posted
Its not as entertaining as card supporting gingrich by saying that romneys mormonism is more of a liability than being newt gingrich.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:You understand why to me, these two statements are inherently at odds? Your church encouraged, organized and facilitated political action. It directed its members to take part in a public campaign, to change the *constitution* of California to more closely reflect the church's view of society.
To me, the church leadership saying they all support one thing, and that they would encourage me to support it, is still a step removed from, God wants X. When Utah cast the final vote which killed prohibition, many church leaders including the prophet publicly indicated that he believe members of the church should vote to keep prohibition. Mormons comprised of 66% of the state population, and yet the repeal passed 62%. Many years later, when Utah was deciding whether to permit the sale of liquor in Utah, same situation. Church leaders said they believed it should remain illegal in Utah, Mormons were still the majority in Utah, the ban was upheld by 64% approximately.
quote:And by stating its platform and facilitating church member participation in the campaign for Prop 8, the church sent a *clear* message that it had and would use the popular leverage it needed to effect legislation and popular referendums it wanted...
But see this is exactly it. There have to have been hundreds of pieces of legislation that one could argue the LDS church would have wanted, and yet it felt no need to pursue many of them. You do not see (At least I haven't, and I wouldn't mind being wrong on this point) the church following up on Prop 8. I haven't heard so much as a whisper that members need to donate anything towards the legal team currently appealing Prop 8.
Rakeesh:
quote:As for the Chuch out here in the world, though, I don't see how it can truthfully be said that it's apolitical-again, not its ideals, but its execution. Prop 8 being simply the most striking, recent example. Even for all the ideals, politics go right back to the latter day founders, don't they? I mean there was at least political *involvement*-what human organization doesn't have that, at least a little? I think it's a given.
I don't believe Christianity is designed with political objectives in mind. "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's..." and Paul's admonishment that men support their local magistrates, to me make it clear that while men should be wise in all things including politics, Christianity gives them the tools to be wise, not the tools to be politicians specifically.
quote:Anyway, as to my post, I was just having fun with Card's claim that religions which meddle in politics are doomed to failure long-term. Whatever he *meant* by that, that claim is just plain flat-out untrue to the point of silliness.
I don't find it silly. I was very much alarmed by the church's involvement in Prop 8, I felt that it was going to be ineffectual and it would not accomplish what the church seemed to hope it would. But we also stood to lose so much by getting involved as a church. Though the church is seen as being the engine of Prop 8, yet within the church itself we did not have unity of purpose precisely because in my church we are not used to being told *at* church what anybody's opinions on political matters are. It had never happened to me before that the church leadership had stated a political opinion much less instructed anybody to consider supporting such an opinion. Still they did not command me to support the legislation, in which I am grateful.
Occasionally people will wax political while giving talks, but that just makes people feel awkward and those people are not frequently asked to give talks anymore.
This is purely hearsay, which I suppose makes it not worth mentioning but in talking with some of my own leaders I've heard it said that many leaders in the wake of Prop 8 voiced their disapproval of the church's involvement, and that certain leaders have indicated something to the effect of "never again". Again hearsay, for all I know in a few decades we will have new leaders who don't remember this particular lesson and will step in it, but I genuinely believe that if the church got involved in to use your phrase "being political" it would cease to be God's church, and would turn into something else. It might call itself a church, and even mimic church behavior, but it would be an imitation, nothing more.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I was referring to the claim that a church which involves itself in politics is doomed long-term. That claim is, I think, untrue when said alone to the point of silliness. Now of course there are risks to a church getting political, but it's hardly a silver bullet. Goodness, especially not here in the USA!
I felt the Church's involvement was deeply troubling also, though not, considering how...actionable?...so many religious social conservatives find gay marrigage, as surprising as you. Put another way, if there were a politcalissue which I would expect the Church to become directly involved in, gay marriage would've been high on the list.
I don't think the Church was designed with political goals in mind either, but that seems to have little bearing on the question of whether or not it is at all political. Heck, isn't 'render unto Caesar' *itself* a political statement? Pay your taxes, live up to your civil responsibilities, be a good citizen, etc.
Perhaps our difficulty lies in whether something must be intended to be political in order to be considered to include politics? I generally think anytime there's two or three much less millions over millions of miles, politics is by human nature involved.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You understand why to me, these two statements are inherently at odds? Your church encouraged, organized and facilitated political action. It directed its members to take part in a public campaign, to change the *constitution* of California to more closely reflect the church's view of society.
