A Constitutional right

The question is not whether churches have a right to speak up when public policy intersects with faith. Public discourse is richer and fuller when it includes the insights of religious leaders. But I have a problem when religious leaders adopt a political position and then use their status to make that position a test of loyalty to the faith.

Who can say how Jesus of Nazareth would have voted on issues like abortion or gay marriage? It's not as simple as lining the Bible up with the Constitution. In the famous case of the woman taken in adultery, Jesus knew full well what the Old Testament had to say about such matters. Yet his reply was, "He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone."

People of faith have every right to vote their values. But as citizens in a democracy, they also have to decide how to apply those values to complex issues for which a simple right or wrong answer may not apply. It doesn't help when religious leaders, after arriving at their own political conclusions, deny the flock the right to do the same. Maybe, instead of telling the faithful how to vote, these leaders could discuss the cluster of values touched on by the issues of the day.

As the LDS Church is defending their right to speak out on public issues and given their long history of providing services to those in need, I look forward to them moving to the forefront of calling for Universal Health Care for all US citizens.

After all, wouldn't that be a very "Christian" position to take?

I'm sure that the LDS church has lawyers on staff to make sure that NO laws are being broken by the church.
Elder Oaks was pointing out how some special interest groups are trying to use intimidation tactics, not just against the LDS church, but against other religious and racial groups, in regards to "gay marriage" for example.
Also, there are more Mormons outside Utah, than inside, and more outside the USA than inside. I, personally, don't like being compared to Mormons in Utah.
When something is put to a vote, I want to be able to vote my conscience, NOT what is "politically correct". I do not want to feel intimidated, nor do I appreciate being called names, like "racist" and "homophobe" when those names do not apply to me. And I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Excellent article!

Another intelligent post that reflects not only the interest in what happens in culture but the obligation of institutions and individuals to speak out and have a voice, in appropriate ways. From the Canadian Presbyterians who take an active role in analyzing, assessing and commenting on social issues in Canada and world-wide--including poverty, health-care, human sexuality and biotechnology--to the Catholics and Evangelical groups who speak out on issues in various ways, a voice is a voice and a constitutional right. Stifling that would trump the constitution and there is enough of that going on at this moment in time. Thanks for a thoughtful post.

Ignoring of course the African religions, Hinduism (Krishna is black), Judaism, the ancient Egyptians, Islam. etc. (I am not sure if Buddhism spread to Africa but everywhere else it has been pretty darn open to all races and both genders and has had a history of about 2500 years to affirm it.)

The comparator is humanity, not just churches. I once heard a catholic priest talking about how the catholic church was such an improvement over the Roman empire. It is so nice to compare oneself to a false comparator and conclude we are better.

hariaum

CO-Dog:

Concerning black men and the priesthood in the LDS Church, to my knowledge, Joseph Smith was the first white Church leader to ordain black men to the priesthood in an all white Church in the 1830s.

Joseph Smith allowed black men to be ordained before the United States had dropped slavery as an institution.

Smith further called a black man to serve in the Quorum of Seventy. This man (Elijah Abel) served in that Quorum until his death in the 1870s.

Brigham Young instituted a policy that most black men could not hold the priesthood (that lasted until 1978)

However, Abel's descendants were ordained during the ban well into the 1930s.

Comparatively speaking, although black men could be ordained to the ministry in other faiths, beginning in the early 20th century, Christian Churches continued to be segregated and are today segregated into black and white Churches.

In the LDS faith, this is not the case.

It is obvious from the comments of BOT1 that he conveniently forgot to mention African American men could not hold the Priesthood until the early 80's and women of all races still can't.

It is obvious from comments above that many commenters are not aware that the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) has had members of African descent from its founding. And Joseph Smith its first president, ordained people of African descent as priests. Also, Utah was the first state in the union to grant suffrage to women.

In attacking gay-rights advocates, Elder Oaks claimed, "In their effect,they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation."

University of Utah historian Colleen McDannell makes the point spot on that this is an outrageous analogy for the Mormon Church to spew:

"Were four little Mormon girls blown up in the church at Sunday school? Were there burning crosses planted on local bishops' lawns? Were people lynched and their genitals stuffed in their mouths? By comparing these two things, it diminishes the real violence that African-Americans experienced in the '60s, when they were struggling for equal rights. There is no equivalence between the two."

Meanwhile look at Utah history with stories of an early Lutheran minister in Ogden being shot at by the "Saints" among other events as a testimony to the Mormons' commitment to the "Civil Rights" they now whine they are being denied.

