During the primary season, several of us at FAIR were discussing the advisability of sustaining those whose ideas of good government are morally repugnant to us. My friend, Mike Parker, had made the observation that it was morally repugnant to vote to oppose sustaining, merely for political differences.
He’s right, of course. As a Democrat, my friend, Greg Kearney espouses views that I, as a libertarian-leaning Republican, believe to be dangerously wrong-headed. However, to my knowledge, he hasn’t engaged in criminal conduct, nor has he committed any serious sin that would disqualify him from any calling the Church chooses to bestow upon him. Indeed, the fact that the goal of his advocacy is to make the less fortunate better off, is a sign that, morally speaking, he is well qualified for any calling in the Church. Being wrong about good government–even dangerously so–is not a disqualifying factor when we consider whether or not to sustain a person in a calling.
This support should go both ways. Clearly, Greg shouldn’t (and he won’t!) oppose sustaining me for a calling because I disagree with his view that we should use the power of the state to make the poorest among us better off. Just because I oppose his proposed methods, it doesn’t follow that I oppose his goals. Indeed, I base my objection to the welfare state on a theory of the firm that I derive from Ronald Coase’s article, “The Nature of the Firm” (in the November 1937 issue of Economica), and on the concept of the “moral hazard.”
But what if those political differences are major crimes or (as the Catholics refer to them) mortal sins? Should we vote to sustain one who is a present day member of the Ku Klux Klan? I think not. The Klan is a terroristic organisation, and there is ample evidence where the proverbial “reasonable man” could not fail to understand this–unless, in a “Rip van Winkle” mode, he’s been asleep for the last century and a half! 😉
If we were in Helmuth Huebener, Rudi Wobbe, and Karl-Heinz Schnibbe’s Branch in World War II Germany, would we vote to sustain the Branch President, who was a Nazi–essentially a choice between killing our bodies and killing our conscience? SHOULD we vote to sustain him? As for me, I probably would have joined Brother Huebener.
If Hitler’s atrocities were apparent in 1943, they were less apparent in 1933. Even though Mein Kampf was a best-seller, I sincerely doubt that Hitler’s full intent was very apparent when he was first made Kanzler. As a comaprison, Rush Limbaugh (I am NOT likening Limbaugh to Hitler!) is America’s top-rated radio personality, yet his 13.5 million listeners are less than 5% of the American population. Is there enough readily-apparent evidence to warrant opposing Church leaders who were Nazis in 1933? Given this, I would conclude that, for a minority, yes–especially for those who read the book. On the other hand, I doubt that the remainder could have known in 1933.
For a more recent example, if a member agrees with Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan that the Bush administration illegally usurped power in 2000, then got the USA into an illegal war where millions of innocents were slaughtered, and these facts are and have been readily apparent to the proverbial reasonable man, then I would submit that voting to oppose sustaining those who still support President Bush is the morally correct thing to do. Similarly, I would think that those who honestly believe that Senator Harry Reid is a racist because of his insults to Justice Clarence Thomas (as James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal does) should likewise vote to oppose sustaing Senator Reid to a Church calling.
In the interest of full disclosure, even though I do not like Senator Reid or his politics, I disagree with Mr. Taranto’s conclusion. Thus, I have no problem sustaining Senator Reid for a Church calling. However, given the good Senator’s statements on the Iraq War, if he were to find out about my political stands, I would expect him to not return the favour. I object to him putting himself in a position where it could be said that he was lying to his constituents. 😉
As to mere political differences that have been criminalised, that is an exception to the exception. After all, Brother Huebener’s crime was merely a political difference with the Nazis.
***
UPDATE: Looking at the comments, I need to make a couple of clarifications:
1. There is a difference between voting to oppose a person for a calling, and not sustaining that person. The vote to oppose a person is NOT a license to not sustain that person, nor is it a forum to voice one’s dislike for that person; it is notifying the relevant authorities of a potentially disqualifying factor for the person who is called. Once a person is set apart, we should always do whatever we honourably can to help fulfill that callings. We have covenanted to sustain people in their callings; we cannot (and should not!) get around that. Scott, of course, is right to say this.
2. As I stated above, my colleague Mike Parker and commenter Chris H. are quite right that mere political differences are insufficient to disqualify people for callings. To qualify for an opposing vote, a person must have political views so extreme as to constitute a serious crime or a grave sin (For example, one that may be actionable in a disciplinary council.).
