Categories
Welcome, Guest
Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.2 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
-
- CommentAuthorMichael Snider
- CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
Please join us to discuss Our Title of Liberty: The Inaugural Mission Statement. -
I enjoyed reading this and look forward to your other aricles.
-
- CommentAuthorfacethemusic
- CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007 edited
Awesome, awesome, awesome!
I've often been surprised at how many of my member friends aren't even registered to vote.
It's simply bewildering to me. I understand that people have different interests, and sometimes it takes people awhile to understand the importance of their involvement in the political arena, if even just using their right and privilege to vote. I didn't really "get it'' until I was 23 or so.
But even now at 38, I'm always surprised when I found out that someone my age still hasn't "gotten it" yet.
The issues facing us today are too signficant to be ignored or brushed aside or given over for "someone else" to vote on. -
- CommentAuthorfacethemusic
- CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
So Alison, is Bro. Snider going to be a regularly contributing writer/reader on politics?
I actually have questions from time to time about various things regarding politics,
the way things work, etc. Should I ask my question here-- make it seperate discussion? -
I think everyone has a civic duty to get involved with government by studying the issues and voting. But I really hate listening to people who believe that they have received revelation on political matters. They are completely intolerant of any other viewpoint, include compromise. They believe that anyone who disagrees with them is in the grasp of Satan and on the high road to spiritual destruction. They tell you these things in a loud voice complete with scriptural fragments or odd prophecies like "the Constitution is hanging by a thread."
I think people make more progress politically when they listen to opposing viewpoints, acknowledge that the issue is complex, and work for compromise rather than by asking God for a revelation. In my experience, when people claim they've prayed about a political matter, they are usually making the claim to establish their unassailable correctness, and to avoid the need to listen to the other side. A person who has prayed about a politcal matter is a closed-minded person. (Of course, people who don't pray can be just as closed-minded.)
I do believe there is a spiritual aspect to many of the social issues like abortion and SSM, and I have no problem with people mentioning religious beliefs in connection with those. But small local elections and technical issues like campaign finance are just not something God cares about enough to give people a real revelation on the topic. Instead, you get people who have an opinion and figure God must agree with them.
<blockquote>The thesis of that book is the belief that if we align our politics with our religion, we will be found in holy places, always “valiant in the testimony of Jesus.” That said, this column’s purpose is the same: to further explore and articulate the proper political positions that come from studying the restored Gospel.</blockquote>
There is no one "proper political position" that the restored Gospel supports. The letter that gets read over the pulpit in Sacrament Meeting explicitly states that the Church does not endorse any particular political party. The Church doesn't make any political statements on any issues besides moral issues such as abortion and SSM. We don't have to all think alike to be Mormons. -
Michael,
So is it your thesis that there is a correct answer to political questions, or just that we should evaluate carefully and be involved? Because I'm with you if you're asserting the second; the first, however, I find problematic. I can't even say that I know how Jesus would vote on what you term "big issues," because I won't be dealing with abstract laws and people: I'll vote regarding real, imperfectly-worded laws and on people with whom I share certain values and diverge on other issues. I'm not convinced the Jesus considers, for example, abortion to be more or less relevant than combating poverty, and I can't say for certain HIs view on capital punishment.
So, while I agree that we should vote carfully, I'm with Melinda on the idea that there are no "proper political positions"; some goals may be better than others, but there are no secular Laws that are True and of which I should have a testimony. -
- CommentAuthorAlison Moore Smith
- CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
Welcome, Sam B.
Yes, Tracy, Michael will be a regular columnist. :) -
- CommentAuthorfacethemusic
- CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007 edited
Welcome Melinda and Sam!
On one hand I totally see both your points, on the other I question if your interpreting Bro. Snider correctly.
I'm not so sure that when he said "proper political positions" that he necessarily meant that in the larger scope of things, like a Democrat vs. Rebuplican kind of thing. But there is undoubtedly a "proper politcal position" on certain issues like Melinda mentioned, abortion and same-sex marriages, etc.
I couldn't disagree more than I already do, with this particular statement however:"But small local elections....are just not something God cares about enough to give people a real revelation on the topic"
Excuse me? God reveals what he wants to reveal, not what you think he reveals. And He's willing to reveal just about anything, if we ask in faith. Heavenly Father reveals seemingly insignificant things all the time-- much more insignificant things (at least to the population at large) than a local election. What's more important in the scheme of things, who's elected to be mayor or where I put my favorite picture of my deceased father?
What's more important-- whether local candidate A or B will lead more righteously and honestly for an entire town, affecting business, infrastructure, school districts, local taxes, etc or who I call as my secretary in Primary, when it's only going to affect 20 kids, and the secretary isn't actually teaching the kids lessons, but is keeping records. I can do that myself.
And yet He revealed to me the location of the picture, and He gave me, and my first counselor the name of the same person for secretary, in our seperate prayers. Evidently, He cares about that enough to reveal it to me, AND my counselor. And evidently, even though the location of my father's picture affects absolutely no one but me, He cared enough about me and my concern to reveal that, too.
If I study candidates, their stand on issues, their previous voting record, etc and pray and ask for guidance in who I should vote for, because it really IS important to me to know which one will lead with integrity, do you think the heavens suddenly slam shut?
He'll answer anything.... anything but THAT? Do you really believe that?
Granted, I don't know that he cares whether or not we pass a 3 cent tax hike to put new seats in the local NFL stadium, or a new convention hall. Maybe there's isn't a right or wrong decision to make between using funding to repair and better city parks or put in a light rail system. Sometimes things are equally good (or equally bad). But LEADERSHIP? Come on! Surely he cares about THAT. (Unless of course you have two equally good candidates, who will both be honest and lead righteously, but just have different passions, like putting in city parks to beautify the city and give families a good place to be, or putting in a light rail system to cut down on traffic congestion and pollution.)
So when it comes to right and wrong, responsible fiscal leadership, honest, moral, and righteous leadership, someone who will lead by example, and not by hypocritical lip service, yeah, I think He cares about that. Even in a small town.
And let's be honest, sometimes it's hard to know who you can trust. For the most part, we don't know these people personally. We only know what they tell us. And half of what they tell us is either exaggerated by the one side to make them look good, or exaggerated by the other to make them look bad. We NEED to be prayerful and seek guidance when it comes to our vote.
Now, if I'm prayerful about who I vote for, even on a local level, and I go around telling everyone in my ward that "God told me that so-n-so" is the one I should vote for, than that's going too far. There's a reason why 'personal revelation' is called that-- because it's suppose to be personal. Revelation meant for masses comes through the prophet. And as was correctly stated, the Church doesn't support a political party, nor does it endorse candidates or tell us who to vote for.
But the scriptures are repleat with examples of how righteous or unrighteous political leadership can either bring the people closer to God, or totally pull them away. Do you think that only happens with Lamanites and Nephites? Or that it only happens with countries under Kings and Presidents, but not with cities or towns under mayors?
The scriptures also have several examples of when God himself PUT a person into a position of political power. He lead them through their lives so that they would BE in a position of political power.
But Surely, "we don't have to all think alike to be Mormons"-- that's true. Not to be "Mormons". But if you've studied the gospel at all, than you know that the goal is for us to "be one" even as Jesus and the Father are one. One in heart and MIND. Wouldn't that include politics? If we all want the same righteous things, and candidates have differing positions on what's good, then shouldn't it be that we all have the same thoughts on who's the right person for the job?
The problem is that sometimes WE have different ideas of what's righteous and what's not. Or what's the best WAY to acheive a righteous goal. But surely, Heavenly Father knows which is the right way, or the better way. Again, it certainly possible that somethings will be equally good, or there may be more than one good way to reach a righteous goal. But usually, that isn't the case.
But if I were a betting person, which of course I'm not, then I'd bet that if every single member of the church truly fasted and prayed over the coming election, and all truly aligned our will with that of the Father, that we'd ALL get the same "inspriration'' as to who we should vote for. Or at LEAST who the two best and most equally yoked candidates are.
As for this comment:
odd prophecies like "the Constitution is hanging by a thread."
That "odd" prophecy is paraphrased from a quote by Joseph Smith himself.
From a talk by L. Tom Perry:Our commitment to America has been testified to by many, but I will point out to you special witnesses who have indicated our responsibilities to this land.