To me, the church leadership saying they all support one thing, and that they would encourage me to support it, is still a step removed from, God wants X. When Utah cast the final vote which killed prohibition, many church leaders including the prophet publicly indicated that he believe members of the church should vote to keep prohibition. Mormons comprised of 66% of the state population, and yet the repeal passed 62%. Many years later, when Utah was deciding whether to permit the sale of liquor in Utah, same situation. Church leaders said they believed it should remain illegal in Utah, Mormons were still the majority in Utah, the ban was upheld by 64% approximately.
quote:And by stating its platform and facilitating church member participation in the campaign for Prop 8, the church sent a *clear* message that it had and would use the popular leverage it needed to effect legislation and popular referendums it wanted...
But see this is exactly it. There have to have been hundreds of pieces of legislation that one could argue the LDS church would have wanted, and yet it felt no need to pursue many of them. You do not see (At least I haven't, and I wouldn't mind being wrong on this point) the church following up on Prop 8. I haven't heard so much as a whisper that members need to donate anything towards the legal team currently appealing Prop 8.
Again, you're arguing some matter of degree, and implying that since the church doesn't, or doesn't *often* go to X degree to get its members to vote, that it is therefore not political. You don't have to be 100% committed to a political cause to be political- you don't have to use *all* your leverage. But using *some* of your leverage is *being* political. You're acknowledging that this is what the church does. You're just pointing out that you personally are comfortable with the level of politics involved in the church; as if as long as it is at a comfortable level for you, it is not politics at all.
Essentially you seem to be implying that "politics," is an inherently negative thing, and since you feel good about what politics the church is involved with, you can't admit that it *is* involved in politics. You're implying that because the church does not act like a political party, it is therefore not a political entity. Sorry, I don't think so.
quote: but I genuinely believe that if the church got involved in to use your phrase "being political" it would cease to be God's church, and would turn into something else.
I'm not going to weigh in on the validity of your religion, BB. But your logic is not internally valid. Your church *is* involved in politics. I understand that many of your leaders or members are uncomfortable with this state of affairs... nevertheless, it is.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You understand why to me, these two statements are inherently at odds? Your church encouraged, organized and facilitated political action. It directed its members to take part in a public campaign, to change the *constitution* of California to more closely reflect the church's view of society.
To me, the church leadership saying they all support one thing, and that they would encourage me to support it, is still a step removed from, God wants X.
Sure. But a religious institution, church or otherwise, can act politically without going all the way to "God wants X".
quote:When Utah cast the final vote which killed prohibition, many church leaders including the prophet publicly indicated that he believe members of the church should vote to keep prohibition. Mormons comprised of 66% of the state population, and yet the repeal passed 62%. Many years later, when Utah was deciding whether to permit the sale of liquor in Utah, same situation. Church leaders said they believed it should remain illegal in Utah, Mormons were still the majority in Utah, the ban was upheld by 64% approximately.
What I'm reading here is that while it hasn't always been successful, the LDS church has been willing to get involved in politics for a long time. I take your point that the church doesn't do so as often as it could, and as often as a cynic might predict that it would, but still--what you're describing is definitely political involvement.
In thinking about what you've said here, I think that it may be that you just have a higher threshold than I do for when action can be considered political action.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I was referring to the claim that a church which involves itself in politics is doomed long-term. ... Goodness, especially not here in the USA!
It is too soon to say Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Essentially you seem to be implying that "politics," is an inherently negative thing, and since you feel good about what politics the church is involved with, you can't admit that it *is* involved in politics. You're implying that because the church does not act like a political party, it is therefore not a political entity. Sorry, I don't think so.
I've said several times there are few benefits to be gained by churches being involved in politics, and everything to lose.
And I explicitly said I *DO NOT* feel good about the political involvement the church has engaged in. You are right a church does not have to be engaged 100% to be political, but say 5-7% of the church's efforts were purely political. It seems strange to then put the LDS church next to say Westboro Baptism and give them both the label "political entity".
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who was putting the Church up against Westboro? Speaking for myself, I was only rejecting the claim made in the column that the Church just doesn't get political (and that if it did, it would be a death knell for it as a group), while also acknowledging that it wasn't political like, say, the DNC or something.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: Nobody specifically did that. But I think we would agree that Westboro or perhaps groups like Hezbollah, represent a complete embrace of politics and religion. I don't think the LDS church belongs in that group, but not because two of those groups are evil, I think the distance in political activism is pretty vast. Enough that you dilute the term by including the LDS church in it. I mean sure if they keep doing things like Prop 8 I'll start to lose my objections, but I'm not there yet personally.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That only makes sense if you view "political" and "apolitical" as binary states. They're not; they're a scale with many degrees.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: That only makes sense if you view "political" and "apolitical" as binary states. They're not; they're a scale with many degrees.
