Obama and Faith

I recently did a post that on my own blog about Obama and faith. It was later featured as a guest post on Feminist Mormon Housewives and afterwards I was asked by Mike whether I would be interested in submitting it as a guest post here on Politicalds. So I want to thank Mike for that opportunity and I look forward to the discussion here after you all read it. I have made some minor edits to it in order to make it more applicable to Politicalds. As well, I am including the explanation to why I wrote the post that I submitted to FMH.

Although I'm not American, I have always been fascinated by American politics. I guess what makes American politics so interesting and unique is how intertwined politics and religion are in the political sphere of the United States. Many believe that they cannot co-exist, and yet how can they be completely separated? This is, I believe, especially a challenge for Mormons — who believe in the separation of church and state, and yet sometimes seem to have an awfully hard time of keeping them separate. For most of my life, I considered myself politically neutral, believing that the term "liberal Mormon" was an oxymoron. I now consider myself to be a Social Democrat and have now seen my personal political views take a gradual turn to the left, even though I remain faithful and active in the Church. Although I respect those who regard themselves as conservative Republicans, I reject the notion that you have to be one in order to be a good Mormon. I am very excited at the prospect of an Obama presidency for several reasons, among them being the fact that it will be the first time that a minority family occupies the White House, as well as the fact that Obama represents more of the policies and values that I identify with, namely accessible and affordable health care for all, better social programs, and making international diplomacy more of a priority. As an individual that comes from a family of mixed races, I also think that Obama brings personal experience and assets to the table that no president before him has been able to do, and I am excited by what this can mean for race relations. But most of all, I am impressed by his approach to reconciling faith with politics, which is something that I personally struggle to do. While reading his book, "The Audacity of Hope," I felt especially connected to the chapter entitled "Faith," and was inspired to write a post about it on my blog, along with some personal commentary that I feel is relevant to Mormons and how we reconcile our faith with our politics.

-FD

How I Co-Authored Barack Obama's "The Audacity Of Hope" (originally posted October 20, 2008)

by The Faithful Dissident

Before anyone accuses me of being a pompous liar, let me explain what I mean by the title of this post.

I've been reading "The Audacity of Hope" by Barack Obama. I've mentioned in previous posts on my blog that I like Obama. I've thoroughly enjoyed his book and look forward to reading "Dreams From My Father" when I get the chance. As I've read "The Audacity of Hope," I've thought many times that if I had the knowledge, experience, and gift of words that Obama does, not to mention a real talent for writing and not just a hobby for blogging, if I were a political scientist instead of just a political spectator, then I could have written much of this book myself. There was one chapter in particular that "spoke" to me, as if I was recognizing my own words that I lack the ability to articulate and express; the thoughts and ideas that swirl through my head so quickly on a daily basis that they are often gone before I'm able to pick up a pen or turn on my laptop. And since much of this whirlwind of thought of mine usually has something to do with politics, religion, and how to reconcile the two, I guess it's no surprise that the chapter of this book that appealed to me most was the one titled "Faith."

I'd like to share a few excerpts that really appealed to me, as a liberal-minded Mormon who often feels torn between the tenets of her faith and a desire to allow every human being the freedom to worship — or not worship — how they please. The parts that really rang true in my mind are highlighted in bold.

"Surely, secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square," he says. "Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King, Jr. –indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history — not only were motivated by faith but repeatedly used religious language to argue their causes. To say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public-policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it is grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition. What our deliberative, pluralistic democracy does demand is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals must be subject to argument and amenable to reason. If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons and seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teaching of my church or invoke God's will and expect that argument to carry the day. If I want others to listen to me, then I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

Admittedly, the most troubling thing about Obama for me is his pro-choice stance. So although I'm perhaps not as liberal as he is, I see that his position has come after careful consideration and lacks the traditional "it's my body, my choice, stay out of my uterus" attitude. When confronted by a man that had come to protest against abortion at one of his rallies, he says, "I told him I understood his position but had to disagree with it. I explained my belief that few women made the decision to terminate a pregnancy casually, that any pregnant woman felt the full force of the moral issues involved and wrestled with her conscience when making that heart-wrenching decision; that I feared a ban an abortion would force women to seek unsafe abortions, as they had once done in this country and as they continued to do in countries that prosecute abortion doctors and the women who seek their services. I suggested that perhaps we could agree on ways to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place."


Closely related to the problem of abortion is the problem of poverty. Of this, he says:

"After all, the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten-point plan. They are also rooted in societal indifference and individual callousness — the desire among those at the top of the social ladder to maintain their wealth and status whatever the cost, as well as the despair and self-destructiveness among those at the bottom of the social ladder. Solving these problems will require changes in government policy; it will also require changes in hearts and minds. I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturer's lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do we need to punish that man for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there's a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair… I think we should put more of our tax dollars into educating poor boys and girls, and give them the information about contraception that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, lower abortion rates, and help ensure that every child is loved and cherished. But I also think that faith can fortify a young woman's sense of self, a young man's sense of responsibility, and the sense of reverence all young people should have for the act of sexual intimacy."

Wow, did a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT write that last sentence???

In reference to the success of evangelical churches, he says:

"There are various explanations for this success, from the skill of evangelicals in marketing religion to the charisma of their leaders. But their success also points to a hunger for the product they are selling, a hunger that goes beyond any particular issue or cause. Each day, it seems, thousands of Americans are going about their daily rounds — dropping off the kids at school, driving to the office, flying to a business meeting, shopping at the mall, trying to stay on their diets — and coming to the realization that something is missing. They are deciding that their work, their possessions, their diversions, their sheer busyness are not enough. They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives, something that will relieve a chronic loneliness or lift them above the exhausting, relentless toll of daily life. They need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them — that they are not just destined to travel down a long highway toward nothingness. If I have any insight into this movement toward a deepening religious commitment, perhaps it's because it's a road I have traveled."

Obama then goes on to tell about the way he was raised, that it was not a religious household, and yet he was exposed to different religions through his mother, who "viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist she would become; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well."