A hat tip to those who have commented thus far.
“Similarly, I would think that those who honestly believe that Senator Harry Reid is a racist because of his insults to Justice Clarence Thomas (as James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal does) should likewise vote to oppose sustaing Senator Reid to a Church calling.”
I am pretty sure that nobody “honestly” believes that. Since I despise Scalia even more, I must be anti-Italian American.
“if he were to find out about my political stands, I would expect him to not return the favour.”
Since he likely know most of the political position of many of his co-workers, do you really think that Harry Reid opposes most of the callings in his ward?
Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan? Plenty of people feel that way about the war effort. You make it sound as though only strange extremists do. Impressive use of the straw man tactic.
If I only sustained those that agreed with my political views, I would rarely sustain anyone (though I would still be able to sustain my current bishop). When called to my current position, I was curious if anyone would opposed me because of hostility shown towards my liberalism. Of course, I had nothing to really worry about. Good thing the gospel is true.
God is neither a Republican or a Democrat. Those are philosophies of man with no saving power.
Do I refuse to sustain a member who is a libertarian because he feels that prostitution should be legalized?
Do I refuse to sustain a member who is also a John Bircher?
Do I refuse to sustain a sister as RS president because she is a well-known gossip and back biter?
I really want to know your thoughts because I have faced all of these.
I always reference the story of Lucifier in the pre-existence as a guide when trying to understand the behaviors of others, particularly those in politics.
For example, does Harry Reid believe he know what is best for all of us? Does Harry desire to use his own personal power and/or the power of the state to impose upon a free people his notions of a perfect world? Does he desire glory and recognition in any form (money) for performing this great deed?
How does this square with “I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves – J. Smith Jr”.
Who hasn’t known or heard of the Stake President who imposed on members of the stake his view of a perfect world by adding questions to the temple recommend interview. Contrast this with the SP who seeks to change the members of his stake with a lot of love, patience, and long suffering.
Floyd, I sympathize with you. It must have been uncomfortable moment hearing the announcement of the call and trying to figure out what to do. I had a similar experience, it was announced that the new 2nd counselor in the Bishopric would be an brother in my Elders Quorum (I was the quorum president at the time). This brother had a serious W of W problem. In those few seconds before the sustaining vote I had these thoughts. The Bishop and Stake President knew of this brother’s problem, I loved both the Bishop and SP and sustained them in their callings. This was a decision between them and the Lord. A peace came upon me and I was able to sustain the call.
Some who do not understand the Church would probably call me a mind-numbed robot. However, I have always sustained people in their callings and I intend to always do so. The simple reason is that I fully believe in the concept of revelation. If Jesus Christ wants a particular person in a particular calling, then who am I to question it. This means I also believe the person Jesus put in the place to extend the calling was put in that position because Jesus wanted them there. To me, it’s really that simple, regardless or my politics and other people’s (wrong) politics.
Hi Chris H.
You said:
**I am pretty sure that nobody “honestly” believes that.**
You may be right, but I tend to take people at their word.
**Since I despise Scalia even more, I must be anti-Italian American.**
Believe it or not, there are some who would actually take that position, or one similar to it. During the 2008 GOP primaries, some Latter-day Saints viewed opposition to Governor Romney as anti-Mormonism. No doubt some was (witness Bill Keller at http://www.liveprayer.com); but certainly some was not, as you suggest. I know a man who opposed his pro-Iraq War stance. While I did vote for Governor Romney, I had problems accepting his Massachusetts health care plan–to the extent that I was thinking of voting for Senator Fred Thompson.
**Since he likely know most of the political position of many of his co-workers, do you really think that Harry Reid opposes most of the callings in his ward?**
Good question! 😉
I sincerely think that Bishop Reid’s Ward has a similar political demographic to the USA as a whole, if not to major cities (which skews sharply Democratic). Given this, there are probably only a handful of people who holds political views like mine–or Justice Thomas. It is a very simple thing to *not* receive a call at the Ward level. But that is OK, for two reasons: 1) A Bishop has every right to call people with whom he is comfortable–or at least not call those with whom he is UNcomfortable, and 2) I can use the time off from my callings in the Bishopric and as employment specialist, and, when needed, impromtu assistant Ward clerk! 😉
Whether he does so, of course, is between him and the Lord!
**Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan? Plenty of people feel that way about the war effort. You make it sound as though only strange extremists do. Impressive use of the straw man tactic.**
If I did use straw men, it was unintentional. While I have extreme distaste for their views, I do take them very seriously. Perhaps being in academia, I am used to being around people with such views.
I also understand that Sheehan and Moore’s views are now mainstream in the Democratic party, which, if the political futures market is accurate, is becoming so prevalent in the USA, that the Congress will have enough votes to rid itself of Republicans. This, of course, makes ME the “strange extremist”! 😉
**If I only sustained those that agreed with my political views, I would rarely sustain anyone (though I would still be able to sustain my current bishop). When called to my current position, I was curious if anyone would opposed me because of hostility shown towards my liberalism. Of course, I had nothing to really worry about. Good thing the gospel is true.**
Oh, I’m not advocating THAT! I agree that opposing a person merely because he’s in the other political party is wrong.
The question is _not_, “Should a person feel free to vote to oppose somebody whose views are different?” but “Should a person feel free to vote to oppose somebody whose views are so extreme as to constitute criminal activity or malevolent sin?”
To me, it’s not enough to have differences of opinion; I refer to advocating actual evil.
As I stated in my blog entry above, I would sustain my colleague Greg Kearney in any calling in a New York second–and I think he would do the same to me. My question is only about sustaining those whose views are so extreme as to constitute a crime or a very serious sin.
You are right; the Gospel is true! For the record, I would be glad to sustain you, even if your views do differ from mine.
By the by, my wife is a Clinton Democrat. I sustain her too! 😉
Hi queuno!
Agreed.
I suspect that both parties have enough evil in them for God to dislike them both! 😉
Sometimes, I wonder if the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ approach to politics might not be the right one! 🙁
Hi Floyd!
In order:
1. I would probably oppose the libertarian prostitution advocate, though I could imagine some instances where I _would_ sustain–particularly if his advocacy is intended to avert a probable worse evil.
Similarly, I can see where one could oppose a person who advocates civil unions for homosexuals, on the grounds that the Church has told us to oppose them. On the other hand, if the only alternative is gay marriage, then, of course, I would sustain that person for trying to get as much of the Church’s stand realised as possible.
Does that make sense?
2. I would sustain the Birch member. His views may be nutty, but nuttiness, per se, is not a moral failing, and is thus an insufficient reason to oppose sustaining.
By the by, I would also sustain the MoveOn.org member, for the same reason.
3. I would vote to oppose the gossip and back biter. A Relief Society President must be able to maintain confidences. Gossips are notoriously unable to do so.
I refer you to a friend’s blog entry at http://wendyusuallywanders.wordpress.com/2008/04/30/i-learned-something-new-tonight/. She has some interesting things to say about the subject. 😉
Of course, if they were installed anyway, I would sustain them all, as I have covenanted to do so.
Hi Dave and Scott!
The logic of your comment is unassailable. Se my update for further comment.
Steve,
I knew you were not advocating that, it just got me thinking. You stated quite clearly that you did not sustain on political lines.
I teach at university with a very right wing student body. I think that the extremes that I see (and read in papers) sometimes jades my view of the right.
As an Obama Democrat, I would sustain your wife, though with reservations. Thanks for the thoughtful response.
Hi Chris!
You said:
**I knew you were not advocating that, it just got me thinking. You stated quite clearly that you did not sustain on political lines.**
I see. Well, that is the purpose of the blog entries! 😉
**I teach at university with a very right wing student body. I think that the extremes that I see (and read in papers) sometimes jades my view of the right.**
Funny; I thought the same thing among some of my colleagues on the left in grad school! 😉
Unfortunately, not thinking is a universal malady! 🙁
What subject do you teach? I teach econ, finance, and stats (and sometimes international business).
**As an Obama Democrat, I would sustain your wife, though with reservations.**
I can understand the reservations with me, but with my WIFE? I am curious; is it because she married me, or it is because, as a Clinton supporter she’s not liberal enough?
Or were you just kidding and forgot the smilie? 😉
**Thanks for the thoughtful response.**
You’re welcome!
Thanks for the feedback!
I was just kidding about the Clinton vs. Obama tensions of the last year. I will remember the smilie face next time.