Yes and if the scale has 10 points of increasing synergy. I would put the LDS church on 2 maybe 3, that still puts it in not very political territory IMO.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: And I explicitly said I *DO NOT* feel good about the political involvement the church has engaged in. You are right a church does not have to be engaged 100% to be political, but say 5-7% of the church's efforts were purely political. It seems strange to then put the LDS church next to say Westboro Baptism and give them both the label "political entity".
Really? Why?
Are you comfortable with calling both a state hospital and a state prison "Government Facilities?" They do vastly different things. The fact that you can put them both in some of the same categories is not relevant. Hell, They're both *churches*, and you don't seem to object to the idea.
I'm not trying to invoke some kind of association fallacy where your church being a political entity makes it evil. It doesn't make it anything, except a political entity. But denying that it is one is silly. It is- by any reasonable definition.
quote: I've said several times there are few benefits to be gained by churches being involved in politics, and everything to lose.
Well, here you're just plain wrong. Churches have a great deal to gain by being political. They also have a great deal to lose. Just because it is risky and just because it *does* change the institution of a church to get involved politics does not mean that churches stand to gain nothing by it. You can consult 2,000 years of European history for evidence of how churches gain through political influence. Again, not necessarily gain *good* things, or gain *righteousness* but definitely gain. Material and political gain: billions and billions of dollars, and land, political influence and power for centuries. The catholic church didn't do it by *not* being political.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: That only makes sense if you view "political" and "apolitical" as binary states. They're not; they're a scale with many degrees.
Yes and if the scale has 10 points of increasing synergy. I would put the LDS church on 2 maybe 3, that still puts it in not very political territory IMO.
That's fine, BB. I'm not arguing that it's *entirely* a political entity. It is not. I do tend to view it as *more* of a political entity than probably you do, but you are on the inside. A lot of the politics, as I see them, probably look to you like something else. That makes sense.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro: We are approaching politics in religion with different values. I'll try to explain what bothers me so much about politics and religion.
I genuinely believe that the church I belong to is an indispensable tool God uses to bless the lives of his children. It performs functions no other organization can. This unique mission is so important and so for lack of a better word holy, it must be protected and kept sacred by constant vigilance and effort.
By nature, sanctifying is an uncomfortable often painful experience in the short term. Human beings often shy away from it or even become devils in the process. One of the easiest ways to turn ordinary men into enemies of God is to taint God's will with human alterations.
I believe God did command that early Christians convert their brethren in Jerusalem. The human element turned it into the Crusades. A stumbling block for billions of Muslims. I do believe God brought forth the Book of Mormon a gift from people in ancient America to all the world, but also to their own descendants who they had foreseen would apostatize. Add the human element, and Indians had their children taken from them by Mormons, who forced them to learn English and forget their mother tongues and culture, in the interest of protecting them from their "false traditions".
I do believe that God has a lot of faith in the strength of family units, and that it is important that as many people as can be readied, should marry and have children. Individual adaptation is necessary in some cases, because people are people. Add the human element and we need to define marriage according to our religion so as to protect it from the definitions others feel are right for them.
I believe God is trying to help us by allowing us to screw up and correct our way into true happiness. Where we comprehend what happiness is, and elect to pay the price of our own free will and choice. So many people live lives of brief chaos or languish in ignorance until they die of old age. I feel utterly surprised I seem to have stumbled on something that actually connects me to my creator.
Not to disparage other churches, I simply believe that while many religions contain truths worth knowing, my contains more of them, and the most important truths that can ever be known. If it pollutes that message by wasting it's time with trying to obtain influence or wealth or power rather than trying to prepare men and women to meet God, it's sins against that sacred charge and if it sins enough, that charge is taken away. Lost for who knows how long, until somebody else is ready to start anew.
I do believe that Prop 8 has been a needless obstacle for many, for it has done nothing but sully the reputation of the church, and send a message we are not unified around. It's certainly possible I am out of step, and am mistaken, but until God helps me find my out of my own self imposed blindness I really do believe that. Your perception that we are turning into a political machine, and that our leaders are pursuing wealth and privilege all in the name of controlling others or in that endless search for riches should be easily disproved, and yet, here we are.
I don't want God's church to be known for Prop 8, I want us to be known for many of the other things we are still known for. Charitable service, music, moral integrity, our faith in Christ. Those sorts of things are what the world needs most IMO. Our forays into politics leave religion dirty rather than leaving politicking clean. That's the essence of my objection.