He continues:

"And yet for all her professed secularism, my mother was in many ways the most spiritually awakened person I've ever known. She had an unswerving instinct for kindness, charity, and love, and spent much of her life acting on that instinct, sometimes to her detriment. Without the help of religious texts or outside authorities, she worked mightily to instill in me the values that many Americans learn in Sunday school: honesty, empathy, discipline, delayed gratification, and hard work. She raged at poverty and injustice, and scorned those who were indifferent to both."

Obama learned through his conversion that, "You needed to come to church precisely because you were of this world, not apart from it; rich, poor, sinner, saved, you needed to embrace Christ precisely because you had sins to wash away — because you were human and needed an ally in your difficult journey… It was because of these newfound understandings — that religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking, disengage from the battle for economic and social justice, or otherwise retreat from the world that I knew and loved — that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized. It came about as a choice and not an epiphany; the questions I had did not magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth."

I felt a particular connection to Obama, when he told about his 2004 Senate race against Alan Keyes, a conservative Catholic Republican who was not afraid to bring religion into the picture in order to challenge Obama. "Christ would never vote for Barack Obama," Mr. Keyes proclaimed, "because Barack Obama has voted to behave in a way that is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved. Mr. Obama says he's a Christian, and yet he supports a lifestyle that the Bible calls an abomination. Mr. Obama says he's a Christian, but he supports the destruction of innocent and sacred life." Obama admits that he "was mindful of Mr. Keyes's implicit accusation — that I remained steeped in doubt, that my faith was adulterated, that I was not a true Christian."

This was something that I experience regularly while discussing Prop 8 with other Mormons on the Internet. I've said before that I still remain undecided on the issue, but the fact that I could even possibly question the Church's policy or involvement in politics is enough to call my testimony or reason for being a member into question. Of course, as a liberal Mormon, I know that I'm outnumbered. Sometimes I thrive in this position, but sometimes the burden feels very heavy and I have asked myself many times whether I really am a good Mormon, whether I really have a place in this church, and whether I'm really a disciple of Christ. As one Mormon blogger that I came across put it, "a vote for Barack Obama is a vote against Christ himself." Since I would vote for Obama if I were American, would I really be voting against Christ? I have my low times when I could be spiritually battered into believing that that is true.

Going on to tell about how he was able to shed some of his skepticism and embrace the Christian faith, he says:

"For one thing, I was drawn to the power of the African American religious tradition to spur social change. Out of necessity, the black church had to minister to the whole person. Out of necessity, the black church rarely had the luxury of separating individual salvation from collective salvation. It had to serve as the center of the community's political, economic, and social as well as spiritual life; it understood in an intimate way the biblical call to feed the hungry and clothe the naked and challenge powers and principalities. In the history of these struggles, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death; rather, it was an active, palpable agent in the world. In the day-to-day work of the men and women I met in church each day, in their ability to "make a way out of no way" and maintain hope and dignity in the direst of circumstances, I could see the Word made manifest. And perhaps it was out of this intimate knowledge of hardship, the grounding of faith in struggle, that the historically black church offered me a second insight: that faith doesn't mean that you don't have doubts, or that you relinquish your hold on this world."

Prior to the Church's involvement in Prop 8, I was pretty satisfied with the Church's silence on political issues. To be honest, I think I looked down upon churches, such as Obama's, that got involved in political matters or used the pulpit to further a political agenda. But since morals and politics are so difficult to separate (even for our church, in the case of gay marriage), then I wonder if perhaps the Church has made the right decision in getting involved in this matter that it deems moral, even though it affects the political. The problem? By getting involved in this one moral issue, one that is proclaimed to have dire consequences for children and families if gay marriage is legalized, then I want to see the Church get involved in other moral matters in the world that have equally large consequences, if not even larger. The Church has been silent on matters such as the Iraq war, torture of prisoners of war, the AIDS epidemic in Africa, class inequality, sex slaves, etc. By staying silent as a Church, does that mean that it's understood that we're supposed to be fighting against such moral evils? If so, then it seems to me that many members aren't getting the implied message. Why do we need explicit instruction on gay marriage, but not on other moral issues? I'm starting to think that the black churches, megachurches, even conservative evangelical churches, are actually setting an example for our church when it comes to social justice, equality, and the welfare of every family — not just in their sexual morality, but in their fight for their physical well-being as well. Our church has now opened the floodgates by getting involved in one matter that is deemed moral but crosses into the political. Now that it's gotten involved in one, I'd like to see it get involved in others — particularly since the leaders of our Church later found themselves on the wrong side of history in another political matter that they deemed a moral one: the fight for black civil rights during the 1960's.

Regarding the difficult subject of gay marriage, which contrary to popular conservative belief, Obama personally opposes, he says:

"All too often I have sat in a church and heard a pastor use gay bashing as a cheap parlor trick — "It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" he will shout, usually when the sermon is not going so well. I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture. I am not willing to have the state deny Americans a civil union that confers equivalent rights on such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simply because the people they love are of the same sex — nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount. Perhaps I am sensitive on this issue because I have seen the pain my own carelessness has caused. Before my election, in the middle of debates with Mr. Keyes, I received a phone message from one of my strongest supporters. She was a small-business owner, a mother, and a thoughtful, generous person. She was also a lesbian who had lived in a monogamous relationship with her partner for the last decade. She knew when she decided to support me that I was opposed to same-sex marriage, and she had heard me argue that, in the absence of any meaningful consensus, the heightened focus on marriage was a distraction from other, attainable measures to prevent discrimination against gays and lesbians. Her phone message in this instance had been prompted by a radio interview she had heard in which I had referenced my religious traditions in explaining my position on the issue. She told me that she had been hurt by my remarks; she felt that by bringing religion into the equation, I was suggesting that she, and others like her, were somehow bad people. I felt bad, and told her so in a return phone call. As I spoke to her I was reminded that no matter how much Christians who oppose homosexuality may claim that that they hate the sin but love the sinner, such a judgment inflicts pain on good people — people who are made in the image of God, and who are often truer to Christ's message than those who condemn them. And I was reminded that it is my obligation, not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided, just as I cannot claim infallibility in my support of abortion rights. I must admit that I may have been infected with society's prejudices and predilections and attributed them to God; that Jesus' call to love one another might demand a different conclusion; and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history. I don't believe such doubts make me a bad Christian. I believe they make me human, limited in my understanding of God's purpose and therefore prone to sin. When I read the Bible, I do so with the belief that it is not a static text but the Living Word and that I must be continually open to new revelations — whether they come from a lesbian friend or a doctor opposed to abortion. That is not to say that I'm unanchored in my faith. There are some things that I'm absolutely sure about — the Golden Rule, the need to battle cruelty in all its forms, the value of love and charity, humility and grace."

