn't it?

Pastors of a church do not necessiarly represent the individual members of a Church. There have been (and will be) bishops, stake presidents, etc. that don't represent what the LDS Church's doctrines and/or members think. Just because you are friends with someone or know them, it doesn't mean you believe the same thing or have the same opinions.

It's sad when you will hold this against him, when this isn't about his religion, it's about State, not Church.

His "....claims are unbelievable and suspicious."

What on earth are you talking about?

To sink this low in viewing someone is a bit sad. I'm basing my vote off the issues and their values, not some pastor of a church the candidates belong to.

 

[Starfish]

Funny enough isn't it?

Pastors of a church do not necessiarly represent the individual members of a Church. There have been (and will be) bishops, stake presidents, etc. that don't represent what the LDS Church's doctrines and/or members think. Just because you are friends with someone or know them, it doesn't mean you believe the same thing or have the same opinions.

It's sad when you will hold this against him, when this isn't about his religion, it's about State, not Church.

His "....claims are unbelievable and suspicious."

What on earth are you talking about?

To sink this low in viewing someone is a bit sad. I'm basing my vote off the issues and their values, not some pastor of a church the candidates belong to.

What I'm talking about is Obama's claim that he wasn't aware of what his pastor has been saying. That's what isn't believable. To say a man is like an uncle and mentor, then be so clueless on many of Wright's philosophies. . . ? Especially when he now so vehemently opposes them. I don't care what his religion is.

 

[Starfish]

You're missing the point, Starfish. It's not about condoning immorality. The behaviors that you and I see as being immoral are going to continue whether they are given their civil rights or not. It's not as if same-sex couples are going to stop being intimate if we put our foot down and say, "What you're doing is wrong! Shame on you! You need to be punished!" I'm going to have to find Midnight Blue's thread on the subject and get back to you with a link. If it doesn't make you see this issue from a different perspective, I'd be surprised.

The following is a statement made by Elder Wickman, during an interview about the Church's stand on same-sex attraction. Elder Oaks was also there at the interview.

"One way to think of marriage is as a bundle of rights associated with what it means for two people to be married. What the First Presidency has done is express its support of marriage and for that bundle of rights belonging to a man and a woman. The First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself concerning any specific right. It really doesn’t matter what you call it. If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, “That is not right. That’s not appropriate.”

As unpopular as it is, I have to stick with it.

 

[Bishka]

What I'm talking about is Obama's claim that he wasn't aware of what his pastor has been saying. That's what isn't believable. To say a man is like an uncle and mentor, then be so clueless on many of Wright's philosophies. . . ? Especially when he now so vehemently opposes them. I don't care what his religion is.

Are you aware of everything your bishop says in and out of Church, in and out of politics, in and out of everything?

I didn't think so...

 

[Starfish]

Are you aware of everything your bishop says in and out of Church, in and out of politics, in and out of everything?

I didn't think so...

If he was saying the kind of stuff that Wright was saying, I think I would have heard about it. Especially in a public speech, at the top of his lungs. Do you really believe Obama had no idea?

 

[Apex]

Funny enough isn't it?

Pastors of a church do not necessiarly represent the individual members of a Church.

No one said they did.

There have been (and will be) bishops, stake presidents, etc. that don't represent what the LDS Church's doctrines and/or members think.

This is sort of a "no duh" statement. But this is not some bishop or stake president, this is about the Pastor of Obama's church. Given the nature of mainstream-christianity, this Pastor does represent (or did since he retired very recently) what this particular church taught because he was the one who was teaching it. This is not a situation that can be compared to, for example, a Bishop who has gone a little overboard with his beliefs. That would only be acceptable if, instead of the Pastor, a lower person within the church, a youth preacher for example, someone who is bellow the Pastor, were teaching these things.

Just because you are friends with someone or know them, it doesn't mean you believe the same thing or have the same opinions.

Correct, someone is not simply guilty by association. However, it is obvious Obama supports this man, a man who says God damned the "USKKK of A".

It's sad when you will hold this against him, when this isn't about his religion, it's about State, not Church.

Exactly! It is about State and not Church, BUT, this Preacher is not respecting those boundary lines. And again, it is no secret Obama supports this man, so if I were to vote for Obama I would want absolute assurance that he will not drag these religious teachings of politics into the government.

To sink this low in viewing someone is a bit sad. I'm basing my vote off the issues and their values, not some pastor of a church the candidates belong to.

Obama was married by this guy, his daughters were baptized by him, he thinks of him as an "uncle". If this Pastor were just some other every day preacher I would have no problem at all. If he were Buddhist or Pagan I still would not care. But when I see such radical views being taught, and Obama supporting the man who teaches them, I have to ask questions or I will not feel comfortable voting for him.


And for those who are wondering, no, I am not one of those people who will not vote for a Democrat simply because of their party. I have not, yet, decided not to vote for Obama. Some of the stuff about him I like, some I do not.