I would mourn if my church ever lost one of those things that makes it great in exchange for all the money and influence in the world.
posted
Yes, as I said, you are using e metric of what you are comfortable with, and what you believe is worth having. Unfortunately for you, these are not the metrics by which we judge success and failure, risk or reward.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Yes, as I said, you are using e metric of what you are comfortable with, and what you believe is worth having. Unfortunately for you, these are not the metrics by which we judge success and failure, risk or reward.
Would you be saying the same thing if we were talking about music or literature or education or science?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a far better understanding today of the difference between my subjective experience of good and bad, and more absolute terms of success and failure than I did in the past.
I'm curious as to how you are relating the subjects: I'm saying that churches stand to gain *something* by being political. He's arguing that they stand to gain nothing that he finds valuable. I'm not commenting really on value.
So, while of course I would argue against certain things in terms of my perception of their actual value, I think I would acknowledge, now more than in the past, that my experience of value is more subjective than, say, my appraisal of success over failure, for example in music. I am quite good at recognizing success, even in a piece of music I do not value. My analytical skills in that area inform my objective assessment: does this piece achieve what is intended, and is the intent served by, or hindered by any particular artistic decision? So even if i find little value in the result, i can say something meaningful about whether the piece has achieved its own aims, whatsoever they may be. Does that scan?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I scan but am yet more convinced that you are misunderstanding BB's argument.
As I understand it, BB's underlying premise is that the success of any individual or organization must be judged based on how well it fulfills its central mission. If, for example, an organization's mission was to save the polar bear from extinction and the polar bear went extinct -- the organization should not be considered successful no matter how many billions of dollars it raised or how much political influence it gained.
BB seems to be saying that the prime purpose of churches is (or should be) to help people progress spiritually and morally and that involvement in politics detracts from achieving that purpose. Hence, a church, that manages to get power, wealth and influence by participation in politics but by doing so looses it ability to help people progress spiritually and morally is not successful as a Church. It might be successful as something, but it isn't successful at being a church.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes those prime purposes - whether they be to provide for the poor or to "help people progress spiritually and morally" - can be furthered by political means. For example, a church that is primarily concerned with social justice might act politically for income equality or civil rights. Or a church that was concerned with keeping the Sabbath could work politically to get blue laws passed. One that was concerned about sexual immorality might work politically to get other kinds of laws passed.
The problem isn't that people bring their religious ideas into the voting booth; it is that their religious ideas are often wrong and misguided.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahah. Well, of course he's right. My only contention was that "being a church," in the sense that BB sees it, doesn't typically stay the long term goal of any particular church. And churches *do* have a lot to gain through politics, though, as I did say repeatedly, their missions typically change to reflect this new set of values.
For instance, Christianity was originally a sect of Judaism that was in large part co-opted as a political vehicle for bridging the divide between paganism and monarchic rule (which benefits from monotheistic theology and social organization). Christianity itself was changed radically in the process, often by and for people that were never of the traditions from which the sect originally sprang.
And there are countless examples of this kind of thing- the mission of a particular church changes depending on the needs of the people who run it. Protestantism in England became solidly a state religion under Elizabeth I, so that she could consolidate power and protect her ministers from foreign influences- and that was the basis of the British Empire.
So, you could look at that as a church benefitting from politics, or a political movement co-opting a church, but I don't find the distinctions very important. As human institutions, churches will do whatever is perceived to be in their best interests, and under those terms, becoming political is something churches, including LDS, do dependably and with few exceptions.
Now, whether you define that kind of growth in power as good or bad, you cannot limit the term of "successful" to mean, "successful in a specifically pre-determined way." The goals of organizations drift, and success, in any direction, is success at something. And so I don't accept the idea that a church is only a successful church if it fulfills some very specific set of goals that are defined by its more dovish members. We don't think of political parties that way, and we don't think of businesses that way, and for good reason. Goals drift, and today's fancies are tomorrow's willful desires.
And rest assured, if the Mormon church had a an incentive that was clear and sure enough to entice it to expand its organizational base in pursuit of expanding wealth and power, it would- or else it would be unlike any human institution that has ever existed. I tend to think it already *does*. But if you're going to come at this with the assumption that the Mormon church *is* unlike any other organization that has ever existed, then we won't have a good deal to discuss.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ahah. Well, of course he's right. My only contention was that "being a church," in the sense that BB sees it, doesn't typically stay the long term goal of any particular church. And churches *do* have a lot to gain through politics, though, as I did say repeatedly, their missions typically change to reflect this new set of values.
