LDS.net politics article: "The Problem with ‘Yeah, but’ Discipleship"

[tesuji]

I just noticed this article on our Lds.net parent site. I couldn't agree more.

The Problem with ‘Yeah, but’ Discipleship
http://lds.net/blog/faith/yeah-but-discipleship/

I was just thinking today how both liberals and conservatives (some of them) seem to be criticizing the church lately. The Left doesn't like the church's gay policies. The Right doesn't like the refugee aid and the church calling out the Bundys.

I really think some Mormons are too political and wrongly put worldly ideologies before the church and the prophet. I consider this a sign of the times.

As always the following classic talk speaks to us all (including me):

"Beware of Pride," Ezra Taft Benson
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1989/04/beware-of-pride

Edited May 17, 2016 by tesuji

[Guest]

I'm not aware of a whole lot of Mormons who got behind the Bundys.  Where did you hear that?

[NeedleinA]

6 hours ago, tesuji said:

The Right doesn't like the refugee aid and the church calling out the Bundys.

 

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I'm not aware of a whole lot of Mormons who got behind the Bundys.  Where did you hear that?

I might be wrong, but I don't think Tesuji was saying anyone was supporting them, but rather the church was calling them out??

[Guest]

8 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

I might be wrong, but I don't think Tesuji was saying anyone was supporting them, but rather the church was calling them out??

She was making a compare/contrast of conservatives and liberals.

 The Church opposes gay marriage.  Liberals didn't like that.

The Church called out the Bundys.  (she said) The right doesn't like it.

In following with the parallel pattern, if the right doesn't like it, then the right must have supported it.

Another thing is that I am not aware of wholesale protests and anti-Church sentiment from the right about the refugees.  Yes, there are individuals who make choices for themselves.  But there are organized revolts and very public protests on the left over gay marriage.  

I agree neither right nor left are good political positions vis-a-vis Church positions.  But the way those on the gay marriage side are treating the issue and their attitudes towards the Church are quite different.

[tesuji]

15 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I'm not aware of a whole lot of Mormons who got behind the Bundys.  Where did you hear that?

Unfortunately, I've seen multiple instances of Bundy support, including one in Sacrament Meeting

It might depend on where you live.

I've seen cases of all of these. Another one is a couple years ago the Utah legislature was debating a bill that would come down hard on immigrants in the state, and the church publicly advised a more moderate stand, particularly against breaking up families.

And the church came out yesterday with a statement about the whole transgender bathroom thing. 

My sense is that the church doesn't like to get too involved in politics, but it seems like they are more so recently. I think it may be a function of increasing moral decline, plus that so many members (like many Americans) seem to be so obsessed and more polarized with politics.

Edited May 18, 2016 by tesuji

[anatess2]

16 minutes ago, tesuji said:

so many members (like all Americans) seem to be so obsessed and more polarized with politics.

"Seem" is a good word.

There's a reason a cultural norm is to avoid religion and politics discussions on the dinner table.

What you're seeing is the amazing ability of the Internet Age to make the entire world one big dinner table.  That is a good thing - because, just as it is now very easy to reach someone on the other side of the world with your political views, it is also that much easier to reach the same people with your religious ones.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, tesuji said:

1) Unfortunately, I've seen multiple instances of Bundy support, including one in Sacrament Meeting

2) I've seen cases for all of these. Another one is a couple years ago the Utah legislature was debating a bill that would come down hard on immigrants in the state, and the church publicly advised a more moderate stand, particularly against breaking up families.

3) And the church came out yesterday with a statement about the whole transgender bathroom thing. 

1) Again, an isolated incident of someone stating their position.  Where are the organized movements and protests against the Church based on this issue?  I stress again that it is one thing to have a position or an idea.  It is quite another to say the Church is misguided on this issue and am seriously considering leaving the Church because of it.

2) Immigration is different than refugees specifically.  But maybe you're adding another item to the list.  Ok.  Immigration is part of the proper role of government.  This has nothing to do with what the church's position is on it.

3) Here is yet another reason why right and left differ.  The things the right is most concerned about has to do with the proper role of government.  The things the left is concerned about is moral issues and emotions that have nothing to do with the proper role of government.  The single exception is abortion.  And on that, I believe most of America has the same opinion right or left.