 

[Apex]

Are you aware of everything your bishop says in and out of Church, in and out of politics, in and out of everything?

I didn't think so...

I would hope someone would be very aware of everything their bishop says at the pulpit (of course unless you :sleep: in Sacrament). These teachings from Obama's Pastor are not just side comments he has said out side of his church, they are teachings he is vehemently proclaiming (very loudly I might add, I was afraid his speakers were going to burst sometimes) from his pulpit for everyone to hear.

 

[Bishka]

Exactly! It is about State and not Church, BUT, this Preacher is not respecting those boundary lines. And again, it is no secret Obama supports this man, so if I were to vote for Obama I would want absolute assurance that he will not drag these religious teachings of politics into the government.

Has he done it yet? Has he shown any indication whatsoever that he is going to do it?

What would be your "absolute assurance?"

 

[Apex]

Has he done it yet? Has he shown any indication whatsoever that he is going to do it?

What would be your "absolute assurance?"

Obama to openly oppose what this Preacher has said would help. So far from what I have seen, he has not been vary convincing with what he has said. It gives me the impression he is just going through the motions to avoid damaging his reputation. That is not to say I completely think Obama completely supports the things his Preacher teaches, but he is not doing much to distance himself from them. For example the "USKKK of A" comment deserves to be completely denounced. If I had attended a church for as long as Obama, only to have the Preacher teach these things, I would be placing my self as far away as possible and denouncing everything they guy said.

 

[Katzpur]

The following is a statement made by Elder Wickman, during an interview about the Church's stand on same-sex attraction. Elder Oaks was also there at the interview.

"One way to think of marriage is as a bundle of rights associated with what it means for two people to be married. What the First Presidency has done is express its support of marriage and for that bundle of rights belonging to a man and a woman. The First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself concerning any specific right. It really doesn’t matter what you call it. If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, “That is not right. That’s not appropriate.”

As unpopular as it is, I have to stick with it.

You may, and if you agree with the statement, you should. I personally don't believe any of us have the right to deny a person his civil rights based on his moral decisions that in no way impact my life. In my opinion, sexual intimacy between two people of the same sex is wrong. That is what I believe the scriptures teach. The scriptures also teach that as a follower of Jesus Christ, it's my responsibility to do what I can to make sure that other people are treated the way I would want to be treated if the tables were turned. If I am put in a position to follow the advice of fallible men, even very good men whose intention may be honorable, and following the teachings of Jesus Christ, you can bet every time that I will choose to choose to follow Christ. I guess this is why I sometimes do not fit in well with "celestial people."

 

[Starfish]

You may, and if you agree with the statement, you should. I personally don't believe any of us have the right to deny a person his civil rights based on his moral decisions that in no way impact my life. In my opinion, sexual intimacy between two people of the same sex is wrong. That is what I believe the scriptures teach. The scriptures also teach that as a follower of Jesus Christ, it's my responsibility to do what I can to make sure that other people are treated the way I would want to be treated if the tables were turned. If I am put in a position to follow the advice of fallible men, even very good men whose intention may be honorable, and following the teachings of Jesus Christ, you can bet every time that I will choose to choose to follow Christ. I guess this is why I sometimes do not fit in well with "celestial people."

If the Church's position is wrong, then I'll take the risk. I learned long ago to trust them.
I agree with this statement. Laws that allow or support any behavior that risks anyone's eternal life, I can't support. A celibate, unmarried life would be very hard, but some things are far worse. Many people go through life unmarried. It's so sad, but eventually, if they follow the commandments, they will have every blessing. It will all be made up to them. None of us know why they have this affliction, nor do we know why the handicapped, autistic, or mentally and physically ill people have to go through such trials. It's a huge test of faith. And not an easy subject.

 

[Katzpur]

Laws that allow or support any behavior that risks anyone's eternal life, I can't support.

You still don't get it, do you? The "behavior" is going to be the same regardless of the laws. How on earth you can see discrimination against someone who has never done you any harm as risking his eternal life is beyond me. I'd be a lot more afraid of it risking my own eternal life. You seem to think that prohibiting certain people from getting married is going to keep them from doing what they're going to do. Well, I've got news for you -- it's not.

A celibate, unmarried life would be very hard, but some things are far worse. Many people go through life unmarried. It's so sad, but eventually, if they follow the commandments, they will have every blessing. It will all be made up to them. None of us know why they have this affliction, nor do we know why the handicapped, autistic, or mentally and physically ill people have to go through such trials. It's a huge test of faith. And not an easy subject.

I'm starting to think I might as well just give up. We are not talking about whether sexual intimacy between same-sex couples is right or wrong. You and I agree, Starfish, that it's wrong. We also agree that celibacy would be difficult in this case, even though it would be the right choice. What we don't agree on is whether we have the right, as human beings, to legally discriminate against someone for their choices. You seem to feel that we are justified in making sure the laws of the land punish them for a moral decision that, in the end, is not going to affect us. I believe their punishment -- if there is to be one -- is best left up to God.