First from Brigham Young, second president of the Church: “Will the Constitution be destroyed? No: it will be held inviolate by this people; and, as Joseph Smith said, ‘The time will come when the destiny of this nation will hang upon a single thread. At that critical juncture, this people will step forth and save it from the threatened destruction.’ It will be so.” (Journal of Discourses, 7:15.)
Now another witness, John Taylor, third president of the Church: “When the people shall have torn to shreds the Constitution of the United States, the elders of Israel will be found holding it up to the nations of the earth, and proclaiming liberty and equal rights to all men, and extending the hand of fellowship to the oppressed of all nations.” (The Gospel Kingdom, Deseret Book Co., 1943, p. 219.) This is part of the program.
A final witness is from George Q. Cannon, former member of the First Presidency, who said that “the day will come when the Constitution and free government under it will be sustained and preserved by this people.” (JD, 23:104.)
Now, I declare to you that if we are not in the beginning stages of the fulfillment of this prophecy, we are at least in the stages where we are preparing for its fulfillment. -
-
CommentAuthoreast-of-eden
- CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
Very interesting, thanks for the insight. My concern is that some people might feel that "voting as God would vote." might mean alligning one's self with one political party or another etc. My hope is that in considering our political view points that we go with what is right, not with what a particular party says is right--because no one is right all of the time. Personally, I don't care what party a candidate is alligned with as long as he or she is doing what is right. If I remember correctly--and that's stretching it--Federalist Paper #10, talks about "fractionalization" and avoiding political parties. -
-
- CommentAuthorAlison Moore Smith
- CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
Posted By: facethemusicBut there is undoubtedly a "proper politcal position" on certainissueslike Melinda mentioned, abortion and same-sex marriages, etc.
I don't know about that, actually. For example, in the same-sex marriage issue, it is one thing to believe that marriage should be only between a man and a woman, and another thing entirely to believe that the best (or even an appropriate) measure to ensure that is through a particular means (in this case, a constitutional amendment). The voting encompassed both the end AND the means. -
- CommentAuthorfacethemusic
- CommentTimeJul 3rd 2007
My concern is that some people might feel that "voting as God would vote." might mean alligning one's self with one political party or another etc.
Agreed. But only someone who isn't thinking at all would ever come to that conclusion.
Even members of the same party don't agree on several key issues. And the "party's" don't have their viewpoints carved in stone, either. The modern versions of the 2 major parties are not necessarily the same as they were in the 1950's. On some points they've completely flipped.
The truth is, that half of the Dems and the Republicans wouldn't BE in their respective party's if it wasn't for the fact that they know they'd barely stand a chance of getting elected if they ran as a Constitutionalist, a Libertarian, etc. So they align themselves with the group to which they come the closest on the issues. But again, they don't ALL agree on all the issues, even within a party. Anyone who thought that a particular political party was "the party of God" would be completely delusionary. -
- CommentAuthorfacethemusic
- CommentTimeJul 4th 2007
For example, in the same-sex marriage issue, it is one thing to believe that marriage should be only between a man and a woman, and another thing entirely to believe that the best (or even an appropriate) measure to ensure that is through a particular means (in this case, a constitutional amendment)
True-- my comment was in reference to the right or wrong of the ISSUE not how necessarily how it's carried out. I brought that up in my earlier post.
To quote myself:The problem is that sometimes WE have different ideas of what's righteous and what's not. Or what's the best WAY to acheive a righteous goal. But surely, Heavenly Father knows which is the right way, or the better way. Again, it certainly possible that somethings will be equally good, or there may be more than one good way to reach a righteous goal.
-
- CommentAuthorSilverRain
- CommentTimeJul 4th 2007
I think one of the biggest problems/difficulties is we have no idea how/where to take a moral stance and how/where to take a political one. The two are inextricably combined, and yet we continually try to separate them. -
- CommentAuthorAlison Moore Smith
- CommentTimeJul 4th 2007
Tracy, I guess my discomfort with the term "a proper political position" is because political positions do tend to prescribe the means. That being the case, there may well be MORE than one proper position, if you define that as a position that God would be pleased with.
So true, Silver. -
- CommentAuthorfacethemusic
- CommentTimeJul 4th 2007
I guess my discomfort with the term "a proper political position" is because political positions do tend to prescribe the means.
I'm not really sure I see this. Can you give an example to illustrate?
For example, I don't see how what we KNOW is a godly position on SSM, that it's wrong and shouldn't be made legal, automatically prescribes a means. Sure, it would be made illegal, but that's the result of the means, not the means. The SSM issue doesn't HAVE to be outlawed by constitutional amendment. It could just be made a federal crime, like, you can't rob a bank. It could be addressed by state law. (Though I realize this could cause problems between states, juristiction, recognized in one state not in another, etc.) -
it is one thing to believe that marriage should be only between a man and a woman, and another thing entirely to believe that the best (or even an appropriate) measure to ensure that is through a particular means (in this case, a constitutional amendment). The voting encompassed both the end AND the means.
I tend to take the approach that if an apostle of the Lord participates in a group of religious leaders to promote a certain means, that's a pretty good indicator that this might be a good idea to support. Of course, our leaders don't force us to do so, but if we wanted to know what the Lord thinks about some of these big political issues, IMO, we don't need to look very far to get an idea of what His thoughts might be. Does this mean the means will be infallibly perfect? No, but to me, the fact that our leaders would get involved at any level on any issue is reason to take notice. I realize not everyone feels this way, however.
Incidentally, in most situations, I have a very difficult time voting because I think the two-party system is a complete nightmare. I still do vote, but I find it difficult to really flesh out how different people think. (This is made even more difficult because we often have so little realy information, and the press distorts so much of what we do and can hear.) I find meaningful elements in both parties, and rarely do I find someone who stands for a combination of issues that I like. So it often feels like choosing the least worst. :) Drives me bonkers. -
- CommentAuthorfacethemusic
- CommentTimeJul 5th 2007
So it often feels like choosing the least worst. :) Drives me bonkers.
Ditto!! -
- CommentAuthorMichael Snider
- CommentTimeJul 5th 2007
I've greatly enjoyed reading the many discussion posts. Mormonmomma has a great webaudience. A few thoughts to those who have brought up things directly (or indirectly) addressed to me...
To Melinda: It is clear you and I disagree on many things, but I am happy you are engaged in the process. To speak directly to one of your assertions: "The Church doesn't make any political statements on any issues besides moral issues such as abortion and SSM." Here's a quote by President David O. McKay in General Conference, April, 1950 (CR p. 175): "Communism is anti-Christ" Church leaders have said many many things regarding political matters. Reading my book would be a good place to to start if you'd like to educate yourself more on what our leaders have said.
To Sam B.: Yes, I'm saying there is a correct answer to political questions and issues. (I can't claim to be the originator of that - Elder McConkie asserted it in the quote I listed...he and many other men of God). Please don't assume that to be one big blanket statement though; that is a statement of principle. You and I agree when you discuss the imperfections and complexities of much legislation, etc. and I agree - for much of that there is no one right or wrong answer...we must evaluate and get involved. What I am saying is that there is a correct constitutional position for us to adhere to in most instances of big federal government issues as we have been counseled to "befriend the Constitution". There are also many other issues, state, local, etc., where there is no single end-all, be-all right answer.
To Alison: Bravo! Your eloquent words refuting God's willingness to reveal truth regarding political positions were right on, IMO. In classes we have read the scripture countless times to pray over our flocks and fields, or heard someone in testimony meeting tell about the time they lost their car keys, prayed and then received an answer on where to find them. If God's willing to answer us on such matters, then one shouldn't be getting too nervous about someone getting revelation on politics.
To east-of-eden: Concur wholeheartedly. We have no allegiance to party, but to what we know is right. We work within whatever party we belong to in order to befriend the Constitution. That's the beauty of today's political situation...I might not agree with Harry Reid very much, but every time LDS are accused of being monolithic, I mention his name and there's no way the accusation bears scrutiny!!
To SilverRain: Well-said.