So,the conclusion of all this is:

A) The right largely doesn't leave the Church over the political issues that may put us at odds with Church position.  The left has and will continue to do so.

B) The left has political positions they wish to enforce on others that have nothing to do with the proper role of government.  The right is generally concerned with issues that are within the proper role of government.  Whether that position is right or wrong causes the divisions among the right.  But the issue itself tends to be in the realm of proper governmental power.

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

B) The left has political positions they wish to enforce on others that have nothing to do with the proper role of government.  The right is generally concerned with issues that are within the proper role of government.  Whether that position is right or wrong causes the divisions among the right.  But the issue itself tends to be in the realm of proper governmental power.

Aaaahhhmmm.... written by a right-wing guy, right?

Because... the left is not always trying to enforce positions on others, rather, they are trying to unfeter themselves from State law by invoking Federal law to make State law null-and-void.  For example - gay marriage is restricted in State Law, so they invoke the power of the Federal government to free themselves from it... so, right-wingers enforce their political positions on the left through State laws, the left free themselves from it through Federal law.  Who is enforcing what on who... depends on whether you're a right-winger or left-winger.

But, even in State law... legislating bathrooms don't fall within the proper role of government... but then States can define their own government... so...

Edited May 18, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Aaaahhhmmm.... written by a right-wing guy, right?

Because... the left is not always trying to enforce positions on others, rather, they are trying to unfeter themselves from State law by invoking Federal law to make State law null-and-void.  For example - gay marriage is restricted in State Law, so they invoke the power of the Federal government to free themselves from it... so, right-wingers enforce their political positions on the left through State laws, the left free themselves from it through Federal law.  Who is enforcing what on who... depends on whether you're a right-winger or left-winger.

But, even in State law... legislating bathrooms don't fall within the proper role of government... but then States can define their own government... so...

Yes, I lean right.  But I'm a libertarian.

Bolded portion: You're only referring to one measure that was a defensive reaction to an action on the left.  The big push today is not about unfettering themselves.  It is about getting others to acknowledge and even respect -- through force of law -- their own ideals as morally superior to others.

Gay Marriage -- why is this important?

1. They can call themselves whatever they want.  They have freedom of speech.  Nothing changes.
2. They can live with and have consensual conjugal relations with anyone they choose.  They have freedom of association and assembly.  Nothing changes.
3. They can get a contract written up with all the same implications as marriages just as a marriage license is a contract. --and frankly, I'd like it if government had nothing to do with marriages.
4. They can have a ceremony with friends and family.  They can even find a religion that supports such unions to perform the ceremony.

What does it change by law?

1. They can force hospitals to observe visitation rights.  That's a matter of public policy for government funded hospitals -- not a matter of law.  It's a matter of private property rights for a privately run hospital to make such a decision.  But not if it's law -- they're forced to do so.
2. They can force government officials to authorize marriages against their religious conscience.
3. They can demand respect and acceptance of practices that others find abominable.
4. They are opening the door to the government telling religion what to believe/preach about gay marriage.

All the practical matters are already available.  All the legal aspect of it does is make those who disagree have to bow down to their way of life against their conscience.  That is all.  Nothing else.  And that is really what it is all about.

Who is enforcing what?  We go back to natural law.  All these issues are about interaction.  The first and fundamental right of any individual in a transaction/interaction is to NOT participate in an interaction with another person.  All the gay marriage issues arise because the left is forcing people to participate in an interaction against their will.  If it truly is just about the couple alone, then I and many others on the right (and certainly the libertarians) have nothing against them on it.  We just don't want to be forced into the interaction.

Where is the right forcing gays to participate in something against their will?

Edited May 18, 2016 by Guest

[anatess2]

20 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Yes, I lean right.  But I'm a libertarian.

Bolded portion: You're only referring to one measure that was a defensive reaction to an action on the left.  The big push today is not about unfettering themselves.  It is about getting others to acknowledge and even respect -- through force of law -- their own ideals as morally superior to others.

Gay Marriage -- why is this important?

1. They can call themselves whatever they want.  They have freedom of speech.  Nothing changes.
2. They can live with and have conjugal relations with anyone they choose.  They have freedom of association and assembly.  Nothing changes.
3. They can get a contract written up with all the same implications as marriages just as a marriage license is a contract.
4. They can have a ceremony with friends and family.  They can even find a religion that supports such unions to perform the ceremony.