"Who in the class is LDS?", asked my fourth grade teacher and despite all A's prior and after she gave me a B and told one of my neighbors she didn't think a "gentile" could be worthy of an A.

My 7th grade teacher defended giving me a B- in Utah history, although I had a 93% test averagem because a non-Member "couldn't possibly understand the history of the Church."

"What Ward do you belong to, Brother" was a standard question in applying for jobs I never got.

Mormons claiming themselves as victims of civil rights abuses is about as ingenious as pedophile Priests bashing gays from their pulpits and molesting little boys after the services.

I totally agree the LDS Church as Constitutional First Amendment rights. By forming a huge, multi-state PAC to promote Proposition 8, however, they went beyond those rights and violated the terms of their Tax exemption. In the past, they have directly give money to anti-gay initiatives in Alaska and Hawaii in blatant violation of the conditions of their tax exemption.

What is really offensive, however, is claiming to be victims of civil rights offenses by gays and comparing themselves to the Black Civil Rights movement. Prior to 1981, their scripture (2 Nephi 30:6) had racist overtones by stating those who converted to Mormonism would become "white and delightsome" The scripture was changed when NCAA basketball teams refused to play BYU for this and other well documented racist slurs by Mormon authorities in the past.

As for gays, Mormons hardly gave them any civil rights. This included a gay witch-hunt at BYU and torturous electroschock administrated at the school to "cure" homosexuals.

Mormons, especially Mormons in Utah where I grew up, have not been the shining pillar of civil rights to others. To compare themselves and the present PR they have gotten themselves into with the Black Civil Rights Movement is just repulsive and, as usual, hypocritical.

Persiflage

Thanks. I am aware of this process in the mormon church.

As have said several times below, I think the mormons are trying to get past their past and that is a good thing. We should all be trying to live in the complex present rather than having a nostalgic perspective of the perfection of our parents.

As their prophets learn about the spiritual equality of women, learn of valuing human choice over the choice, etc. I think they will do well. Until then, I just hope they don't join the rest of the missionary world to destroy the diversity of ideologies that we need to help us all get to that complex and simple dynamic and static transcendental and immanent truth that is being.

(It's also a shame they didn't learn formal logic, ;) )

hariaum

Navin,

I know you're interested in the philosophy of various religions, so I thought you might find this link interesting. Here the (Mormon) writer is making the case for Mormon theology as something other than pure theism - is calling it a mixture of panentheism and pansyntheism....not so very different in some ways from Vedanta and the concepts of Atman/Brahman.

While I'm not religious, I am a student of religion and thus find this unexpected 'complexity' interesting - compared to mainstream Christianity. With regard to Jesus, Muhammed and various other prophets (Mormon and otherwise) it seems religion is never free of human personalities! As for me, revelations are a strictly personal experience - they don't exist if they're not mine.......

I have to agree that the Mormon Church is as legitimate as any other in the USA - now that they've shelved this idea of multiple wives, etc.

On the other hand, digging into the history and traditions of The Church of the Latter Day Saints and their positions/practices regarding race, the role of women, and sin and salvation, might yield less than a completely salutory and egalitarian approach to world brotherhood.

Hopefully that is changing, although religion and religious beliefs, tenets, dogma, etc. tend to change far less than other aspects of life.

regards, Persiflage

http://mormonphilosophyandtheology.wordpress.com/

Eichendorff

He isnt worth your efforts.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

What a load of incoherent claptrap.

And that is what the muslim terrorist says. How do I, an outsider distinguish the two goups.

As a numskull, try this formal logic and do explain why it is wrong:

Given a is a member of Group A,
and a acts as a1, a2, a3, a4...
But membership in Group does not imply causality to acts a1, a2, a3...

Thus membership in Group A is irrelevant to acts a1...an.

If we distinguish classes of acts a1...an into good acts or bad acts, this does not alter the original formal argument that Group A is not the cause of the acts.

thus Group membership is not causal to acts a1...an whether they are good acts or bad acts.

Or perhaps:

the probability of certain acts A1...An is proportional to likelihood of membership in Group A. The association of that probability is a property of the group to which a is a member (as the individual is not a probabilistic event). Thus when an event occurs, group membership is associated with, if not causal to, depending upon the statistical test used, the acts A1...An.

then groups A, B, C... can be compared as to the likelihood of acts A1...An and thus compared.

The first argument is black and white thinking: my church is always right, in fact we define right. The second is a probabilistic argument but risks stereotypes. What argument do you believe when seeking the truth?

hariaum

Your response to me is why I called you a numbskull, which fits you to a T. Each of your posts gets more and more incoherent.