To all: I love all of this! Brigham Young said: "Joseph used to say, "When you get the Latter-day Saints to agree on any point, you may know it is the voice of God." (Discourses of Brigham Young, 12:301, p.469) We are entering the world stage on many fronts and if we are to prepare to save the Constitution when it is on the brink of destruction, we will need a lot more of this so we can get to the point where we are the "voice of God" -
- CommentAuthorAlison Moore Smith
- CommentTimeJul 5th 2007
Posted By: facethemusicI'm not really sure I see this. Can you give an example to illustrate?
Sure. We believe drinking coffee is contrary to God's will and law. Should we demand prohibition on coffee? Should we criminalize it? Better yet, should we amend the constitution to prohibit it?
For example, I don't see how what we KNOW is a godly position on SSM, that it's wrong and shouldn't be made legal, automatically prescribes a means. Sure, it would be made illegal, but that's the result of the means, not the means. The SSM issue doesn't HAVE to be outlawed by constitutional amendment. It could just be made a federal crime, like, you can't rob a bank. It could be addressed by state law.
The last voting issue on SSM did prescribe a means. It would be proscribed by constitutional amendment. There are more than one set of ends/means here. Legalization is one and enforcement is another.
Having a truth about somethings doesn't mean that there is only one acceptable way to deal with it.
This will go into all parts of our lives if you think about it, not just the political arena. Do we, as a church, believe that there is only ONE proper position?
Is there a one-and-only to marry?
Is there one career that is acceptable to God?
Is there one good place to live?
Or does God allow much variation?
I suggest that the latter is true and that this pattern holds for political things as well. I believe he wants us to be an honorable, good, decent, Godly people. I think any means to get us there that is in line with his teaching is acceptable to him in most circumstances--with the exceptions being when his overall plan requires a particular course to be taken.
I've never seen God as a micro-manager.Posted By: Michael SniderIf God's willing to answer us on such matters, then one shouldn't be getting too nervous about someone getting revelation on politics.
Absolutely, but the polarity brought on by this is obvious. Because if someone claims to have received personal revelation on a political (or any) issue, they tend to brow-beat anyone opposing them because the opposition must NOT have prayed or they would have received the same (divine, inspired) answer.
As a pretty conservative Republican who almost votes straight line, I see vindictive cast toward LDS Democrats a lot these days. And I think it's wrong-headed.
FWIW, there are also lots of political statements made by church leaders (Benson comes strongly to mind) that are simply not doctrinal and not even authoritative statements--even though they are often used as a stick to beat even moderate conservatives with. What was it Joseph Fielding Smith said? Something about how man would never walk on the moon or something? -
- CommentAuthorfacethemusic
- CommentTimeJul 5th 2007
I must have totally misunderstood what you meant Alison, because I still don't get it.
I don't see how the example you gave of the coffee had anything to do with what you said about "a proper political position" tending to prescribe the means. In fact, your example showed the opposite of what you said.
As an entire church body we've taken the position that coffee isn't good for the body and have committed to that belief so seriously that it can actually keep us out of the temple. But did our belief in that prescribe a means to stop everyone one else from doing it? Not at all. It didn't prescribe anything.
The last voting issue on SSM did prescribe a means. It would be proscribed by constitutional amendment. There are more than one set of ends/means here. Legalization is one and enforcement is another.
The conservative view on the ISSUE didn't prescribe a means, that particular BILL prescribed a means. That was my point. The politicians who wrote that bill came up with a means not inherent to their belief on the issue, in order to ensure that their belief would be adopted by the national government, by way of constiutional amendment. But the political position that SSM shouldn't be allowed doesn't prescribe the means.Having a truth about somethings doesn't mean that there is only one acceptable way to deal with it.
Absolutely-- that was my whole point. Having a truth about something, and even taking a political stand on it, (that SSM is wrong, for example, and shouldn't be legal) doesn't automatically prescirbe a means by which it should be accomplished. (It could be accomplished by state law, by federal law, by amendment)
Do we, as a church, believe that there is only ONE proper position?
In certain matters, absolutely. I think that's pretty clear to everyone, member and non-member.
The Proclamation to the Family makes that clear.
In other matters, we don't.
We don't drink coffee, but we also don't believe that those who do are sinning.
We believe there is a "proper" way to pray, but we don't believe that those who use less formal language or use rote prayers, etc are sinning, or even that they're prayers aren't heard.
The things that are crucial to society, the basic laws stemming from the commandments are things that DO only have one proper position.
There are some things where God has made it clear that there is one proper position, and things like careers and where we choose to live that he doesn't command. There are things that we believe that we don't try to make matters legistlation, and things that we DO. There are also things that he commands for US as members of the church, that he doesn't command for others who are living by a lesser law. But I know you already know all this... so I guess I don't know what you're driving at... -
- CommentAuthorAlison Moore Smith
- CommentTimeJul 5th 2007
Posted By: facethemusicThe conservative view on the ISSUE didn't prescribe a means, that particular BILL prescribed a means.
I really have a lot to do today. Sorry to be unclear. I think we're talking past each other. Help me out.
What IS "the conservative view" or the "proper political view" on SSM or, really, ANY issue. Give me a couple of examples and then perhaps I can be clear on my point. -
- CommentAuthorMichael Snider
- CommentTimeJul 5th 2007
SPECIAL OFFER: I would like to give a signed, free copy of my book, "Our Title of Liberty" to any/all of the first contributors (the first 48 hours) to the discussion area of my inaugural column on Mormonmomma.com.
So, if partone, facethemusic, Melinda, Sam B., SilverRain, mlinford, or east-of-eden would like to take me up on this offer, just send me an email at: michael@ourtitleofliberty.com saying so and I will send you a book.
to facethemusic, re: "proper position"...
I hope we would not read too much into the word "proper." (Sometimes I'm just looking for a synonym for other words I've already repeated once or twice and perhaps "proper" was not a good word to use.) The thrust of my thesis is that following scriptural & prophetic counsel to study and support both the Constitution and "good & wise" people to hold public office should be a part of our spirituality and that the Gospel aids us in making decisions in this regard. The real nut of the issue is to be aligned with Gospel principles and God's prophet(s). There are certain issues that are very cut and dried as to what our position should be because prophets or apostle have stated it. There are others where there might be a number of alternatives. I would never want anyone to think that because they disagreed with me or a church authority that they are 'improper' though.
every good thing... - Michael -
- CommentAuthorAlison Moore Smith
- CommentTimeJul 5th 2007
Posted By: Michael SniderSo, if partone, facethemusic, Melinda, Sam B., SilverRain, mlinford, or east-of-eden would like to take me up on this offer, just send me an email at: michael@ourtitleofliberty.com saying so and I will send you a book.
Hey, now is there a reason I was left out? I was SO part of the first contributors!
-
Brigham Young said: "Joseph used to say, "When you get the Latter-day Saints to agree on any point, you may know it is the voice of God." (Discourses of Brigham Young, 12:301, p.469)
This statement makes me a little nervous because I have seen members agree on points that run counter to prophetic positions, so I think that we need to be careful. :) -
- CommentAuthorMichael Snider
- CommentTimeJul 5th 2007
Alison - I was beginning to think you didn't want one. Go read my emails to you on 7/2 & 7/3 and read all the way to the end! -
- CommentAuthorAlison Moore Smith
- CommentTimeJul 5th 2007
Wah! I'm seriously brain injured! Thank you. I was just so focused on getting your article up that the rest just leaked out! -
- CommentAuthorfacethemusic
- CommentTimeJul 6th 2007 edited
The thrust of my thesis is that following scriptural & prophetic counsel to study and support both the Constitution and "good & wise" people to hold public office should be a part of our spirituality and that the Gospel aids us in making decisions in this regard. The real nut of the issue is to be aligned with Gospel principles and God's prophet(s). There are certain issues that are very cut and dried as to what our position should be because prophets or apostle have stated it. There are others where there might be a number of alternatives.
Agreed Michael. That's exactly what I was saying-- I said pretty much the same thing quite a few times in my posts. I think that there are some issues where is there IS a proper (read "Godly") position, and others where there isn't.
I think you might be confusing my posts with those of other readers.
quoting myself:I'm not so sure that when he said "proper political positions" that he necessarily meant that in the larger scope of things, like a Democrat vs. Rebuplican kind of thing. But there is undoubtedly a "proper politcal position" on certain issues like Melinda mentioned, abortion and same-sex marriages, etc.
