Would you sustain Harry Reid

[BoiseBYU]

CF87. Well said. Let's start our own party to vote the bums out! wait....

[mizzoucoug]

I have been in the same quorum as HR and have followed his political history for about thirty-five years. Let me just say that PT Barnum has nothing on Harry.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Do you have anymore insight into what he's like in that capacity? I'd love to hear that I am wrong about him.

Thinking back on it, I don't remember what callings he held. He never had a calling in which I reported to or worked with him. I do remember trying to follow his logic in a talk or class. I remember him acting like a GA and inviting himself to sit on the stand. That always bugged me. I heard a rumor once that a bishop asked him to take a seat in a pew. I hope it is true.

He is a guy that has never had a private sector job. He tells a story that he was a poor kid from Search Light, NV. He is now the wealthiest senator in DC. Figure that one out.

He started his political career on the Clark county commission supposedly running the mob out of LV. In case it isn't obvious, the mob never actually left.

Wasn't it just a couple years ago he gave a talk at BYU and totally trash talked Pres. Benson?

He like many other LDS democrats that I know try to sell socialism as the Law of Consecration. I see it as an attempt to replace the gospel with the adversary's plan but call it the gospel.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

The LDS democrats I know do NOT try to sell socialism as the Law of Consecration. I know I don't. I'm not sure how much of a democrat I am these days, but I think it wrong to collectively define all or most people of a political persuasion in a spiritually negative way.

Sure it is. Name one single Democrat policy that is in alignment with the Gospel.

Let's be precise. TWW said LDS democrats equate the Law of Consecration with socialism. I am not aware of a faithful LDS democrat who does that. Not one. The law of consecration is a sacred covenant. To equate a failed man-made political/economic system with a sacred covenant and say LDS democrats do that is poor form and your zeal in painting LDS democrats as not in alignment with the gospel is polarizing and unrighteous judgment. I am a "soft" democrat. That said I have no obligation and will not dignify your challenge with a response. If you really wanted to know, you could figure it out pretty easily, because I know you are not stupid, just someone with a made-up mind and an agenda.

My mind sure is made up and my agenda is to expose the leftist ideology for what it is.

And I have not condemned anyone's soul for being a Democrat. If you vote that way that's fine, but you ought to b well aware of the existence of the LDS Democrat stream of thought that has been so duplicitous. Most prominent among its disciples was Hugh Nibley. If ever there was a socialist dummy it was him (everything else he wrote about was brilliant though). And with his prominence he has gained many followers over the decades. Thankfully, many articles exist (including the one I linked) that have absolutely destroyed his leftist opinions.

[valleus]

Reading this post has been surreal.

"I have heard he made deals the rest of us couldn't make."
Well, I've heard all sorts of outrageous things about Joseph Smith. Surely we should not trust him. Since when is is hearsay grounds for, well, anything?

"My cousin claims that there are people that leave the temple when Reid shows up."
How Christlike of these temple workers! Always heartwarming to see the devout who can spend 80 hours a week in the temple but are incapable of reading Matthew 5-7.
In any event, what does this statement demonstrate beyond phariseeism? If Harry's at the temple, doesn't this mean he has a recommend? I'm sure he lied on all the interview questions, so it is of no matter.

"I have always said that some leaders are called to guide and help us while others are called to test our faith and patience."
In other words, when a man or woman is called whose assumptions and analysis on economics I find disagreeable, this must mean he/she was called to test my righteous faith and patience. Of course, it is possible you are one who tries others faith and patience and he is one called to guide, but such a thought would not be ego-syntonic.

"I think this man is pure evil"
Based upon what? What evidence that he is evil? Good grief.

"...Most prominent among its disciples was Hugh Nibley. If ever there was a socialist dummy it was him"
Nibley, a socialist dummy? I've read about 30 books by Hugh Nibley, and this claim is laughable. He was not a libertarian conservative, but he was certainly not a socialist. Even in Approaching Zion. Endorsing a progressive taxation scheme does not make one a socialist.

I have yet to see one post demonstrate, beyond hearsay, that this man is an unworthy LDS. Most of you have no idea just how much Harry has done for the Church behind the scenes. I have been in this man's ward for four years, I have heard his testimony. He believes. I do not vote democratic, but I have seen nothing and have read nothing to convince me that he is not a man of personal integrity. The scriptures are a guide for personal living. They do not obviously or explicitly comment on 21st century government. It goes against the teachings of Christ to deign to not sustain a brother because his opinions and assumptions on relatively unimportant, wordly, transient items of government and economics are different from your own. One dec 22 2012 how many of you would've eagerly sustained Mike Crapo?

[BroncoBot]

Endorsing a progressive taxation scheme does not make one a socialist.

Uhhhh... to me it does.

It goes against the teachings of Christ to deign to not sustain a brother because his opinions and assumptions on relatively unimportant, wordly, transient items of government and economics are different from your own.

indeed. Show me in the scriptures were a war was fought over differences in ideas concerning liberty, freedom, independence. Much less a war that was led by Christ himself. I can't think of a single example.

The problem I have with HR is that nearly all of his decisions have made Americans more dependent, more socialistic, less free and in the long run less self reliant. But I suppose all of those things could be considered relatively unimportant, worldly and transient items of government and economics. He has lead the movement to make the US government "god" for a large aspect of the American people. Instead of using his position to champion the LDS view that we are to be a self reliant and willingly charitable society he has attempted to FORCE certain groups of people to pay for the "rights" of others, which has only further entiltled and made the recipients more dependent.

But then, there are few republicans except from the same criticism.