Which I believe is the heart of BB's concern and his desire that his church avoid that path.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe it's an earnest desire, but not one that should blind him to the facts at hand, both historical and modern, that suggest that this is possibly a foregone conclusion.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sometimes those prime purposes - whether they be to provide for the poor or to "help people progress spiritually and morally" - can be furthered by political means. For example, a church that is primarily concerned with social justice might act politically for income equality or civil rights. Or a church that was concerned with keeping the Sabbath could work politically to get blue laws passed. One that was concerned about sexual immorality might work politically to get other kinds of laws passed.
The problem isn't that people bring their religious ideas into the voting booth; it is that their religious ideas are often wrong and misguided.
posted
Rabbit's pretty much got the long and short of it.
----
Orincoro:
quote:And rest assured, if the Mormon church had a an incentive that was clear and sure enough to entice it to expand its organizational base in pursuit of expanding wealth and power, it would- or else it would be unlike any human institution that has ever existed. I tend to think it already *does*. But if you're going to come at this with the assumption that the Mormon church *is* unlike any other organization that has ever existed, then we won't have a good deal to discuss.
The church being wise (as in ethical and effective) in investing only worries me insofar as those monies are being put to a good purpose. Jesus himself said, "Make friends with the mammon of unrighteousness". The act of learning to invest our resources in others is a sanctifying and divine principle. It makes us better creatures.
Since I know the leaders of my church are not living lavish lives, nor seeking to line their pockets with these funds, the only thing that matters is just how those funds are being used. I presume we agree that regardless of how effective the church does say charity, if leaders are using the funds to make themselves rich that's still unacceptable. Since I know they are being used to build church buildings provide resources all over the world, charitable work, and disaster relief, I am comfortable with the church having all this money in its pockets, because it *is* the church that has these funds, and no individual will unfairly profit from it. If that *ever* changes I will be just as concerned.
To me money can be an obstacle to a church, but it can also be a tool if properly utilized. There simply isn't a way for my church in today's world to get more than barely involved in politics and still accomplish its mission. I'm comfortable with the church urging people to do their civic duty and to even outline what that is, "Learning who their local, state, and federal leaders are, being active readers on political issues, and voting their consciences at all times." Any further beyond that and we get start losing stuff we can't just get back.
----------
kmbboots:
quote:Sometimes those prime purposes - whether they be to provide for the poor or to "help people progress spiritually and morally" - can be furthered by political means. For example, a church that is primarily concerned with social justice might act politically for income equality or civil rights.
Extremely tricky tightrope to walk. I'm OK with say my church telling its members to pay a fair wage to workers, or that all men are equal in God's eyes and should be permitted equal participation in society/government. But I'm not OK with it saying, "The church supports Proposition 15 as it embodies the church's view on fair wages." It's never that straight forward. Hell, even the constitution which we almost all universally agree was a good thing had accommodations for the slave trade, disenfranchising poor voters, women, etc. Because politics is inherently compromising, the church should not compromise its morality by being involved with the devil in the details.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is a tricky tightrope - both spiritually and legally. Churches can lose their tax exempt status if they cross certain lines. But they do it all the time.
What do you consider the difference between Prop 15 (which you are not ok with) and Prop 8 which your church (mine too but less successfully) did support?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I believe it's an earnest desire, but not one that should blind him to the facts at hand, both historical and modern, that suggest that this is possibly a foregone conclusion.
This is overly cynical even for you. There are churches, like the Quakers for example, who've managed to avoid being corrupted by wealth and power for centuries. And even if there were not, it would not be an argument against there ever being such an organization or the virtue of trying to make one.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, I knew that you were not ok with Prop 8 but I was getting the impression that you were saying that your church didn't act politically regarding it. Saying that they had acted politically and wishing that they hadn't is a different thing.
I also knew that Prop 15 was hypothetical. Sadly.
Rabbit, the Quakers are pretty uncorrupted by wealth or power, but they certainly are political. Thank goodness!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, I think you're blaming the wrong thing with religion getting involved in politics.
As boots already pointed out, religion played a central role in the civil rights movement. Although I think it is important to point out that it played a key role on both sides, one largely admirable and the other despicable. Another interesting example comes from the Catholic Church, where there are many nuns who are extremely committed to social justice and caring for the poor and get involved in politics as part of their pursuit of this primary goal. This contrasts with the involvement in politics of many members of the hierarchy, who often seem to be primarily concerned with the power and prestige of the institution of the church.