First of all, the idea that anyone will "inherit a planet" is not and has never been official LDS doctrine. No one I know of in the Church believes this, and if there are any who do, it is pure speculation. To bring up an irrelevancy like this is just a typical tactic of bigoted dolts who have lost the argument entirely.

The only responsibility the Church has is to teach the Gospel as it is directed to do so by Christ himself, who is the head of the Church and who reveals his will through modern prophets. We human beings choose whether we will live according to the Gospel, and one day we will all stand before God and give an accounting to Him of our lives.

Members of the Church find peace and inspiration from Church teachings. To the extent they apply them to their own lives, they see that they are true and will lead to happiness and fulfillment even in the face of challenges they have to overcome.

If you can't or won't understand something as simple as this, then there's not much I can do for you.

so I take it that your opinion is that the church is not responsible for the goodness of its members.

Or are we going to rationalize good things to the church of your favor and bad things to the church of you disfavor and call that logic.

by the way, your arrogance is still showing. Maybe you need to work with your elders on that before you inherit a planet - just my opinion. I know you only speak in truths like you church which is opinion less I guess.

hariaum

You really have a logic problem.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches its members to be law abiding, honest, moral, kind, generous, responsible, and respectful of all people. These principles are based on the teachings of Jesus Christ. The vast majority of Latter-dsy Saints do a good, albeit imperfect, job of living these principles. Since the Church cannot, and never would attempt to, control the minds of its members, one can find the occasional member who does not live up to the principles taught by the Church. Does that mean the Church should be blamed for the actions of that person? Of course not, unless one can find evidence the Church encouraged such aberrant behavior.

Since there isn't the slightest shred of evidence the Church ever encouraged unlawful activity, you can't hold it accountable for such activity on the part of one of its members. Is there something about this you are incapable of understanding?

Your statement that most church histories "seem to be opinion" is itself an opinion. To be perfectly honest, I don't give a fig about your opinions. You obviously know very little about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its mission, its history, its doctrine, or anything else about it. Consequently, when you presume to opine about it, you come across as foolish. My advice to you is to find something else to complain about.

And most church histories (scriptures) seem to be opinion as well as I look into it. That's why I don't belong to churches (or religious denominations).

hariaum

So do both of you agree that the reasons mormons are "good" people is not because of the church but because of their individual choices?

hariaum

The mountain meadows tragedy was as eichendorff said, not the doing of the LDS church.

The members that did it, sent a message to the church (by horseback) asking what to do. the church leaders responded immediately by saying leave them alone and let them pass.

The problem was, the response arrived too late due to the time it took to get the request there and the response back. They didn’t have cell phones back then you know.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

Ps: when I "seek the truth", I research it. I do not depend only upon what I have been told. You should try that some time. Most of the time when someone tells you something, it is his opinion, not fact.

The Church does not want to control the world. That idea is indicative of paranoid delusions, and I urge you to seek professional help.

What the Church wants to do is to preach the Gospel to everyone, and then let each person decide whether to accept it or reject it. It's really very simple.

I believe that individuals are responsible for their actions. The Church did not advocate, plan, or execute the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The responsibility for that atrocity rests with the individuals who perpetrated it. If an employee of the Red Cross commits rape, it is absurd to assume the Red Cross as an institution advocates rape, and it is equally absurd to hold the Red Cross accountable for the actions of that employee. Surely even you can understand this.

Certainly some Americans of European descent mistreated Native Americans, but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints never did, and always treated them with respect. Your tendency to generalize is something you should counter.

It's not the idea of respect for equality of minorities that is mind-boggling to me, but rather the stupidity of your argument. The fact that a black woman has never been governor of Utah has resulted from just one thing: no black woman has ever run for governor of Utah. The same can be said for virtually every other state in the United States. It has absolutely nothing to do with equality for minorities.

look, eichendorf, you can throw insults at whoever you want. That doesn't make you right, and it does show that you have some substantial arrogance.

If you believe that the muslims, catholics, aztecs, southern baptist are not responsible for the actions of their members and the religions don't bear responsibility for the moral choices of their people, you can then say the mormon church doesn't bear responsibility for the actions of its people. That is consistent. But it also argues that the church is not a moral teacher and should not be judged based on the effectiveness of its teaching. OK by me if that is what you believe.

But if you hold any group responsible for the actions of its members, then your group is also to be held responsible for its actions (good and bad).

If you don't know how the european americans had genocidal intent to the natives, you need to read the history of genocide. I believe the author is Ben Kiernan of Yale. You could also look at Guns, Germs, and Steal (Diamond?).

As I said, I am willing to say the mormons have learned from their early history and have abandoned this path. I hope that is true.

If the respect and equal valuation in a society of the members of minorities is mind boggling for you, go back to school (or talk to your elders). Yes, all societies are struggling with this. But it certainly is not mind boggling to recognize the problem.

Of course the church is not going to stop its missions. It wants to control the world like any other good christo-islamist supremacist chosen people; and green jello will taste so good in Sri Lanka, don't you think.

hariaum

I'm not sure where you get the idea that the Church, as an institution, had genocidal intents. The Church has throughout its history tried to be friendly with Native Americans and everybody else for that matter. There was never any genocidal intent against anybody. If anything, the genocidal intent was against the Church as perpetrated by the governor of Missouri.

The Mountain Meadows Massacre was perpetrated by a few individuals, some of whom were LDS, but the Church per se had nothing to do with it. The guilty were punished.

Whether a black woman, or hispanic gay, or a person from some other artificially created minority has been governor of Utah is irrelevant and completely meaningless. The citizens of Utah choose their governor from those who run for that office. How many black women have been governor of North Dakota? Of California? The stupidity of your argument is mind-boggling.

The Church isn't going to stop its missionary efforts because of numbskulls like you. No one is forced to join the Church. Those who do join make that decision themselves, in full possession of their faculties.

The Church goes out of its way to remain politically neutral. However, as Mr. Otterson explains, the Church reserves its Constitutional right to express its opinion on any issue and to advocate for the preservation of freedom, righteousness, and morality.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, "

Who are we securing the rights from? It is not that we secure these rights from governments, it is that governments are instituted to secure the rights for us. They are securing those rights from those that oppress us. In the time of the Declaration, that was the church and the aristocracy. That is, we little people, are securing our rights from the powerful who try to tell us how to live.

That is why each of us have inalienable rights. They belong to the individual. The government is made to protect those individual rights against those with more power - the the power elite (at that time and now - chruches and rich people).

Look, the mormons are beginning on a long journey of self discovery. They have had two genocidal intents in the two hundred years of their existence. (the natives of Utah and the mountain meadows massacre) That's average for a christo-islamic group. (not as good as the Buddhists, Hindus, Hopi, Quakers, etc) But both intents were in the first century and they may have learned that that is really a bad thing to do. I hope so and am willing to say, give them a chance - another 100-200 years before we conclude its just another manifestation of what Joseph Smith called "an abomination to god" (an old official pamphlet I read, perhaps out of circulation now, from a missionary describing the other churches in the world).

But, if the catholic church came into UT and banned, by lobby, the use of contraceptives, would the mormons see that as true to the constitution? Likewise, if the mormons fund the prevention of legal and social protections of gays relationships in another state, it is fair to say that those people will feel that is not a true understanding of what this country is about.

I am unsure, how many black women have been governors of Utah? How about non-mormons? How about gay hispanics? How about any other non-mormon minority? How do you define control: military, economic, hegemony? I choose the last as most important. Mormon green jello does control Utah (and that reduce the rate of DUI and increases the rate of spousal abuse) and the mormon church is the major economic player in utah / in control (certainly chosen by god and the people of utah - the tyranny of the majority married to a church, hmmm have we seen that elsewhere? (and if the mormons choose to stop converting people, then I might believe that they don't want to have hegemony over the whole world, otherwise that is what you are engaged in - in a highly systematic way)

hariaum

So the assertion that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a power elite is based on how many LDS students attend Harvard University and how many Mormons work for the CIA. Care to enlighten us with exact numbers? What do these dastardly Mormons do at Harvard and the CIA?

I know. Mormons who are members of the "power elite" want to take over the world so they can force everyone to eat green Jello at all social gatherings.

The LDS church does not control Utah. The people who live in Utah, who vote, and who pay taxes control Utah. Certainly the Church has influence, since 70% of the population are LDS, but the idea that it "controls" the state is ridiculous.

The Constitution we have in the United States empowers the people and limits the power of the government. It says nothing about protecting minorities. I just wonder what planet you live on, because you apparently don't live on this one.

The LDS church control Utah, has members in the CIA, a large number of Harvard students... I am not sure how else you would measure power elite?

Yes I know about MO, but the governor did not just come up with an idea. He was guided by people who exercised free speech.

So how is it that the natives of Utah suddenly disappeared from their native lands?

How is it that mineral rights of UT belong to the LDS church but not the Utes?

But all that is beside the point.

