August 2004 @ 11:29 am

John Hatch at By Common Consent and Kaimi Wenger at Times & Seasons have picked up on a sentence from the latest letter from the First Presidency on civic participation. The particular sentence reads, “In addition, members who hold public office should not give the impression they represent the Church as they work for solutions to social problems.”

While the posts make some great discussions of the importance of taking to heart the Church’s repeated statements of political neutrality, this sentence is nothing new. The Church has included this statement in its letters encouraging political participation for the past two U.S. national elections (2002 – “”Citizens urged to register, vote“; 2000 – “First Presidency reaffirms political neutrality” (Church News subscription required)). Like this year’s letter, the sentence in question is the last sentence in the 2002 letter, perhaps giving it a new emphaisis in recent years. As John’s post points out there too many examples of right-wing activits who try to wrap their agenda in the Gospel. That’s harmful to the Church and its mission.

We need to be careful when we pretend we can speak for the Church or ascribe a policy issue as “official.” But as a conservative who believes that my politics is largely influenced by how I view the Gospel, I don’t think we should be too quick to condemn those who view it that way. I think a lot, if not all of my politics are consistent with the Gospel but so does Mormons for Equality and Social Justice. Obviously, we do not have a whole lot in common politically but more importatntly we do share the Gospel. And that’s the most important thing, right?

Obviously, there are many members who are offensive and obnoxious to assume that everyone in the Church should have the same the politics, which of course is theirs (see my post on political extremism in Utah). I’m just afraid that we become so careful to not offend anyone that we can’t openly justify our politics because of our faith.

As some have pointed out in the discussions, the bigger problem is that many members are not taking seriously the statements of the First Presidency. Church neutrality means church neutrality.

Two years ago the First Presidency issued a letter calling on members to use testimony meetings to “express [a] brief, heartfelt testimony of the Savior.” How many members follow that?

It seems like every year or so, the Church has problem with the government in Russia. The current problem appears to be over the renovation of a chapel (not a temple as some have understandably confused the two).

While it seems like majority religions there feel threatened by the Church, at least there isn’t a ban against the Church proselytizing like there is against the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Even though he’s not Mormon, I thought these comments by middle-aged rocker Alice Cooper were too funny to pass up.

Regarding Bruce Springsteen, R.E.M., and other rock artists who are going out campaigning against President Bush:

“To me, that’s treason. I call it treason against rock ‘n’ roll because rock is the antithesis of politics. Rock should never be in bed with politics,” says the 56-year-old Cooper, who begins a 15-city Canadian tour on Aug. 20 in Thunder Bay, Ont.

“When I was a kid and my parents started talking about politics, I’d run to my room and put on the Rolling Stones as loud as I could. So when I see all these rock stars up there talking politics, it makes me sick.

“If you’re listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you’re a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we’re morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal.”

Of course, he goes ahead and endorses President Bush. Good enough for me.

(Thanks Little Green Footballs)

An excellent talk on Political Extremism in Utah (PDF) has a very thoughtful take on what’s wrong with right-wing extremism in Utah. It’s from the Sutherland Institute which I believe is a conservative policy think-tank based in Utah. While the article’s ire is rightfully aimed at the far-far-right zealots of Utah (I’m only far-right), I believe it’s major points could apply to political extremists of all kinds.

Paul Mero, president of the Sutherland Institute, lists and explains some of the characteristics of extremists, including: self-rightousness, an uncommonly angry mind, self-absorbed patriotism, irrational speculation, exclusivity, disdain for democracy, and a perversely worshipful view of the Founding Fathers. I have to confess I have sometimes been guilty of some of these.

The final point is only applicable to Utah: disdain for the LDS Church. Mr. Mero only discusses this from the perspective of the right, but in my three years in Utah I saw this much more from the left. However, his point is an excellent word of caution for those of us who think we are acting in the name of good as we advocate policy. He quotes Brigham Young:

An individual with an abhorrence of evil joins the Church . . .he sets himself upon the path to detect the failings of others, deeming that he is doing God a service in being so employed, and thus he is decoyed into the occupation of the great master of evil, to be the accuser of his brethren. And during this time thus occupied by him, he considers himself actuated by the purest of motives, arising from a detestation of sin. Yet, mark the subtlety of Satan in thus leading men into a false position. Such a course, in the first place, probably arose from the purest of motives, and perhaps the individual was instrumental in rectifying some error; he feels a satisfaction for having done so, his self-esteem is gratified, and ere he is aware, he is seeking for another opportunity of doing the same . . .continually setting himself up as being capable of sitting in judgment upon others, and of rectifying by his own ability the affairs of the kingdom of God.

The IntellecXhibitionist’s Davis Bell has a great post on the political breakdown on various bloggers in the Bloggernacle. The listing is very interesting as I have wondered how an investigator of the Church would think of the Bloggernacle. Unlike my perception of most Church member as being conservative, the Bloggernacle seems to me to much more ideologically balanced. Davis lists me as “Hard to Say.” I am glad to be included but a little chastened that I’m not considered the most right of “The Right Reverend Right” as Davis put it. But that’s probably a fair read of my blog, especially of late.

In truth, I am a bitterly partisan conservative who has trouble understanding how others cannot see things my way. In fact, I can be sympathetic when some say one must be Republican to be a good member of the Church. But I know that’s wrong and understand the Church’s position on neutrality. The Church has made it more than clear that it and the Gospel are above partisan politics, despite what some may say.

The reason I started this blog was to try to find a balance of the two while advocating the political principles I felt were important while being true to the Gospel. That is why I adopted the title “A Soft Answer.” Taken from Proverbs 15:1, I like it as a reminder of how to deal with politics as I try to be true to what matters most. However, that tension between trying to be a good Mormon and a conservative has made me too often sit out a debate or an issue I wanted to post on.* As commented at the IntellecXhibitionist, I have tried too hard to not appear as the partisan that I am. That’s probably a good thing but I hope to be less timid as I still try to respond with “a soft answer.” Please be patient and understanding if I do not always live up to that standard.

* Besides that, I have suffered bloggers block and have become (too) interested in CSS, XHTML, and Movable Type with hopes of making this a better blog behind the scenes. I have obviously redesigned the blog’s appearance and will continue to make some changes in the next few weeks but I need to focus on what most makes a good blog: content.

Up on the Church website is a Recent Addresses page. It’s labeled “new” and today’s the first time I have noticed it but don’t hold it against me. So far it has talks from CES addresses and those posted on the Church’s Newsroom site, Voice of the Church. Hopefully, this page will be a one stop page for recent non-Conference talk by Church leaders. We’ll have to see.

In any case, if you’re interested, it’s always worth to periodically check the following site for interesting talks. They tend to overlap but not always.

Recent Addresses
Voice of the Church
Church News talks
BYU Speeches
BYU-Idaho Devotionals and Speeches

Does anyone know of anymore sources?

National Review Online’s Victor David Hanson discusses why the Left hate President Bush so much. This is something that I have wondered about a bit because to me, their feelings seem so disconnected from reality. It’s not as though his policies are that conservative. Hanson suggests that it’s not so much his politics as who he is. In particular, part of the hatred stems from his vocal declarations of his faith.

. . . Bush’s Christianity seems evangelical and literal. It comes across as disturbing to liberals of the country who see religion as a mere social formality at best, useful for weddings and funerals, perhaps comforting at Christmas and Easter of course, but otherwise a potential threat to the full expression of lifestyle “choices.”

American politicos like their candidates to be Episcopalian, Unitarian, or Congregationalist, perhaps even mainstream but quiet Methodists or Presbyterians. Baptists of the southern flavor, or anything not found in a New England township, reflect a real belief in the literalness of the Bible — primordial ideas that religion is not a social necessity but a fire-and-brimstone path to eternal salvation.

Jimmy Carter came closest to the edge with his talk of being born again. Yet his liberalism, his close friendship with Walter Mondale, and his talk of American pathology convinced the Left that he was just a southern version of a Daniel Berrigan or William Sloan Coffin — a little weird, perhaps, but useful all the same in drawing the powers of Christianity into the liberal crusade. In contrast, if Bush evokes the name of God one one-thousandth as often as did Abraham Lincoln or Reverend Jackson, he is dismissed as an unhinged zealot eager to incite a Hundred Years’ War with the Muslims.

Clearly the President’s mentioning of faith disturbs many. However, most politicians do as well, in fact it seems required as long as they are not too serious. Perhaps Bush’s profession of faith is disturbing for some because they actually believe he is serious.

Nothing new or shocking but I noticed on the Church New site that the First Presidency has issued a letter encouraging civic participation.

July 21, 2004

Dear Brethren and Sisters:

In this election year, we urge Church members to register to vote, to study the issues and candidates carefully and prayerfully, and then vote for those they believe will most nearly carry out their ideas of good government. Latter-day Saints are under special obligations to seek out and then uphold leaders who will act with integrity and are “wise,” “good,” and “honest,” (see Doctrine and Covenants 98:10).

While affirming its constitutional right of expression on political and social issues, the Church reaffirms its long-standing policy of neutrality regarding political parties, political platforms, and candidates for political office. Church facilities, directories, and mailing lists are not to be used for political purposes.

Candidates for public office should not imply that their candidacy is endorsed by the Church or its leaders, and Church members should avoid statements or conduct that may be interpreted as Church endorsement of any political party, political platform, or candidate. In addition, members who hold public office should not give the impression they represent the Church as they work for solutions to social problems.

Sincerely yours,

The First Presidency