Or take the LDS support of Proposition 8 and the National Organization for Marriage. Yes, I think this displayed problems with the LDS church but what were those problems, actually? To me, it was the way the opposition relied on hatred, bigotry, and fear mongering. I could see that these are inflamed by this sort of involvement in the political process, but I don't believe they come from it. They were in the LDS population already.
If the LDS goal were to promote compassionate understanding of gay people and, while still promoting their idea of what God wants for marriage, set out to oppose the sort of bad things that they in actuality promoted and involved themselves in politics to further this goal, I doubt we would see it as a bad thing.
However, that was clearly not their goal. As such, even if the LDS church stayed out of political involvement in this issue, this would still exist as a darkness in the membership. In a way, the prop 8 campaign could be a benefit, as it makes this problem very clear. If the leaders and membership choose to see it as a problem and work at it to challenge the idea that it is ever okay to treat people as the Prop 8 and NOM did, it could be a tremendous cleansing. If not, well, it indicates a further degrading of the organization.
---
As an aside, I know you didn't consciously mean it this way, but the way you use "God told us to do this, then add the human element and it gets corrupted" strikes me as potentially a bad way to look at things. Much human goodness has come out of the human element. I often see a tendency in religious people to dismiss failings in themselves or other religious people as some sort of amorphous "human nature = evil" and I think it is unworthy and very detrimental. There are specific aspects of "human nature" that these things arise out of, many of which are affected (often in negative ways) by current religious teachings. I think endeavoring to understand these aspects along with the many positive aspects that also exist in people and how to mitigate the former and promote the latter should be a primary purpose of, well pretty much everyone, but in this case people who want their religion to fulfill the promise they see in it.
Sadly, the overwhelming response seems to be to try to defend or excuse these badnessess instead of recognizing them as problems and deviations from what the religion is supposed to be about.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I believe it's an earnest desire, but not one that should blind him to the facts at hand, both historical and modern, that suggest that this is possibly a foregone conclusion.
This is overly cynical even for you. There are churches, like the Quakers for example, who've managed to avoid being corrupted by wealth and power for centuries. And even if there were not, it would not be an argument against there ever being such an organization or the virtue of trying to make one.
If the quakers had been as consumerist and aggressively expansionist as the Mormons, they would not be around today in anything like a form that would resemble their origins. The LDS has enthusiastically built a *huge* financial empire, which they are going to have to defend as it continues to grow, since growth is central to their mission. That means compromise; that means an expanding repertoire of political action, and consolidation of power. The church will not continue to grow, and hold closely to anything like its original mission. It's just not possible.
Personally I don't see much virtue in telling yourself that you can do something that's impossible, and avoiding responsibility for the actual inevitable result. Thus, *I* could never be a member of such an organization, because I personally don't see its mission as one that is reasonable or achievable. A key element of Quakerism, among other faiths, is that they have found ways to maintain themselves as institutions that are deeply cultural, and deliberately uninterested in expansion beyond the limited scope of their operations, because they view the manifestation of their church as an ideological system, not as a population that needs to grow to survive. The LDS church is on track to become one of the world's biggest religions, which ultimately means it will also be among the most fragmented and compromised.
And, again only in my opinion, a large element of the draw of Mormonism is aggressive prosthelytizing to (relatively) economically and educationally under advantaged peoples. Sending happy, fit, wealthy and eager young white people (not as a rule but as a point of observation), to South America and farther afield to preach the gospel is a nice strategy that works. It can paint a convincing portrait that, to many people, shows that Mormonism is the key to economic and cultural prosperity.
What happens when you have all those converts that you are going to get, and the game changes? Just as an intellectual exercise, I want to know how you think all that energy, and money, that the church invests in that sort of activity will be spent when the returns begin to slack?
posted
Kate: I've been trying to say over and over that my church's involvement in Prop 8 is an example of what I don't like about politics and religion mixing.
MrSquicky: I do not have ANY problem with members of a church forming groups or organizing for a political push. The only group I would bar from doing so would be our missionaries who have sworn to devote all their time to spreading the gospel and baptizing those who wish to join after having heard that message. I don't really have an opinion on monks and nuns in the catholic church as I do not know how their vows and lifestyles go.
If members of the church form groups, and use religion as the thrust of their support, that's completely fine. When I attended an Occupy Provo rally my sign had a scripture on it. But if asked I would absolutely emphasize that I believe I am doing something because it is morally right, but that my church is not a participating party in my protest. The church's rightful response to the issues the Occupy movement stands for is helping people find jobs, taking care of people in need, helping people go back to school, comforting those who stand in need of comfort, condemning corruption, asking business leaders to take care of their workers and be involved in their lives, encouraging people to pay their taxes honestly just as they pay their tithing, etc.