I teach political science. My primary area is political philosophy (particularly the work of John Rawls).
You see, there is a real problem with all this. It is called ‘procedure’ which is just another way of saying “goofing”. The goof is on us. These voting procedures and the protocol of the Congress is nothing more than a way to slow things down. The power and greatness of “being there” requires that nothing get done. These are not reformers bent on getting the work of legislting solutions accomplished, these are just more bureaucrats making everyone think they are busy. Whatever happened to Robert’s Rules of Order. Mormons groups often count only the no votes. It works well and has for nearly two centuries. This hair splitting on whether a member is an “oposing” vote or not just amplifies my concerns. A vote not to sustain is a vote in opposition to whatever is to be sustained. If it is a “no”, “abstain” or “present” than it doesn’t help so it must be an opposing vote. Instead of us even having to deal with this, we should vote the 2 by 4: you take an 8″ long pine 2×4 and address it to the member of Congress, write the address in indelible marker and affix a 42 cents stamp. Don’t forget the return address. One presumes after they mailroom complains enough, the jerks will start getting to work!
Hi Chris!
Sometimes we forget those smiley faces–and that it is impossible sometimes to tell whether a person was joking.
I am familiar with John Rawls’ book, A theory of justice. I use his definition of efficiency in my economics classes in contradistinction to Vilfredo Pareto’s.
While I can understand (and sympathise with) Rawls’ desire to help those who are worst off, I observe that in practise, others are either ignored or harmed–sometimes to the extent that they are made even worse off than our worst-off, before we intervened. That is, to paraphrase Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, whenever we raise up somebody, we must be careful that we aren’t lowering somebody else to a point that is lower than the first person’s original state.
Do I make sense?
Hi mormonwidowsandorphanssociety!
I’m not sure what your point is.
The Church is not a democracy (though there are democratic elements!), and our “sustaining votes” are not elections. There is a reason that we only count “No” votes (We don’t just count them, we find the reason for them.); It is an opportunity for the membership to notify authorities of any possible disqualifying factors. There is no other significance to “No” votes.
By the by, that is also the reason why “No” voters aren’t punished for refusing to support their leaders.
I can also understand frustration with the US Congress. How many members of Congress (especially in the minority party) have access to pending bills, let alone read them? In 1995, Congress passed a law requiring all bills to be published on their Internet web site, for all to read. Things have changed since then….
Still, in my observations, government officials are usually no more evil than we are. How many of us support legislation to take from Peter to give to Paul?
I can recall only one occasion where I refused to sustain a call. I did so because the young man in question had confessed to me that he had been regularly sleeping with a girl the previous summer, and I could not be certain my bishop was aware of this.
I can recall only one occasion when I walked out on a speaker in Sacrament Meeting. His talk had degenerated into an anti-Reagan diatribe that would have been completely inappropriate in Sacrament Meeting no matter what politician it was targeted against.
My experience is that Church members who take political views I find repugnant are almost never evil. They are, at worst, mind-bogglingly stupid, but I don’t believe that’s a disqualification for service in the Church.
Floyd, I’d sustain every one of the examples you gave, with the following qualification on your first example: If the libertarian wanted to legalize prostitution because he disbelieved in the law of chastity, rather than because he thought criminalization was bad policy, I would want to be very sure the authority calling him was aware of his views before I sustained him.
It is a terrible thing to seek to criminalize policy differences, in the manner of some extremists on the Left who speak of trying Bush for treason. I think it is also a terrible thing to seek to demonize policy differences, which is what it would amount to if a member chose not to sustain someone because he supports Bush.
I guess that means I would feel obligated to sustain Huebner’s branch president, in spite of his political support for Hitler — at least until he began engaging in acts that went beyond political support, such as expelling Jews from his congregation (as he was reported to have done) or requiring members to give the Hitler salute in church (as he was also reported to have done.) By analogy, if a presiding authority here, today, were to to start handing out Obama buttons — or McCain buttons — to ward members as they came to church, or expelling illegal immigrants or members of the military from the congregation, that would cross a line where I would be likely to refuse to sustain him.
Hi Kent!
Welcome to the fray! 😉
You made some very good, well thought-out comments, which I’d like to address.