If Obama becomes president, he brings an insight and experience to the table that no other president before him has been able to do, simply because of race. Regarding those values of "love and charity, humility and grace," he continues:

"Those beliefs were driven home two years ago when I flew down to Birmingham, Alabama, to deliver a speech at the city's Civil Rights Institute. The institute is right across the street from the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, the site where, in 1963, four young children — Addie Mae Collins, Carole Robertson, Cynthia Wesley, and Denise McNair — lost their lives when a bomb planted by white supremacists exploded during Sunday school, and before my talk I took the opportunity to visit the church. The young pastor and several deacons greeted me at the door and showed me the still-visible scar along the wall where the bomb went off. I saw the clock at the back of the church, still frozen at 10:22 a.m. I studied the portraits of the four little girls. After the tour, the pastor, deacons, and I held hands and said a prayer in the sanctuary. Then they left me to sit in one of the pews and gather my thoughts. What it must have been like for those parents forty years ago, I wondered, knowing that their precious daughters had been snatched away by violence at once so casual and so vicious? How could they endure the anguish unless they were certain that some purpose lay behind their children's murders, that some meaning could be found in immeasurable loss?…. Friends and strangers alike would have assured them that their daughters had not died in vain — that they had awakened the conscience of a nation and helped liberate a people; that the bomb had burst a dam to let justice roll down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream. And yet would even that knowledge be enough to keep you from madness and eternal rage — unless you knew that your child had gone on to a better place?"

It's words like this from Obama that I find so appealing. His Christianity lacks the scary fanaticism that leaves a bad taste in your mouth for religion. His liberalism lacks the disdain for religion and spiritual that is typical of some Godless progressives. He gets both sides and he sees that not only can the two sides work together, they belong together.

If we are to believe the polls, Obama is most likely to become the next President of the United States. As with all presidents and politicians, he's going to disappoint us someday, somehow, one way or another. Nevertheless, if he at least tries to live up to the ideals that he has presented in his book (which is certainly possible, but will no doubt be extremely difficult to do under the pressure of reality), then I think the world has reason to be optimistic. In a recent post on my blog, I discussed being unsure of whether politics and religion should ever mix. I questioned whether religion should have a place in the political sphere. I also mentioned how in Canadian and European politics (the only political regimes I have personally lived under), religion is less of an issue, a non-issue, or even an issue that should never even be brought into the picture. Seeing how things have been in America, especially after the past few years, and the cultural and religious wars that seem to always accompany any US political election, not to mention the hate, ugliness, and distractions as a result of religious extremism — particularly among many so-called Christian sects and the influence they try to wield on political parties — I have to say that I was becoming more and more convinced that 100% secular politics was the way to go. However, Obama's bridge-building approach is not just one that is realistic and, in my opinion, acceptable to both believers and non-believers if they are willing to actually work together for the sake of their country; it's simply superior to any other alternative.

Topics for discussion:



For those of you who want to see religion kept entirely out of politics, are you satisfied by Obama's compromise?

For those of you who believe that our personal moral convictions (which are often based on our religious convictions) have a relevant place in politics, do you feel that there would be a place for you under an Obama presidency?


Do you all feel that Obama's approach is fair to both sides of religious vs. non-religious?



If you are a conservative, do you feel he is offering too little of a place for religion in politics?



If you are a liberal, do you feel he is compromising too much on the separation of church and state by suggesting that the religion can have a relevant place in politics?

34 comments:

The Faithful Dissident said...

Just want to apologize for the formatting of my post. I had trouble with the "read more" coding, which is not my forte. I didn't mean for my long post to dominate the entire homepage! :) Anyways, I will get it fixed, hopefully Mike can help me out. I'm at work until late, so you guys will probably start commenting before I get a chance to fix it.

Anyways, looking forward to the discussion. :)

Anonymous said...

FD, you have a beautiful way with words, and I really appreciate your post. Obviously, my struggle has mirrored yours very closely, and it was nice to see it outlined and detailed so beautifully. The Passages you quoted are very inspiring, and give me, quite honestly, alot of hope - which, I guess was the point;)

I think that Obama's level headedness is his highest appeal factor. I certianly hope he is elected, largely for the reasons you stated. Thanks for that.

Steve said...

Let me just say that the blogger who said a vote for Obama is a vote against Christ is full of crap.

Coy said...

I really like the quote from Obama...
"To say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public-policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality"
While I don't agree with how he has gone about implementing this idea, I have to give him credit for a great point.
(Dave, David, Rick... that's how you respect someones comments and focus on common ground)
I truly like what Obama states are his reasons for not voting to ban abortion. I disagree with him, but I truly believe he is trying to find a balance to this very dilemma. (He specifically mentioned abortion in that excerpt).

Coy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mfranti said...

FD, so glad you get to have anohter discussion on this post. I thought it was great at fMh and hopefully it will generate much discussion -assuming hateful comments are left in the hearts and minds of those that have them.

to the conservative bunch, i'm really excited to hear your take on this.

happy blogging.

The Faithful Dissident said...

Steve said:

"Let me just say that the blogger who said a vote for Obama is a vote against Christ is full of crap."

Steve, I wish I could take credit for that quote. :)

The Faithful Dissident said...

Coy said:

I really like the quote from Obama...
"To say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public-policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality"
While I don't agree with how he has gone about implementing this idea, I have to give him credit for a great point."

Coy, in what way do you disagree with the way that he has implemented it? What would you change?