What does it change by law?

1. They can force hospitals to observe visitation rights.  That's a matter of public policy for government funded hospitals -- not a matter of law.  It's a matter of private property rights for a privately run hospital to make such a decision.  But not if it's law.  They're forced to do so.
2. They can force government officials to authorize marriages against their religious conscience.
3. They can demand respect and acceptance of practices that others find abominable.
4. They are opening the door to the government telling religion what to believe/preach about gay marriage.

All the practical matters are already available.  All the legal aspect of it does is make those who disagree have to bow down to their way of life against their conscience.  That is all.  Nothing else.  And that is really what it is all about.

Who is enforcing what?  We go back to natural law.  All these issues are about interaction.  The first and fundamental right of any individual in a transaction/interaction is to NOT participate in an interaction with another person.  All the gay marriage issues arise because the left is forcing people to participate in an interaction against their will.  If it truly is just about the couple alone, then I and many others on the right (and certainly the libertarians) have nothing against them on it.  We just don't want to be forced into the interaction.

Yep, definitely right-winger.

The gist of gay marriage movement is to make themselves EQUAL, not morally superior.

Now, the classic libertarian answer would be to remove government control of marriage for all - straight or gay alike.  Natural law then prevails.  All gay marriage issues arise as government decided to put their fingerprints on marriage attaching rules and regulations of societal benefits to it.  This is how you find yourselves with a class of people wanting the same benefits... even if the only benefit is moral equivalence.

It's well and good for you to say - the first and fundamental right of an individual in a transaction is to not participate in the interaction when you yourself have the freedom to choose to participate.  The other class doesn't have that choice to interact so all they get is the first and fundamental right and nothing more.  It's fine if it's a private enterprise.  It's something else when it is legislated.

Now, you know (or if you don't, I'm telling you now)... in the issue of marriage I'm a right-winger.  I believe that it is within the government's role to legislate marriage as it is the foundation of society.  But, I don't pretend at all that legislatively defining marriage as only between one man and one woman is not enforcing my ideology on others.

 

Edited May 18, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yep, definitely right-winger.

1) The gist of gay marriage movement is to make themselves EQUAL, not morally superior.

2) Now, the classic libertarian answer would be to remove government control of marriage for all - straight or gay alike.  Natural law then prevails.  All gay marriage issues arise as government decided to put their fingerprints on marriage attaching rules and regulations of societal benefits to it.  This is how you find yourselves with a class of people wanting the same benefits... even if the only benefit is moral equivalence.

3) It's well and good for you to say - the first and fundamental right of an individual in a transaction is to not participate in the interaction when you yourself have the freedom to choose to participate.  The other class doesn't have that choice to interact so all they get is the first and fundamental right and nothing more.  It's fine if it's a private enterprise.  It's something else when it is legislated.

Now, you know (or if you don't, I'm telling you now)... in the issue of marriage I'm a right-winger.  I believe that it is within the government's role to legislate marriage as it is the foundation of society.  But, I don't pretend at all that legislatively defining marriage as only between one man and one woman is not enforcing my ideology on others.

1) BLEEP!  Try again. Yes it is.

2) That's what I said.

3) As I outlined.  What are they lacking?  They have all the participatory rights.  But what they seek is to force others to participate who don't wish to.

4) Immaterial.

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

 

3) As I outlined.  What are they lacking?  They have all the participatory rights.  But what they seek is to force others to participate who don't wish to.

 

See here... they have all the participatory rights... That's the problem right there.  They have the participatory rights IF THEY FORCE THEMSELVES to marry somebody they don't want.

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, zomarah said:

Well this is where the fight should have been in the first place. Instead of Pro-gay marriage fighting against Anti-gay marriage. Both sides should have united and removed marriage from the purview of the State. But the high and mighties at the top have succeeded in dividing us against each other, Again.

Amen on the division... it's great for campaign speeches, you know.

But, I don't necessarily agree that marriage have to be removed from the purview of the state.  The state can define the nucleic form of its society.  And that, my friend, is Conservatism.

Edited May 18, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest]

58 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

See here... they have all the participatory rights... That's the problem right there.  They have the participatory rights IF THEY FORCE THEMSELVES to marry somebody they don't want.