Again, it certainly possible that somethings will be equally good, or there may be more than one good way to reach a righteous goal.
There are some things where God has made it clear that there is one proper position, and things like careers and where we choose to live that he doesn't command.
Additionally, you attributed my comments to Alison.
To Alison: Bravo! Your eloquent words refuting God's willingness to reveal truth regarding political positions were right on, IMO. In classes we have read the scripture countless times to pray over our flocks and fields, or heard someone in testimony meeting tell about the time they lost their car keys, prayed and then received an answer on where to find them. If God's willing to answer us on such matters, then one shouldn't be getting too nervous about someone getting revelation on politics.
I was the one who spoke about that---so I think you're mixing up my comments with those of others. -
Good comments here. But I am still extremely wary of people who pray and think their political positions and voting decisions are inspired by God. This is because I am afraid of the nut jobs. Once you agree that one person (yourself) is entitled to know God's will on a particular matter, you ought to extend the same courtesy to everyone else and assume that everyone is sincere when they talk about what they believe is God's will for a particular political matter. That includes every person of every religion (Protestant, Catholic, Islam, Buddhism, etc.). We may claim that we're the only Church with the gift of the Holy Ghost, and therefore the only ones who are truly entitled to inspired guidance on political matters. But what do you do when someone from another faith (or even our own faith) claims to have received a revelation that is opposed to what God told us? What neutral third party decides which person really was talking to the correct God?
So I am opposed to letting personal revelation influence politics not because I think I'll get the wrong answers, but because I think everyone else will. It's much better to have research, logic, discussion and compromise backing up your position, rather than a revelation trump card that you won't let anyone else use.
If a sincere religious person claims to have prayed, fasted and received an answer contrary to your own, what do you do? -
- CommentAuthorAlison Moore Smith
- CommentTimeJul 6th 2007
Posted By: MelindaSo I am opposed to letting personal revelation influence politics not because I think I'll get the wrong answers, but because I think everyone else will. It's much better to have research, logic, discussion and compromise backing up your position, rather than a revelation trump card that you won't let anyone else use.
I'm voting this as the most profound quote in this discussion.
-
- CommentAuthorfacethemusic
- CommentTimeJul 6th 2007 edited
Oh Melinda-- this sort of thing happens with MANY things, not just politics.
Do you know that I'd have 4 husbands right now if I assumed that every guy who told me that they'd received "revelation" that I was supposed to their wife, was telling the truth?
Who knows, maybe they truly believed they did receive revelation, but surely they couldn't ALL have received that revelation. So either one or more of them were lying just to get their way, or maybe they just heard what they wanted to hear.
That's more an issue of learning to recognize the Spirit and answer to prayer.
But again, it comes down to the fact that we're talking about PERSONAL revelation.
I too would be extremely wary of someone who was walking around telling everyone that God revealed to them that they should vote for "so-n-so."
I'm NOT wary of someone who prays, and receives revelation.
I'm wary of someone who goes around TELLING people about their "revelation". (Unless of course, it's a prophet,etc )
Once you agree that one person (yourself) is entitled to know God's will on a particular matter, you ought to extend the same courtesy to everyone else and assume that everyone is sincere when they talk about what they believe is God's will for a particular political matter. That includes every person of every religion (Protestant, Catholic, Islam, Buddhism, etc.).
Yes, but sincerity doesn't equal truth. People sincerely believe things all the time, and sometimes, though they don't realize it, they're sincerely wrong. (This would include all of us at times)
There are many people who "sincerely" believe that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, but their sincerity doesn't make them right. There are people who sincerely believe that Mormons aren't Christian. But their wrong. They may even say that God revealed it to them.
What makes something right or wrong isn't what we think about it, no matter how sincere we are. What makes something right or wrong isn't even what we think GOD thinks about it.
The radical Isalmists sincerely think that God wants all the Christians to convert to Islam or they should be exterminated. They're wrong. But they sincerely believe they're right because God 'revealed' it to them.
What makes something right or wrong is what God really DOES say about it. This is why PERSONAL revelation is so important, and why knowing how to discern truth, through the Holy Ghost is SO important.
We may claim that we're the only Church with the gift of the Holy Ghost, and therefore the only ones who are truly entitled to inspired guidance on political matters.
That's not true at all. Yes, through the priesthood, we're the only Church that can give the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that DOES NOT mean that we're the only ones "truly entitled to inspired guidance on political matters."
ANYONE who prays with real intent, desiring to know truth, and willing to align their will with God's, can receive inspiration on ANYTHING! Big or small.
Remember, Joseph Smith was NOT Mormon, nor did he have the gift of the Holy Ghost when he prayed in the grove that morning. -
- CommentAuthorAlison Moore Smith
- CommentTimeJul 6th 2007
I'm repeating my request, because I think it got lost:
What IS "the conservative view" or the "proper political view" on SSM or, really, ANY issue. Give me a couple of examples and then perhaps I can be clear on my point. -
<blockquote>I too would be extremely wary of someone who was walking around telling everyone that God revealed to them that they should vote for "so-n-so."
I'm NOT wary of someone who prays, and receives revelation.
I'm wary of someone who goes around TELLING people about their "revelation". (Unless of course, it's a prophet,etc )</blockquote>
Good summary. I can agree with that. :) -
- CommentAuthorMichael Snider
- CommentTimeJul 6th 2007
<strong>Melinda: "It's much better to have research, logic, discussion and compromise backing up your position, rather than a revelation trump card that you won't let anyone else use."</strong>
I think you misunderstand the process Melinda; research, logic and discussion should all precede the request for personal revelation, not replace it. The two are not mutually exclusive. Heavenly Father does not want us to come to him without having talked to anyone else, or read anything or thought/pondered on the subject in question. He expects to do our level best to find the answer based on previously revealed truth, consulting with others, etc., before coming to him to confirm what we think is the correct answer. A good read on this process can be found in the 9th section of the Doctrine & Covenants.
The other troubling thing about your input is that you seem to prefer "the arm of flesh" over petitioning God for wisdom because of some notion you have that personal revelation regarding political matters is some sort of metaphorical hammer one goes about hitting people over the head with...as if an answer to prayer entitles us to go around telling others to vote for this, that, or so-and-so because deity has given us the answer so the discussion is over. IMO this is not at all what anyone striving to emulate Christ would do. I think the D&C 121 method of "persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness" is the best way to win hearts and minds in the political arena. I believe this methodology will distinguish us from those who do use religion as a cudgel and attract other to the light of the Gospel. -
- CommentAuthorfacethemusic
- CommentTimeJul 6th 2007
Sorry Alison!
Okay, so politicals issue that have a proper/Godly position:
-- Abortion should be illegal (minus the very few cases where the mother's life is at risk, or in
the incidence of rape)
-- Partial birth abortion should be illegal
--Marriage is between a man and woman
-- Religion should not be dictated by government
.... I don't know, how many do you want? -
- CommentAuthorAlison Moore Smith
- CommentTimeJul 6th 2007
Abortion should be illegal (minus the very few cases where the mother's life is at risk, or in the incidence of rape)
The church has not taken the position that abortion "should be illegal." What they have done is declare that it is discouraged except in cases of:
rape
incest
mother's life in danger
severe fetal abnormality
In those cases, no disciplinary action is taken, but the encourage much consideration and prayer and counsel with the bishop. All but the third are really interesting exceptions on their own.
So, are you saying that God's position is that it should be ILLEGAL, except in the FOUR cases the church has given leeway on? And does that mean it was God's position to have it ILLEGAL in only the first three cases a few decades ago before they added the fourth?
-- Partial birth abortion should be illegal
I'm not sure how the fact that partial birth abortion is sinful (I suppose in the four cases mentioned above?) thus requires the "godly position" of making it ILLEGAL. I would argue that, contrary to what you wrote above, we do, in fact, believe that breaking the Word of Wisdom IS sinful, and yet we don't declare that it should be made illegal.
--Marriage is between a man and woman
Or a man and many women???
FWIW, I would call this more of a moral position. Without an implementation or enforcement, what is political about it? That's almost like saying, "Shoes are only for feet." is a political position.