Like mfranti, I'm really interested in the conservative point of view.

Anonymous said...

I thought this post was written really well! And FD, I like your brown eye in your profile pic, if that doesn't sound too creepy.

I'm not an OBAMA fan. I do think that you can't entirely separate church from politics because of people's personal standards influencing where they will stand. So I agree with what Obama said there. I also can see why many people in history tried to make sure that church and government didn't overlap too much because of problems in the past. Man is weak, end of that story.

Here is what I think. I think that even if you can see the big picture and understand how your "morals" or "religious views" don't match someone else's, you still need to do what you personally believe is right, by God's standard. Not by some politically correct standard. Ultimately, as a good Christian, Jew, Catholic, or Mormon, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Buddhist---you have to examine your place in the eternal scheme of things. And live according to that standard. Its a personal choice, and you shouldn't be swayed just because your moral bar isn't the same as someone else's. Again, my personal opinion. I think that only by doing this will you be able to look your God in the eye at Judgment Day and tell him that you did your best to be strong and live by the eternal standard, rather than the temporal one. This doesn't mean you have to be throwing your religious or moral viewpoint on everyone else. But it means you don't give in to small allowances for the sake of someone else having different beliefs than your own. I think in the long run doing this will make more people respect you, and you'll have more respect for yourself.

mfranti said...

"But it means you don't give in to small allowances for the sake of someone else having different beliefs than your own."

if i read your comments correctly, it sounds as though you don't make compromises. please correct me if i'm wrong.

so how do you propose working with people who have different beleifs? are they expected to make the small allowances to be tolerated by you?

i'm really hoping you will explain that statement.

thanks

Stephanie said...

I am having so many problems with my computer. I will attempt to post my comments for the third time.

FD, great post. I appreciate these quotes and your commentary. I have a few thoughts. First, I think the BofM can help us to understand the appropriate relationship between church and state.

The Nephites had a free society with freedom of religion. During the time of Korihor: (Alma 30)

7 Now there was no law against a man’s belief; for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds.
8 For thus saith the scripture: Choose ye this day, whom ye will serve.
9 Now if a man desired to serve God, it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him.
10 But if he murdered he was punished unto death; and if he robbed he was also punished; and if he stole he was also punished; and if he committed adultery he was also punished; yea, for all this wickedness they were punished.
11 For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds.


It cross-references to these two scriptures:

Mosiah 27:3 And there was a strict command throughout all the churches that there should be no persecutions among them, that there should be an equality among all men;

Mosiah 29:32 And now I desire that this inequality should be no more in this land, especially among this my people; but I desire that this land be a land of liberty, and every man may enjoy his rights and privileges alike, so long as the Lord sees fit that we may live and inherit the land, yea, even as long as any of our posterity remains upon the face of the land.


I find it interesting that although they had religious freedom, adultery was illegal (punishable under the law). This tells me that adultery was not a religious issue, but a moral issue. My guess is that it was illegal because, like murder and robbery, it hurt someone else and led to a destabilization of society.

In our society, we seem to equate the moral with religious. We reject any laws that legislate moral choices because we call them religious. Are we really so enlightened in doing this? I wonder if this is one of Satan's tools.

I feel a sense of self-preservation for our nation kicking in. I feel that we are going down, and I know why (wickedness manifest in many forms). The BofM tells me why. So, I want to do all I can to preserve our society and culture.

I agree with Obama when he says that the religiously motivated need to translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. Yes, I am Mormon. That doesn't mean that I vote for "what is best for Mormons" but that I use my knowledge gained as a Mormon to vote on what I feel is best for all Americans.

I am having a hard time coming up with an answer to this one, though: Obama says

It requires that their proposals must be subject to argument and amenable to reason. If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons and seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teaching of my church or invoke God's will and expect that argument to carry the day. If I want others to listen to me, then I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

If I have gained my knowledge and reasoning through reading the BofM, attending the temple, listening to the prophet, how can I explain that principle to someone who doesn't believe that any of the above are valid sources for information? Even if I know it to be true with every fiber of my body, how can I make it accessible to people of all faiths if they discredit the source? Does that discredit the argument? Does it discredit the position or the knowledge?

Stephanie said...

I can see both sides of Mr. Keyes' "inflammatory" statement. Speaking in general terms (not specifically about Obama), on the one hand, no, I don't believe that one political party has a monopoly on Christ or religion. On the other hand, Christianity does have absolute values and truths. There are some things that are in accordance with God's law and some things that aren't. To say otherwise (or that a Christian point of view can encompass multiple, conflicting views of Christ's/God's teachings) reminds me of the false churches spoken of in the BofM (Alma 28):

8 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

Basically, the churches that say you can do or believe anything you want (just give us money). We seem to have a lot of those now - Christian churches that don't really teach many of the commandments (Sabbath day, sexual purity, etc.) but who invite all for a "feel good" session. They are huge, successful megachurches because people want to go on Sunday, put some money in the plate, and not have anything exacted upon them. Is that true Christianity? According to the BofM, no.

Stephanie said...

In reading this, I can see a lot of similarities between the African American churches and the Mormon church. He talks of ministering to the whole person. We talk about how all things temporal are spiritual.

I also agree with his statement on "Adam and Steve". I cringe when I hear things like that.

The Faithful Dissident said...

Jessie, I'm glad that I didn't get coloure contact lenses. Thanks for the compliment. :)

You said:

"Here is what I think. I think that even if you can see the big picture and understand how your "morals" or "religious views" don't match someone else's, you still need to do what you personally believe is right, by God's standard. Not by some politically correct standard."

I agree with this, and yet I'm not sure how to reconcile it. Contrary to what most might believe, I'm not all that politically correct. For example, I sympathize greatly with the homosexual movement and I really feel for their struggles, but I'm not able to totally embrace homosexual acts as "OK" just for the sake of being politically correct. Also, I personally object to heterosexuals co-habitating when they're unmarried -- especially when they start having kids. I believe strongly in this, and yet I know that it's based entirely on my religious views. I've seen many couples (some of my best friends) who live together, buy a house, car, have 3 kids, and yet may never get married. And yet they're happy, good people who can raise great kids. In the world's view, they are doing nothing "bad," but according to my personal belief -- which is based on my religious view -- it's immoral in the eyes of God to do all that outside of marriage. And I'm not afraid of saying so, even though I know that it holds no water in the real world.