Did you not read the item-by-item comment I made on this very point?  They can marry whomever they want.  They just don't have the right to force any aknowledgement of said marriage on everyone else.  AND they also have the freedom to say that heterosexual marriage is also invalid.  Go ahead.  Say it.

[anatess2]

26 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Did you not read the item-by-item comment I made on this very point?  They can marry whomever they want.  They just don't have the right to force any aknowledgement of said marriage on everyone else.  AND they also have the freedom to say that heterosexual marriage is also invalid.  Go ahead.  Say it.

This is getting to be head-in-a-brick-wall discussion.

Yes, I read it.  Yes, I disagree with the position that such things are not imposing anything on anyone while the other side is the only one imposing things on someone.

Yes, they can marry whom they want.  Doesn't carry legality but they can.  They also have the freedom to say that heterosexual marriage is also invalid.  BUT, THE GOVERNMENT  (before gay marriage became legal) forces the acknowledgement of their definition of marriage on everyone.  AND THE GOVERNMENT attached certain benefits to this definition.  For example - if you are a Martian male who married an American male in America, the American cannot sponsor a resident visa for the Martian because your marriage is not legal.  So yes, it is not forcing the homosexual to do anything... but the reality is... it is still an imposition in the same manner that gun-free-zones are an imposition to those who don't think it is safe for them not to carry their firearms through restrictions.

(Now, if you're going to say... but the male American can always marry a female Martian... then that's a different argument).

Edited May 18, 2016 by anatess2

[zil]

57 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

3) As I outlined.  What are they lacking?  They have all the participatory rights.  But what they seek is to force others to participate who don't wish to.

What they are lacking are the legal and financial benefits offered by government to people who are married (and with children).  The private, contractual "rights" might be handled quite differently were it not for the legal and tax benefits being thrown in.  (Though Satan would find as many ways as he could to mess things up, regardless.)

I suspect those legal and financial benefits from government are part of the difficulty all around.  Those who don't have them, want them.  Those who have them don't want to give them up.  Working single people subsidize marriage and parenthood either way.  The selfish portion of said single people could cry unfair.  On the other hand, if you believe God, marriage between a man and a woman and parenthood are good for all, even those who are single, and should therefore be encouraged.  Providing legal and financial benefits to this union makes it easier for more people to enter into and remain in said union.  So the single person who believes God might wish to keep the benefits, but only for marriage between a man and a woman.

One way to solve the inequality is to legislate pretty much anything as marriage and afford it all the legal and financial benefits previously reserved for a more restrictive definition of marriage.  Another way to solve it is to remove the legal and financial benefits from everyone and get government out of marriage entirely.  I'm not sure either of those advances the righteous will of God.

(But I agree with Carb: at this point, for a great many, it's not about equality, it's about forcing others to accept their definition of what is moral or right.)

 

[Guest]

Like I said before, if govt were out of marriage, we'd be fine.

[zil]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Like I said before, if govt were out of marriage, we'd be fine.

So you want to pay as much in taxes as a single, childless person making your wages?

For everyone (from those just scraping by on up) to be fine, we'd also have to alter a lot of other things about government in order to facilitate changing taxes to something more reasonable.

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Like I said before, if govt were out of marriage, we'd be fine.

I agree.  But that wasn't the basis of the discussion.  The basis of the discussion was your claim that only the left are imposing things on people while the right isn't.

[tesuji]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

1) Again, an isolated incident of someone stating their position.  Where are the organized movements and protests against the Church based on this issue?  I stress again that it is one thing to have a position or an idea.  It is quite another to say the Church is misguided on this issue and am seriously considering leaving the Church because of it.

2) Immigration is different than refugees specifically.  But maybe you're adding another item to the list.  Ok.  Immigration is part of the proper role of government.  This has nothing to do with what the church's position is on it.

3) Here is yet another reason why right and left differ.  The things the right is most concerned about has to do with the proper role of government.  The things the left is concerned about is moral issues and emotions that have nothing to do with the proper role of government.  The single exception is abortion.  And on that, I believe most of America has the same opinion right or left.

So,the conclusion of all this is:

A) The right largely doesn't leave the Church over the political issues that may put us at odds with Church position.  The left has and will continue to do so.