The form of government that we have in the US is to protect the minority from the powers that be. Just because a person has power is all the more reason that we have to amplify the voice of the minority. Worship of power is that I can ramrod my ideas onto people who do not agree to believe what I believe. That is shear power. Not morality. Morality would be that you show the right way to live (choose the right) and be humble about it and not force people to accept your definitions of legitimate relationships. Money, church power, the ear of the emperor are power all ways to bypass the system - to buy access. The catholic church also did that. It seems that the mormons are following along?

When you seek the truth, begin by questioning everything you've been told.

hariaum

Navin1

It wasn’t “…a southern group…” that put out an extermination order against the Mormons. It was the governor of the state of Missouri. That makes it a criminal use of the authority granted to him by the people of Missouri, not free speech.

It should be noted that the Romans did the same thing to the early Christians. Seeing that they could not exterminate them they became Christian themselves in order to maintain control of the people. They had the audacity to call themselves the Holy Roman Empire (what a joke). The corruption ran amuck from there.

Like the early Christians, we Mormons do not seek power, but we do exercise our constitutional rights and encourage all people of the world to do the same wherever they live.

Vote your conscience.

Mark
Always seek the truth

The idea that free speech belongs only to the "little guy" is pathetic nonsense. Free speech rights are given to all regardless of wealth or status. The Constitution makes no distinction.

The Church has never engaged in coercing anybody to do anything. It certainly cannot be thought of as a "power elite", seeing that there are about 6 million Latter-day Saints in the U.S. out of a total population of 300 million.

At one time a southern group decided that the extermination of the mormons was a moral duty of the state and voiced their opinion and passed a law. Law abiding citizens could then kill mormons and did so. Do we support that freedom of speech now?

We are not supporting freedom of speech by allowing intolerance power. We support freedom of speech when the little guy can raise his / her voice to the power elites. The power elites (people with money and friends in high places) don't need more power. They need their power curtailed so the individual can be more free.

When a church joins the power elites to coerce its viewpoint onto non-believers, that is an exercise in power, not free speech, nor morality - see the koran or mormon activity in marriage laws. (That does not deny that churches want power, but it denies a moral foundation to what they are doing - except to the with us or against us mentality - the mono-ideologists.)

hariaum

I find brother Otterson’s column to be correct in its stand.

Anyone who tries to remove religious input in the political arena is eliminating a vast majority of the nation.

It is today’s blogs that allow soap-box loons a voice. Case in point: Schaum’s post on this blog.

Yes they have the right to voice their opinion, but those of us with more common sense need to stand up and voice our opinions as well so that the casual reader gets a balanced impression of the subject.

If we don’t do the same in the political arena, our representatives (and I use that term loosely) will not get the real stands of those they are supposed to represent.

Mark
Always seek the truth.

I was under the impression that Michael Otterson's columm was about the constitutional free-speech rights for religious leaders, not about healthcare reform. Did you even read the column?

Catholics Support Healthcare Reform, Including Coverage for Abortion

According to a new poll of Catholic voters carried out by Belden Russonello and Stewart for Catholics for Choice, Catholics support both a public option in healthcare reform and a plan that would include funding for abortion. The results show that the views of Catholics have been seriously misrepresented by the US bishops and by conservative Catholics in the debate over healthcare reform. A large majority of those polled, 84 percent, attend church regularly, from several times a week to a few times a year.

While Catholic voters are split on President Obama’s ideas for healthcare reform, they do want to see costs lowered and overwhelmingly support a government plan that would make health insurance available to the uninsured.

Large majorities of Catholic voters support health insurance coverage for abortions—either in a private or a government-run scheme:
when a pregnancy poses a threat to the life of a woman (84 percent)
when a pregnancy is due to rape or incest (76 percent)
when a pregnancy poses long-term health risks for the woman (73 percent)
when test results show a fetus has a severe abnormal condition (66 percent)

Opinion is split on whether insurance plans should cover abortion whenever a woman and her doctor decide it is appropriate (50 percent support and 50 percent oppose).

Catholic voters believe the US Catholic bishops are wrong on healthcare reform. Sixty-eight percent disapprove of US bishops saying that all Catholics should oppose the entire healthcare reform plan if it includes coverage for abortion and 56 percent think the bishops should not take a position on healthcare reform legislation in Congress.

This is a note to all those who post a comment on Michael Otterson's column: Assuming kjohnson3 continues the practice of posting only negative comments about the Church and its practices, you will be pretty safe in assuming that the opposite view is the truth. Kjohnson3 invariably describes the Church in terms that I, as a lifelong member, do not recognize.