So, how do I reconcile this? I am free to express my beliefs, as we all are (as unpopular as they may be), and we are entitled to plead our case. But when we have the power to actually start making things illegal under the law of the land -- whether it be gay marriage, adultery, common-law relationships, etc. -- to take away their free agency to do these things, as destructive as they may or may not be, then it sort of feels like we're playing God. I have no problem with the Church teaching and upholding traditional marriage values -- within the Church. I don't think any of us could expect it to do otherwise and I think that it's generally a very good thing. The problem is that the Church has proven itself to have enough power -- millions of dollars and a powerful coalition -- to exert its influence on a political matter. Yes, it is a moral matter to us, but outside of the religious community, it is a political matter under the law of the land. If we can contain our religious/moral influence to within the walls of our churches or our homes, then I don't have a problem with that. Teach all you want that gay marriage is wrong, etc, etc. That is our right and I defend that right. If that MORAL influence from within our church translates into a huge influx of Mormons who end up voting a certain way (as we see with Mormon support of the Republican party) in the public sphere, then fine. That's the way democracy works and that's how it goes. However, when the Church steps outside its religious realm into the political sphere, by explicitly telling members which way to vote, organizing political campaigns and donating money to a POLITICAL cause, then that's where the problems start and that's where I hopped off the fence. If the Church had not stepped outside of its religious jurisdiction, then I think I would be more inclined to support Prop 8 because I tend to agree with the MORAL side of it. However, I think that the Chuch has stepped too far into the POLITICAL side of it -- enough to violate its rules of political neutrality. We hate it when people try to dictate what our morals should be. Why should we then dictate their politics?

I guess that's what separation of church and state means to me.

The Faithful Dissident said...

I just think that we are more respected as a church and as a people when we preach a Gospel and live it to the best of our abilities, regardless of what's going on in the outside world of politics. But now that the church has gotten involved in the political side of things, 2 things are happening:

a) There is growing mistrust and resentment towards Mormons as people now see that we don't just have a moral agenda, but a political one. I think that people are going to lose respect for a church that claims to be politically neutral but acts otherwise.

b) Now that we've gotten involved in one moral/political issue, there is a call for us to get involved in others. Silence or political neutrality, such as with the Iraq war, is no longer acceptable in the eyes of many.

Anonymous said...

No Mfrant, I don't compromise when it comes to my morals. And, it is astounding to me how many of my friends (who are liberal and / or not LDS) really respect where I stand. Even with gay marriage, I have had 2 conversations that come to mind. And even though we think differently, these people told me that they could respect where I was coming from, and if they had similar morals they would think the same but they have different morals than me. I can respect that.

I don't think the church is going to get involved in other political issues unless more political issues arise which attack the morality of society, or something like that. Poverty and AIDS and the Iraq war and taxes and healthcare and public schools are things that really have no impact on eternal salvation except on the individual level (like I doubt that the Savior will hold us accountable for whether our government contributed to ending AIDS or not, but I can see him asking us as individuals why we didn't do anything, as much as we were able, ourselves on our own level...I am thinking Widow's Mite)

So, this is just my opinion. So yeah, I don't compromise my personal morals. And my friends respect me more for it, as opposed to *some* lds people they knew at one point who didn't live their lives according to the Church's admonishons. I am astounded by how many people not of my faith remember the LDS who didn't live as LDS people should.

Anonymous said...

Like Obama, I also wish the religious would more consistently "translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values." But many people don't do that, and often one of the reasons they don't do so is because their concerns are intrinsically religious and therefore can't (at least not honestly) be translated into universal terms.

Consider the Israeli politics of the Sabbath. There's an orthodox contingent in Israel that's always trying to outlaw certain kinds of activities on the Sabbath. These efforts are intrinsically "religion-specific." There's no way anyone could honestly argue for them on universal grounds. They are naked attempts to use the government to further a specific religious objective.

In this country, very few instances of "religion in politics" are that extreme. What we more typically see instead are instances like the LDS Church's current campaign against gay marriage. When the Church justifies this campaign to its own members, the argument is religion-specific. It's all about the LDS-specific concept of eternal marriage and eternal family. But when the Church addresses the general public, the argument is all about a universal concern with children and families in general.

So far, so good. Obama and I and the LDS Church are all pretty much on the same page.

Here's where things get a little sticky. Consider this blog. It's definitely not the Church. It's not a forum provided by the Church for the fulfillment of its own aims and the transmission of its own views. It's much more public than that.

At the same time, this blog is not quite as public as, say, the editorial pages of the New York Times. It's public, but it's also geared toward a readership and contributorship that is LDS or LDS-interested, and its purpose is to examine political issues of particular interest to those who are LDS, or to examine political issues of more general interest but from an LDS perspective, etc.

So, what is the role of religion-specific argumentation and justification on this little patch of the public sphere? (This is not unrelated to the question of what is "proper behavior" here on Politicalds. I freely admit that I raise it mostly out of self-interest, to address the charge of religious bigotry that's occasionally leveled against me.) Obama's formula, good as it is, doesn't quite address this question. But the fact is that on this blog people frequently do argue in religion-specific rather than universal terms. Not always, but often enough, people use arguments with forms like these:

The Church leadership has said to do X, and we have to obey the leadership.

X is true because the Book of Alma says Y, and in my interpretation of Y it means X.

Such arguments are obviously more authoritative in the Church setting, where people accept the authority of the leadership and the scriptures, than in the public sphere, where most people reject that authority.

Nonetheless, people are making such arguments here, on a site that, however "quasi" public, is nonetheless public--and that furthermore invites and encourages lively, spirited debate.

Here's the kicker. In any fair debate (especially if it is to be lively and spirited!) each side has to be free to examine, question, and attempt to undermine the grounds of the other's arguments.

