LDS Scripture and Hypocracy or Is It?

I read this Opinion Forum in today's Tribune. I think it is very telling about how the LDS leadership violate their own doctrine and covenants.

"Those who seek to change the foundation of marriage should not be allowed to pretend that those who defend the ancient order are trampling on civil rights." So said LDS Apostle Dallin H. Oaks in his defense of the involvement of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in political campaigns against gay marriage ("Transcript of Elder Dallin H. Oaks speech," www.sltrib.com, Oct. 14).

Ummm ... Has he read his own scriptures lately? Like verse 9 in Doctrine and Covenants 134: "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."

Julie L. Taggart

Draper

Additionally the D&C goes on to read:
D&C P. 134  Verse 12: We believe it just to ^apreach 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 ^bbond-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 ^cservitude.  WHERE IS THE MORALITY IN THIS VERSE?


Why do they feel it just to interfere in government when it comes to homosexuals? Obviously they supported slavery, a crime against all of humanity? What is justice to them? 

This was an argument I had in my Seminary education. When we were studying the D&C the teacher stated that God's laws, including the D&C, were paramount to all other laws. The church only tolerates man's laws that do not conflict with God's laws. Fortunately most of the laws at that time were in step with most of the LDS beliefs. However, if there is a conflict, then God's laws prevail. I asked then why not then have a total theocracy? Answer: The Mormon church is a minority and if the country became a theocracy, then the church would be subordinate to whatever other religion was elected as the law maker. However, when the church reaches majority, and he knew it would soon be back in 1968, a Mormon theocracy would be a very good thing and bring the masses back to God and the true religious authority.  Though homosexuals were not part of the discussion, the prevention of blacks holding the priesthood was appropriate do that God commanded it. Even though Congress passed the Civil Rights Act and Voting Act, they were subordinate to God's law that states they are an unholy race and not possessing the ability to receive God's blessings.

With this God's law being superior to the law of the land, they are justified to interfere in government, if the church's opinion is contrary to the law of the land or the will of the people by legislative acts and/or judicial fiat. The D&C proclaims the right of the church to interfere with government, when it feels government is in conflict with church doctrine. However, it proclaims its sovereignty and absolute separation of church and state in regard to governments intrusion into their affairs. They receive special treatment under our laws, such as no financial filings to any government authority, they pay no taxes, even though they receive government services paid by all tax payers, no interference or oversight in their daily affairs by any government authority, they are exempt from any anti-discrimination laws, and they pay no property tax on any of the real estate they own. This can amount to billions of dollars over the years.

  

In Utah a quiet statement by a LDS chruch authority is clearly understood by their members who are legislators and council/commission members, and public law is then brought into conformity with the statement. These statements might be public or more likely private at their pre-legislative session meeting at the LDS headquarters or through their many lobbyist. If it was possible, they would prefer to have an absolute Mormon theocratic state. But since the state and federal constitutions prohibit it, they will settle for a virtual theocracy through it's great influence with the legislative bodies of the state.

 Footnote: Sen. Buttars had threaten to pass a bill abolishing Salt Lake City's anti-discrimination law because it protected LGBTs from being fired from a job or kicked out of their housing for their sexual orientation. Now the LDS stated it supports the law, and he now supports it.
 

Of course I can go on and on about their hypocrisy; e.g. not fighting for health care for everyone (public option) if they really cared for the poor, sick and  infirmed; BYU has a large law school and a large political science school and a large public relations-marketing-media school, a large business administration school, but no medical school, etc. What would you conclude from this apparent focus on education?

What if they had a large medical school and the cost of a doctors education would be reduced if they went to an under-served area in America or to a 3rd world nation and provided health care for two years to the sick and needy, would that not be the Christian thing to do, rather than pumping the system with lawyers, public relations/media grads, and MBAs into already saturated markets? I would think that providing health care services to the needy would have more PR impact than a bunch of lawyers, PR marketers and MBAs! I will rant more about this later.