B) The left has political positions they wish to enforce on others that have nothing to do with the proper role of government.  The right is generally concerned with issues that are within the proper role of government.  Whether that position is right or wrong causes the divisions among the right.  But the issue itself tends to be in the realm of proper governmental power.

My main point is that some Mormons are putting their politics before the gospel and the core Mormon doctrine of following God's head priesthood leaders. I've seen this from Mormons of all political views. Yes, they are a minority. But it seems to me this is happening more now than in the past, which makes me sad.

Elder Ballard recently commented in a CES meeting for seminary and institute teachers that some church members don't seem to understand the gospel very well. So they are going to be adding Doctrinal Mastery to seminary classes this next year.

Personally, for example, I can't imagine how a person can support gay marriage if they understand the gospel and LDS doctrine. Traditional marriage is vital to our theology (and to society too, I would add). However, my sense is that that a sizable minority of Mormons living in California were against Prop 8, for example. I have to assume these people either don't understand church doctrine, or they have been too-indoctrinated by worldly political ideology.

I also realize that I don't know everything and I can well be wrong. However, I do support the church leaders. I don't know any political statement the church has made that I disagree with.

If they ever do say something I disagree with, then it will be up to me to pray about it, and to study the gospel and the doctrine.

I will not learn the Lord's doctrine by listening to political activists or demagogues running for office; I will learn it from the scriptures and from general conference. I do think that if I understand the gospel, and don't let myself become too much of the thinking of Babylon, then I will probably never have much problem with the church leaders to begin with.

Edited May 18, 2016 by tesuji

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, tesuji said:

My main point is that some Mormons are putting their politics before the gospel and the core Mormon doctrine of following God's head priesthood leaders. I've seen this from Mormons of all political views. Yes, they are a minority. But it seems to me this is happening more now than in the past, which makes me sad.

 

"Seems" is a good word.

In the past, the politics of polygamy caused the Church to splinter.  Politics of a failed bank caused people to leave in droves.  It is not a condition unique to our time.

6 minutes ago, tesuji said:

Personally, for example, I can't imagine how a person can support gay marriage if they understand the gospel and LDS doctrine. Traditional marriage is vital to our theology (and to society too, I would add). However, my sense is that that a sizable minority of Mormons living in California were against Prop 8, for example. I have to assume these people either don't understand church doctrine, or they have been too-indoctrinated by worldly political ideology.
 

It's easy to say gay marriage should be illegal if every single American Citizen is Mormon.  Unfortunately, they only account for a small percentage of the population.  Also, if gay marriage was in a vacuum - it has no implications beyond any other facet of American life - then it's easy to say no to gay marriage.

As it stands, it is not that simple.  Hence, the Lord instructs as to give to Cesar what is Cesar's and give to God what is God's.  Until a majority of people understands the negative impacts gay marriage has to mortal society (not eternal as it is not a tangible measure of governance) it will be difficult to remove it from government.

But supporting gay marriage is not the same as desiring to engage in gay marriage.  The Mormon answer to this is really simple - Be a Missionary.  So, a Mormon who supports gay marriage legislation but pours his entire life to strengthening his family and the families in his sphere of influence and pours his heart into his Mission is doing a whole lot of good.

 

[LeSellers]

2 hours ago, zil said:

So you want to pay as much in taxes as a single, childless person making your wages?

 

Non sequitor.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

2 hours ago, zil said:

For everyone (from those just scraping by on up) to be fine, we'd also have to alter a lot of other things about government in order to facilitate changing taxes to something more reasonable.

There's a lot to be said for this position.

Indeed, we need a lot less government for anything to be fine.

Lehi

[mordorbund]

3 hours ago, zil said:

So you want to pay as much in taxes as a single, childless person making your wages?

Now you've got me curious. Would it be cheaper for me to 1) file jointly, or 2) pay full taxes as a single person, but have my wife (and thus household) receive the same subsidies a single mother with no income.

Getting the government out (I'm with @anatess2 on this one, but I'm humoring the argument) would have to include an overhaul of the related tax laws and other federal benefits.

[Guest]

19 hours ago, zil said:

So you want to pay as much in taxes as a single, childless person making your wages?

For everyone (from those just scraping by on up) to be fine, we'd also have to alter a lot of other things about government in order to facilitate changing taxes to something more reasonable.

There should be no income tax.  Only use taxes are appropriate for a free society.