-- Religion should not be dictated by government
We have scriptural cases where the two were intertwined and we believe that when Christ comes he will rule. How does that fit with this position? -
Alison,
Seeing as the gay marriage thing is something the leaders have taken political action on and encouraged us to do the same, I think it has moved beyond just the moral. Do you disagree? If so, why? -
- CommentAuthorAlison Moore Smith
- CommentTimeJul 6th 2007
Oh, yes, I agree that the church has taken a political stand, but the position was NOT that "Marriage is between a man and a woman." That isn't synonymous with requiring a particular political action.
The church said, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints favors a constitutional amendment preserving marriage as the lawful union of a man and a woman."
So, the church favored an amendment to declare this, but did that mean that they favored ANY and ALL POSSIBLE amendments that provided this? (They said this, for example, in 2004.) For example, what if the amendment said that marriage was between one man and one woman, with only one marriage allowed per person? Or with no possibility of divorce, ever, for any reason? Or you go ahead and pick any of the infinite choices of screwy language that would render the declaration to be, even, contrary to our doctrine?
The problem is that POLITICAL ACTION is rarely clean and clear cut, so to assign a particular political position, bill, vote, candidate, etc., to be "proper" while deeming all others (or none at all) IMproper, is rarely valid--at least in my experience. As far as I've seen, almost every piece of legislation is debatable and imperfect.
FWIW, I supported the marriage amendment, but it was because I studied the PARTICULAR amendment that made it through and found it acceptable. -
- CommentAuthorfacethemusic
- CommentTimeJul 6th 2007 edited
Well, we weren't talking about the Church's position on these things. And I never said that the CHURCH has taken a political position on any of these issues.
I'm saying that knowing the commandments, knowing the Church's position on the sanctity of life, homosexuality, the importance of the freedom of religion, the sacred nature of marriage between a man and a woman, etc, etc, I'm confidant that God would have abortion, gay marriage, etc be illegal. (whether others agree with my assesment or not)
It seems very obvious to me from the Proclamation on the Family how the Church leaders feel about these issues, DESPITE the fact that they don't canonize an "official Church position".
Don't you find the timing of the Proclamation interesting? Right in the midst of all these arguments about abortion, partial birth abortion and gay marriage? And what was it's purpose?
Why would Church leaders make it in the first place? Why would they need to declare TO THE WORLD, the Church's feelings about the sanctity of marriage, gender, etc and end the proclamation with this statement:
"We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measure designed to maintain and strenthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."
I would argue that, contrary to what you wrote above, we do, in fact, believe that breaking the Word of Wisdom IS sinful, and yet we don't declare that it should be made illegal.
I guess we just have to disagree here then. I don't believe that it's sinful for some guy to have a glass of wine. Christ himself drank wine. He wouldn't sin. If drinking a glass of wine, in and of itself is a sin, then Christ himself would have been sinning.
Truth is truth and it's eternal. Polygamy in and of itself isn't a sin, it would be a sin NOW because by God's direction, we no longer practice it, but not because polygamy in and of itself, is sinful. I don't see drinking a glass of wine as anything different. From Old Testment, through the New Testament, and on to 1833 it was okay to drink wine-- so that's almost 8,000 years its okay, then all of a sudden on Feb. 27, 1833 we find out it's a sin-- and it HAS BEEN for all those years, we just didn't know it? And Christ didn't either? I hardly think so. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that drinking wine in and of itself is not a sin. Just that it's sinful for US as Latter-Day Saints because we've been told through the WOW that we aren't to drink it. And regardless of the reason, (because it was being poisoned, the whole new wine/aged wine arguement, maybe because our generations are weaker in this regard, or because its so much more accessible now and can get it in 5 minutes and don't have to wait a few years, etc)... whatever the reason, we've made covenants with God saying that we won't drink it. And that's all that matters.
And just like God commands us in some things, (especially the big things) he doesn't command us in all things.
Well, we can legislate somethings, and NOT legislate other things.
--Marriage is between a man and woman
Or a man and many women???
FWIW, I would call this more of a moral position. Without an implementation or enforcement, what is political about it?
Marriage is a LEGAL issue. It's a legal contract, recognized by the state and federal government. That some people want to expand it to include other gender arrangments has become a political issue.
And once again, since it's brought up in the Proclamation to the Family, with the warning about the disintegration of the family bringing upon communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets, followed by a plea to citizens and government officials throughout the world to promote the measures that will maintain and strengthen the family (and it earlier spoke of marriage between a man and woman being ordained of God, husband and wives responsibilites in rearing a family, children being entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony,etc, etc, etc,) I think it's safe to assume that our prophet, his counselors, the Twelve Apostles, and therefore God himself, recognize marriage between a man and a woman as a political issue as well.
-- Religion should not be dictated by government
We have scriptural cases where the two were intertwined and we believe that when Christ comes he will rule. How does that fit with this position
Yes, the two were intertwined but intertwined doesn't mean anything was dictated.
Mosiah didn't DICTATE religion, he didn't force anyone to join the body of the church.
And Christ won't do that either. It's not like he's going to come and make it illegal to be Baptist. :) -
- CommentAuthorfacethemusic
- CommentTimeJul 6th 2007 edited
Okay, I didn't see Alison's post about the church's position on the marriage amendment.
See-- I didn't even know that they actually took a stand on that.
But there ya, go. They did.
Alison, I agree in theory, with your point that just because the Church took a stand approving protecting marriage by constitutional amedment, that it doesn't necessarily mean they approved the particular bill that was proposing it. As we discussed earlier, the way proposals are worded, and the details included in it make a difference. (Which why I personally like line-item-veto)
However, just like you voted for the amendment after having studied it-- don't you think the Church has probably done the same thing?
I doubt that after all these years of not taking political stands on things, that they suddenly did it now, with such an important issue, without knowing what was going into it. This wasn't drafted during the commercial breaks of American Idol, it's been in the works for a few years. I also doubt, that knowing the proposal out could have had any assortment of details (like only one marriage per person, no divorce for any reason whatsoever, etc) that they would have put out their statement regarding the church's stand, without making any disclaimers. And if the final bill DID include something off the wall like no divorce ever, which the church wouldn't support, then they would have said something regarding their previous statement.
I think we're pretty safe to think that they issued their statement knowing darn well what the proposal would include. In fact, I'll bet they've "had their people on that" all along. -
- CommentAuthorfacethemusic
- CommentTimeJul 6th 2007
Okay, I'm totally being a board hog here. But here's something I just got an email about, from the AFA that I believe should be illegal, and that Heavenly Father would also say should be illegal.
"The Maryland State Board of Education has ruled that the right of the state supersedes the rights of parents in teaching children about homosexuality. The Board said the "right (of parents) is not absolute. It must bend to the State's duty to educate its citizens."
The ruling means that the teaching of homosexuality as an accepted and approved lifestyle in Maryland public schools can move forward.... The new policy prohibits any unfavorable view of homosexuality from being presented. A video for use with eighth-graders instructs students on how to put a condom on a pen-s." -
Tracy,
Your last comment is an example to me of why we need to take a stand on issues like gay marriage, especially when directed by our leaders -- because the effects can often show up in other areas, such as education as you have pointed out here. Parental rights, religious rights...there are other things that could be threatened if gay marriage becomes legalized. (Not saying they would be, but given what I have seen, I suspect we would. I also believe the disintegration of society won't just be about gay marriage per se but many other issues like children being tainted by philophies and teachings of men, morality becoming more and more uncommon, etc.) -
- CommentAuthorAlison Moore Smith
- CommentTimeJul 7th 2007
Posted By: facethemusicI'm saying that knowing the commandments, knowing the Church's position on the sanctity of life, homosexuality, the importance of the freedom of religion, the sacred nature of marriage between a man and a woman, etc, etc, I'm confidant that God would have abortion, gay marriage, etc be illegal.
Fine, but many do disagree with you. Many good, praying, God-loving people. (And I'm guessing you would have abortion legal conditionally--by which conditions?) And even if you're right, the political action includes all sorts of things that are still up for discussion. Would you, for example, support a political position that supported execution of all gay people who engage in marriage vows?It seems very obvious to me from the Proclamation on the Family how the Church leaders feel about these issues, DESPITE the fact that they don't canonize an "official Church position".
As far as I can tell, the leaders feel they are sins. To ME, that's the obvious position of God. I see no prescription in the Proclamation indicating how they would deal with them politically.Posted By: facethemusic"We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measure designed to maintain and strenthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."