 

[Bishka]

If the Church's position is wrong, then I'll take the risk. I learned long ago to trust them.
I agree with this statement. Laws that allow or support any behavior that risks anyone's eternal life, I can't support. A celibate, unmarried life would be very hard, but some things are far worse. Many people go through life unmarried. It's so sad, but eventually, if they follow the commandments, they will have every blessing. It will all be made up to them. None of us know why they have this affliction, nor do we know why the handicapped, autistic, or mentally and physically ill people have to go through such trials. It's a huge test of faith. And not an easy subject.

You just don't get it do you? :no:

 

[Bishka]

If I had attended a church for as long as Obama, only to have the Preacher teach these things, I would be placing my self as far away as possible and denouncing everything they guy said.

So if President Monson says tomorrow that gays can now get married in the Church are you going to leave your whole life behind tomorrow?

Barack Obama - On My Faith and My Church

Again, I reiterate that is it sad, low and mud-slinging to bring this up. His pastor's comments in no way reflect who Barack Obama is, but I highly doubt many people have bothered to even find out who Obama is.

 

[Bishka]

A Latter-day Saint's response to the Pastor's comments

 

[DeepShadow]

You just don't get it do you? :no:

I think Starfish gets a lot more than you give her credit for. It's a complicated situation, and there may be multiple "right" answers. While you or I may choose to follow other promptings, I'd never disparage someone for trusting that statements of the Lord's chosen leaders.

 

[Apex]

So if President Monson says tomorrow that gays can now get married in the Church are you going to leave your whole life behind tomorrow?

Barack Obama - On My Faith and My Church

Again, I reiterate that is it sad, low and mud-slinging to bring this up. His pastor's comments in no way reflect who Barack Obama is, but I highly doubt many people have bothered to even find out who Obama is.

Thank you, that link is exactly what I was looking for. Although you could have done it without the insult at the end. Why do you get so touchy when people criticize Obama? No offense, but you give the impression that we should all just accept Obama with no questions asked.

 

[Starfish]

You still don't get it, do you? The "behavior" is going to be the same regardless of the laws. How on earth you can see discrimination against someone who has never done you any harm as risking his eternal life is beyond me. I'd be a lot more afraid of it risking my own eternal life. You seem to think that prohibiting certain people from getting married is going to keep them from doing what they're going to do. Well, I've got news for you -- it's not.

I'm starting to think I might as well just give up. We are not talking about whether sexual intimacy between same-sex couples is right or wrong. You and I agree, Starfish, that it's wrong. We also agree that celibacy would be difficult in this case, even though it would be the right choice. What we don't agree on is whether we have the right, as human beings, to legally discriminate against someone for their choices. You seem to feel that we are justified in making sure the laws of the land punish them for a moral decision that, in the end, is not going to affect us. I believe their punishment -- if there is to be one -- is best left up to God.

I've thought a lot about what you're saying because I respect your opinion here in RF. Believe me, I'm really trying to "get it".

I'm going to approach this from a different angle. It's not really just about gay people. It's about families. We know in the gospel that the family unit is vitally important. I believe it is the Church's effort to protect the family, as it is defined by the Lord. Legalized gay marriage, or any other change in the traditional institution, starts to chip away, or distort, what the Lord intended. Civil unions is a step in this direction. Any law that protects the traditional family definition, I believe, is for the best for all. Unfortunately, this will be seen by some as a punishment. I see it as a necessary protection.

Gays are still free to choose their lifestyle. No one is forcing anything upon them. There are legal benefits that can be put in place, if they so choose. But the sancitity of marriage and the family is paramount, above anyone's preferences.

I'm saying this with the greatest desire to understand both sides. But in the end, I have to go with the Prophet.

 

[Bishka]

I'm saying this with the greatest desire to understand both sides. But in the end, I have to go with the Prophet.

Ever read Doctrine and Covenants 134?

A declaration of belief regarding governments and laws in general, adopted by unanimous vote at a general assembly of the Church held at Kirtland, Ohio, August 17, 1835. HC 2: 247–249. The occasion was a meeting of Church leaders, brought together to consider the proposed contents of the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. At that time this declaration was given the following preamble: “That our belief with regard to earthly governments and laws in general may not be misinterpreted nor misunderstood, we have thought proper to present at the close of this volume our opinion concerning the same.”


1–4, Governments should preserve freedom of conscience and worship; 5–8, All men should uphold their governments, and owe respect and deference to the law; 9–10, Religious societies should not exercise civil powers; 11–12, Men are justified in defending themselves and their property.


1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

3 We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

6 We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men show respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker.

7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.

8 We believe that the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offense; that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed; and for the public peace and tranquility all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment.

9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.

12 We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude.