Politicization of the Church

[rusalka]

I haven't seen the episode that you are referring too, but you raise some very valid points. The Lord should be our focus, and not politics. I agree that members of the Church don't have to adhere to a certain political party; faith is not something to be politicized. Also, income level of members is another concern in addition to their country of origin. We can have the Quorum of the Twelve as a good example of friendly merging of very different views and origins.

I consider myself an independent and will vote for a candidate that I mostly agree with regardless of his or her party affiliation.

[bytor2112]

I believe Hairy has stated that NO threats were made......so maybe this is just a bunch of non sense.

[rameumptom]

This is exactly how I feel. I'm glad we agree

One thing I have noticed though, and I think Moksha was trying to point out, is that it's usually only the lefties who are talking about how we all love our country and want the best for it. Very few times have I heard anyone on the Right admit someone can be a Left-wing Mormon and a good American. I appreciate the ones that acknowledge that, it gives me hope.

I agree that there are some wonderful left-wing Mormons. And they can be great Americans.

That said, there are people in all the spectrum of the political world that have personal agendas, sometimes hidden, sometimes not. Many are so connected with lobbyists or their own power that they forget they are sworn to uphold the Constitution. An example: Liberal pundit Arianna Huffington targets both parties when she thinks they are wrong. Yet there are some who are so attached to the party, they would not dream of speaking out against it. These are among those who are no longer good Americans.

There are many who are more interested in supporting lobbies, corporations, unions, or other entities than in sustaining and defending the Constitution of the United States. These are among those who are no longer good Americans.

IMO, Harry Reid is a good Mormon. As long as his bishop and stake president keep giving him a temple recommend, I will consider him a good Mormon. That said, I think he is not a good American, as he's traded his American Constitutional oath for a mess of pottage. He has tied himself to his party and its core lobbies and unions, rather than keeping his oath of office.

[MisterT]

Nothing disgusts me more than a politician who says "I had to vote my conscience on this matter, even though its in direct opposition to the will of my consituancy."

Our elected representatives aren't in Washington to vote their conscience; they're there to vote in a manner which represents the desire of those people in their distric who elected them. They're not there to represent the interests of the minority who voted for the other candidate, but solely for the interests of the majority.

Plenty of good elected representatives have voted in ways that were in opposition to their own personal views, simply because they understood that their role was to vote in the manner which those who elected them wanted.

Unfortunately those people are rare.

Harry Reid, well, I didn't even know he was a member. I never would have suspected based upon the absolutely hateful and mean spirited diatribe I've heard come from his mouth. I never in a million years would have believed, had I heard that he was a member, that he would have a Temple Recommend. He doesn't seem the type, to me, to take serious anything other than his own political ambitions and the will of his leftist party.

I can't count the number of times I've read him rant about the evils of religious influence on the electorate and things of that nature.

Perhaps I've misjudged him. Perhaps he's only representing the views of those who elected him, instead of making personal value statements.

Or perhaps he's just a dirt bag and his Bishop and Stake President are bowing to unseen pressure (real or imagined) to not ask really tough questions or require that he live the principles of the gospel.

In a Temple Reccomend interview, if the applicant answers the questions correctly, whether or not the Bishop and Stake President know the answers to be false, the recommend is granted. I've seen people at the Temple who only weeks before I saw with my own two eyes smoking marijuana with women who were not their wives.

I don't believe that Harry Reid holds any church office; but if he did, it is the right of those in his ward or stake to signify that they are opposed to the calling he received if they feel that there are issues. I've personally objected to a Stake Presidents conformation in California because I had been cheated by him on a business deal; something he was later convicted of and imprisoned. The church takes very seriously objections to a conformation.

So my only conclusion must be that either he holds no church office or calling, or he's been misjudged by a lot of us.

I personally can't stand the man; I would find it hard to be civil to him no matter where we met, even in the Temple.

Of course, its unlikely I'd get within a hundred feet of him, as I'm sure his ward boundaries include very wealthy areas and I don't move in those circles.

[Saguaro]

I personally can't stand the man; I would find it hard to be civil to him no matter where we met, even in the Temple.

I think you need to read this: The Mormon Ethic of Civility - LDS Newsroom

and this: Elder Quentin L. Cook: 'We follow Jesus Christ' | Deseret News

[MisterT]

Thanks for your opinion of what I need to read...

[Moksha]

Right, so "apparently" threats were made. Eventhough nobody knows for sure, 'if' or 'who' said anything we just know 'what' was said, riiiight.

I smell a smear campaign.

No you are experiencing a misunderstanding. The Stake President would not have released specific names to the media. However, news reports did make mention of these unattributed threats of violence had Brother Reid been allowed to bear his testimony at the Fireside and that one of the vitriolic protesters threatened to punch Brother Reid if he saw him in the Temple.

Even if you asked in person, I doubt the Stake President would reveal their identities. Once people simmer off, they do not want to be infamous for their remarks.

Perhaps you smell tea brewing.

[Moksha]

Surely you aren't suggesting that members shouldn't be political?

Greetings and salutations Finrock :)

I am suggesting that politics are best left outside the Church, so the Church can devote it energies to the missions of the Church and the worship of God.

[john doe]

The problem, Moksha, is not that you're trying to make a point, but that YOU'RE the one trying make the point. You have on numerous occasions berated the members of this forum for not being 'Christian' enough because some of us don't see things the same way you do politically. As has been pointed out previously, you have even attempted to compare some here to Nazis. Your credibility has been damaged as a result of your own words on this issue.

[Finrock]

Greetings and salutations Finrock :)

Same to you! :)

I am suggesting that politics are best left outside the Church, so the Church can devote it energies to the missions of the Church and the worship of God.

I think members are free to participate politically in any legal or moral way they choose.

As far as the Church is concerned? I think only the President of the Church is entitled, through revelation, to determine what is best for the Church. This, I believe, includes determining in what quantity and capacity the Church should be involved politically.

Regards,

Finrock

[Just_A_Guy]

Not sure if this has been linked to yet, but the stories about allegations of violence seem to originate with the author of this blog post. I don't recall whether it was here or in some other forum, but the author claimed to have seen some of the emails to her Stake Presidency herself.

See also this article at Millennial Star.

I think the official line from Senator Reid's office is that they didn't want the inevitable protests to disturb the atmosphere of the fireside. I think that's reasonable (not "cowardly" as some conservative outlets have hinted).

But I remain at something of a loss as to how the planned appearance of a US Democratic senator at an LDS meetinghouse during a re-election campaign that's shaping up to be very close, to what is very likely to be a swing constituency (largely conservative LDS who traditionally have voted for Reid in part based on his religious affiliation) can be interpreted as evidence that conservatives are politicizing the Church.

Edited April 7, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Wingnut]

Are we technically even allowed to talk about Senator Reid on here? Does he count as a candidate again yet?

[MisterT]

If someone wants to charge me with a crime for speaking about Harry Reedbrain, let em' try.

[dorave]

No you are experiencing a misunderstanding. The Stake President would not have released specific names to the media. However, news reports did make mention of these unattributed threats of violence had Brother Reid been allowed to bear his testimony at the Fireside and that one of the vitriolic protesters threatened to punch Brother Reid if he saw him in the Temple.

Even if you asked in person, I doubt the Stake President would reveal their identities. Once people simmer off, they do not want to be infamous for their remarks.

Perhaps you smell tea brewing.

There are no facts. Just rumours. I'm sorry but blogs arent really the best places to look for facts, just saying.

[dorave]

Not sure if this has been linked to yet, but the stories about allegations of violence seem to originate with the author of this blog post. I don't recall whether it was here or in some other forum, but the author claimed to have seen some of the emails to her Stake Presidency herself.

See also this article at Millennial Star.

I think the official line from Senator Reid's office is that they didn't want the inevitable protests to disturb the atmosphere of the fireside. I think that's reasonable (not "cowardly" as some conservative outlets have hinted).

So the author hacked the Stake Pres's email account? coz I can't imagine the info being leaked by him or his councillors. Sounds all bogus to me.

[Moksha]

The problem, Moksha, is not that you're trying to make a point, but that YOU'RE the one trying make the point.

As Rabbi Hillel has said, "If not me then who?".

Someone needs to stand up to threats of violence in the Chapel and assault in the Temple, whether they are made in the name of conservative politics or not. Did anyone else voice this concern? As a matter of fact if you look what has been written, there are a number of people who also share this concern. Sometimes I may be bolder than others and take the lead. Sometimes I follow. The important point here is standing up for the integrity of religion so it is not tainted by hatred and violent actions or usurped by political ideology.

Trying to shoot the messenger sounds like the ploy of an apologist, but you should ask yourself if this particular issue is one which you want to defend. The safety of members and and the sanctity of the institution should be considered well beyond sticking barbs into Moksha.

[john doe]

And yet, when people bring up Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, what kind of reaction do you resort to, no matter what the message that Beck or Limbaugh deliver? I daresay you probably have no real idea what Beck says, only that you can't stand it. You stopped listening long ago. Proof of that can be found in the fact that you keep bringing up the same things, time after time, they get answered, and then a week later you bring up the exact same argument that was previously answered. Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, Pot.

[Moksha]

And yet, when people bring up Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, what kind of reaction do you resort to, no matter what the message that Beck or Limbaugh deliver? I daresay you probably have no real idea what Beck says, only that you can't stand it. You stopped listening long ago. Proof of that can be found in the fact that you keep bringing up the same things, time after time, they get answered, and then a week later you bring up the exact same argument that was previously answered. Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, Pot.

This really has nothing to do with the subject of this thread and that is bringing politics into the Church to the detriment of a House of God.

As for Beck and Limbaugh, there will always be those of us in the loyal opposition.

BTW, nice to meet you Mr. Pot. What's that you say? I have a few darkened smudges on me?

[Guest Goose]

being canceled due to members threatening violence in the Chapel and even threatening to punch Senator Reid if they saw him in the Temple,

Punch a senator inside the Temple??

If their methods prove anything, it's that THEY are actually on the wrong side of these issues since their beliefs and ideals motivates them towards personal violence.

[Guest Goose]

just two weeks ago in EQ a guy actually prayed that "brother reid" would come to his senses.

Well maybe the horse has bolted many many years ago. We always prayed for the president of the day -until Kennedy came along. Somehow people knew that elder benson was against him and didn't like him so there was no more praying for the president anymore.

Then we continued when Kennedy, and his replacement, were gone. However I've never being able to understand why we prayed for Nixon!

So although we say that the church is neutral and non-political fact is that politics has always been a part of the survival plans of the church since Joseph Smith petitioned some governor and was turned down. That was the first political lesson the church learned.

And praying about Reid to come to his senses? well, I've also prayed for various teams over the years and to win my ward basketball games....and so on, so I wouldn't worry too much. Those prayers don't pass the ceiling in my humble opinion.

[Guest Goose]

read about either wilford woodruff or john taylor taking political sides and actually getting angry over it..he was, i beleive a hardcore democrat (back then democrats were different).

No, no, no, no, no, no..............back then the church was different!

[talisyn]

I can't think of any president who was more in need of prayers than Nixon

I agree with you, Goose, about the LDS church and politics. The LDS church has tried to protect it's interests using the political systems of the times, with varying degree of success. I'm thinking one of the reasons church members have traditionally been against Dems is that the Dems of the 1800s were so anti-mormon, even so far as to take away voting rights of the Saints in Idaho. By the time the Dems figured out they could get more power with Mormon votes the damage was done.

That being said, I'm sure all Saints vote according to who they think will do a better job. For some, it's politicians with an enviromentalism bent. For others it's those politicians who are nicer to businesses. Both sides have merit. It's up to us to keep such matters out of the church buildings and temples and restrict it to forums such as this, where we can state our views amongst friends and not be condemned. Heaven knows I don't always agree with, say, Bytor, about all things political. But I would never dream of judging him as less a Saint than me. For all I know, given my flaws, he is probably a much better one

[Just_A_Guy]

This really has nothing to do with the subject of this thread and that is bringing politics into the Church to the detriment of a House of God.

Tell me again why Senator Reid of Nevada planned on addressing constituents in a Mormon church in Nevada during an election year?

And tell me again how someone could know that a stake president's private in-box contains threats of violence when the stake president himself has given no such indication?

Edited April 8, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[talisyn]

Because he lives there? It would make a lot more sense than if he were invited to speak at, say, a stake center in Burley, Idaho

[john doe]

This really has nothing to do with the subject of this thread and that is bringing politics into the Church to the detriment of a House of God.

As for Beck and Limbaugh, there will always be those of us in the loyal opposition.

BTW, nice to meet you Mr. Pot. What's that you say? I have a few darkened smudges on me?

I give up, Mocks. You either can't, or won't, acknowledge an opposing view as even approaching validity when it comes to these subjects. I'm done with you here.