Example: My opponent's tax plan is based on the assumption that tax cuts fuel economic growth enough to paradoxically increase revenue. But as I will show, that belief is false. Not only is it false, history shows it to be pernicious. The one time the idea was implemented, the result was an unprecedented level of federal debt....

This idea--that in any fair debate, each side has to be free to examine, question, and attempt to undermine the grounds of the other's arguments--holds true even if one side's grounds happen to include religion-specific statements, or, as we say, "religious beliefs."

If we're in a public forum, and one side argues that We must do X because the Church leadership says so, and the Church leadership deserves our respect and obedience, then the other side must be free to challenge the grounds of that argument.

The other side must be free to argue, Actually, history shows that the Church leadership has sometimes been spectacularly wrong and therefore does NOT deserve your respect and obedience.

Obviously, such a rebuttal will look anti-Mormon (if it comes from a gentile) or heretical (if it comes from a member of the Church). And to a limited extent it IS anti-Mormon and heretical. But the anti-Mormonism and heresy are incidental. They are there only because the Mormonism they oppose has been made part of an argument in a public forum. True "anti-Mormonism" has to be gratuitous.

Ditto for the appeals to scripture which, understandably, appear so often on this site. If someone argues that X is true because the Book of Mormon says it is, then others must be free to argue You're assuming that the Book of Mormon is true, but the evidence indicates it is false--at best the product of Joseph Smith's experience and imagination and therefore unreliable.

That too will sound anti-Mormon, and in the incidental sense I mentioned above, it isanti-Mormon--though only in the sense that one cannot effectively take on an argument made by a Mormon on Mormon grounds without also taking on Mormonism itself.

Ditto for appeals to the (myth of) "traditional marriage." If someone argues that We must respect traditional marriage as it has always been defined, and that person is LDS, then others must be free to argue that You're not arguing in good faith. You're making a statement that, if you're an orthodox Mormon, you cannot honestly believe, because in your own faith marriage has NOT traditionally been so defined....

That too will sound anti-Mormon, and someone will doubtless object to gratuitously "dragging in polygamy" merely as an anti-Mormon slur. But it's neither gratuitous nor a slur once the discussion turns to "traditional marriage" and what that might truly be said to be and who truly believes in it. The problem at that point is not anti-Mormonism, it's the fact that Mormon doctrine and history themselves provide one side with such great material.

All of which is to say that if you dislike this sort of criticism of your religious beliefs and scriptures, keep them out of the public-political sphere. Follow Obama's advice and don't invoke them in your arguments.

Note that this is an "if-then" statement. I'm not saying categorically to keep your religious beliefs out simply because you have no right to bring them in. You DO have the right to bring them in, and personally I have no problem at all with your invoking them. But you can't expect to invoke your religious beliefs in a political debate and not have those beliefs debated, scrutinized, rebutted, refuted, and even, when things get "lively and spirited," mocked--that is, you can't expect for your religious beliefs to somehow be immunized against the rough-and-tumble of political debate.

To believe otherwise is special pleading. It's to say I can try to tear down your beliefs, but you must treat mine with kid gloves because they are religious. But your beliefs are no longer merely religious once you've made them also political.

I agree with Obama on the claim he makes here:

"If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons and seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teaching of my church or invoke God's will and expect that argument to carry the day. If I want others to listen to me, then I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

This is actually just Intro to Argumentation 101, although I'm not sure whether Obama is making a practical argument or a moral one. He seems to be making a merely practical case: If I want others to listen to me, then I have to.... If I hope to win, then I must appeal to a broad audience. But if that's what he's saying, then he's not necessarily right. If enough voters favor a Federal Marriage Act, and do so on religious grounds, then in fact it is not necessary to argue for it on universal grounds. You can make a religious appeal and win. But if the issue is one (like abortion rights) on which the country is more closely divided, then Obama is right.

What I don't like is the way that Obama, being a politician, doesn't go on to outline the corollary of his claim, namely, that if you do invoke "the teaching of [your] church" you expose that teaching to public criticism.

Anyway, I like this observation by F.D.:

"There is growing mistrust and resentment towards Mormons as people now see that we don't just have a moral agenda, but a political one. I think that people are going to lose respect for a church that claims to be politically neutral but acts otherwise."

I would add just a couple of points. First, the Church's claim to "political neutral" means only that the Church does not support specific political candidates. On the one hand, and to its credit, the Church has always made it clear that this narrow definition does not preclude other forms of political activity, such as opposing the ERA and supporting Proposition 8. On the other hand, I suspect that the Church knows full well that most people generally understand the phrase "politically neutral" to mean "neutral on all political questions--and for those people, the Church's support of Prop 8 is proving to be something of an eye-opener.

Second, people are not losing respect for the Church only because they see the it sullying itself with politics. They're also losing respect because the Church's public involvement in politics provides an occasion for public exposure and discussion of some of its doctrines (e.g., eternal marriage) and history (e.g., plural marriage) that most non-Mormons find pretty bizarre. An increase in the public airing of meat before milk is part of the price the Church pays for its occasional forays into politics.

One final note about the idea, raised now and then, about debating in a way that helps build community. I have nothing against this idea. But obviously none of us wants a community of nothing more than soporific mutual validation. Real communities embody real conflicts, and do not cease to be communities simply because tempers occasionally flare. We want a community in which we can be challenged and grow and test our beliefs. If occasionally someone feels too challenged and never comes back, or if occasionally a newcomer visits this blog and finds it too lively or faith-undermining for their taste, then maybe that's just the price that has to be paid. The mere fact that some people leave and that others choose never to join does not mean we have ceased to be a community--else the Church itself would not be a community.

--David

Coy said...

David, This is easy... This blog is not to debate the CHURCH, its to debate POLITICS from a church background and viewpoint. There may be blogs out there that debate the CHURCH, and you are welcome to share anti-mormon arguments all you want, but if you want to keep in the spirit of this blog, it is about politics, from LDS viewpoints coming from left and right.
There seems to be a confusion with a few commenters that this is a church debate website, and I am sure it was NOT created as such. It's assumed that we all are faithfully practicing our religion overall, and can discuss politics in light of our beliefs.