But, for heaven's sake, do you really think this means ALL measures? Even look at the wording. "Designed to…" So if someone plans something with the idea that it will strengthen families, we have to support it??? If we kill all the single folks (gay or not) well, boy, people will be rushing to marry, won't they? We'll get our numbers up!
This statement encourages us to be active. It does not tell us that we have to support every attempt or every method or every means.
Yes, I believe that God believes gay behavior is sinful. No, I don't think that means he would sanction every ill-conceived means to eliminate it.Posted By: facethemusicI don't believe that it's sinful for some guy to have a glass of wine. Christ himself drank wine. He wouldn't sin. If drinking a glass of wine, in and of itself is a sin, then Christ himself would have been sinning...Polygamy in and of itself isn't a sin, it would be a sin NOW because by God's direction, we no longer practice it, but not because polygamy in and of itself, is sinful.
Um, so drinking wine would be a sin NOW because by God's direction, we no longer drink wine, right? Just like there have been times when God proscribed marriage outside of particular races, eating pork, commanded blood sacrifice, etc.Posted By: facethemusicHowever, just like you voted for the amendment after having studied it-- don't you think the Church has probably done the same thing?
No. The Church doesn't have a vote.Posted By: facethemusicI doubt that after all these years of not taking political stands on things, that they suddenly did it now, with such an important issue, without knowing what was going into it. This wasn't drafted during the commercial breaks of American Idol, it's been in the works for a few years. I also doubt, that knowing the proposal out could have had any assortment of details (like only one marriage per person, no divorce for any reason whatsoever, etc) that they would have put out their statement regarding the church's stand, without making any disclaimers. And if the final bill DID include something off the wall like no divorce ever, which the church wouldn't support, then they would have said something regarding their previous statement.
They made the statement while a couple of different bills were being floated. And the bills changed multiple times long after the statement. So, no, they didn't know what the final bill would look like at all. The church understands politics. More to the point, I think they assume WE do, too. Do they have to give us a disclaimer (after all the other statements they make to us) that says, "Hello, LDS people. Do not be idiots. Don't vote on legislation unless you understand it and have been prayerful and thoughtful. If there are serious moral, religious, ethical, legal problems with a bill, you might want to wait for the next attempt at achieving your goal."
Look, the church has said they support an amendment about marriage. I do, too. I don't necessarily support every POSSIBLE amendment and, funny me, I don't think they would either. To me that's a no-brainer. They also did not support the ERA specifically. In most other cases they have been much less specific about POLITICAL action, although they've been specific about moral responsibilities. I think the problem comes when we extend the latter into the former without reason and ascribe it to our leaders or, worse, to God. -
- CommentAuthorfacethemusic
- CommentTimeJul 7th 2007
Fine, but many do disagree with you. Many good, praying, God-loving people.
I know, I realize that. And I realize that they may be as confidant in their position as I am in mine. And that's fine for them. But, I do think it's very interesting that the Church DID take a stand and say that it DOES favor a constitutional amendment that would make marriage legal only between a man and a woman. I understand your argument about the details and minutia that may go along with that, but when it comes right down to it, the very basic idea-- the Church has evidently taken a stand-- that SSM should be illegal. That says enough for me right there, and all the other "good, praying, God-loving people" can continue to believe otherwise if they so wish. Let them believe how, where and what they may. :)
And I'm guessing you would have abortion legal conditionally--by which conditions?)
Well, my personal thought on that, is that an abortion would only occur if the pregnancy would mean almost certain death for the mother. I would hope that someone who'd been raped would have the baby and give it up for adoption if she felt like she couldn't raise it, BUT I would NEVER judge someone in such a position for doing otherwise. It would be understandable.
But, I'm aware of the Church's position on this, which actually, I think is pretty much the same position. I think that's WHY the Church uses such careful wording, saying that even in the case of rape, the decision to abort should only be done in consultation with priesthood authority and through prayer.
So I would have it legal only under those conditions.But, for heaven's sake, do you really think this means ALL measures? ....
This statement encourages us to be active. It does not tell us that we have to support every attempt or every method or every means.
And I didn't say it DID mean that. Come on Alison, we're not talking about every and any method or means. We're not talking about lining up everyone who's gay and shooting them by firing squad. I'm talking about simply making SSM illegal. And the Church said it would support an amendment to do so. If it turned out that the amendment included some whack idea like "killing all the single folks", then clearly the Church wouldn't support that and neither would members of the church.Yes, I believe that God believes gay behavior is sinful. No, I don't think that means he would sanction every ill-conceived means to eliminate it.
And neither do I. I never said anything even close to that. In fact, I said the opposite.Um, so drinking wine would be a sin NOW because by God's direction, we no longer drink wine, right? Just like there have been times when God proscribed marriage outside of particular races, eating pork, commanded blood sacrifice, etc.
Yes. Exactly. Accept that, for clarification, what makes it a sin is the disobedience. It's just like polygamy. If your husband was to go get a second wife, he'd be sinning and would be subject to church discipline, even excommunication. But 150 or so years ago, the Saints were practicing it under God's own direction. He once commanded animal sacrifice. It was a part of holy worship. Now, we don't do that anymore. And the prophet would probably have something to say to me if I took a lamb and sacrificed it on his lovely walnut pulpit in the Conference center, or on the altar at the temple. It's only holy when He directs it, otherwise it's not.No. The Church doesn't have a vote.
I meant "don't you think the Church has done the same thing" in reference to studying the proposal and it's variations. My point was that if Alison Moore Smith is wise enough to study it out, than don't you think our prophet and his apostles have done the same thing?I don't necessarily support every POSSIBLE amendment and, funny me, I don't think they would either. To me that's a no-brainer.
And I agree. I never said anything that suggested that either I or the Church would support every possible amendment no matter what ridiculous thing it may include,-- I don't know why you keep speaking as though I did. I think I was pretty clear about this- I've said it over and over.
Shall I say it again? Maybe in a few different langauges? I can even do it in pig latin if you'd like. :) -
- CommentAuthorAlison Moore Smith
- CommentTimeJul 8th 2007
Posted By: facethemusic
And I didn't say it DID mean that. Come on Alison, we're not talking about every and any method or means. We're not talking about lining up everyone who's gay and shooting them by firing squad.
I KNOW you're not talking about that. I'm using the extreme to point out the flaw in the argument. The fact that God proscribes homosexuality and the fact that the church supports *A* constitutional amendment, still doesn't prescribe any particular political action, bill, etc. And a "position" minus an action isn't getting us very far. Particular when almost exclusively their "positions" are moral, rather than political.Posted By: facethemusic
Yes. Exactly. Accept that, for clarification, what makes it a sin is the disobedience.
OK, so going back to the point of the WoW. We agree that breaking the word of wisdom is a SIN. But that doesn't create an obvious "proper" political position.Posted By: facethemusicMy point was that if Alison Moore Smith is wise enough to study it out, than don't you think our prophet and his apostles have done the same thing?
Yes, I do. But do you believe that they always vote identically? Did they do so when many of them were open about the different political parties they belonged to? If not, why not?
I suggest it's because there are pros and cons to most any political action and God hast determined a "proper political position" in almost none of them. -
- CommentAuthorfacethemusic
- CommentTimeJul 8th 2007 edited
I'm using the extreme to point out the flaw in the argument.
The flaw in WHAT argument? Who's argument are you talking about? I didn't see anywhere, in anyone's post where someone said anything even remotely close to "a constitutional amendment to prevent SSM should be passed automatically, no matter what ridiculous thing it included."
The premise of this whole discussion, (after the article) is that on some issues, there IS a "proper" or "godly" position. The example of SSM was brought up. I used that as an example, and I stated that SSM should not be legal, THAT's my position, and I said that I was confidant that God himself would have the same position, that it should be illegal. Period. That position in and of itself does not proscribe any particular means to make it happen.
NOW for the means--- We already discussed the fact that often there is more than one way to accomplish a righteous goal. We discussed that sometimes, there may be ways that are equally good, equally bad, there may be two good ways with one of them being better than the other,etc. One of the ways is to make it a constitutional amendment. It SEEMS to be the only way to make it a federal thing, rather than something that would differ from state to state. The Church said it would support a consitutional amendment. To me, that means that even God himself would approve of a constitutional amendment that would make SSM illegal. Therefore, a consitutional amendment that would prevent SSM from being legal is a Godly or "proper" position.