[nuk13]

In further thought I would do a lot of praying to sustain Reid. I would ask the authorities some questions. What I am still wondering about is what he and other LDS are thinking in proposing or backing increased taxes and regulations. This takes our agency to choose. It is clear to me that in the preexistence the Savior stood up to oppose Lucifer in this matter. I am very uncomfortable with a government that is doing this and increasing in it's size and power. These acts are taking the power from the people which is where the government is supposed to get it's power. I am more concerned with these questions because I am very doubtful that I'll ever live around Reid but I do have the consequences of his and others acts to deal with no matter where I live in the U.S.A.

I have heard there are other LDS that do not have the opinion of the "War in Heaven" that I have stated. If that is true I would like to know why. Some of you have made reference to this but I am still wondering.

[mizzoucoug]

"...Most prominent among its disciples was Hugh Nibley. If ever there was a socialist dummy it was him"
Nibley, a socialist dummy? I've read about 30 books by Hugh Nibley, and this claim is laughable. He was not a libertarian conservative, but he was certainly not a socialist. Even in Approaching Zion. Endorsing a progressive taxation scheme does not make one a socialist.

He absolutely was a socialist. That article I linked alone has quite a few instances of his socialistic bent. And that's just from one of his books. The thing about Nibley is that he makes these remarks quickly in passing, but never as a well though out argument so they're hard to catch. Here's a few for everyone's enjoyment--you tell me what these sound like.

“Why does it always come that two hundred million
people sacrifice and fifty-thousand at the top are never called upon to
sacrifice?”

“Before
the 1974–1975 mini-depression, all financial poverty could have been
eliminated at a modest shift of $10–15 billion to the poor from the
rest of the community. 15 billion is less than 1.5% of the GNP, about
the size of one of the cheaper weapons systems.”

practicing the law of consecration looks
“suspiciously” like “equalizing the wealth.”

"a frenzy of privatization now insists that the only public institution with a reason for existence is the military, to defend us against societies more committed to sharing." (stated during the Cold War)

But hey this isn't about Nibley, it's about a man in the top rung of power in the U.S. government who essentially has piggy-backed off Satan's plan for mankind.

[snoscythe]

I disagree with many who label any attempt to level the playing field as "socialist" and of the devil. Until the 1950s, many LDS leaders advocated positions like this:

But since all capitalistic systems are founded upon the institution of private property, inheritance and the profit motive, great inequalities of ownership and income inevitably result. …Among the more plausible suggestions offered to correct existing abuses without adversely affecting the productive system, is to continue the socialization of our service institutions through a system of progressive taxation based upon ability to pay…taking the bulk of their [captains of industry] profits to finance free education, free libraries, free public parks and recreation centers, unemployment insurance, old age benefits, sickness and accident insurance, and perhaps eventually free medical aid and hospital service. …The average family may not have much more money, if any, to spend under such a system than now. But…then the meager family income can be devoted entirely to the necessities of life, plus some of the comforts now enjoyed by the higher income classes. …To finance all of this, of course, will necessitate huge sums of money. …And it will also require a carefully worked out tax system so that every one will contribute according to his financial ability. Inheritance and estate taxes will become progressively higher, until the present system of permitting large fortunes to be passed on from generation to generation will become extinct. And incidentally, the so-called idle rich who have been living on the earnings of past generations will be no more.

It was only during/after the red scare that every statement about leveling wealth with government policy became stuck with the label socialist, and many who attribute to Lucifer any such plans don't realize that they attributing to the Adversary plans recently advocated by Latter-day prophets as worthwhile. The above quote was from President Heber J. Grant and was even published in the Melchizedek Priesthood manual for the church in 1938, but many would be quick to label it today as the plan of the Adversary.

[tww]

What does it mean when an attorney uses a loosely referenced and vague "what if" statement, that amounted to absolutely nothing, as the basis for his argument? I think it means he is going to rely on a very impassioned closing statement to win his case.

Sorry Sno but this has about as much strength as a "Jesus drank wine" argument.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[BoiseBYU]

Advocating a progressive tax structure does not make you a socialist, unless the term socialist has come to simply constitute a pejprative epithet for someone you dislike. In that instance it is just spewing venom instead of trying to articulate something of meaning and makes meaningful discussion vacuous. You may strongly oppose a progressive tax structure and I would respect that position. But to somehow call someone who does a socialist just defeats anyone seriously taking you seriously.

It is hard for some too I know, but just because someone's politics may be differ from yours does not mean he is unworthy to serve in the Church. This is going to come off as self-righteous patting my shoulder, but I share nonetheless for your consideration. I disagreed (albeit very quietly) with President Benson's politics. I did not let it stop me from sustaining him as an apostle and then Prophet of the Church. He was our prophet and I sustained him and to my amazement it proved to a great blessing for me. He taught some wonderful things that I at least needed to hear, particularly on pride. mothers, and the Book of Mormon. I'm glad I did not let his politics get in the way of my sustaining him because I am the better for it now. Maybe a democrat will be presented in your neck of the woods, a prominent one at that. Consider that you might be blessed by sustaining him and allowing the spirit to inspire this man in his ministry. OK I will get off my soap box. I just get worked up because I see the nastiness of politics creeping into the church. Our tent is bigger than that.

[snoscythe]

Sorry Sno but this has about as much strength as a "Jesus drank wine" argument.

When is the last time a sitting president of the Church not only advocated the "Jesus drank wine" argument, but also included it in Church manuals of instruction for chruch-wide dissemination and instruction?

I have to say that your response doesn't surprise me. Generally when I've brought up these arguments to those who are quick to screed any government effort to mitigate the disparity between the wealthy and poor, they have no response other than yours--to dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't fit with the narrow worldview they have created where anything other than laissez faire capitalism with a "fair" tax is somehow a plan of the devil, even though the Lord's prophets have advocated for the same.