Coy said...

Heya FD, The church does not support the Republican party. Here is a GREAT article to give you a great day.
Click Here
http://ldslivingonline.com/article.php?articleId=79643

Stephanie said...

Overall, I am perfectly content with a democracy where choices are made by the voice of the people. Why? Alma 29

26 Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.
27 And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.


Since I believe that we should each have a voice and vote according to our conscience, I have no problem sharing why I believe and vote a certain way. Agree with me or not - I don't care. But, I feel compelled to share my thoughts in case someone else out there is on the fence and not sure which way to go and may gain from the discussion.

I am not interested in "forcing" anyone else to share my views. But, I do feel that I have the right to vote according to what I feel is best for all Americans, and so do you. And, like verse 26 says, for the most part, the majority of people will choose right, so I can take comfort in that.

However, I feel we are getting pretty close to the majority of people choosing iniquity in our country. Fine, we have that right. But, I fully expect that we will see the judgments of God. This last general conference had an interesting feeling. Did anyone else sense that? I felt less of a call to my civic duty and more of an emphasis on strengthening and unifying Zion and my family. I think this is because the time is fast approaching that the majority will choose wickedness of their own free will and we as a nation will reap whatever "great destruction" the Lord has promised.

Stephanie said...

Anon David, my patience with you is so thin. As coy correctly pointed out, this is a website to discuss politics from an LDS perspective. That means that quoting scripture is a valid form of argument. Sure, interpretation may vary (and this is where a lot of "lively debate" comes in), but as Mormons, we believe that the scriptures contain truth, that the gospel is true.

So, since this appears to be your argument about 95% of the time:

You're assuming that the Book of Mormon is true, but the evidence indicates it is false--at best the product of Joseph Smith's experience and imagination and therefore unreliable.

Yeah, we've heard that before. And it is getting annoying. And since this appears to be your goal here: one cannot effectively take on an argument made by a Mormon on Mormon grounds without also taking on Mormonism itself, perhaps you could find another site where people are interested in debating Mormonism itself?

All of which is to say that if you dislike this sort of criticism of your religious beliefs and scriptures, keep them out of the public-political sphere.

This site is not to debate our religious beliefs with you. It is to debate politics from our religious background. Perhaps people are leaving because they are tired of the way you turn many discussions into an attack on Mormonism itself (I know I have been tempted to leave many times for that exact reason).

The Faithful Dissident said...

Coy, I know that the Church doesn't support the Republican party. I never said that it did. What I meant is that the Church MEMBERS, as individuals, overwhelmingly support the Republican party and many assume that they have to in order to be good Mormons. I have never heard the Church say that that is true, but we all know that it is commonly understood to be so by members. I don't have a problem with Mormons being Republicans if they truly agree with the Republican party. However, I find it sad that so many just assume out of ignorance of the issues, or because of Mormon peer pressure, that they HAVE to be Republican in order to be an upstanding member of the Church.

The Faithful Dissident said...

I dunno... I sort of appreciate David's input, not because I agree with it or because I particularly like what he has to say, but because I find it useful to know what "outsiders" really think about us and why. The rest of us are all "insiders" and therefore we're not looking at things from an "outsider's" perspective. We can think that we are, but until you've walked in someone else's shoes...

And since he's an "outsider," how can he claim to really know Mormons if he doesn't know what really makes us tick?

Stephanie said...

There's a difference between welcoming an "outsider's view" and welcoming incessant attacks on Mormonism itself.

mfranti said...

i too like david's perspective.

however, many lds are sensitive to attacks on the validity of the religion. if you can leave out those kinds of comments, david, i think you should do well.

you bring some good ideas to the table and i'd hate to see you banned.

Anonymous said...

I'd hate to see you banned....

As you wish--if the religious basis of the arguments here are simply immune to challenge, there's not much for a gentile to say. I've learned a lot from you guys, and hope you've learned at least a little from me.

--David

Anonymous said...

Just sharing my opinion....from what you administrators have said about yourselves it is obvious you live embedded deep in Mormon Culture, grew up and/or still live in states where it is probably common to see a LDS church house on the corner every mile or so.

I live in a part of the country where Mormons are much fewer and far between. We didn't get to take seminary during regular school hours. And I think that David (the anonymous one) makes horrible comments and hijacks threads and easily leads people down some merry path chasing rainbows of discontent rather than facing the issues stated in the actual posts of this blog.

And I wouldn't be surprised if he spent a lot of time on the internet trying to cause trouble on sites like this one. Malcontents seem to thrive on stirring up contention.

So I guess I'm saying that I agree with the anonymous SL who stated in a comment that this blog has driven away readers with its anamosity. And I give a huge chunk of credit to the anonymous Dave commentor. He is very close minded to anyone who isn't agnostic or anticonservative like he is.

Anonymous said...

Based on the way this blog is being administered, and based on the comments defending David's comments, I suggest that the title or motto of this blog be changed to "Mormons embedded in the Mormon belt who don't know what it is like in the real world and rely on Anti-Christs on a blog to tell them."

Originally this blog was called "Mormons from the left and the right"; however, it has now been changed to "Mormons from all sides". I assume that this change to the title was to help people better understand what to expect when they read this blog. Therefore please seriously consider my recommended new title because I believe it is more accurately reflective of what is currently found on this blog.

I live in "the mission field" and intentionally left "Zion" because I too value the perspectives of "non-members"; however, because I am constantly surrounded every day by people who challenge my beliefs I am interested in participating in a blog where I can have a diverse discussion about politics with other people who can share or atleast respectively engage with a Mormon's perspective.

99% of the people I am around outside my home and outside my church are not Mormon and I am constantly having to defend my beliefs. I enjoy these discussions and almost all of the "nonmembers" I am surrounded with are very respectful and genuinly interested in engaging in discussion.

Perhaps it is because I am used to not being aggressively attacked when discussing my religious based perspectives, with people who have other perspectives, that it is so offensive to me when Anon David attacks Mormons and LDS beliefs on this blog.