That DOESN'T mean that He (or the Church, or I, or other church members) would or should back ANY amendment to make it illegal, no matter what ridiculous details it included. I realize that. And I thought I was pretty clear, saying it it several different ways, throughout several posts.
OK, so going back to the point of the WoW. We agree that breaking the word of wisdom is a SIN. But that doesn't create an obvious "proper" political position.
You're right, it doesnt'. And I didn't imply that it DID, either. In fact, to repeat myself, I said that God commands us in some things, not in all things. And we do the same thing poltically. Not every 'moral' position demands a political action. We don't have to legislate EVERYTHING, or else we'd have to make drop waist pants with short tops illegal. It's the big things that we worry about and seek action from politically.
But do you believe that they always vote identically?
In politics? On smaller things-- not of eternal consequence, probably not. On the bigger issues? l bet for the most part they're pretty much aligned with each other, without even discussing it between them.
Did they do so when many of them were open about the different political parties they belonged to?
Well, to be honest, I'm not aware of them openly telling anyone to which party they belong.
I'm only aware of a few of them-- I know a few were Constitutionalists... but other than that, I don't know. Again, as was already discussed, even people within the same party disagree on things when it comes to seperate issues.
I think it's important to seperate "party" from "issues". Besides which, the Church as a whole doesn't take a stand on parties or even on candidates. But it sure came out with a stand regarding the ISSUE of SSM and a constitutional amendment to prevent it. -
- CommentAuthorAlison Moore Smith
- CommentTimeJul 8th 2007
This is all too circular for me.
Tracy, perhaps you can tell me what YOU mean by political position.
To me, these are NOT political postions:
Abortion is sinful (lots of the times, but not all the time)
Homosexuality is sinful
Coffee drinking is sinful
To me, these also are NOT POLITICAL POSITIONS in any meaningful way:
Abortion is sinful and we should limit it
Homosexuality is sinful and so we should try to stop it
Coffee drinking is sinful and it should be made illegal
To me, these ARE POLITICAL POSITIONS:
Abortion is sinful (usually) and so we should create a law that disallows it in cases that don't meet our standards
Homosexuality is sinful and so it should be a misdemeanor with the following penalties
Coffee drinking is sinful and so we should prohibit it's importation
Next, could you tell me what YOU mean by "big issues." Since, to the best of my ability to read, those (whatever they are) seem to be the issues which you feel the "proper political position" is obvious. I see this "obviousness" so rarely that I disagree with the general premise. What are the big issues?
Personally, I don't find "homosexuality should be illegal" to be much in the way of a "political position." But lets note that it's NOT a position the church has taken. And, no, I'm not sure that they WOULD take it. You remember that the Church paid for lawyers to fight FOR the American Indians to be able to use hallucinogenic drugs, right? Even though Mormons believe doing so is SINFUL. So I don't see a huge political precedent for the Church's leaders legislating (or politicizing) moral stances. Rather, they seem very hesitant to do so.
I believe they teach about it's problems, try to help those who are engaged in it, discipline those who engage in it. But I'm not at all sure that means that they would support throwing homosexuals (or adulterers or fornicators or liars or tithing cheaters) in JAIL or putting them on trial or anything like that.
Frankly, if you KNOW God would make homosexuality illegal, then why wouldn't you KNOW what means by which he would enforce that?
Again, though, I ask about the "proper political position" about abortion. I'm not talking about restating the church's policy, I'm talking about POLITICAL action with REGARD to that policy. And since that POLICY has changed in the past two decades, has the "proper political position" also changed?
You kind of hedged on the answer, saying that it was your PERSONAL opinion and that you'd NEVER judge. But if there is a PROPER POLITICAL POSITION, why apologize for it? And if we know what God would do, then we SHOULD judge behaviors outside his will to be wrong.Posted By: facethemusicI'm not aware of them openly telling anyone to which party they belong.
I'm only aware of a few of them-- I know a few were Constitutionalists... but other than that, I don't know.
A half century ago, there was much more open discussion about this. Back then there were many known democrats, republicans, etc., in church leadership. I presume it may have been stopped because members were beginning to do what they now tell us all not to do every year at voting time. They were ascribing political positions, candidates, parties, etc., to "who/what all believing, spiritually valiant Mormons should vote for or align with."
I guess that' kind of how I read some of these statements.Posted By: facethemusicBut if you've studied the gospel at all, than you know that the goal is for us to "be one" even as Jesus and the Father are one. One in heart and MIND. Wouldn't that include politics? If we all want the same righteous things, and candidates have differing positions on what's good, then shouldn't it be that we all have the same thoughts on who's the right person for the job?
The problem is that sometimes WE have different ideas of what's righteous and what's not. Or what's the best WAY to acheive a righteous goal. But surely, Heavenly Father knows which is the right way, or the better way. Again, it certainly possible that somethings will be equally good, or there may be more than one good way to reach a righteous goal. But usually, that isn't the case.
But if I were a betting person, which of course I'm not, then I'd bet that if every single member of the church truly fasted and prayed over the coming election, and all truly aligned our will with that of the Father, that we'd ALL get the same "inspriration'' as to who we should vote for. Or at LEAST who the two best and most equally yoked candidates are.
I guess these statements, to me, seem to contradict what we hear read over the pulpit every year. This seems to say that IDEALLY,***IF*** we were all righteous enough, we'd vote the same. I just, seriously disagree. If we voted on the colors for the church decor, would all the righteous vote the same and all the wicked vote differently? If we have different (and still acceptable) thoughts on small issues, it might be possible with large ones as well. Large ones multiply the complexity of the issue all around.
The idea of voting sameness also makes the letters seem a bit disingenuous. -
The idea of voting sameness also makes the letters seem a bit disingenuous.
I am not sure what I think about this, but I'm trying on two ideas.
One is that if we were all truly righteous, we would find One True Way to vote on everything.
The other is that there is no perfect political system or answer before the Savior comes, and therefore there will never always be One Right Way on everything (although I do suspect there might be a Best Way on many issues.)
I tend to lean toward the second one. I also can't help but wonder if sometimes there might be people even inspired to take a certain position until different positions can come together in the spirit of a council and make a Better Way than either one could do.
However, I think so much of our political system is so messed up (campaigns driven by money, not principle; two parties that drive the machine and cater to special-interest groups (see #1 -- because they want/need money and need the support of their long-standing interest groups); people who want to please constituents (and often vocal ones) rather than actually stand for something consistently, etc.)
I tend to think that we are supposed to study things out and seek guidance to make the best decisions possible with the many restrictions there are within the system (nevermind lots of corruption and pettiness and other problems (don't get me started on bureaucracy issues) at lots of levels). I tend to think there will not be One Right Way until the Savior comes and becomes the political as well as spiritual leader.
That said, I do believe we could receive guidance with our political choices to do the best we can within our sphere.
The only time I have felt certainty on an issue has been regarding gay marriage when we have seen the Church actually give some guidance on what we should be doing. The Brethren said support Prop 22 (in CA) so I was out walking the streets of No. Cal with my babe in a stroller (and one in utero). We spent time and money toward that end. When it came to the amendment that Elder Nelson went and made a public statement about, I was supporting that political move.
Outside of that, I don't know how much we can legislate our standards, but again we can seek to support those who support standards. The trick is that social issues are most certainly not the only issues to consider in politics, and I find it difficult to keep my head straight on all the many facets of policy and law that come into play. And I don't have a lot of trust in a lot of our political leaders to make decisions that are actually right vs. those that are driven by the forces of politics that aren't good and right. -
- CommentAuthorfacethemusic
- CommentTimeJul 9th 2007 edited
To me, these are NOT political postions:
Abortion is sinful (lots of the times, but not all the time)
Homosexuality is sinful
Coffee drinking is sinful
Correct-- those are moral positions by which I've taken a political stand as well. (Except that you brought up the coffee thing, and I don't think it even belongs in the conversation. It's not the kind of issue that should be legislated, IMO.)
To me, these also are NOT POLITICAL POSITIONS in any meaningful way:
Abortion is sinful and we should limit it
Homosexuality is sinful and so we should try to stop it
Coffee drinking is sinful and it should be made illegal
Correct again. The politcal position, that abortion/SSM are sinful and should be illegal, isn't really meaningful until you DO something to make it illegal.
A political position without works is dead.
However, sometimes you can have a strongly held conviction, but not be able to settle on which is the best way to handle it. (On my part, an example of this would be illegal immigration. I have strong feelings about it, but I'm not convinced about the best way to handle it or how to handle the balance of justice and mercy regarding it. And to be perfectly honest, I have NOT made it a matter of prayer yet, either. )
Next, could you tell me what YOU mean by "big issues." Since, to the best of my ability to read, those (whatever they are) seem to be the issues which you feel the "proper political position" is obvious (or apparent or however you want to word that). I see this "obviousness" so rarely that I disagree with the general premise. What are the big issues?
Same sex marriage
Abortion
Discrimination against Chrisianity in schools/local and state government,etc.
(they're harder on us than on other religions)
School districts/government overtaking parental rights
(generally in regard to sex education and abortion-- right now, a teen can't get a tatoo without parental consent but their school counselor can help a teen arrange to get an abortion without parental knowledge, and a doctor can perfom it without parental knowledge)
Personally, I don't find "homosexuality should be illegal" to be much in the way of a "political position." But lets note that it's NOT a position the church has taken. And, no, I'm not sure that they WOULD take it.
But those were your words, not mine. I said Same Sex Marriage should be illegal, not homosexuality. There's a difference. And the chuch DID take a stand on THAT. I have the same stand.
Again, though, I ask about the "proper political position" about abortion. I'm not talking about restating the church's policy, I'm talking about POLITICAL action with REGARD to that policy. And since that POLICY has changed in the past two decades, has the "proper political position" also changed?
I think the proper political ACTION should be Roe Vs. Wade being turned over. That abortion on demand be made illegal and that it should only be allowed for the four reasons already discussed.
I'm unaware of the church's policy "changing"-- you implied that abortion for the reason of severe fetal abnormality was recently added to the list of acceptable reasons. But I wasn't aware of it ever NOT being on the list.
But if that was a recent change it's an understandable one, and I don't have a problem with the Church making it's policies more clear and concise. But I don't think that change, changed the "proper political position". The position is basically that abortion is wrong, should be illegal, except for in very serious conditions. If they added another "serious condition" so be it. I don't think it changes the "proper political position"- it just makes it more clear, including another serious circumstance.
Even though you didn't necessarily want to restate church policy, I DO think its important to point out though, that the church's policy regarding abortion in the case of "severe fetal abnormality" may be different than what some consider to be severe. Many would consider anything that might put a child in a wheelchair, and unable to communicate, and perpetually functioning at the level of 10 month old baby a "severe abnormality". (That's the condition my daughter is in) But the church's policy requires that the severe abnormality would have be such that the baby wouldn't survive after birth.
And as I pointed out earlier, the church's position on this is that even in all the cirucumstances listed as acceptable reasons, the decision to abort should only be done after consulting with one's Bishop and confirming through prayer.You kind of hedged on the answer, saying that it was your PERSONAL opinion and that you'd NEVER judge. But if there is a PROPER POLITICAL POSITION, why apologize for it? And if we know what God would do, then we SHOULD judge behaviors outside his will to be wrong.
Honestly, I'm not hedging, and I'm not apologizing. I'm saying that the proper political position is that abortion should be illegal, exept under the circumstances already discussed. BUT, that I personally, would not have an abortion. (Believe me, the neonatalogist tried to convince me that I should, that most babies with my daughter's syndrome don't survive past a year, if they even live that long. But I never even considered it and was upset that he even suggested it.)
I mentioned in another thread though, a close relative who was raped. If she'd discovered that she was pregnant, and decided to have an abortion, that would be understandable. I would never hold that against her, or think of her as having committed a sin.
If the Church holds that position that those reasons, with confirmation through prayer are acceptable before God, then why WOULD I judge their behavior as though it was "outside his will"? And I wouldn't know if they'd confirmed it with God. So I couldn't judge anyway.
I guess these statements, to me, seem to contradict what we hear read over the pulpit every year. This seems to say that IDEALLY,***IF*** we were all righteous enough, we'd vote the same. I just, seriously disagree. ... If we have different (and still acceptable) thoughts on small issues, it might be possible with large ones as well."
Well, I just disagree with that. I don't think the letters contradict anything I've said.
The Church states that it doesn't endorse parties or candidates, doesn't allow electioneering, or political candidates to address congregations etc. The gospel allows for us to make up our own minds. But that doesn't mean that if we all sincerely studied the most pressing issues, (including elections) and prayed regarding our vote, with a sincere desire to align our will with the Father's, that we all wouldn't arrive at the same answer anyway. -
- CommentAuthorAlison Moore Smith
- CommentTimeJul 9th 2007
Posted By: mlinfordOne is that if we were all truly righteous, we would find One True Way to vote on everything.
The other is that there is no perfect political system or answer before the Savior comes, and therefore there will never always be One Right Way on everything (although I do suspect there might be a Best Way on many issues.)
I really like the way you've phrased this. I would tend to lean to the second as well. Pretty far, actually.Posted By: facethemusic
Same sex marriage
Abortion
Discrimination against Chrisianity in schools/local and state government,etc.
School districts/government overtaking parental rights
I had taken an above statement of Tracy's to extend to homosexuality rather than just ssm. My bad. So, what IS the "proper political position" for good Mormons on the above four?
From what I've read, I'll say these are your positions, but correct me if I'm wrong:
* SSM should be illegal and have a constitutional ban.
We agree, I assume, that this "proper position" does NOT require a "proper" Mormon to stand in favor of any and all proposed constitutional amendments, right? So, there's still a heck of a lot of room EVEN WITHIN this "proper position."
* Roe Vs. Wade should be over-turned. Abortion on demand be made illegal and that it should only be allowed for the four reasons already discussed.
As far as I know, the church has not made such a statement. Why do you think they haven't on something so serious?
I also find the abortion thing a really wishy-washy subject and our official policy to be more than a little hard to make sense of.
The only way for me to reconcile the two things: (1) The odd allowing of some ending of lives that aren't to save a life and (2) the lack of a harder political stance by the church in spite the seriousness of the sin (those who get abortions are often excommunicated), is to think that the stand is preventative. We don't have a clue as to when life begins and, absence a definitive statement on the matter, we're trying to protect the babies...just in case they are really babies.I'm unaware of the church's policy "changing"-- you implied that abortion for the reason of severe fetal abnormality was recently added to the list of acceptable reasons. But I wasn't aware of it ever NOT being on the list.
I swear, Tracy, those few years difference can be a chasm. ;) Yes, it's "new" to the list, just like illicit drugs are "new" to the Word of Wisdom. I believe it was added in the late 1970's or very early 1980's. (Someone else remember?) I'm personally connected (not by blood) to the couple whose personal situation actually brought this as an issue before the first presidency (multiple non-survivable pregnancies).
So, the "proper position" before the change was to have THREE exceptions and now it's FOUR exceptions. Which might indicate that the first "proper position" wasn't proper at all. That's what I'm talking about.
The position is basically that abortion is wrong, should be illegal, except for in very serious conditions. If they added another "serious condition" so be it.
Note that BEFORE the change, the "proper position" would NOT have allowed abortion for fetal abnormality. So THAT choice would have been condemned and even had disciplinary action. Now it's allowed. Including a NEW exception doesn't just CLARIFY the past position
What's "serious" about fetal abnormality in the sense of allowing abortion? The baby's really sick and is going to die after birth, so it's OK to kill it now? I have a hard time aligning that with the church's stand on euthanasia.
What do you think the "proper positions" are for members on the last two "big issues." Actually, I'm kind of surprised that those would be listed while things like death penalty, child abuse, etc., are not. -
- CommentAuthorfacethemusic
- CommentTimeJul 9th 2007 edited
The other is that there is no perfect political system or answer before the Savior comes, and therefore there will never always be One Right Way on everything (although I do suspect there might be a Best Way on many issues.)
Well put, and I agree. Exactly what I was trying to say-- only you did it much better and much more concisely. One of these days I'll learn how to speak my mind without writing it in novel length diatribes. :)