You said, “My experience is that Church members who take political views I find repugnant are almost never evil. They are, at worst, mind-bogglingly stupid, but I don’t believe that’s a disqualification for service in the Church.”
That is my experience, too.
You said, “Floyd, I’d sustain every one of the examples you gave, with the following qualification on your first example: If the libertarian wanted to legalize prostitution because he disbelieved in the law of chastity, rather than because he thought criminalization was bad policy, I would want to be very sure the authority calling him was aware of his views before I sustained him.”
An excellent distinction! Good catch!
You said, “It is a terrible thing to seek to criminalize policy differences….”
I agree. We should only criminalise wickedness.
You said, “I think it is also a terrible thing to seek to demonize policy differences, which is what it would amount to if a member chose not to sustain someone because he supports Bush.”
But what if you honestly thought that President Bush’s behaviour fit the definition of treason, as stated in the US constitution? Under those circumstances, would supporting him not be tantamount to supporting treason?
You said, “I guess that means I would feel obligated to sustain Huebner’s branch president, in spite of his political support for Hitler — at least until he began engaging in acts that went beyond political support….”
Let me see if I understand you: You would not vote to oppose people merely for belonging to disreputable organisations; however, you would vote to oppose those who join in their organisations’ disreputable activities. Is that right?
For example, if Senator Robert Byrd [D-WV] were a member of the Church, and still a member of the Ku Klux Klan, you would vote to sustain him, unless you were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt he joined in the lynchings of Blacks, the shooting of civil rights workers, the bombings of Churches, and/or cross-burnings-as intimidation of non-KKK members–on others’ property! Does this properly illustrate your view?
“But what if you honestly thought that President Bush’s behaviour fit the definition of treason, as stated in the US constitution? Under those circumstances, would supporting him not be tantamount to supporting treason?”
Leaving aside the clear language of the definition of treason given in the Constitution — which was specifically formulated to rule out political differences as a form of treason, and which I believe cannot possibly be stretched to cover any President in my lifetime — treason is not transitive. Even if Bush were arguably guilty of treason, his supporters might not believe so, and I would not feel justified refusing to sustain a Bush supporter in a Church calling. In fact, the thought simply appalls me. This would be equally true if we were speaking of an Obama supporter three years from now, when there will doubtless be those who accuse him of treason based on their profound disagreement with his policies. Or at least I would like to believe I am that fair.
“Let me see if I understand you: You would not vote to oppose people merely for belonging to disreputable organisations; however, you would vote to oppose those who join in their organisations’ disreputable activities. Is that right?”
We were talking about political differences. If we are now expanding the discussion to membership in disreputable organizations — including the one in your example that follows, the KKK, which is not a political party — then we are having a different discussion.
Also, I never mentioned “beyond a reasonable doubt” as the standard of proof in such matters. I think you’re extrapolating what I wrote a bit.
Were I to suggest that a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard applied anywhere to this issue, it would be to the calling authority asking for my sustaining vole. If I had relevant information which I had good reason to think the authority did not — such as that the nominee had been sleeping around, as in the case o the young man I mentioned earlier — I would feel a duty to call that information to his attention before giving my sustaining vote. Otherwise, I would feel obligated to extend the benefit of the doubt to the authority making the call.
Hello again, Kent!
**Leaving aside the clear language of the definition of treason given in the Constitution — which was specifically formulated to rule out political differences as a form of treason, and which I believe cannot possibly be stretched to cover any President in my lifetime — treason is not transitive.**
I agree. I’m doing a “What if….?”.
**Even if Bush were arguably guilty of treason, his supporters might not believe so, and I would not feel justified refusing to sustain a Bush supporter in a Church calling. In fact, the thought simply appalls me.**
As it does I–not only for a Bush supporter, but a Bill Clinton supporter, as well. Or for either man, should he be baptised into the Church.
Moreover, we have covenanted to sustain people in their calling.
As an aside, even though I have problems with President Clinton’s behaviour and policies, I am singularly disgusted with efforts of venom like The Clinton Chronicles, which accuse him of all manor of evil, like murder and drug-trafficking. THOSE people (if Church members) I would refuse to vote to sustain, because of their defamation of President Clinton’s character–unless, of course, they repent.
Or is it that you implying “I would not feel justified refusing to VOTE TO sustain a Bush supporter in a Church calling” [Emphasis Steve’s]?