Either way because David's venomous comments are allowed and supported on this blog I do not believe that this blog is meeting it's original objective.

Anonymous said...

I understood that the objective of this blog was to allow for a healthy discussion of political perspectives from within various Mormon's viewpoints, and I know that people who are not Mormon can engage in these types of discussions; however, by supporting constant attacks on "Mormon" beliefs there is no room left in the discussions for any other healthy dialogue.

Christ admonished us to be like unto the children (aka Youth), and David's stated objective is to "Corrupt Youth"; I do not see how he can effectively or respectfully participate in a discussion about a Mormon's perspective of politics.

If you do a google search for "David Mazel", the top entry that comes up says "Corrupting the Youth Since 1996". Can his objective be any more clear? How does his objective not directly conflict with the objective of this blog?

David Mazel, Please mend your ways and respect the original objective of this blog, or please unplug your computer.

mfranti said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Wizzle said...

Oh, and I thought this was going so well for a while there!

I can't help here I live. Some of us (reader and commentators, all inclusive) live in Mormonville. Some of us don't. I certainly don't think we're out to set up this blog to favor one or the other intentionally. We're trying - very hard - to allow input and welcome perspectives from nonmembers and members alike. I don't want to make this blog "just for Mormons".

I do appreciate many of anonymous David's arguments - if nothing else, I find them logical and well-written, which makes them easier to read even if I don't necessarily agree. ;) For me personally, I find referring to specific incidents or passages helpful to me (for example, the comparison of the Mountain Meadows Massacre to he Obama-Ayers connection) much more helpful than just general "well, but that's assuming your religion is true". All the contributors here are coming from the perspective of believing, active Mormons, and while an occasional reminder is something I personally appreciate, I think the point has been duly made that not everyone is coming from that place and we should take care to frame our arguments in more universal terms if we want them to be widely understood and accepted.

It is very interesting to read Obama's thoughts on his faith and how he integrates that with his politics - such a turnaround from our more recent understanding of the "conservatives" as more overtly religious, and "liberals" as Godless heathens or two-faced Jack Mormons (what do you call them if they're not Mormon? :))

Reading Obama's thought processes makes me so hopeful for an Obama presidency - he reminds me of myself, the way he talks things through in his head and really tries to be open in every sense of the word.

Anonymous said...

Hi All - I've specifically avoided the Anonymous David controversy- we've never banned anyone - and we only delete comments that personally attack an individual - David has been very careful not to do that. That being said, someone mentioned his "corrupting the youth since 1996" - that is a reference to Socrates - Socrates was executed on charges of corrupting the Athenian youth - what was he corrupting them with? New Ideas. Ideas that challenged their preconcieved notions of Oplymian Gods. As part of that, he was charged with Blasphemy - he claimed that he had a daemon - a personal God that went with him and told him when he was out of line (like the Holy Ghost). Wether we agree with David or not (and I am going to say that none of us agree with him 100% of the time - or even 50% of the time for that matter) having your faith challenged and asking yourself why you believe what you believe - being introduced to new ideas and "outsider" ways of thinking is, in my opinion, a helpful thing - not a detramental one. So...just thought I'd explain that "corrupting the youth bit." Socrates was not really corrupting anyone - he was causing them to think outside the box that they'd been so accostumed to. Which, incedentally, is also what Obama is saying in the quotes that FD wrote this thread about.

Unknown said...

David,

I have a few comments. First I agree that there is little point of having a LDS centered blog if every topic we have to go back and argue about the basic tenants of our faith. I also agree that you have raised some points of interest which causes a person to do some introspection. So if you could lay off the fundamentals like your statement about the Book of Mormon:
"but the evidence indicates it is false--at best the product of Joseph Smith's experience and imagination and therefore unreliable."
And stick to other topics it would be less aggravating, at least to me. If we can not start from a point of common agreement then we will spend to much time rehashing these fundamentals. Now if your intent in bringing it up is in fact to shake the faith of those whose testimony is not firm, then I would also call for you to be banned. We have enough inactive members as it is 

I did want to ask why you think our views of traditional marriage are not consistent with PROP 8. We can read in Jacob 2: 24-30, 35
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the achastity of women. And bwhoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or acursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.

(Here I go with X from BOM thus Y)

In my opinion, I am not the prophet so take it for what it is worth, the Lord has been consistent with respect to polygamy as presented here in Jacob. Marriage is always between a man and a woman. In the case of polygamy a man has multiple marriages, he has to make commitments to each women individually and if one marriage ends the other is still in effect. Vs 30 clearly states that this should only be practiced when commanded to do so, I would take that to mean the prophet would be the one to let us know that it is required. Since the church is strong today with 13+ million members I do not think any of us need fear this practice coming back. (insert old joke of one wife enough here)

I have one observation about the use of religious view being used in an argument. I agree that to fall back on “because the prophet said so” will not be a convincing argument in a public forum. But some times that is all we have. As people of faith we take some things on faith and have to try them to see if they are “good seeds”. While we are working on faith becoming knowledge, as this process can take years, we may not have a logical reason for what we stand for. Does that mean we should sit in the corner and be silent? I would say no!! As we grow in our understanding of the truth we should stand for what is right. Even if all we can do it stand on a corner with a sign to show our position (this is in reference to our recent prop 8 rally).

I agree with your assessment of the observation by F.D. regarding the church’s public image except I do not think that there is growing mistrust and resentment toward the church. The church has never enjoyed wide acceptance, nor do I suspect it will any time soon. I think that as the public is exposed to the “meat” there will be those that will want to ask about it and then we can feed them the milk. I agree that it does cause a few eyebrows to rise and some people will write us off as a “weird cult”.

David, I would like to hear more from you as I feel your comments do add to the discussion and causes one to think.

Ruel

Unknown said...

Wow, people write huge comments on this board.

Anyway, as a republican who voted for Obama, I am excited to see this kind of dialog. While I am elated that you voted Obama, I am disappointed that his race played such a factor. I thought having Obama elected would show how far we've come to being color-blind. Instead, your article showed how far we still have to go where a persons stance, and not skin color determine our friends, views and presidents. For shame.