When Utah passed a very progressive immigration reform bill Mormons who were members of the legislature called church leadership asking them if they were morally opposed to the bill. They were informed that leadership supported the bill, and they would not be sinning if they voted either way. I'm OK with legislators seeking council from their church leaders if they don't know what to do I suppose, but that's extremely iffy territory for me, even though I strongly supported the bill in question. In that particular instance the church sent the presiding bishop to the capitol to attend the signing, as a way of saying "We're behind this". If they supported this bill, why not ask them to sign off on any bill that has some sort of moral implication, IOW every single one?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, I get that but at the same time you are saying that your church is not political. You can say (and I applaud you for saying) that you think it was wrong, but you can't say it didn't (and doesn't) happen.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're absolutely right- that was the thrust of my earlier argument- the Church, as it grows, *is* going to find itself in territory where it can stand to gain (say by winning the hearts of immigrants), simply by quiet approval of any particular piece of legislation. And then pretty soon, the legislation is being written in such a way that it appeals to the Church's hierarchy for approval. They get used to that state of affairs, and then if it *doesn't* happen that way, it's an insult.
That's how Catholicism got from a sect of Judaism to a supranational political entity that presided over the coronations of kings, waged wars, raised taxes, controlled education, and employed mercenaries to do its bidding.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BB, I get that but at the same time you are saying that your church is not political.
I think he's conceded the fact that it is, but with the caveat that he doesn't like it.
He's doing a little bit of fence sitting, basically saying that the forays into politics that have been made did not hold with the spirit of the church. I've constantly pointed out that this is of little importance in the long run.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There simply isn't a way for my church in today's world to get more than barely involved in politics and still accomplish its mission. I'm comfortable with the church urging people to do their civic duty and to even outline what that is, "Learning who their local, state, and federal leaders are, being active readers on political issues, and voting their consciences at all times." Any further beyond that and we get start losing stuff we can't just get back.
Would you have opposed the LDS leadership during the mid-1900s strongly pushing for civil rights?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BB, I get that but at the same time you are saying that your church is not political. You can say (and I applaud you for saying) that you think it was wrong, but you can't say it didn't (and doesn't) happen.
My church by design is *not* political. When the church was forming its identity it tried to merge politics and its doctrine so as to create utopian societies. In Ohio and Missouri, it ended with them being forcefully removed from the state. In Illinois they were chased out again and our prophet was assassinated. In Utah it invoked the ire of the US Government and Johnston's army was sent over there and it was almost miraculous there wasn't blood shed. When the Edmunds Tucker act basically disenfranchised the church and forced church leadership into hiding, the correct response would not have been church hosted sit ins or protests.
What I'm saying is the church has already had more than enough experience in politics to find it just gets in the way with what they want to do. It has very much backed down from that state of affairs at present, and I want to encourage it to stay away. Prop 8 is a step in the other direction, and so it is needs to be seen as such.
The church as I believe, and I believe God agrees with me on this is almost essentially apolitical, until he comes back in which case it becomes completely political. Any significant steps towards politics before then won't work and should be resisted.
Again though, even the leaders of our church have to learn by doing, and I believe the prophet and all twelve apostles are honorable men seeking to do their best. I support their right to exercise their authority and make decisions. I support those decisions insofar as I believe God supports them. I hope they learned from Prop 8 and will alter course when it is concluded.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The church as I believe, and I believe God agrees with me on this is almost essentially apolitical, until he comes back in which case it becomes completely political. Any significant steps towards politics before then won't work and should be resisted.
This kind of talk puts me miles away from having any understanding of what you're trying to say. And it sounds extremely creepy, to me.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There simply isn't a way for my church in today's world to get more than barely involved in politics and still accomplish its mission. I'm comfortable with the church urging people to do their civic duty and to even outline what that is, "Learning who their local, state, and federal leaders are, being active readers on political issues, and voting their consciences at all times." Any further beyond that and we get start losing stuff we can't just get back.
Would you have opposed the LDS leadership during the mid-1900s strongly pushing for civil rights?
Depends on how they were trying to support it. As I've said, I'm comfortable with leaders of the church speaking out on political issues and giving their opinions. I would not have supported church voter drives, or official church marches on Washington, or putting a Civil Rights Fund on our tithing slips that one could optionally put contributions towards.
I would be comfortable with them speaking in regards to the turmoil of the period and urging members to not act out of hatred. I would be comfortable with the prophet being seen at the Lincoln memorial as Dr. King gave his speech and applauding. I would not be comfortable if missionaries were given instructions as to the church's official response on Civil Rights if asked in the course of their duties if such a position existed.
Is that clear enough?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's clear, it's just arbitrary. Still, you're just defining things that you're comfortable with, and not acknowledging that the Church functions as an institution that has its own unique political momentum- that it doesn't just stop on a dime and never cross over a certain set of comfortable limitations that you have in mind. That it *can't* and *won't* do that. And what's more, that your comfort zone is *also* amorphous, depending on your own political beliefs.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's definitely clear. Why do you think that having an official church position/operations for civil rights would be a bad thing?
Is it mainly that you believe that God has basically said to remain apolitical or do you see secularish reasons for this?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The church as I believe, and I believe God agrees with me on this is almost essentially apolitical, until he comes back in which case it becomes completely political. Any significant steps towards politics before then won't work and should be resisted.
This kind of talk puts me miles away from having any understanding of what you're trying to say. And it sounds extremely creepy, to me.
I'm sorry it sound creepy, it's what I and many Christians believe. I believe that one day Jesus as foretold in the Bible will return to earth and usher in a millennium of peace where he will personally administrate in the affairs of the entire world. It won't be metaphorical, we will all see him with our eyes and hear him with our ears, and there won't be any room for doubt. Some won't want to believe it sure. I will find it extremely liberating that so much nonsense that is in the foreground of everything we do here on earth will be swept out of the way, and we can all focus on just being in a state of happiness and progression. It's something to be looked forward to.
But - we aren't there. I don't believe the church has any sort of duty on trying to jump the gun on God and get us in the millennium before he arrives. Politics is a tempting place where it promises that that can be accomplished if only one tries hard enough. It's a dangerous trap.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: That's definitely clear. Why do you think that having an official church position/operations for civil rights would be a bad thing?
Is it mainly that you believe that God has basically said to remain apolitical or do you see secularish reasons for this?
Because civil rights as a concept is fine, but when you actually hammer out what it means, you start committing religion to things that are not perfectly moral. OK so black people deserve to vote, but what about affirmative action? It's wrong to assault protestors, but what about activists buying guns to protect themselves from Klan retaliation? It's a mess and it's a convolution on what the church should be handling.
Individual members are more than capable of hammering out what they believe God wants them to do on these matters. They can form groups to that effect, but the church proper simply cannot commit to those sorts of political issues and not eventually make grievous mistakes.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Meh. All this implied disgust for humanity and human nature as fallen and irredeemable is sad, I think. Rabbit calls me a cynic- she forgets what an idealist I actually am. Most atheists are far more idealistic than Christians- only in ways Christians don't recognize. Or, I should say, capable of being just as idealistic as any Christian, but in very different ways.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro: I don't really have good words to describe my approach to humanity. I believe that God created us in his image, and so we represent an immature version of what he is. That is to be celebrated just as we celebrate the birth of any baby and think about their potential as a child/adolescent/adult. But we also look at some of the things that come with that and say, their ignorance, immaturity, selfishness, apathy have got to be subjected.
Humanity should be treated in that same light. I don't hate my own humanity, I love being a human. But I also recognize its frailties and seek to own up to them and work at them.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I will find it extremely liberating that so much nonsense that is in the foreground of everything we do here on earth will be swept out of the way, and we can all focus on just being in a state of happiness and progression. It's something to be looked forward to.
But - we aren't there. I don't believe the church has any sort of duty on trying to jump the gun on God and get us in the millennium before he arrives. Politics is a tempting place where it promises that that can be accomplished if only one tries hard enough. It's a dangerous trap.
BB, Catholic theology is quite different as I understand it. We don't look forward to the Kingdom, we are supposed to work towards it. It won't happen without us doing the work. Rather than waiting for God to fix things, we are supposed to do the work of God by fixing things.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kmbboots: I was saying jump the gun. I'm find with preparing the world for God by following the teachings of Christ, and spreading his message. I'm not fine with, "The church should be in charge, then God will come sooner!"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, I was responding more to the passive expression of "will be swept away". In our teaching, we are the ones who need to do the sweeping and get us to the Kingdom so God can arrive. Or we will recognize that God is here all the time.
Where do you draw the line between preparing and jumping?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're definitely on the preparing side, IMO. We're not into laying down on the living room floor and waiting for the rapture. Eventually Christ will come, but much has to be done to prepare the world for that day, and that's what we as a church are here to do.
I'm not sure how this differs from Catholicism: the idea that if we refuse to do the work, we will be replaced and someone else will do it. One way or another, the work gets done and the purposes of God are fulfilled. This is a common theme in LDS scripture.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