What if you sincerely believe the President (of either party) to be supremely guilty of treason, and that treason is patently obvious to any clear-thinking person–would you refuse to vote to sustain the President, if he were a member of the Church–or supporters who are, even though they should see that treason as clearly as you?
**We were talking about political differences.**
Please forgive me for not being clearer. What I am asking is if and where a dividing line exists between mere political differences and gross sin.
If all of the leaders of the old USSR were members, I could see myself voting to sustain Mikhail Gorbachev, but I cannot justify voting to sustain Yuri Andropov, even though I have the same political differences with both men; my problem is in Mr. Andropov’s APPLICATION of those political differences.
Do I make sense?
**If we are now expanding the discussion to membership in disreputable organizations — including the one in your example that follows, the KKK, which is not a political party — then we are having a different discussion.**
Please forgive me again. I was trying to bring the examples “closer to home.” I live in the US South, and, during the “Jim Crow” era, the US South was dominated by the Democratic Party, which, in turn, was dominated by the Klan–at least in the Bible Belt. This was so to such an extent that to even vote, one had to be a registered Democrat, and to hold office, one had to also be in the Klan–with some authority. This, of course, explains Senator Byrd’s membership in Klan leadership when he entered politics back in the 1940’s. Would his effective
representation of Klan interests from the 1940’s-1960’s merit an opposing vote, if he were a member at that time?
Does this clarify what I’m aiming at?
**Also, I never mentioned “beyond a reasonable doubt” as the standard of proof in such matters. I think you’re extrapolating what I wrote a bit.**
Please let me rephrase. I mean that when asked to vote to sustain a person in political office, you have evidence of such a nature, that, when you give Church authorities the evidence, they logically conclude that the line between political differences and gross sin has been crossed.
I think, though, you answered my question with this:
**Were I to suggest that a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard applied anywhere to this issue, it would be to the calling authority asking for my sustaining vole. If I had relevant information which I had good reason to think the authority did not — such as that the nominee had been sleeping around, as in the case o the young man I mentioned earlier — I would feel a duty to call that information to his attention before giving my sustaining vote. Otherwise, I would feel obligated to extend the benefit of the doubt to the authority making the call.**
I agree. To justifiably refuse to vote to sustain, one must have REAL evidence of REAL gross sin.
Peace!
Steve,
I think your analogy to Gorbachev versus Andropov is a good one. It is particularly interesting given that Gorbachev now claims to have been a closet Christian all those years.
I suspect we are not far apart politically, though perhaps this is not the forum to explore that. I’d love to exchange views privately on which politicians we find loathsome and which I do not, and why. [email protected].
One thing we should keep in mind is that raising our hand to sustain a person in a calling is not (1) a vote as to whether they are qualified for the job or (2) a vote for whether we think it was the best call. We are agreeing to help them, to sustain them in their righteous endeavor to magnify the responsibility given them.
Given that every person holding a calling in every ward is a sinner and will be to the day they die, I think we should avoid worrying over what they might believe, politically, and simply labor to help them in their calling.
Kent G. Budge wrote:
**I think your analogy to Gorbachev versus Andropov is a good one. It is particularly interesting given that Gorbachev now claims to have been a closet Christian all those years.**
Thanks for the compliment. I was trying to come up with scenarios we could identify with. I think we can agree that the dividing line between political differences and evil lies somewhere between those two men. Where does Mr. Brezhnev lie in relation to that line?
**
I suspect we are not far apart politically, though perhaps this is not the forum to explore that. I’d love to exchange views privately on which politicians we find loathsome and which I do not, and why. [email protected].**
I think we’re fairly close, as well. See my blog entries at:
http://www.fairblog.org/2008/01/17/nephite-money-and-coinage/
http://www.fairblog.org/2008/03/06/why-not-all/
That should tell you about my political views…. 😉
Part of this exercise was to try to see things from my political opposites’ angle.
While Cindy Sheehan and Representative Dennis Kuchinich may be nutty, at least their stands are consistent with their weltanshauung. On the other hand, though she sounds more “sane” than the hard Left, Senator Clinton appears to be trying to reconcile her political base with reality–and failing. 😉
Of course, this is also on email.
Russ writes:
**One thing we should keep in mind is that raising our hand to sustain a person in a calling is not (1) a vote as to whether they are qualified for the job or (2) a vote for whether we think it was the best call. We are agreeing to help them, to sustain them in their righteous endeavor to magnify the responsibility given them.**
I agree. That is part of our covenant.
**Given that every person holding a calling in every ward is a sinner and will be to the day they die, I think we should avoid worrying over what they might believe, politically, and simply labor to help them in their calling.**
That is quite true, but isn’t there a line where normal sin gives way to sin that disqualifies one for a calling? For example, I wouldn’t want to vote to sustain somebody I know to be a child-molester as a Primary teacher!
I suspect that the line falls well short of my example.
There’s a great contrast between Saul of Tarsus, and Paul the Apostle. As well as Alma the Elder and Alma the Head of the Church.
I wonder when you Mormon Democrats realize you’re consenting to the death of unborn children, and enable it for voting for members of that Party, not unlike Saul consenting to the death of Stephen, but, of course, never “actually participating.”
And you make excuse for it despite Mormon claiming those who do less – who die thinking little children having need of baptism – will go to hell.
How about receiving at the day of judgment that which you meted out to your fellow men – the burden of taxes – referred to as being immoral in the Book of Mormon.
Yeah. Being a Democrat means caring for the poor, but consenting to legalized wickedness.
Democrats:
2 Nephi 15:23
“Who justify the wicked for reward….”
Ether 9:11
“Now the people of Akish were desirous for gain, even as Akish was desirous for power; wherefore, the sons of Akish did offer them money, by which means they drew away the more part of the people after them. ”
How’s that Free Money from Obama working for you?
Steve:
And what would you do if you should move to a Democrat-dominated Ward–should they have the right to oppose YOU because you allegedly care so little about the poor, that you refuse to allow the government to help them?
Hey, “what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.” If you are right to oppose a Democrat for a calling because most of them are pro-choice, then they can oppose you because we are supposed to help the poor–NOT prevent others from helping them!
Mind you, I think it folly for the state to aid the poor, but mere political differences are NOT sufficient to oppose sustaining them in a calling. Conduct must actually be unquestionably grossly sinful–like advocating the “Jack Kevorkian treatment” for those who oppose the President’s socialising medicine.
Something you seem to do in reverse.
Steve Danderson,
That is a ridiculous comparison. The government is not the only way to “care” for the poor. In fact it isn’t caring if you have to steal people’s money in the form of taxes to do it, and it is not the proper role of government; which is to protect the people from others using force to take their life, liberty, and property, and not use their (the government’s) legal force to act as the criminals.
In other words, people don’t become Democrat because THEY want to take care of the poor, but because they want someone else to, and so they don’t have to feel guilty when they pass someone by. Like Scrooge said in so many words, “Aren’t there any poor houses? Why are you asking me for money?”
But, the biggest reason they become Democrat is because they want to be taken care of. They want all the “free” stuff.
onika says,
Oh, I agree. Government is not only not the only way to care for the poor, it is a very clumsy, inefficient way.
But that wasn’t my point. My point was that if Steve were to pronounce Democrats evil for disagreeing with him, what’s to stop THEM from returning the favour in areas where their view predominates?
This isn’t all that far-fetched, onika. While most Utah Mormons are conservative Republicans, the majority of Latter-day Saints are not only not in Utah, they are not in the USA. And the rest of the world tends to view Mr. Obama–who is extreme left by USA standards–as rather conservative.
For the most part, I agree. And that IS a real danger: trusting government to care for the poor is, at best, like using a thermo-nuclear bomb to crack an egg; and, at worst, systemically inverts the Gospel, making theft an act of caring, and refusal to steal into something evil.
Oh, I wouldn’t say THAT, though I admit that incentives for just that sort of attitude is high, indeed!
More likely, Democrats and Socialists simply see government as an institution where large quantities of resources are easily amassed; and it is easier for institutions with lots of resources to care for the poor than it is for individuals with considerably fewer resources.
Their problem is not that they don’t want to help. They DO give substantial amounts to charities like the Sierra Club and CPB, though such charity IS dwarfed by giving by conservatives. Rather, their problem is that they just don’t see beyond “Stage One,” and thus, they utterly miss the dangers of using a unit of force to amass resources to help the poor.
This is a problem with the head; not the heart.
Do I make sense?
Steven Danderson says: