A recent article of Time magazine, “Mad Man: Is Glenn Beck Bad for America?” has brought to the surface a tension between liberal and conservative Latter-day Saints. The reason: Brother Beck is not only militantly conservative, he is also blatantly LDS.
Liberal Latter-day Saints are up in arms about the fact that Beck opposes President Obama’s signature policies: the stimulus, the federal takeover of General Motors, and “Universal Health Care.” What’s more, Beck takes issue with Obama’s supporters calling the opposition liars and racists. Beck has turned the tables on them, though, labelling their gratuitous use of the word, “racist” as racist, too.
Liberal Latter-day Saints want to run Brother Beck out of the Church for that, saying that his conduct is unacceptable. I can understand that, but what do they make of LDS Senator Harry Reid labelling President Bush a liar, a loser, and a war-monger? Should Bishop Reid be excommunicated as well, or is it wrong only if the target is liberal? I ask that question in reverse to conservatives who want Senator Reid excommunicated, but say “Amen!” to Glenn Beck: Isn’t Beck’s attack on President Obama VERY similar to Senator Reid’s?
There are those who are consistent is their damnation; they think both Bishop Reid and Brother Beck have cast the Church in a bad light–and should suffer the consequences. While I applaud their singular standard, I wish to take a more merciful approach. In the USA–and in the Church, people are free to act like buffoons. Though such behaviour is certainly not optimal, nor is it what is expected of saints, buffoonery is neither an excommunicable offence, nor a disqualifying factor for any calling in the Church–or for a Temple Recommend. In fact, I have no problem sustaining either of them for any calling the Lord and His local or general authorities see fit to issue to them.
About a year and a half ago, my colleague, Greg Kearney, wrote a blog post titled, “I am a Democrat.” He says he is a Democrat because they feel the responsibility to care for the poor. As a Republican, this rankles me a bit, because of the implication that non-Democrats don’t feel that responsibility. If any of the Democrats actually feel that way, I would suggest that they have no business sustaining Republicans for callings. Ditto for Republicans who think that Democrats intentionally wish to take property and freedom from others.
However sincere such a feeling is–in either direction, I would submit that it is grossly wrong headed–at least in the USA:
The root of the word “liberal” is the Latin, “liber,” or “free.” That is, the aim of liberals is to spread freedom. Conservatives, on the other hand, see to “conserve” what is best of a culture’s traditions. What, then, is the American tradition about? The spread of freedom–under God.
Thus, one sees that both American liberals and American conservatives are working toward the same end. Liberals found that they could not spread freedom without conserving it first, and conservatives found that the best way to conserve freedom is to extend it.
We find, then, that it was a liberal, Franklin Roosevelt, who is best remembered as a conservator of freedom–in World War II, against the likes of Hitler and Tojo. And it was the conservative, Ronald Reagan, who did most to extend freedom. Ironic, no?
The rub lies in the fact that liberals and conservatives not only emphasise different traits of freedom, they have different means of carrying out their aims of extending freedom. The reason I am a conservative is that in my judgment, conservative emphases and means are usually more effective at extending freedom. Ironically, often even liberal emphases are extended this way.
A bigger problem is that over the past several years, the concept of freedom itself is being redefined; in my observation mostly on the leftist, or liberal side, though there is also redefinition on the conservative, or rightist side. Perhaps that springs from what economist Thomas Sowell calls “A Conflict of Visions.” In my observation, liberals tend to agree with John Rawls’ Theory of Justice, while conservatives adhere more to Vilfredo Pareto’s definition of economic efficiency: That we should endeavour to make people better off, without making anybody worse off–not unlike the Hippocratic Oath’s, “Do no harm.”
While I suppose that this “Conflict of Visions” makes those holding to Rawls’ theory of social justice to militantly oppose those who adhere to Pareto optimality–and vice versa–it makes no sense–with some exceptions–to believe that the other side is evil merely because their definition of justice and efficiency differs.
Some people might think of me as a “liberal” Mormon, and the problem i have with Beck isn’t that he opposes some “Obama policies,” but that he so often does so in a divisive, ranting, blood-boiling fashion. He is not a uniter, he is a divider. He speaks to a niche audience. He endorses books that I believe represent horrible scholarship. He comes across as arrogant, dismissive, and sometimes even downright worthy of ridicule. His recent conspiracy theorizing on architecture and art is a good example. His calling Obama a “racist” is another good example.
My comments don’t represent FAIR, but I do volunteer for FAIR, and I don’t care for Glenn Beck’s programs.
BHodges:
And the problem that many people have with Obama is that he is being too divisive. Look at all the outrage is over-reaching agendas during a recession have created. Looks quite he’s being just as divisive as Beck, if not more, because it’s in HIS hands, unfortunately, that our futures lay, and not with Beck’s.
To assert that we liberal Mormons don’t like Beck because he’s conservative is disingenuous on your part. It’s his lunatic rants, his stupid tears on air, his intellectual dishonesty, his (picture) books, and his general divisiveness. Sure, some conservative Mormons might have some bad things to say about Reid, but you seriously can’t compare the two. Becks bombastic and idiotic style is an awful embarrassment to Mormonism.
No one on either side has clean hands. For every “Obama is racist” comment from the right, there’s a “teabaggers are racists” from the left.
I think Beck is more amusing than dangerous. He regularly goes on TV and makes a fool out of himself by saying outrageous things. He draws a typical audience of about 3 million viewers, which translates to 1% of Americans. His supporters are noisy, but few.
The recent advertising boycott instigated by ColorOfChange.org throws an interesting wrinkle into the situation. Will FOX continue to run a (relatively) popular show even when most of its advertisers have bailed? I suspect they will.
It takes a lot of courage to do what Glenn Beck does and he takes a lot of risks. Any person with a sense of honesty should be dismayed at the things that he brings up, not that he does. If they are not true how come that all these czars’ heads are falling down and ACORN is in bad waters? Is it divisive to raise your voice against dishonesty, corruption and extremists? Doesn’t Obama bring up the race card everytime he speaks? You can be divisive and offensive even when you measure your words and Harry Reid has said many offensive things and in more than one occasion. I definitely do not agrree with Harry Reid on many things, not necessarily agree with Glenn Beck on everything but feel closer to him in ideas and beliefs.
I think Beck is attempting to be H.L. Mencken to Obama’s Teddy Roosevelt. In the media, sometimes it is the loudest voice that makes a difference. The ACORN and Van Jones events show that the major media is not doing their job, as they have been cheer leaders, and not playing their role in watching government with a cautious eye. They’ve forgotten the good Woodward and Bernstein did in 1970s.
So, we have a huge niche for someone to play the role of Mencken: shrill and loud, obnoxious and terse. But as bad as it sounds, that role needs to be played to ensure government does not trample on us. Glenn Beck does what he does because it is needed, and no one else is doing it. And since he stands alone, he has to shout so much louder to be heard.
Harry Reid, OTOH, is Senate Majority Leader. He has cameras focused on him all the time. To call Pres Bush a liar or an idiot, in front of school kids only harms the office of Senator. He is to work on issues, not on personalities.
While neither needs to be ex’d by his stake president, both need to review their roles and how to perform them. I’d say that Beck performs his role as needed, while Senator Reid has hurt the office he is in by doing the same thing.
As for freedoms, I agree that both Republicans and Democrats seek freedom in different ways, while also seeking to curb freedoms in other ways. Perhaps they both need to look again closely at the Constitution and reconsider just what they are trying to do. By the time they both have their turns on the American people, there won’t be many freedoms left at all.
“I ask that question in reverse to conservatives who want Senator Reid excommunicated”
That only makes sense if their reasons are the same, which is in no way a given. (In fact, I’ve never heard this criticism of Harry Reid used to justify such an end.)
I suspect that inasmuch as you have failed to grasp the root of the conservative dissatisfaction with Harry Reid, while you yourself claim to be a conservative, you have likely missed the point with the liberal dissatisfaction with Glenn Beck. (Being a conservative, I can think of no reason to excommunicate either of them, though I am deeply dissatisfied with Harry Reid.)
Really I don’t think many conservatives or liberals really take time to sit down and think about the fundamental reasons for their respective dissatisfactions, but if it comes down to boisterousness, then when needs to dig a little deeper to come up with something of actual substance. (I imagine there are probably quite a few who are that shallow.)
“or for a Temple Recommend.” Though, theoretically, affiliating with an organization that has teachings or practices that are contrary to the teachings of the church, should be enough to disqualify Democrats, as a practical matter, this issue seems to be governed by the Church’s stated political neutrality. (See 2008 Democratic Party Platform, page 52 for one significant case in point.) As an aside, back before polygamy was ended as a practice, the Republican party was the major persecutor and would have qualified even more handily. To that extent, I think there are too many people who treat their parties like baseball teams, without any real reason behind their choosing one or the other.
Personally, I root for the Republicans, though I voted for an Independent in the last election and registered as an Independent. I root for them because of their platform, and I didn’t vote for McCain because he didn’t support it. (I unregistered from the party to express my dissatisfaction with the party leadership’s neglect of the platform, which I have read. I highly recommend any member to read what they have putatively signed up for and see how much they really agree with it.)
The difference between the parties has absolutely nothing to do with taking care of the poor, as you have rightly implied. However the difference between liberal and conservative is also not what you have implied. “Liber” means free and as an adjective, “liberal”, it refers to a person who is himself (or herself) free, and open. The implication is part of the reason why many people have been duped into thinking that self-proclaimed liberals are more caring of the poor. The freeness and openness referred to, however, are actually with regard to the issue of change. Liberals are putatively more accepting of “innovations” whereas conservatives putatively are not.
Now, as used in the political spectrum, these linguistic realities are perhaps overgeneralizations when used as political labels. To some extent we would do better to dispense with the prescription of definitions and give more thought to creating a definition that describes the actual political feelings.
Anyhow, the point is, the labels really have nothing to do with popular freedom as you have wrongly asserted and the remainder of your analysis falls flat on its face except in the consideration that for those people who have been duped into framing the question in the way you have, the substantive issues have been obscured enough that it begins to make sense to treat political parties as baseball teams, whereby all perceived zealousness redounds to nothing. (And indeed, I begin to think that party leadership treats my favored party as a baseball team, whereby the party *does* become superfluous, in the practical sense, despite the theoretical difference.)
If your premise was correct, I might agree with your conclusion, but this is just another poorly thought out “can’t we all just get along”.
I think, as Mormons, we should all agree on some ground rules: none of us like being told what we believe from somebody who disagrees with us. Those posting on the FAIR blog should understand that as well as anybody. I don’t think very many liberal mormons, if you asked them, would agree with your characterization of their position, that “Liberal Latter-day Saints are up in arms about the fact that Beck opposes President Obama’s signature policies.”
Please, ask the Liberals (or moderates like me) why they are up in arms about Beck, and don’t put words in their mouths.
Why any of you are democrats or republicans baffles me and defies logic. Find a political party that actually stands for something other than bowing to the whims of corporate and special interests.
I haven’t read the previous comments yet, but it’s ridiculous to want to run someone out of the Church because of their political beliefs; it’s none of anyone’s business. We aren’t asked, when we are baptised, if we will support a certain political party.
The definitions of liberal and conservative have changed; conservatives supported the king, and liberals were for limited government. Now the definition is reversed, although “conservatives” are becoming more like “liberals”, giving government more power. Libertarian/Objectivist is the best position.
Rameumptom:
Calling Beck a modern Mencken is an insult to Mencken. Beck has neither Mencken’s sharp wit, nor his intellect. Beck is nothing more than a cheap entertainer.
(And I suspect Mencken could spell “oligarchy.”)
Most conservatives would agree that most liberals are “sincere” in their beliefs and desires to make life “better” for all (i.e. the common man), but the problem is is that most liberals have no concept of the “consequences” of their policy’s.
Just look at any liberal city or country, and you will see more poor, more separation between the rich and the poor, you will see public services as low, you will see the quality of life as low, etc. Pick any conservative country or city, and you will see that ALL classes benefit, much less poor, better quality of life, less taxes, etc. etc.
There is another problem….. There used to be primarily Democrats and Republicans. Yes there were the other odd group, and some liberals were in the Democrat party. But, both party’s used to be primarily conservative, that’s because conservatism is what made this country it is, capitalism, freedom, etc. etc. Liberalism was always a “perversion” of that which is good and right, because its cousins are socialism, communism, and fascism.
Just look at who loves Obama and Hates Bush primarily in the world. The Venezuela dictator loves Obama, hated Bush, all the other dictators also were loving Obama, but hated Bush. Of course, to be fair some are starting to dislike Obama some now because of his slightly strong military and anti-nuke views.
Anyway, it’s not that we have different “visions” of the same thing, the problem is that Liberalism is a “perversion” of the Lords Ways. It’s the same reason why Communism/Marxism is a perversion of the United Order. Just because there is some good ideas and some similarity’s doesn’t mean the product as a whole is actually good and right as a concept or for people at large.
It breaks my heart that any Latter-day Saint could be so blind to willingly be a liberal. I mean goodness, liberal owned groups/company’s here in Las Vegas have stopped all support of the Boy Scouts making the Church having to be the primary supporter. And no, it’s not just the economy, that was just an excuse so they could finally do what they were wanting to do all along. Or take the abortion issue, that’s actually a platform of your party now. And you think your a good mormon by being a liberal especially??? Or what about gun rights? Being anti-gun is a platform of liberalism, and you think your a good mormon???
Liberalism is anathema to righteousness and freedom, and it is anathema to the Restored Gospel of Christ. The Gospel of Christ is primarily about helping people help themselves, not simply handouts or stealing money from others to do it, or taking peoples rights away.
I’m also disappointed by the moral relativism mormons who are liberal also display.
I mean, believing Beck is immoral simply because he really cares and is passionate about the truth and right, yet Reid or Obama are not immoral simply because they talk “nice” and “calm”.
I mean, Beck and other conservatives show all over the place how Obama, Reid and other’s are not moral, and are not good American’s etc. by their own words, their own actions, and their own associations. Yet, Beck and conservatives are immoral for showing the truth, and sometimes being angry that such MALARKEY is being tolerated due to political correctness.
Liberals, communists, socialists used to be marginalized in this country for a reason, now because of political correctness they are mainstream, and they have taken over the Democrat party, and YOU ALL wonder why conservatives no matter the party are ANGRY???
Shame shame shame….. 🙁
Too leeuniverse:
I agree, totally. I know some members of my ward that are liberals and I agree with you that they are honestly “sincere” in their beliefs and desires to make life “better” for all (i.e. the common man),as you said. Unfortunately I have scratched my head over and over again about many moral issues like abortion and traditional marriage that they tend to overlook in the name of other “important” issues like the environment, the redistribution of wealth etc. I believe it is an oxymoron. I agree with your analsys and I have come to the conclusion that it is almost impossible to find a common ground. Only when the church steps in and makes an official statement the discussion is over if not for the fact that a few prefer to walk away.
We’re getting some good comments! 😉
BHodges says:
And this differs from Senator Reid’s “divisive, blood-boiling” rants against President Bush and Justice Thomas…how?
Maybe–but to run him out of the Church?
Good point! Neither do mine! 😉
Iamse7en says:
Not quite right. Our futures are in God’s hands. At best, President Obama is only an instrument.
You are right, though, that while Beck is a public official, Reid is an United States Senator. The “higher” office means more responsibility.
Adam says:
How does Beck’s bombastic style differ from Senator Reid’s pugilistic comments about Justice Clarence Thomas, which caused non-LDS observers to wonder whether Reid’s comments were symptomatic of endemic Mormon racism [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41933]?
Is conservatism the new unpardonable sin?
Mike Parker Says:
I agree. If we’re going to drum Glenn Beck out, to be fair, we should do likewise to Harry Reid.
Too bad we often cannot see the evil on our OWN side!
In a way, Reid, too, has a “niche audience”–and, like Beck, he has a core constituancy to satisfy.
Nevada’s population is dwarfed by Beck’s audience, though.
The difference, however, is that while Beck cannot harm me (If I don’t like what he says, I can merely turn him off with the remote.), Senator Reid’s decisions may mean that I lose liberty–or life.
I understand that many “participants” in the boycott are merely switching to other time slots to avoid being boycotted themselves. It is not unlike major corporations giving megabucks to BOTH political parties. I don’t like it, but I can understand it.
Mike,
I’ll bet Teddy Roosevelt would have equated Mencken with the likes of Beck. It all is in the perspective. Mencken was a rabid thorn in Roosevelt’s side, and many people didn’t like how he spoke of the president. They also disliked his attacks on FDR concerning the New Deal, a REAL big issue for a libertarian like Mencken. But he continued castigating presidents that he felt were increasing government. And he was not kind in his tone. The only difference is that Beck has airwaves, and not just a newspaper article.
Teddy Roosevelt was the progressive, and Mencken was the media’s libertarian. Talking of TR, Mencken wrote,”I believe in only one thing: liberty; but I do not believe in liberty enough to want to force it upon anyone.” And that was one of the nice things he said.
Reviewing several Roosevelt biographies in 1920, H.L. Mencken reported that he had found more “gush” than “sense.” Mencken compared him to a longshoreman who was eternally engaged in clearing out barrooms.
Mark Twain thought that Roosevelt was a clown who had not matured beyond age 14. So, maybe Beck is closer to Twain?
The point is, society needs rough and tumble media types, to ensure government and the powerful do not become the robber barons of our day.
The problem doesn’t lie with Senator Reid nor with Glenn Beck. They are both standing up for what they believe. The constitution we believe is a devine document gives them that right. If you disagree with what they say, then tell us why. Stop with the rants from either side about shutting them up. There are 300 million people in this nation and there is no way we are all going to agree on any one thing let alone the myriad ideas and concepts it takes to run a nation. The Federalists almost destroyed our nation in it’s infancy with the Alien and Sedition Act, which did what folks are trying to do today, trying to stifle competing opinions. Stop trying to shut up folks who have chosen to get involved and get involved yourselves in standing up for what you believe.
I’m confused as to why I can’t point out the embarrassing behavior of Glenn Beck without someone saying how embarrassing Senator Reid or Nancy Pellosi or someone else is. Tu quoque isn’t an effective rebuttal. And why are we talking politics like this on the FAIR blog anyway?
BHodges,
Well, it is fun to read.
Those who are Democrats or Republicans or…, whether or not they agree with the entire platform of their respective parties, lend some direct or indirect support to every plank in their party. They should therefore be actively engaged in ensuring that their party represents them as exactly as possible.
This is why I have a problem with Senator Reid. Especially as the Senate Majority Leader, he represents and leads the Democratic party, and I have not heard him speak out enough, if at all, as a government official, against those issues which his party supports which the LDS Church holds to be morally wrong.
Mr. Beck, though occasionally over the top, has no public authority other than being a notorious political commentator. Yes, he needs to be aware that some people will view him to be a “representative” of the Church. But many things he brings up are valid points not discussed elsewhere in the media.
I hope that there are enough LDS people on the local level shining their lights that the Church will be seen based on its membership as a whole and not due to one individual or another.
As a non-party-affiliated, pro-environment conservative libertarian, I believe, as ‘Leeuniverse’ mentioned above, that our mandate to help others is based on personal freedom and personal responsibility, not to be forced by government. It’s a case of “Not one shall be lost…” vs. free agency and moral responsibility, IMHO.
With regard to the (valid) robber barons comment above, I add a quote: “Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” C. S. Lewis
God bless our nation, and those who seek to do right. May the righteous prevail independent of party or popularity.
Well said Kevin… I like how you demonstrated how one power (i.e. the government) trying to force everyone to be “equal” is no different than satan’s desire in the pre-mortal realm when he promised God that he could “save” everyone. Boy, that sounds familiar doesn’t it with liberalism?
The focus should be to give everyone equal opportunity, not to make everyone “have” the same. Free Agency is key to the Father’s plan, and government getting involved in all aspects of life is usurping that agency, i.e. to big to fail. It also shows the hypocrisy….
If liberals actually believed in a better life for folks, they would have let private institutions fail as they deserved to fail, and instead gave money to the people directly, similar to what Bush did. Of course, that’s not really the best thing to do either, but it shows who “really” cares about the little guy (of course, I understand that a lot of liberals didn’t really like this either). Also the hypocracy, they will die to save an animal from dying, but they won’t lift a finger for a child in the womb. Then they don’t want a 2 inch fish in the Bread Basket of the World in California to die, but they are willing to make a 100 farms barren and a 100,000 farmers, farmhands, and their family’s to be out of work and starving all to save that fish. Don’t tell us liberals “really” care about the little guy. Fruits tell us different.
Like I said, I know liberals are sincere, but there is a psychological and mental disconnect that they simply can’t understand the consequences of their views. Take the wars as another example. Ya, we don’t want war, but fight it to win it as soon as possible. This political footing around and/or being opposed to the wars does nothing but make it last longer, and kills more American’s and other innocents. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars should have lasted likely only 4 years if American’s had actually been united to do the job.
And whatever happened to giving our life for our brother being among the greatest acts of charity? Our American brothers, and our Arab brothers, or are they not worthy of our blood? Sure, maybe things wouldn’t be perfect, but couldn’t they likely have changed to be more perfectly and definitively if America was really united?
Anyway, I’m so ashamed of my liberal brothers, and so sad that I actually once voted for Harry Reid, he seemed nice, seemed like a good mormon, etc. But, sadly that was before I actually knew who he was the things he has said and especially said after, etc.
Well, in the end…. What has Glenn Beck ever said that was actually false? (and don’t give me the honest rare error either) What has he said that is actually false or immoral??? But compared to Obama and other liberals etc., there is a LOT that is a problem.
Glenn Beck is a danger to the Republican Party and to the conservative movement. Joe Scarborough and David Frum are just two of the latest conservatives to decry his hate speech.
I’m finding this article and comments very interesting – thanks !
I’m in the UK so can’t make any informed comment (the only thing I know about Glen Beck is that he’s LDS 🙂 ). It is very interesting tho’ to hear these comments / thoughts. In the UK Bush got some very bad press, and honestly it’s pretty challenging looking in from the outside to understand why so many Latter-day Saints are Republican. So as I say I really am appreciating the education !
One question (a little off topic): leeuniverse lists being “anti-gun” as being contrary to LDS doctrine (if I’ve understood his comment correctly). Is that a generally held view in the US ? Intuitively the opposite seems true ? (We have very different laws in the UK of course. As a result the idea of owning a gun seems pretty abhorrent to me.)
Thanks for the comments.
SteveB –
I’m sure you find this back-and-forth interesting, and even entertaining! However, don’t be confused by those who assert that within the Gospel context, there is only one true political philosophy. Some here might try to persuade that only American neo-conservatism is consistent with eternal truths. That position would likely be enthusiastically rejected by the late President James E. Faust, or Elder Marlin K. Jensen (1st Quorum of Seventy/Church Historian), or Elder Steven E. Snow (Presidency of the Seventy), prominent Utah Democrats all. The Prophet Joseph’s famous statement that “I teach correct principles and allow them to govern themselves” seems like a good standard for those of all political persuasions who are tempted to believe that controlling behavior is a permanent solution for any social ill.
I have never endured an entire Glenn Beck show, although I have tried. I would like to understand why he behaves as he does. Like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, I assume at least some of his bombastic showmanship can be attributed to the very large income he derives from being controversial, so I try to make allowances for his excesses. As a lifelong member of the Republican party, what I cannot accept is the utter lack of civility demonstrated by the loudmouths of the far right. And please, no more sticking out our lower lips and pouting “they did it first”. Since when did gentlemanly manners and open-mindedness become signs of weakness rather than statesmanship? I suppose my real lament is the absence of any real leadership from the intellectually-stunted elected representatives of American conservatives. We are reduced to being led by rabble-rousing showmen.
I think calls to run Beck out of church are basically a backlash from Mormons who are tired of idiots at church claiming you can’t be a good Mormon and a good Democrat at the same time.
I grew up in Provo, Utah and this linking of left politics with evil was very, VERY prevalent and extremely oppressive.
So, I imagine that now that some left-leaning Mormons have found a haven where they can have their say without being shouted down by some pig-headed local High Priest, they naturally want some payback.
Not the most Christlike course of action to be sure. But I also think that right-wing Mormons are just reaping what they sowed here.
Politically, I am the far left of the bloggernacle and I have been arguing against those who want the Church to distance itself from Beck. All are welcome.
Now, this does not mean that I do not argue against his views and tactics (and as an extension those of Skousen). Yet, I am not one to argue that he cannot hold those views as a Mormon. Such arguments tend to be silly and mean.
I think that liberals have a diverse number of perspectives. As far as I know, I am the only LDS Rawls advocate (others on the left seem to be more communitarian or postmodern that I know of). I am writing my dissertation on an LDS perpective on Rawls (more specifically an LDS-Rawlsians interpretation of LDS social gospel). I will be blogging about this soon, so keep an eye out.
Thanks for this post. I think it is a very important topic right now in the Church. It does sadden me to see some who do not accept their brothers in the gospel because they have a different view from their own. I have found some interest in learning about politics and church doctrine and I would guess that you would not find consensus among the brethren on many issues and that is probably on purpose. I have been reading about when the Prophet Joseph Smith ran for President of the United States. Some of the things I find interesting is that he said things like the only reason he was running for president was because he wanted to protect innocent people in their rights. He said he had never received a revelation on politics and he had never asked for one. In his platform he called for a national bank, which may have grown out of his Kirtland experience and the instability experienced there. Prison reform, he wanted to turn them into centers for learning and to release most of the inmates. He wanted to admit Canada and Mexico to the union if they requested to be admitted. He wanted to end slavery by paying the southern slave holders with the sale of public land. He wanted to give the President powers to suppress mobs, and a few other progressive reforms. I think that if the Prophet never received a revelation on politics while running for president we can probably conclude that no one else has either. There has been a fairly wide spectrum of political opinion in the Church among the brethren. I think it is fine to have an opinion and to share it and to even try and convince others of its correctness. But I think we are wrong if we feel we are speaking for the Church. The Church has reinforced over and over again it neutrality on political issues and has said that principles of the gospel can be found in many parties and that we should seek to establish socialites that our in harmony with the teachings of Christ. I think we would do well to re-read Elder Eying talk from last conference when we deal with differences of opinion in the Church. That we should look for those things we have in common and not let our pride or feelings of superior intellect get in the way of treating each other as brothers and sisters.
The “intellectual disconnect” as mentioned above is not a “liberal” problem. I swear reading these comments make me think I am in Bizarro world. The president who did the most damage to the Constitution was Bush. Domestic spying, suspension of Habeous Corpus, torture for starters is why I can never be a Republican. You realize that the Republican platform on abortion is even more restrictive than the Church’s? Beck is a loudmouth liar whose only goal is to create devisiveness and contention. Good luck with him as your leader.
BHodges asks:
What I’m after is consistency. Hypocrisy goes both ways–and I’m trying to show that.
If we’re going to damn one, let’s damn them all–or, as I asked earlier, has blatant conservatism become the new unpardonable sin?
Note that I also asked that question in reverse: Why is Glenn Beck OK but not Senator Reid?
The politics is incidental to my point: What do we do with Latter-day Saints who use their God-given freedom of speech in a manner which we find repugnant?
Politics just seems to be the subject that is repugnant, though it affects Latter-day Saints of differing political convictions differently.
KevinB and Tom Goudie and others seem to understand.
Andy says:
I HAVE asked them. My wife is a Clinton Democrat who voted for Obama last November. As an academic, I work with others. Note that I’m not saying that EVERY liberal is like that–but many of them are.
You are right that some are up in arms, but for different reasons–some slightly so, others substantially so. Some even aren’t mad at all. My wife happens to be one of them. But then, we have both met Brother Beck–and like him–personally! 😉
But, of course, that does NOT mean that either or both of us AGREE with him, every whit! 😉
We may disagree with–even dislike–Brother Beck or Senator Reid, but that does not give us the right to figuratively hoist either on the most convenient yardarm–unless they venture from loud, possibly stupid opinions to gross sin. See my post here: http://www.fairblog.org/2008/07/18/sustaining-evil/
Chris H. says:
I’d like to read them both. Even though I have serious problems with his concept of justice, it is only “FAIR” to give him–and you–an honest hearing! 🙂
ScW Says:
Many of those things–and others–started in the Clinton Administration–or earlier, and many Bush policies have continued in the Obama Administration. Bush had also undone some diminutions of rights done by Presidents of BOTH parties. I shan’t go into detail here, but let it suffice that, as I said above, both parties have differing concepts and emphases on the subject of freedom–and both have differing ways of conserving and extending it.
And the Democratic abortion platform is DRASTICLY LESS restrictive. Your point is?
You are free to have any opinion about Brother Beck as you wish. But he is NOT a leader in the GOP, nor is he a leader of his listeners. He is just a man who says things that a LOT of people agree with. However, if you find him repugnant, you are free to use the remote.
On the other hand, I am not as free regarding Harry Reid. HE IS our leader in the USA, though I can neither vote him in or out. First, he was elected US Senator by citizens of Nevada, and then elected to lead the Senate by his fellow (Democratic) Senators. If Reid wants to force opponents to listen to him all he needs to do is to convince his followers in the Senate to pass a law to that effect–at which point, I must either comply, or have my property, liberty, or life taken.
Glenn Beck simply does not–and cannot–have that type of power–and I’m glad of it, even if I do agree with much of what he says! 😉
That is the nature of government: The use of force in such a way that the sovereign (in the USA, us!) sees fit.
Jesus had something to say about today’s subject: “he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention” 3Nephi 11:29
SteveB,
The concept of right to bear arms is based on the God given right to defend one’s life, liberty, and property. Our Founding Fathers knew this was important to securing our rights from the force and tyranny of a corrupt government (and any other criminal).
People need to quit looking at parties and look at what the individuals stand for. The R and D parties are both corrupt, and just because someone is R doesn’t mean he’s for less government, and just because someone is D does not mean he’s for more government or abortion, (but you would wonder why they’re in that party).
The best radio station to listen to is Accent Radio Network (AM 1480 in Utah) starting at 6:00 a.m. 😉
Gary:
What can I say, but, “Amen!”?
We may find something that some LDS public figure says or does–but does that give us the right to judge him or her?
My reading of Matthew 7:1-2 says not.
If that is accurate, why not leave judgment to God?
Onika:
While that may be ideal to vote for the candidate and not for the party (I’ve even done it occasionally! 😉 ), it certainly is not feasible all the time. Who has the time and resources to study the policy positions and record of EVERY candidate for EVERY office that one can vote for in one’s area?
I suspect very few. Hence, in a very real sense, those party affiliations may just cut the cost of information. On the whole, who will rightfully dispute that a Democrat President and Congress governs markedly different–for good and ill–than a Republican President and Congress?
I join Chris H as a Rawlsian because when I read the D&C I can not help but be overwhelmed by the scripture declaring that we are only as good as a church, as a community and as a society, as the poorest among us are treated. I do not think that everyone in todays society can be equal, or forced to be made equal, but I think that a society must ensure that the least well off are given a basic minimal standard of care (this would include health care, social security, unemployment benefits and a living wage).
I am especially sickened by the comments made by leeuniverse:
First of all, he suggests that liberal cities are so much worse off than conservative ones. I have no clue where he gets his data from, but the last I checked, Boston had the lowest divorce rates, very low crime rates and many other figures that show it to be one of the best urban places in the country to live. Conservative areas in the south in particular tend to have the highest violent death rates and highest divorce rates as well as higher rates of “social ill” such as Abortion.
I personally refuse to let my political decision making on the national level by hijacked by an evangelical religious right that frankly would like nothing more than to impose their theology on a national level to the exclusion of LDS citizens as well. I am disappointed time and again when so called ‘LDS’ libertarians make bedfellows with organizations that have shown a desire to strip away the basic foundations of our modern liberties. These social issues are diversions from the most important issues that divide us.
Brothers Beck and Reid both have the right to speak out politically and nothing they have done or said makes them any less a member of this great and pluralistic church. That members of the same church that imposed some of the most tolerant protections for members of different faiths in Nauvoo, and decried the notion that there was a specific ‘Mormon Creed’ would today declare that there is only one correct way to be a Mormon is anathema to me.
I am profoundly happy that Brother Beck found the church. From all indications, such as this fantastic piece on Salon The making of Glenn beck , Glenn’s life was transformed fundamentally for the better through his conversion. Before finding it, he was at rock bottom and it seems like the church in many ways saved his life and marriage. All of things I dislike about him including his histrionics and lack of care for facts would be probably WORSE without the values of the church in his soul. We are a church not for perfect individuals, but precisely for flawed individuals to make themselves better.
Aida Says:”It takes a lot of courage to do what Glenn Beck does and he takes a lot of risks.”
I’m not exactly sure what he is risking. I liken it to those in hollywood who make Gay friendly or other “Risk taking” movies. These people rarely take risks, they know what will make money or what will not.
There are several people who broke ground for Beck to be where he is. These people include Limbaugh, O’reilly etc. Becks risks are few.
Also, I have yet to meet anyone who has asked that Beck or Reid be exed or otherwise removed from the church roles.
leeuniverse:”Just look at any liberal city or country, and you will see more poor, more separation between the rich and the poor, you will see public services as low, you will see the quality of life as low, etc. Pick any conservative country or city, and you will see that ALL classes benefit, much less poor, better quality of life, less taxes, etc.”
Are we supposed to just take your word for it? What evidence to you have to back this up?
“Liberalism is anathema to righteousness and freedom, and it is anathema to the Restored Gospel of Christ. The Gospel of Christ is primarily about helping people help themselves, not simply handouts or stealing money from others to do it, or taking peoples rights away.”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! (That’s all I have to say about that)
I too believe that both sides of the coin are often (not always) sincere about their convictions. I see gospel principles at work on both sides. Here’s how I see it. One of the basic tenants I’ve learned in all my years in the church is the dichotomy of justice and mercy. Both are eternal laws and both are good. As I see it, conservatives are often champions for justice while liberals are champions for mercy. This isn’t always the case as conservitives are often merciful to big business while liberals call for justice.
Anyway, that’s how I see it.
“This isn’t always the case as conservitives are often merciful to big business while liberals call for justice.”
What about small businesses? And the liberal Obama sure helped BIG business didn’t he?
Anyway, have you ever noticed that we pay way more taxes than the Israelites did? They only paid ten percent of profits to their theocratic form of government, while we pay 10% income tax to the church government and another 10-35% income tax to the secular government, plus all the other taxes we pay. I believe also, the people that paid tithing were the ones who owned property (businesses), not their servants (wage earners). When the sheep multiplied, who paid a tenth of them, the owners of the sheep or the workers who took care of them? (I could be wrong.)
This is my first contact with this blog,linked to me, an “unaffiliated” Obama supporter, by one of my conservative friends. In fact all my friends are conservative, and honestly, they treat me with all the love and respect that they would show to any back-sliding Jack Mormon: lecturing, even hectoring, about the immorality of my politics; using gentle reason and gentle persuasion; politely dropping the subject when I don’t rise to the battle. Even my children and their spouses, I’m sure, pray for my conversion. Perhaps they share the view of Sean M. Cox (Sept 26) that I will, or should, be denied access to the Temple of the Lord.
My Catholic parents taught me that its considered rude and even perilous to bring up religion, money or politics in a conversation. I never really understood why, because those are usually pretty interesting topics. But now, I can see by trends in modern media and elcetronic conversation that it becomes difficult to practice and exhibit verbal restraint when passions begin to run high.
As I was going to say before I so clumsily interrupted myself, I believe very strongly that it would behoove us Latter-day Saints to bring our standards of courtesy toward one another outside the chapel and into our public discourse. We are called to be a priestly people, to minister to the world, and I don’t see how this will be accomplished if we behave unseemly toward one another. We discredit ourselves and our political opinions by engaging in loud laughter at the expense of those anointed by the shared oil of belief and covenant, and it matters not whether we have a podium of television broadcast, the US Senate floor or the company lunchroom.
Or conversely, if I am to be expected to endure shaming and ridicule from my brethren during Sunday School for my civic style, I should be able expect to hear a Praise Choir at Sacrament Meeting every once in a while. There are times when I fervantly desire to call out “Praise the Lord” or “Amen, Sister” during a fine talk or testimony. Why do I restrain that impulse? Because we have a specific economy of courtesy in Utah chapels. Perhaps it is different in branches in other places I have not been priviliged to visit. We don’t all have to “all get along” as one blogger disparagingly put it, although why that should be a scornable goal is beyond me.
I am merely suggesting that we observe some of the same rules were we taught in Kindergarden: Take turns. Don’t interrupt. No name-calling.
Steve Danderson suggests that “If any of the Democrats actually feel that way, I would suggest that they have no business sustaining Republicans for callings. Ditto for Republicans…”.
This is just about the silliest thing I have ever heard. Does anyone recall ever hearing from the pulpit, for example, “All those in favor of sustaining Sister Bertha Jones, a Republican, as Relief Society pianist, by the usual sign…”. And what business is it of Church members to attempt to pry into the voting behavior of fellow Church members?!
How can the religious virtue of either Glenn Beck or Harry Reid be called into question, for having made political rants that are no more enthusiastically divisive than Brigham Young’s?
Steven, while I am impressed by your relating the difference between American conservatives’ and liberals’ worldviews to Pareto efficiency theory and Rawlsian fairness theory, I question whether using a dictionary definition of “liberal” as being descriptive of modern American liberalism.
From my perspective, it appears to me that about the only freedom liberals care about anymore is sexual liberty. Other freedoms can go by the boards.
I prefer to measure liberalism and conservatism by their most thoughtful adherents. American conservatism is animated by a conviction that the basic premises of the American founding — consensual government, constitutionally limited government, the impartial rule of law, latitudinarian faith informed by reason — are absolute truths, and can be adapted to modern problems without substantively altering them.
The modern liberal consensus — dating back to the Progressive movement, with its influence from Bismarckian statism — is that these values are more or less obsolete. Self-government must not just be cabined by objective Constitutional limitations — it ought to be further reined in by a judicial elite applying a “living Constitution” whose meaning is nothing more or less than what the judges say it is.
The idea that the Constitution imposes any real limitation on government is met with a bemused chuckle; how can we make a fetish of the Commerce Clause when we’ve got a Depression to deal with?
The idea that law should be impartial is met with the mockery (originating with some French guy or other) that the law in its magnificent equality forbids the rich as well as the poor to steal bread, and the corresponding notion that the government ought to actively advance the interest of some groups at the expense of others.
Maybe the liberals are right, and the Founders’ consensus really is fundamentally obsolete. Their best thinkers haven’t convinced me yet. And it’s unlikely that their best thinkers have a substantive voice anymore; it’s much easier just to call me a racist teabagger and leave it at that. In that environment, if Glenn Beck wants to take some cheap shots at the cheap shots on the other side, it’s fine with me.
One issue yet to be brought up is the issue of charity. Evidence shows that the more largesse given to the people by the government, the less charitable the people are.
Point in fact is the 2004 tsunami. While all nations in Europe donated money, as did the US Government, the American people out donated all donations from governments. And they donated more than all the European nations did combined.
What will happen to the USA if we become a European style nation? Will individuals stop donating and being charitable, because they will now see it as a responsibility of government to do?
And as for Joe Scarborough railing on Glenn Beck, I watch both of them, and enjoy both. Scarborough has railed on Beck some, but I think it is mostly just for the Fox/MSNBC ratings war. When Beck outed ACORN and Van Jones, Scarborough admitted that Beck and Fox News did something that no one else was doing. So it slices both ways.
The danger in radical Congressmen is that their vote counts. They hold huge amounts of power, especially now that Senators are no longer beholden to their state legislatures. The media does not hold such power. They hold the power of the people, to help us ensure government does not become corrupt. And if the media turns from the people’s attack dog and becomes the government’s lap dog, then it isn’t doing its job.
For every Glenn Beck that attacks both Democrats and Republicans, there are 4 or 5 Katie Courics that are in the pocket of the Administration. We need the few attack dogs out there to ensure government stays “of the people, by the people, for the people.”
Daniel Ortner, if you fault G. Beck for an alleged lack of care in facts, how on earth can you let slip a whopper like this one:
“Conservative areas in the south in particular tend to have the highest violent death rates and highest divorce rates as well as higher rates of “social ill” such as Abortion.”
Behold, thou hast committed statistical fudgery. Quiz: What demographic is disproportionately present in many southern counties, and is also consistently near the top of the list in various social pathologies like violence and abortion?
Hint: The demographic consistently gives Democrats between 80-95% of its vote.
Horribly racist of me (according to the now-meaningless liberal definition of the word) to point this out, to be sure, but you force my hand.
After hearing Pres. Hinckley’s ruminations about the decline of the American empire, I found it instructive to review the Book of Mormon:
“The Isaiah quotations that Nephi selected form the basis for his prophetic blessing but also reiterate the social and economic principles characterizing Yahweh’s people. Isaiah emphasizes that those who seek wealth and ignore the poor are departing from Yahweh’s ways (2 Ne.15). Social egalitarianism froms a cultural and political principle of Nephite thinking that endures through Mormon’s concluding chaper….I suggest…that Nephi understood Isaiah to have preached such social justice and that the failure to live those principles was related to the Israelites’ demise, the lack of Yahweh’s protection from the invading Assyrians and Babylonians. In the New World, Nephi intends to create a society modeled on the prophetic and social justice principles that would assure their divine protection…the times when the Nephites are most in danger of extinction are those when they have abandoned these social principles”.
– Brant S. Gardner, “Second Witness: Analytical & Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, Volume Two, pp 16-17.
I do enjoy these blogs. I have been a life long conservative republican. I have recently joined the democratic party not so much because a philosophical change of heart but because i honestly believe we need more democrats in the church in the west. My contention is with those that believe you cannot be a mormon and a democrat and be a candidate for the celestial kingdom. Just some example that that is not true are my uncle who was a life long democrat. Voted that way up until Clinton and I believe he would of voted for Oboma if he was still alive. He served 3 international missions for the Church and at his funeral three members of the 70 spoke and they read a leader from the first presidency praising his life. I heard from Wayne Owens one of our democratic congressmen shortly after he returned from serving as a mission president, and who voted for some programs that many on the right would consider, “taking away our free agency” that He had spoken with president Benson about his supposed comment that you cannot be a democrat and and a good member of the church, and President Benson told him “I did not mean a democrate like you”. At Wayne Owens funeral President Hinckley spoke and called him “a man of peace” among other things. At my at my wife’s Uncle funeral, an other life long democrate, President Monsen spoke and said somewhat along the lines that his sacrifice would qualify him for the celestial kingdom. There could be many other examples. I think that the discussion on this board is fine, but I agree that we need to treat each other with more respect. The thing that I have against people like Glen Beck is that they seem to infect people with a feeling of self righteousness. I am sure the left has plenty of people that do the same also.
A pet peeve of mine — I can’t stand the term “social justice.” To me, there is just “justice.” Whenever an adjective is appended to a universal virtue, I have a suspicion that it’s an effort to dragoon the universal virtue’s weight into service of a particular ideological agenda associated with the adjective in question.
Thus, “Support card check as a matter of social justice” is stealing a base — implying that only by supporting a particular political choice (as to which, truly, people of reason and good will can disagree) can one satisfy one’s obligation to seek justice.
It is the pomposity of people who try to pull this trick that grates on me the most. I’m sure if I lived in Utah, I’d be annoyed by the “You can’t be a good Mormon and a Democrat” business. (I know too many decent Democrats, including a couple of Mormon ones, who give the exception to my general rule that Mormon Democrats tend to combine the self-righteousness inherent in both tribes.) But I don’t live in Utah, and so most of the self-righteousness I get (apart from that which I generate myself, which is plenty) comes from the other side.
N.B. I may be an odd duck here, as a “religious liberal” (i.e., skeptical and accordingly latitudinarian), but morally and politically conservative. I agree with the Church’s position on Proposition 8, for example.
Reality check ahead.
With all the talk on this blog about Republicans vs. Democrats, I would politely remind everyone that the LDS Church exists in 176 nations and territories. In each of these nations Latter-day Saints are a minority of the overall Church membership. This includes the United States of America where American Mormons are a minority of the overall Church membership. Even if the political notions of the Glenn Becks and Cleon Skousens of the world were accepted by every single breathing American Mormon and they all voted their convictions, they would not be the mainstream of Mormons’ political preferences.
Ken Kyle, that’s a good point, but America is still Rome to the modern world, and Americans still overwhelmingly fill out the ranks of LDS church leadership. Whether the political preferences of those leaders reflect those of the overall membership doesn’t change the fact that to the extent political considerations interact with LDS Church governance, it’s largely American political considerations that dominate.
Ken Kyle says:
That assumes that all non-USA Mormons are liberals–which is as unlikely as all USA Mormons being conservative! 😉
So, assuming that Utah voting patterns are similar to USA LDS political preferences (roughly 3-2 right of centre), and that non-USA Mormons are as less conservative as a whole than USA LDS as non-Americans are than Americans, we know next to nothing about whether conservatives are mainstream among the LDS.
Steve G says:
Indeed, they do. When I was a graduate teaching assistant in the NEA, I was quite often accused of being heartless because I favoured private entities administering assistance to the poor, rather than government welfare.
Now that I think of it, there is another difference between liberals and conservatives, though clearly, both desire compassion to the poor. Conservatives tend to favour private, especially ecclesiastic efforts to aid the poor, and define compassion by how much one gives towards those efforts, while liberals tend to favour government efforts, and define compassion to the poor by how big a government welfare budget one advocates.
Rameumpton says:
There is an interesting book by Arthur Brooks, titled, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compasionate Conservatism Who Gives, Who Doesn’t, and Why It Matters [NY: Basic Books, 2006]. Perhaps the figures that Brooks finds are reflected by the differing measurement of compassion….
Talking about notions like right of center and left of center are nonsense — even if the media love these shorthand terms. “Left” and “right’ go way back to the French Parliament and have little relevance today. The present Conservative Party in Canada, for example, which had its main genesis in the old Reform Party was pilloried unmercifully by the media for being right wing, conservative and that sort of thing. Yet one of Reform`s main initiatives was critisizing the governing Liberal Party for not putting enough public resources into our publicy funded healthcare system. Staunch support of government funded healthcare would not be understood these days as being a `conservative` platform in the Wasatch Front. Glib references to right and left do not make a lot of sense outside the U.S. (or inside, for that matter).
Unfortunately I am not aware of any polls gauging LDS political views outside the U.S. — we just have to guess via reading blogs, news article etc. This would be worthwhile research though.
I agree that things would be best if all the worlds problems were taken care of by individual charity and Christ like love, but do you feel it is possible for the government to do some worthwhile things to benefit its citizens that are not being done by private individuals? I personally think that is possible, though i believe that they could be done better by individuals that had the spirit of God. I also believe with John Addams that our government is only made for a moral people. it may be so that as we become more self centered and immoral that government will have to step in and try and correct some wrongs.
Steve G asks:
Actually, there ARE some thing government can do that normal people cannot–at least as easily:
1. They can provide protection from foreign and domestic predators.
If armies run roughshod over the USA–or a nation with which its people does business, our people are made worse off. We can’t very well buy things we want from Upper Slobovia if Lower Volta invades it time and again. :-O
It is the same with domestic predators. Ms Jones will make fewer trips to the store if doing so means that she will be mugged!
2. Government can do an EXACT administration of justice.
This means that government cannot seize Ms Kelo’s house and give it to Corcoran Jennison. This also means that Chicago cannot seize Walmart stores and give it to ACORN. Without secure property rights, people may still risk but that risk will be less–and we will be less better off. Property rights must be secure for all–not just the poor. Any government that can run roughshod on the rich will have an easier time doing it to the poor.
3. Government can have stable and standard weights and measures.
Just try stealing a moving second base! 😉
More seriously, if measures aren’t stable, people’s ability to plan is cut down.
4. Government can reduce “transaction costs.”
While this encompasses #2 and #3 above, it also means that government can reduce uncertainty by providing SOUND information. This reduction of uncertainty makes it less costly for people to engage the “animal spirits” that make us all better off.
A good example of this in action is California’s requirement for service stations to prominently post prices. People can see the prices, and choose to shop there, next door, across the street, down the road, or even to hold off their purchase altogether.
I have a reservation about your last sentence, though. A government of the people is usually no more righteous than the people themselves–and thus its intervention is often just as bad–though possibly in a different way; or even makes the problem worse.
Do I make sense?
“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.” -Thomas Jefferson
People have the wrong idea about right and left. Right is anarchy (no government), left is government owns/controls everything (we are slaves). I would say our government is becoming fascist right now trying to control and partly own business. fascism=corporations keep the profits; tax payers take the losses. Communism is just a more violent form of socialism.
Remember government is the legalized use of force so they have the advantage over the regular criminal.
onika:
“We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man…”
– D&C 134
What about government providing services to the mentally ill or providing services for children of drug addicted parents such as foster care and other help?
Kyle,
I’m not for anarchy, but limited government. Notice the only way to be fair and just and have equal rights is with limited government i.e. the protection of life, liberty, and property. Once you start providing property (health care, housing, food) you automatically treat others unfairly/unequally. Those charitable services are only charitable if done of one’s own free will, and should be done by those who want to, such as churches and other charitable organizations, of which there are many. Education can also be provided the same way.
Ken,
Though governments are set up (instituted) for man’s benefit, it doesn’t follow that they always actually work for man’s benefit.
Good things CAN be diverted from their intended purpose. When that happens, the end result often is catastrophic. 🙁
Steve G. asks”
This is another good question. Our system of free enterprise and constitutional republicanism presupposes that people are competent to make rational decisions. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, as you point out with your examples of the mentally ill and children without fit parents–either through parents’ wrongdoing, or by being orphaned.
The good news is that we have private institutions (as well as government ones) that provide for their care. In the case of total free entrprise, I see government’s role as making things easier for those private institutions to accomplish the mission they’ve set for themselves.
In my idea of Utopia (!) 😉 , there may be room for the state to supplement private efforts–as is the case now.
Thomas says:
I can understand that. One criticism of the so-called Left by the so-called Right (Does that satisfy your point Ken? 😉 ) is that in the pursuit of Social Justice, plain old justice is undermined, if not totally vitiated.
And, in my observation when that happens, Social Justice for the poor itself turns out to be a mirage. 🙁
Thomas says:
And Brigham Young’s divisiveness is, in turn, dwarfed by the Saviour’s: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” [Matthew 10:34].
Thomas, that may be the result of attempts by extremists to redefine freedom–and Liberalism–along Rawlsian/Rousseauan lines.
Most people who are left of centre really don’t want abortion on demand, nor are they pleased with the flood of abortions since Roe vs Wade. Instead, they will echo President Bill Clinton by saying that they prefer abortions to be “safe, legal, and rare” [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_n20_v119/ai_12911015/].
Whether their policies actually bring that about, is an entirely different story! :-O
Does this make sense?
Onika:
I note that you’re a fan of the Accent Radio Network. Do you know that Jerry Hughes had been based in Lakeland, Florida for many years (I believe he lives in northern Florida, now.).
I’ve actually met Hughes–and like him. And a member of my local Stake Presidency is a friend of his.
Steven, re: “social justice,” I think a critical distinction between Left and Right is that the Left has given up on the notion that sufficient numbers of Americans are capable of becoming and flourishing as Jeffersonian yeomen freeholders. In their view, we’ve become a nation of hirelings, and so the only merciful thing to do is to work to make us comfortable hirelings. Feed men before you ask of them independent virtue.
They have something of a point (in that we are, in fact, largely a nation of employees, and easily taken advantage of by large interests). But I decline to throw out the Jeffersonian ideal altogether; I’d prefer to keep trying to preserve as much of it as possible in a modern economy — if for no other reason than that I believe a nation that ignores cultivating yeomanlike self-reliance *too* much will destroy the creative force that keeps it going. Hirelings, managers, and bureaucrats may constitute the mathematical bulk of a civilization, but ultimately they’re not what make it go.
Steven, again:
Another word I really don’t like is “divisive,” at least when applied in politics. I *like* divisiveness. Maybe it’s my litigation background, but I see adversariality as the only real way to ensure both sides of an issue get examined.
Unity is fine in a church, where the important questions are articles of voluntarily confessed faith, but too much unity in a civilization consisting of a multitude of diverse interests, invariably means that some interests are being suppressed.
Liberal calls for “unity” too often translate into “unity behind the liberal banner.” Sorry, no.
Daniel Ortner says:
Daniel, I can understand your concern for the poorest among us. The trick is how to help them WITHOUT making others worse off than the poorest were before we intervened.
As Justice Oliver Holmes put is, how can we lift in one place without making another place even lower?
By the by, what, exactly, is a “living wage”–and who determines what that is?
If we presuppose that adults are rational enough to make their own choices, if a person agrees to work for X, isn’t that by definition an amount that this person can live with?
And who are we to magisterially proclaim that X is insufficient to live on?
Moreover, where are businesses going to get the funds to pay this extra amount? From the consumer? This is usually the case, but then, our minimum wage worker is among them. Further, higher prices makes it less likely for consumers to buy, and hence, more likely for the business to fail, throwing our worker out of a job.
Should the business pay the “living wage” from shareholders’ funds? That would lower the return and make it less likely for shareholders to continue to invest–again, swelling the ranks of the unemployed.
Also likely is management calculating that they cannot afford to pay the unskilled a “living wage”–and stay in business, so to preserve the jobs of the rest of them the least skilled is laid off.
Can you see how this attempt to help the worst off makes them even worse off than before–without actually helping anybody?
And the vast majority of those in minimum wage jobs are either teenagers or the retired working for supplemental income–and both are supported by other means.
Perhaps, given all this, we ought to think twice before equating them with poor people.
This is one area where raising one thing causes other things to be brought down a lot more.
Am I making sense?
Thomas says:
Well, as I said before, even the Saviour like SOME divisiveness! 😉
I don’t believe in unity to do wrong either! 😉
Thomas says:
Sadly, I think, this is the case–in practice. I also think that the state is “dumbing down” the masses–probably unintentionally.
This, I think, makes the “Right” give up on people, too. 🙁
Ken Kyle says:
Ken, Please read what I wrote in the context of my blog entry, “Sustaining evil?” [http://www.fairblog.org/2008/07/18/sustaining-evil/]. In it I advocate not sustaining those whose political differences descend to the level of gross sin, outright criminal behaviour, or sheer wickedness.
I think we agree that your voting to oppose sustaining me just because I’m a Republican is wrong. However, what if my Republicanism makes me a war-monger, or an advocate of torture, or a racist, or a shirker my duties to care for the poor, or any of a host of other gross evils that Republicans are accused of?
Helmut Huebner’s Branch President shouldn’t be opposed just for belonging to a political party, but he SHOULD have been opposed because that party–the Nazis–had its members become murderous anti-Semites.
Am I making sense?
Thomas,
I think there would be fewer big businesses and more small businesses if the government would stay out of things. Also, I believe the public school systems trains young minds to be conformist followers and therefore very good socialists and employees.
Some good discussion. i believe in the free market and individual initiative and all that stuff to a large extent. I believe that Utah is one of the best example of a state that takes care of the homeless and mentally ill and we have quite a few willing to serve as foster parents or missions to the inner city. Most of those individuals are probably listed as republicans. But i believe i also see a fair amount of individuals that use there conservatism to promote a form of social darwinism and to justify themselves in looking down own the poor and not helping as much as we should. I agree with Elder Mcconkie that being rich or poor is not a sign of righteousness. I fear that many conservatives do not see things that way. think that neither conservatism or liberalism explain the gospel completely.
Onika: Absolutely right. What liberals often overlook, in their eternal calls for “more regulation,” is that regulation doesn’t just force evil-minded people to refrain from doing socially destructive things — it imposes substantial compliance costs on everybody, including people who weren’t going to act destructively anyway. Sarbanes-Oxley is a classic case of this.
I have a touch of the “distributivist” economic philosophy espoused by G.K. Chesterton and other early interpreters of Catholic social teaching. That is, I’m opposed to socialism, but between large corporations and smaller enterprises, I would encourage the smaller guys. A massive regulatory state, however, increases transaction and compliance costs to the point where you pretty much *have* to be a massive conglomerate to operate; otherwise, your basic overhead is too high a percentage of your revenue.
Steven G.,
This is true that some people may try to justify themselves in not helping the poor. I see that attitude a lot with atheists, but if someone is a Christian (or a Jew), they know they should help the poor, not just so they don’t go to hell, but to show love for God , who loved them first.
Just think about it Thomas; if the government stayed out of things probably almost everyone would have their own small business, and with the increased competition, there would be more variety and better quality instead of mass producing everything.
Here’s a link to show what a liar Harry Reid is, saying taxes are voluntary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpvj5FlyCck
Onika:
Legally speaking, Senator Reid is right. We voluntarily fill out our tax form and voluntarily assess our taxes. And, by signing the return, we attest that it is voluntary.
So, while Senator Reid is right, there is a distinct Orwellian quality about it (“Compulsory is voluntary.”)–in that filing and paying our taxes is “voluntary”– like a crime victim who responds to the robber’s “Your money or your life” by “voluntarily” forking over every cent he has! :-O
Onika,
Even under complete free enterprise, we’d still have our share of big businesses engaged in mass production. After all, there ARE “economies of scale”! 😉
Hi all!
This article comparing computer operating systems with political/economic systems may be of interest:
http://www.osnews.com/story/22263/Operating_Systems_as_Politics
Steve G, do I think government can fill the hole left by individual charity giving? Perhaps.
The problem lies in what does government decide is worthy of such largesse? In this current Great Recession, we have seen Congress spend billions, even trillions, on “stimulus” issues that really were nothing more than payback to their financiers.
While there are many worthy causes, how many less-than-worthy causes are financed by Congress (Robert Maplethorpe’s obscene “art” comes to mind)? And can government charity be done efficiently? AND effectively? Or is there greater overhead than done by private organizations?
Sometimes the enemy of the best is “the good.” And I’m afraid that liberal Congressmen claiming that the Republican health care program is for old people to “die quickly” just does not really respond to the questions at hand: can we afford the program? Does the plan being pushed by Nancy Pelosi really fix anything, or does it just kick the bankruptcy can down the road? I could go on, but since no one in government is answering questions, there’s no point in repeating them.
I have similar concerns about much of government. I worked in the mental health field for 9 years and was often frustrated with the system but did see some good done when people got on the right medication to help with their schizophrenia and bipolar dx. My main concern with the conservative movement and the restored gospel is that i get the feeling that many have a greater allegiance to a philosophy than they do to the gospel. they give more credence to people like Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck than they do to a Prophet of God.
Steve Danderson,
Right, we ultimately go to jail if we don’t pay our taxes, fill out the forms, etc. It would only be voluntary if there were no negative consequences, so you can see the LIE when they use the words “voluntary”. They want everyone to feel less oppressed than they really are.
I always find it ironic that so many speak of being fair or balanced (no Fox allusion meant), yet in the next sentence call Beck a lying nut job or Senator Reid morally repugnant. I think the biggest problem that so many face is not so much their political positions, but intellectual dishonesty. We all have biases and there is nothing wrong with that. I applaud KevinB for his frank admittance to being a “non-party-affiliated, pro-environment conservative libertarian.” However, intellectual dishonesty occurs when we begin to think that anyone possessing a different bias is utterly contemptible. This dishonesty will lead to eventual intellectual assassination.
In my religious debates, I often hear the argument “But that is what the Bible says” from Evangelical fundamentalists. Often, this is true, but they fail to understand the passage in its historical, social, cultural, and linguistic context and instead commit presentism. A similar argument is “The Bible is self-interpreting.” This, of course, is ridiculous seeing that the Bible is an inanimate object that requires a reader and therefore outside interpretation. The secular equivalent to this line of “reasoning” is “I let the facts/evidence speak for itself.” Evidence is constantly changing and disputed and can be viewed in many contexts. We must be careful (and we’ve all done it) not to fall into this fundamentalist-like reasoning when we approach subjects outside the gospel.
Steve G,
I agree we need to weigh the comments from people like Glenn Beck with common sense and with lots of prayer. That said, I don’t recall any general authorities recently giving comment on the politics of any White House administration, Congress and its individual members, or whether there should be a government option in the health care plan.
Until the Brethren speak out, we only have the voices in our own heads to rely on.
I agree, those on the left have to also be careful not to place their theories and personalities above the first of the 10 commandments. I know that conservatives face unfair criticism and scorn from some on the liberal side. But that does not mean that conservatives should take that as license to do the same. I think that the warning that the Lord gave joseph Smith after the loss of the translation pages of the book of mormon can also apply to politics.
Yea, he saith unto them: Deceive and lie in wait to catch, that ye may destroy; behold, this is no harm. And thus he flattereth them, and telleth them that it is no sin to lie that they may catch a man in a lie, that they may destroy him. (Doctrine and Covenants Section 10:25)
It feels to me like there is to much of this on both sides . I wish that we could be more careful and may be a little less shore about the information we receive for the talking heads, especially in a gospel setting we need to show more acceptance of each others point of view.
Hi Walker!
Boy, are you right!
It is one thing to think somebody wrong headed–even stupid, for having differing beliefs, but it is something else entirely to think them not only stupid, but evil.
Representative Wilson and President Obama accusing each other of lying is bad enough, but Representative Grayson accusing Republicans of what is tantamount to depraved indifference mass murder has clearly set a new low in partisanship. ANd he had the gall to say (as recorded by ABC News this morning) that he was glad to have set a tone for the debate.
I’m sorry, but accusing your opponents of a hideous crime does NOT further debate, Representative Grayson! What it does is to END debate, by bullying others to adopt his position whole cloth–or be considered the epitome of evil. And what compromise can there be with evil? The only solution is to destroy it.
Don’t look for honest debate or compromise anytime soon! 🙁
The fact is, is the cloth fits….. Evil is evil, be it ideology or action.
Liberalism has been as a slow creep been gradually destroying this country, but with Obama it’s ramped up a 100 fold. Sure, he still “talks” like he’s reasonable, but that only works against the ignorant who don’t know all the things he and his friends has said and done, or they simply don’t care, putting their hands over their ears saying “la la laaa, your just demonizing and lying about liberals”.
Folks, this isn’t “conspiracy theory”, this is their OWN WORDS and actions. I mean, even during the election Obama supported a “death panel”, he was asked by a lady about her old mother who was full of life and wanted to have an operation, he said to bad, she can just take a pill instead and die, no need to spend money on an old person.
Everything conservatives are telling you folks is the truth, and it’s not out of context. He also believes in killing a baby who was aborted but didn’t die instead lived outside of the womb. But hay, he figures since they wanted it dead, kill the dang thing. There is no out of context there, he was directly involved. In his books he wrote other things that should make anyone pause, on and on and on, let alone all the bad things with his czars and advisor’s that they’ve done and said and believe.
No mormon should be a liberal because a good 1/3 of liberal ideology is completely anathema to LDS Theology. Being “pro-environment” or “pro-the little guy” is not a good enough excuse, especially when conservatives ARE ALSO for those things, we just believe in following the Church’s paradigm. Success, but keep things nice, not destroy success in order to make things nice. And also teach a man to fish, not ONLY to give a man a fish, making him eternal slaves as has happened to the black communities. Liberals are the new slave holders, making lot’s of promises, but delivering little. Conservatives strive to lift everyone, not TAKE from others as liberals do, thinking that is the way to make things more equal. Liberals think resources are finite, conservatives nor the Church don’t. Liberals want to restrict birth, conservatives and the Church understand there is plenty for everyone. On and on and on….. Folks, learn your religion and learn what conservatism and liberalism actually are.
leeuniverse:
By ascribing nefarious intent to liberals, you are making the same mistake as many of those liberals who think that, if you do not also agitate for their policy prescriptions, you are evil.
What is the difference between Conservatives who say that liberals WANT to be Joseph Stalin, and the likes of Representative Grayson [D-FL], who in effect accuses those who oppose President Obama’s health care plan of mass murder through depraved indifference?
As I asked another person elsewhere, I ask people on both sides of the aisle now, if you feel free to run those who differ politically out of the Church–merely for those differences, if the tables are turned, should they feel free to do the same thing? Why or why not?
Steven Danderson,
Accusing someone of mass murder because they don’t want universal health care is a false statement. Accusing someone of murder for abortion and forced euthanasia is a true statement.
Do you think LDS members should be considered in good standing if they are for abortion and forced euthanasia?
Onika:
You’re assuming that liberals see thing the way conservatives do.
For example, President Obama and his supporters are angry at Governor Sarah Palin [R-AK] referring to the end-of-life counseling as “death panels.” President Obama and others simply cannot see that, by artificially lowering prices causes artificial shortages. All liberals see is that there is nothing called “death panels,” and simply cannot see, as Governor Palin does, what happens when you substitute political pull for the price mechanism to allocate things. Moreover, Representative Grayson [D-FL] cannot see any way–except government to provide life-saving medical care, if they’re too poor to buy it. The Shriner’s hospital and other fine instiution are completely off the radar screen to him.
It is similar with regard to abortion. Conservatives often see only the baby, but do not see the mother’s anguish–especially in those “hard cases.” Liberals, on the other hand, focus on the mother’s anguish (even in cases where it may not be applicable), missing the presence of the baby, or, if they do see the baby, see him or her as a “fetus” and part of the mother’s body.
This is why liberals frame the argument as the mother’s “right to choose” what she wants to do with “her own body,” while conservatives see it as “baby-killing.”
Do I make sense?
Steven:
Exactly right. People should not easily impugn the morality of people who have differing political views, because few people consciously seek what they genuinely believe to be immoral ends. Probably not even most Nazis were “Nazis” (i.e. the epitome of political evil) in their own eyes.
Which is why *prudence* is the most underrated of the virtues, and why intellectual slovenliness ought to get at least as much condemnation as illicit sex. Logic is not the only way of seeking wisdom, but if we use logic, we are obliged to make darn sure we’re using *good* logic.
Agreed, Thomas. Moreover, what moral right do liberal and conservative poseurs have to pass moral judgment when they have nowhere near enough evidence to logically conclude ill intent?
President Obama bringing about socialism does not necessarily mean that his goal is to enslave people–even if that would up the net effect.
And opposition to the President’s health care plan does not necessarily mean that opponents want the poor to die.
Steve, Rep. Wilson accused Obama of lying because it was a lie, unless Obama has knew nothing or forgot about what he promoted. Anyway, it is possible for people to lie (say something they know isn’t true because they’re trying to deceive) and they should be called on it.
Murder is intentionally killing innocent human beings. I am not a murderer if I choose not to pay for someone else’s health care. I am not responsible for anyone except myself and my children which I brought into this world, which brings up the next topic; If a woman didn’t want to have a baby she shouldn’t have freely chosen to do the thing that would make a baby. She has obligated herself by her actions and should take responsibility. It’s like making a contract. Of course there are differences of opinion on when the baby can be considered a sovereign human being with rights.
Onika says:
THe question is not whether what President Obama says is untrue. THe question is: Did he KNOW it was untrue, or did his Weltanshauung blind him from that fact?
I would argue that for most liberals, it is the latter.
Unless you subscribe to the Rawlsian theory that we have a positive duty to provide to the worst off all the health care they want–even at the loss of our own.
While I don’t subscribe to that theory (and I’m pretty sure you don’t, either! 😉 ), many, if not most, liberals–and all leftists–do.
And whether one subscribes to the Rawlsian Weltanshauung is a pretty good indicator of where one falls in the abortion debate.
There are, of course, exceptions, but isn’t it odd that, as a rule, we see the same people opposing each other on EVERY issue–depending on whether they accept Rawls’ Theory of Justice or Pareto optima?
I appreciate all of your opinions. What ever happened to being our brothers keeper? We seem to have responsibilities for other of our brothers and sisters besides just in our family. We can have theoretical discussion about politics, i really do not care much about that. I do care that my children do not go to church and are told that they will not be a candidates for the celestial kingdom if they chose to be a democrat. I am shore that Steve does not want his children told the same thing to his children about their mother. If we listen to the brethren i.e. President Hinckley, Monson, Ballard and others we know that is not true.
The truth is, these politicians are hypocrites and liars. They don’t care about fairness; they just preach it to get followers. They just want power and money. The Founding Fathers did not intend for politicians to make careers out of politics. They were to be statesmen who had a desire to serve. They were supposed to carry on with their regular full-time jobs to earn their living, and only be paid a nominal amount for their time away from their regular jobs, like a juror. We’ve come a long way baby!
Steve G.,
It doesn’t matter what party you belong to, but it does matter how you stand on the issues, and what people you support depending on how they stand on the issues. I don’t think you should support someone who is for abortion (no matter what party) if you don’t support abortion (and you shouldn’t if you’re LDS).
What about “brother’s keeper”? Well, if you’re my keeper why don’t you start sending me some money, ’cause I’m a little low right now.
That’s a false doctrine that is taught in the church. People think because Cain asked it, we must be our brothers’ keepers, but the fact is he asked it because he wasn’t Able’s keeper. God asked “Where’s your brother?” Cain replied, “How should I know? I’m not his babysitter.”
If we have empathy for others we will treat others the way we want to be treated, and then we will help others when we can and think it’s necessary or appropriate.
Steve G.,
Here’s a better way to put it. You are not obligated to help anyone (except the people you made dependent on you), but if you’re a Christian you should and will help others all you can. But no one should be FORCED to help others.
Especially when it means you have to sacrifice your life and happiness. Your first obligation is to yourself. No one is responsible for making sure you keep the commandments and go to the celestial kingdom. That is all up to you. It is the same with life. If you are starving and your neighbor is starving, are you going to give him whatever food you have and sacrifice your life for him? would you rather have him live than you?
You know you’re on the FAIR board when the term “Rawlsian Weltanschauung” keeps coming up.
I have more of a Girardian Gemutlichkeit Pumpernickelstrasse Pickelhaube Zeitgeist myself.
Steven, re: 10/5 7:55 p.m., above, how does this play into the gospel?
Although it is less so in Mormonism than in evangelical Protestantism, there still remains in this Church a sense that you are classified as a good or bad person, based on the conclusions you draw as to certain arguable questions. Elder Holland’s Sunday address was a case in point: It was impossible to miss the argument that if you do not accept Joseph’s account of the Book of Mormon’s provenance, *you are a bad person.* You can only disbelieve such an obviously true proposition, he was saying (I paraphrase; if I’m being unfair, let me know) if you actively *will* disbelief.
I have a hard time accepting the idea that people are counted as good or evil based on the conclusions they draw, by fallible minds working with ambiguous information. Just as I wouldn’t call a Republican or a Democrat wicked for believing as he does, I am reluctant to call a person wicked for coming down on one side or the other of the Book of Mormon controversy. There is evidence pro and con, and good people come down on both sides of the question. Joseph didn’t fault people for not believing his history; I wish others wouldn’t, either.
I appreciate all of your opinions though I may not see things the same way. I agree with Thomas, “I have a hard time accepting the idea that people are counted as good or evil based on the conclusions they draw, by fallible minds working with ambiguous information.” That does not mean that we should not bee seeking the truth. It may be that we should do so with a little more humility. I found Elder Holland’s one of my favorite talks during conference. I know that in other places he has said that we should not call people’s motives or integrity into question by how they believe in the Book of Mormon. Personally from my own experience I believe that he had was telling the truth. I think I understand some where you are coming from though. I find it enjoyable to read these post and seeing what people have to say. It helps me look at my own views and to clarify them some. I wish everyone well.
Thomas, I’ve been waiting for someone to bring up the topic of Elder Holland’s talk. It sounded to me the way he was ranting, “How dare anyone doubt the Book of Mormon!” It came across to me as insincere.
“Elder Holland’s Sunday address was a case in point: It was impossible to miss the argument that if you do not accept Joseph’s account of the Book of Mormon’s provenance, *you are a bad person.*”
Couldn’t be impossible because I missed it. I don’t find him saying anyone is a “bad person” at all. I find him saying you are either foolish or mislead if you leave “without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages.” Neither of those equal “bad person.” I find it ironic that so many have been offended by his talk.
“he was saying (I paraphrase; if I’m being unfair, let me know) if you actively *will* disbelief.”
Just like we “will” belief. We will believe what we want to believe.
“It sounded to me the way he was ranting”
And it sounded to me like he was upset that so many have been led astray due to “frankly pathetic answers for this book.”
“It came across to me as insincere.”
Baffling.
“Just like we “will” belief. We will believe what we want to believe.”
I could “will” belief that the whole earth was flooded in the days of Noah, but I would know, deep down, that my “belief” was a fraud on myself. Because I am truly convinced that the truth is otherwise.
You would make faith into a matter of pretense — of deciding to ignore evidence of a sort that you would accept in any other context. That is a sandy foundation for faith, my friend.
“Foolish” = “bad person,” in my book. If prudence is one of the cardinal virtues, then imprudence is a vice. That is much more the case, when a person is *willfully* ignorant, as Elder Holland stated you have to be to arrive at a different conclusion about the Book of Mormon’s origins from his.
I am not offended by Elder Holland. He sees things his way, I see them in mine. There is no doubting his conviction. I believe his logic, in several aspects of his talk, was less than watertight, and that he seriously raised the bar for apologists. (It’s no longer enough to show the Book of Mormon is merely plausible; Elder Holland is taking the position that the Book of Mormon’s antiquity is so self-evident that only willful denial can allow a contrary conclusion). But if I were to be offended by Elder Holland’s thinking, I can’t rightly object to his strong words against mine.
The reason I thought it was insincere is because I saw no basis for him getting upset about people not believing. His getting upset was a way of chastising those who don’t believe–so they must be doing something wrong to not believe. I can’t believe he really believes that (I think he is more rational than that), so I think his emotions were acting. He would be justified in getting upset about the persecution that happened to Joseph and the Church. But martyrdom and persecution do not prove the Book of Mormon is true; only that some people strongly believe in it and that they have a right worship freely.
Just because someone can’t prove or explain how the Book of Mormon was written does not mean that person can believe it. I can’t explain magic tricks either, but I don’t believe the magician is really magic.
It was like he was saying,” How dare you not believe!” or “I’m offended that you would not believe!”
Onika, I don’t question Elder Holland’s sincerity. The wise thing to do is to consider what is said, not play amateur shrink and speculate about the motivations of the speaker.
“I could “will” belief that the whole earth was flooded in the days of Noah, but I would know, deep down, that my “belief” was a fraud on myself.”
Then you didn’t really “will” yourself to believe, now did you? This is beside the point. Your comment about “willing disbelief” made little sense considering you believe whatever evidence you are willing to believe.
“That is a sandy foundation for faith, my friend.”
Good thing I didn’t bring up that pretense then.
“‘Foolish’ = “bad person,” in my book.”
Then your book is flawed and goes against the definitions of the words. We have all been foolish at one time or another. We have all made stupid decisions. A stupid decision doesn’t make one a bad person.
“*willfully* ignorant, as Elder Holland stated you have to be to arrive at a different conclusion about the Book of Mormon’s origins from his.”
Based on what he actually said (allow me to repost: “without honestly attempting to account for the origin of those pages”), this would be willful ignorance. To leave because one hasn’t truly studied or attempted to account for the BoM’s origins is certainly foolish as it would be in most matters. Making life-altering decisions based on uninformed or ill-informed assumptions is stupid to say the least. I think it is more appropriate to say that he thinks those who have studied who disagree with him “have been deceived.” I don’t think you can expect one who holds a apostolic position to take a neutral stance in that regard.
“Elder Holland is taking the position that the Book of Mormon’s antiquity is so self-evident that only willful denial can allow a contrary conclusion”
I’ll wait for you to post excerpts from his talk that have him stating it is “beyond plausible” and “self-evidently true.”
“I saw no basis for him getting upset about people not believing”
It seems that he was more upset with people attacking the Book of Mormon for over a century and leading people astray.
“so they must be doing something wrong to not believe”
And?
“(I think he is more rational than that)”
I’m actually waiting to hear what was irrational about what he said.
“But martyrdom and persecution do not prove the Book of Mormon is true”
Yet another who completely missed his point. He never stated this was a silver bullet. He said it was “one of a 1000 elements.” The scenario was IF Joseph Smith was a fraud who simply made up the Book of Mormon (which many say is the case), WHY was he testifying of it in his last hours when he knew death was coming? Why was his brother (who is one of the official 8 Witnesses who saw and handled the plates) reading from and finding comfort in the Book of Mormon just days before his death IF he knew it was a fraud? Their conviction and martyrdom is significant because they were actual witnesses to the plates. It would be different if it was a modern Mormon who died for their belief.
“Just because someone can’t prove or explain how the Book of Mormon was written does not mean that person can believe it. I can’t explain magic tricks either, but I don’t believe the magician is really magic.”
But magic tricks usually aren’t explained to the audience. Joseph Smith and other witnesses gave the explanation: they testified that it was from God. So, the two are not comparable. This isn’t a “God of the gaps” moment. You are given the explanation, provide no other good alternative, and then choose not to believe the given explanation. Perfect example of willing disbelief.
Walker:
“In that sense, the book is what Christ Himself was said to be, “a stone of stumbling . . . a rock of offense”, a barrier in the path of one who wishes not to believe in this work.”
I believe that the most rational interpretation of that sentence is that Elder Holland believes it takes willful ignorance to cause a person to disbelieve the official account of the Book of Mormon’s origin.
As for the “will to believe” (echoes of William James here), we fundamentally disagree about the nature of belief. I believe it is at least to some degree involuntary. Could you honestly choose to believe that your mother is really a duck? No. Your eyes and all your other senses, as well as all of your reason, literally *compel* you to avoid that conclusion. You *have no choice* in the matter. You could *say* you believed your mother was a duck, but that would be silly. Of course you really don’t.
Imagine you are seated on a jury. The evidence is presented: Fingerprints, DnA samples, videotape, and testimony all indicate that the defendant committed murder. You are convinced of his guilt, and vote to convict.
The next day, you are seated on another jury. The same type of evidence is presented, by equally credible witnesses. But the defendant is a friend of yours. So you decide to “will disbelief” of his guilt, and vote to acquit.
Is or is not impartial judgment the duty of an honest man? Or can you simply exercise your “will” to accept or reject evidence according to your wishes?
As for whether foolishness is a vice, I’m coming at this from something like a Catholic perspective. Of course “making a stupid decision” doesn’t make you a bad person. However, if your stupid decisions are the result, not of “invincible ignorance” — ignorance that occurs despite your diligence in seeking to discover the truth — but rather because of your willfully failing to act responsibly to inform yourself, then yes, I believe that “foolishness” is a moral fault. There must needs be opposition in all things; if prudence is a virtue, then intentional or negligent imprudence is a vice.
“In that sense, the book is what Christ Himself was said to be, “a stone of stumbling . . . a rock of offense”, a barrier in the path of one who wishes not to believe in this work.”
I suggest you look at how these verses are used in their context to discover the point behind Holland’s use of them.
“I believe it is at least to some degree involuntary.”
I agree, but your duck example isn’t even in the same category. The trial would be closer.
“Or can you simply exercise your “will” to accept or reject evidence according to your wishes?”
Yes. People do it all the time in various ways.
“I’m coming at this from something like a Catholic perspective”
Viewing a Mormon talk from a Catholic perspective? That could be part of the problem.
“I believe that “foolishness” is a moral fault.”
If it is a characteristic, yes. As I said, though, we all make stupid decisions. If it was one stupid decision, that doesn’t brand you a “bad person” in the way you meant it.
Putting words in his mouth doesn’t make your case stronger.
“Viewing a Mormon talk from a Catholic perspective? That could be part of the problem.”
Saw that one coming, but figured you’d be above it.
Heaven forbid that the Great & Abominable might have an useful thought from time to time. I happen to think the doctrine of “invincible ignorance” is consistent with God’s justice, and not inconsistent with LDS doctrine.
“But your duck example isn’t even in the same category.”
They call that reductio ad absurdum — taking an argument to its logical extreme, and showing that it results in absurdity.
Sure, people may exercise biased judgment (shifting their standard of evidence depending on what they want the answer to be) “all the time.” Doesn’t make it right.
“I suggest you look at how these verses are used in their context…”
Thank you. I have.
We’re getting into “spirit of contention” territory, so with your permission, I’d like to step aside.
“Saw that one coming, but figured you’d be above it.”
And I should have seen this coming and phrased it better. It was not meant as an insult at all. I respect Catholics greatly. All I meant by it was that bringing over a mindset from another faith and placing it on top of another can cause problems and confusion. That is all I meant by it. Forgive me for not making that clear. It must have come off extremely offensive and rightfully so.
“taking an argument to its logical extreme, and showing that it results in absurdity”
The involuntary nature of the duck scenario works until one begins to distrust their senses for whatever reason. The automatic belief is largely based on trust in our senses. But I see your point (though it still wouldn’t fit well with examining the historical evidence of the BoM since we can’t go back in time and verify these events with our own senses).
“Sure, people may exercise biased judgment (shifting their standard of evidence depending on what they want the answer to be) “all the time.” Doesn’t make it right.”
Didn’t say it was right. Said people do it all the time.
“We’re getting into “spirit of contention” territory, so with your permission, I’d like to step aside.”
Sorry to put off that vibe. It probably came from my poorly worded response about Catholics. Once again, please forgive the thoughtless way I put it. It did not convey the meaning I wished at all.
Not a problem, WW, and I ask your pardon in turn if I got testy.
The “Duck Scenario” obviously lies at one extreme of a spectrum, and matters where the evidence is in perfect equipoise is at the other. Clearly, in the real world, we’re not machines — we do bring our biases and preferences to the table.
“Not a problem, WW, and I ask your pardon in turn if I got testy.”
Thank you. I felt pretty bad when I read it in an offensive manner. As for you getting testy, I don’t blame you. It is all good. 😉
WalkerW,
“It seems that he was more upset with people attacking the Book of Mormon for over a century and leading people astray.”
There is nothing morally wrong with not believing in the Book of Mormon and explaining why. The only way someone could be leading people astray is if he were lying about what the Book of Mormon says, or anything else factual about the Book of Mormon. People should do their own research and check the facts. They can’t blame others for leading them astray unless they are children who don’t have a well developed sense of judgment, or they can’t read.
“I’m actually waiting to hear what was irrational about what he said.”
I didn’t say he said anything irrational. Acting upset about someone not believing is irrational because it’s not something to get upset about, because a person can’t help what they believe is the truth. It isn’t a sin to not believe. Commanding someone to believe is irrational. It is more rational to explain why one should believe. Now if you equate belief with faith (acting according to a belief), that could be a commandment because it is action oriented. Or belief could also mean trust–“Trust me.” Are you going to trust someone just because they tell you to? You have to have a reason.
“WHY was he testifying of it …”
John Taylor wrote:
“When Joseph went to Carthage to deliver himself up to the pretended requirements of the law, two or three days previous to his assassination, he said: ‘I am going like a lamb to the slaughter; but I am calm as a summer’s morning; I have a conscience void of offense towards God, and towards all men. I shall die innocent, and it shall yet be said of me—he was murdered in cold blood.’—The same morning, after Hyrum had made ready to go—shall it be said to the slaughter? yes, for so it was—he read the following paragraph, near the close of the twelfth chapter of Ether, in the Book of Mormon, and turned down the leaf upon it:
Ether 12:
36 And it came to pass that I prayed unto the Lord that he would give unto the Gentiles grace, that they might have charity.
37 And it came to pass that the Lord said unto me: If they have not charity it mattereth not unto thee, thou hast been faithful; wherefore, thy garments shall be made clean. And because thou hast seen thy weakness thou shalt be made strong, even unto the sitting down in the place which I have prepared in the mansions of my Father.
38 And now I, Moroni, bid farewell unto the Gentiles, yea, and also unto my brethren whom I love, until we shall meet before the judgment-seat of Christ, where all men shall know that my garments are not spotted with your blood.
I believe Joseph believed in God, the Bible, and the doctrine he taught. I believe he believed he was inspired. If he wrote the Book of Mormon, it was with the goal of Christians becoming united in one faith. The scripture Hyrum read described how he felt in a poetic way.
“There is nothing morally wrong with not believing in the Book of Mormon and explaining why.”
Correct. It is another thing entirely to push theories that carry no weight with the sole purpose of tearing down a religion.
“Acting upset about someone not believing is irrational”
Good thing that isn’t what he said, nor did I.
“Commanding someone to believe is irrational.”
Good thing he didn’t do that then.
“It is more rational to explain why one should believe.”
Which he did, or at least provided a couple reasons.
“Are you going to trust someone just because they tell you to? You have to have a reason.”
And he gave a very significant reason.
“If he wrote the Book of Mormon, it was with the goal of Christians becoming united in one faith.”
Except that he claimed the BoM came from gold plates, which Hyrum also saw (along with ten others). Gold plates originating in the Middle East would sound absurd if metal plates hadn’t been found a century after Smith’s claim.
He can give lots of reasons to believe, and I can give lots of reasons not to. Originally I was commenting not on what he said, but how he acted when he said it. How he acted showed how he judges people who don’t believe (sinners,liars), which I thought was an irrational judgment. Either he was sincere and being irrational, or he wasn’t sincere, but acting emotional to convince others to make this same irrational judgment. Another reason I thought he was trying to be dramatic was because he was handling and showing THE copy of the Book of Mormon that Hyrum had without gloves!
Onika says:
That seems to me to be a bit of mindreading on your part. You assume that he is judging typical non-LDS as sinners and liars, but I don’t get that from his speech. On the other hand, I can understand–and sympathise with–his frustration at the lame, convoluted, reasoning of those who wish to tear down our faith.
Moreover, I didn’t understand his speech as “commanding belief,” but as requiring others who give such lame reasons for unbelief to provide some better evidence before demanding that we cease believing! 😉
Taking care of the poor is an important objective. Liberals want to deny your free agency and reach into everyone’s pocket to folks on “the dole”. Conservatives (whose charitable contributions by one survey are four time those of liberals) want to do by voluntary contributions. Voluntary contributions benefit the contributor as well as the receiver, who has greater appreciation when the receiver knows it was willingly given to them. That’s the difference between the “dole” and genuine charity.
That philosophical difference is at the heart of the LDS Welfare System.
Bot says:
From the Liberal point of view, people voting to tax themselves to support the worst off among us is not a denial of free agency.
While I don’t agree with the point of view expressed above, I think it more accurate to say that Liberals emphasise other aspects of freedom that deciding whether or not to help the needy through government efforts.
Still, I think you’ve hit on something, Bot. I must dissent from the welfare state. With government comes force, and help without local accountability tends to degenerate into co-dependency. Thus, we are in real danger of the welfare state forcing us into co-dependency at the point of a gun.
Do I make sense?
“From the Liberal point of view, people voting to tax themselves to support the worst off among us is not a denial of free agency.”
If people were truly voting to “tax themselves,” this might be a valid argument. But because of progressive taxation, the majority of people who are ostensibly voting to “tax themselves” are in fact voting to tax some other guy — the original “forgotten man.”
“While I don’t agree with the point of view expressed above, I think it more accurate to say that Liberals emphasise other aspects of freedom …”
Yeah. Sex. Liberals will defend to the death your right to fornicate with who- or whatever you please, or observe said activity by others. Virtually the entire remaining universe of freedom — not so much.
Unless the vote is unanimous, your state is definitely true. Those who vote for the tax are, in fact, imposing it on those without their consent. Moreover, such taxing of others who do NOT consent is true even with a flat tax, VAT, or a “Fair Tax.”
PJ O’Rourke has a “take it from your mother at gunpoint test. Unless you’re willing to take funding from your poor mother for a project, don’t do the project.
It’s not necessarily the sex that I object to; it is having to foot the bill for consequences of sex, like raising the “love child” or aborting said child. Nothing like forcing the taxpayer into co-dependency at gunpoint. 🙁
Even though she isn’t the epitome of righteousness, I think Ayn Rand had it right: “There is no freedom to enslave.”
Steve: Agreed. Frankly, it’s not liberals’ support of sexual libertinism I object to; I have a strong libertarian streak, and if two people want to do whatever AND are willing to deal with the consequences (i.e., don’t bill me for the love child, as you put it), then that’s between them and God.
What does concern me most about this, is that liberals’ fixation on sexual libertarianism tends to blind them (and many of their observers) to the fact that they are utterly unlibertarian in virtually every other context. They’re straining at an X-rated gnat and swallowing whole herds of camels.
Thomas says:
That’s not entirely accurate. For example, Kate Mulgrew (who played Kathryn Janeway on Star Trek: Voyager) describes herself as a “liberal Democrat” who nevertheless breaks with the party on the abortion issue (She is adamantly pro-life) [See http://trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=QDlu9Y.UPXpwk%5D.
I am glad to see that we are getting back to the original post. I get the feeling that we can suffer from simplistic thinking at times, and in the Church there is a border spectrum of political thinking that is acceptable with the Prophets and by extension possibly with the Lord than some people are willing to accept. People can believe in public education or taking care of the mentally ill with out having to be sexual libertarians or suporting abortion. When the Prophet Joseph Smith wanted to turn the prison system into institutions of learning that would of probably taken some tax money. When my Uncle who was a life long Democrat served 3 missions had three general authorities speak at his funeral and they read a leader from the First Presidency commending his life, to me that says it is possible to be a good person and have a different political out look than many in the present day church have. I would like to see us be more tolerant of others and less judgmental if they do not fit into a mold that is being created by sertain individuals on the religious right who seem to hate every thing and one who do not think like they do. It is possible to be part of the religious left. Their may be limits on how far you can go to the right and the left and still have the spirit of the Lord, but maybe we should be more will to let the Lord make that Judgment. I think you are all good men and apprecate this discussion.
Steven D:
1. Of course I paint “liberals” with a broad brush. There are always exceptions; however my experience is that people like Miss Mulgrew are exceptional indeed in their tribe.
2. I don’t classify abortion as a genuine “sex issue.” It’s more of a matter of bioethics: At what point does a child get close enough to being a child for government work? The (ordinarily) sexual origin of the whatever-it-is-that-we’re-discussing-killing is secondary.
Frankly, as far as sexual libertarianism goes, the libertines have won. The government is all of the way out of the bedroom (the abolition of the handful of remaining state sodomy laws on spurious Constitutional grounds a few years back was the last step), and isn’t going back in. What “the liberals” (there’s my broad brush again) now want is for government, having exited the bedroom, to exit the health clinic — concerning abortion, that is; all other medical services are to be regulated to heck’n’gone. Gay marriage, likewise, is not rightly called a “bedroom” issue; nobody’s restricting what a same-sex couple does there; what’s at issue is the extent to which government will affirmatively formalize their relationship, and structure their extra-bedroom rights and duties as against themselves and third parties who aren’t party in any way to the couple’s bedroom transactions.
In other words “Conservatives want Big Government in the bedroom” is a lie, plain and simple.
Steve G.
“It is possible to be part of the religious left.”
True. Unfortunately, since both religion and Leftism have a tendency to make people insufferably self-righteous (in the latter case, all the more so because of liberals’ conceit that their ideology is based on pure reason, unalloyed by religio-superstitution nonsense), coupling the two together tends to make them absolutely unbearable.
The spectacle of (say) a hard-Left Episcopalian priest spouting economic illiteracy, motivated by his liberation-theology-influenced willful misreading of scriptures about a God he only accepts as a mythical-philosophic human construct, makes my head spin so fast from the utter pompous nihilism of it all that Objectivist atheism starts looking appealing.
What other people do with my money is a moral issue.
Since we’re talking about political issues, I found this very interesting website that is quite convincing that the place where the Jerusalem Temple should be built is not where the Moslem Mosque is, so all that fighting between cousins could be avoided. http://www.biblemysteries.com/library/temples.htm
Onika, that gets rid of Reason #342 why the Jews and Arabs are at each others throats. Now if we can just deal with the other 499.
When I say I am part of the “religious left” I mean I am left of Rush, Hanity, Peck and many of the chain e-mail that are sent around with little basis in fact. That seems to be were a large majority of the party gets their information and communication style. I used to be a republican and am still fairly conservative but unlike individuals like Gov. Huntsman, Mike Levitt, or Bob Bennett who are all supposedly RINO’s I decided to change my name and become an honest man and register as a Democrat. I think we need more dialog in my state. I think it is hard for power not to corrupt even good men and i feel our present legislature suffers from two much power in the hands of one party. I think you can be a good man and a good Saint and be left of those individuals.
“I think you can be a good man and a good Saint and be left of those individuals.”
Of course.
“I think it is hard for power not to corrupt even good men and i feel our present legislature suffers from two much power in the hands of one party.”
Maybe, but as between the evils of too much power being concentrated in the hands of Utah Republicans vs. too much power being concentrated in the hands of California Democrats (under whose misrule I have the misfortune to live), there’s no contest.
Whether this is a function of Democrats being more innately corruptible by power than Republicans, or something fundamentally irrational about Democratic ideology, is another discussion.
I get some of those same crazy chain e-mails you refer to. Look, a society of people who is capable of reading the Book of Ether without being sent into a serious crisis of faith, is not going to be the most skeptical bunch. People are quick to believe things that support their ideological predispositions. And in the case of Utah Republicans, I believe the foundational principles — consensual limited government, federalism, rational economics, sound money, and moral absolutism — are fundamentally sound, no matter how absolutely loopy may be the faith-promoting rumors that are used to steady the ark.
I am fine with the idea that people can disagree and that one side may be more right than the other, though i think that neither philosophy is right all the time or wrong all the time. As long as we can agree to communicate respectfully about these issues. As long as we can agree that good people can have different view points and still be good people, which i believe is the original intent of this post, then that is all that i really care about.
I want to discuss something off topic because I think it is important. This guy has very good evidence that the king who helped Deborah (a judge in the OT)was Thutmose III, which means, I believe, that Deborah was really Hatshepsut, his co regent. This explains why the Levites have Egyptian DNA, while the rest of the Jews have Arab DNA, because Moses and Aaron were really Egyptian! The Levite scribes just altered the stories to promote faith in their monotheistic religion after the captivity in Babylon, which they blamed on the Israelites’ practice of worshiping multiple gods. This means Moses was raised or born by Ahmose’s daughter Mutnofret, who was given the title “King’s Daughter” (in the OT “Pharaoh’s daughter” Ex. 2), so he must be Ramose, Mutnofret’s son. Ahmose is the Pharaoh who knew not Joseph, and Joseph is possibly Apepi (Hyksos king), who usurped the throne from Khyan’s son, Khyan having ruled for thirty years. Apepi exerted suzerainty over upper Egypt, which sounds like the situation would be after “Joseph” bought all the land of the Egyptians during the famine and moved them from the north (lower Egypt)to the south (upper Egypt). “[He] chose for his Lord the god Seth. He didn’t worship any other deity in the whole land except Seth.”
http://www.biblemysteries.com/lectures/deborah.htm
Read about his revised chronology also: http://www.biblemysteries.com/lectures.htm #1-5
The Elders of Israel begin to understand that they have something to do with the world politically as well as religiously, that it is as much their duty to study correct political principles as well as religious, and to seek to know and comprehend the social and political interests of man….. –John Taylor
The fact that we’re members of the restored church should transcend politics, at least to some degree.
The message of the Book of Mormon is clear, this great and blessed gentile nation has been given much, and therefore much is required. The Lord warns us throughout the Book of Mormon of the consequences, if we as a nation, get too far from His expectations: “He will bring other nations unto them, and he will give unto them power, and he will take away from them the lands of their possessions, and he will cause them to be scattered and smitten.” 2 Nephi 1:11
I don’t think Glenn Beck is perfect. I don’t like some of the things he does, but his message is important, very important. He is providing his listeners with well researched information that the mainstream press is ignoring. Look past his antics and buffoonery and digest what he is saying.
We’ve been taught that our constitution would hang by a thread some day. That day may be unfolding before eyes while we are blinded by silly arguments about conservatives and liberals.
I appreciate all of your comments and have respect for different points of view. It is possible that you have a more correct political view than I do. Here are some good things to look at regarding the Church’s attitude about politics. I think politics are important, but i think that pornography is a greater threat to out country and civilization than Democrats are. At least if you look at the importance the brethren place on issues.
http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/political-neutrality
http://www.newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-mormon-ethic-of-civility
When I was in Germany 22 years ago, they had huge bill boards of naked women (centerfold) displayed that you couldn’t completely avoid looking at. Jehovah’s Witnesses would spray paint over them.
I hope you aren’t equating the naked human form with pornography.
Personally, I believe that the Germans have a much healthier attitude toward human sexuality than Americans do. And it manifests itself in more natural and healthy ways. Think about it. Sure, we don’t have nude models on billboards, but we specialize in producing pornography which covers the entire spectrum of depravity and debauchery in this country. I believe it has a lot to do with breaking out of the Puritanical repression that permeated this society for so long. Too extreme one way leads to too extreme the other way. German teens don’t go off binge-drinking at keg parties, either, because they haven’t made drinking taboo. As a result, far fewer teens wrap themselves around telephone poles, or kill pedestrians and other drivers in DUI incidents.
I speak from the experience of having grown up in Germany, by the way.
As far as whether Glenn Beck’s message is “very important”, and “well researched”, I would have to voice my disagreement with you there. As a neutral observer, siding with neither party, I find Beck to be an entertainer first, and a concerned citizen second. Rather like Al Franken, before his foray into elected leadership. I find it very difficult to take anything Beck says seriously, after his declaration that President Obama has “a deep-seated hatred for white people.” I find his particular brand of ratings-chasing fear mongering to be incredibly distasteful, and counter-productive.
Ryan, I disagree with you on the first paragraph. Whenever there was a concert there were teens who were drugged out of their minds, vandalizing, and lying on the ground. Then on a certain holiday, they would have sex in public. I don’t think they have a healthy attitude. I’m sure they view the same type of porn as Americans. The fact that they tolerate billboards shows that sex is something they like to have in their minds on a constant basis. And don’t give me this nonsense of how it’s art work. The purpose of the ads is to stimulate the mind to want and buy more. It’s an addiction like any other drug.
onika,
I was not implying that it’s a Utopian society, free of vices and bad behavior. Of course there are people who abuse drugs, watch pornography, and engage in deviant sexual behavior. You’ll get that anywhere. My point was that in my experience, it’s much less prevalent, and much less extreme in Germany than in the United States.
The fact that they tolerate billboards showing the naked female form does not indicate that they want sex on their minds constantly! It means they are not uptight about it! Have you taken your crusade to art colleges where nude models pose, or to the Louvre to destroy the nude David statue? There is a big difference between nudity and pornography.
Well, Playboy doesn’t put up billboards to beautify the neighborhood. They are trying to sell something. And why would anyone want to buy that something? I don’t care about paintings and statues (although some people might) as long as they aren’t doing anything vulgar in their poses, because they aren’t real people anyway. But I wouldn’t want to see a real naked person lying around in public so I wouldn’t want to see a photograph of that person either. I would feel like I was invading that person’s privacy, even if they don’t care that I am. and I don’t see why models have to be naked. The artists must not be very good.
BHodges said:
I suppose you also have a problem with the Amulek and Captain Moroni addressing individuals as a “child of hell!” ?
Or Alma calling the people of the land of Ammonihah as “lost and fallen.” ?
How arrogant! How dismissive! That’s not being a uniter, but a divider!
LOL!
The problem with Liberal Mormons is that haven’t yet learned to use the truth as a lens to view the world with.
Ha! The Elder of Israel, Harry Reid, just cut one of the last threads.
Well, it doesn’t get any better than
“militant” and “blatant”.
“A recent article of Time magazine, “Mad Man: Is Glenn Beck Bad for America?” has brought to the surface a tension between liberal and conservative Latter-day Saints. The reason: Brother Beck is not only militantly conservative, he is also blatantly LDS.
Liberal Latter-day Saints are up in arms about the fact that Beck opposes President Obama’s signature policies: the stimulus, the federal takeover of General Motors, and “Universal Health Care.” What’s more, Beck takes issue with Obama’s supporters calling the opposition liars and racists. Beck has turned the tables on them, though, labelling their gratuitous use of the word, “racist” as racist, too.
Liberal Latter-day Saints want to run Brother Beck out of the Church for that, saying that his conduct is unacceptable. I can understand that, but what do they make of LDS Senator Harry Reid labelling President Bush a liar, a loser, and a war-monger? Should Bishop Reid be excommunicated as well, or is it wrong only if the target is liberal? I ask that question in reverse to conservatives who want Senator Reid excommunicated, but say “Amen!” to Glenn Beck: Isn’t Beck’s attack on President Obama VERY similar to Senator Reid’s?
There are those who are consistent is their damnation; they think both Bishop Reid and Brother Beck have cast the Church in a bad light–and should suffer the consequences. While I applaud their singular standard, I wish to take a more merciful approach. In the USA–and in the Church, people are free to act like buffoons. Though such behavior is certainly not optimal, nor is it what is expected of saints, buffoonery is neither an excommunicable offence, nor a disqualifying factor for any calling in the Church–or for a Temple Recommend. In fact, I have no problem sustaining either of them for any calling the Lord and His local or general authorities see fit to issue to them.
About a year and a half ago, my colleague, Greg Kearney, wrote a blog post titled, “I am a Democrat.” He says he is a Democrat because they feel the responsibility to care for the poor. As a Republican, this rankles me a bit, because of the implication that non-Democrats don’t feel that responsibility. If any of the Democrats actually feel that way, I would suggest that they have no business sustaining Republicans for callings. Ditto for Republicans who think that Democrats intentionally wish to take property and freedom from others.
However sincere such a feeling is–in either direction, I would submit that it is grossly wrong headed–at least in the USA:
The root of the word “liberal” is the Latin, “liber,” or “free.” That is, the aim of liberals is to spread freedom. Conservatives, on the other hand, see to “conserve” what is best of a culture’s traditions. What, then, is the American tradition about? The spread of freedom–under God.
Thus, one sees that both American liberals and American conservatives are working toward the same end. Liberals found that they could not spread freedom without conserving it first, and conservatives found that the best way to conserve freedom is to extend it.
We find, then, that it was a liberal, Franklin Roosevelt, who is best remembered as a conservator of freedom–in World War II, against the likes of Hitler and Tojo. And it was the conservative, Ronald Reagan, who did most to extend freedom. Ironic, no?
The rub lies in the fact that liberals and conservatives not only emphasise different traits of freedom, they have different means of carrying out their aims of extending freedom. The reason I am a conservative is that in my judgment, conservative emphases and means are usually more effective at extending freedom. Ironically, often even liberal emphases are extended this way.
A bigger problem is that over the past several years, the concept of freedom itself is being redefined; in my observation mostly on the leftist, or liberal side, though there is also redefinition on the conservative, or rightist side. Perhaps that springs from what economist Thomas Sowell calls “A Conflict of Visions.” In my observation, liberals tend to agree with John Rawls’ Theory of Justice, while conservatives adhere more to Vilfredo Pareto’s definition of economic efficiency: That we should endeavour to make people better off, without making anybody worse off–not unlike the Hippocratic Oath’s, “Do no harm.”
While I suppose that this “Conflict of Visions” makes those holding to Rawls’ theory of social justice to militantly oppose those who adhere to Pareto optimality–and vice versa–it makes no sense–with some exceptions–to believe that the other side is evil merely because their definition of justice and efficiency differs.”
While I can appreciate much of what Steve is trying to do here, a few observations are in order. The first is that the fence sitting approach Steve takes here is, while obviously an attempt to be conciliatory and understanding of both sides, while at the same time criticizing both sides equally (for the same things) ends as an exercise, abiet unwittingly perhaps, in epistemological relativism in which deeply important political questions, questions that will affect the quality of life for ourselves and our posterity (such as whether we will, as a people, be living in a society even remotely resembling a democratic Republic in a generation) seem to be dismissed with a wave of the hand as having no particular relative strength or weakness when framed by either side in any debate. This, I think, is a mistake.
At one time, some forty or so years ago, modern conservatives and “liberals” were much closer than they are at present. They had always disagreed on the means to achieve certain ends, with liberals tending toward statist solutions and conservatives toward private initiative and responsibility, but they agreed, in substance, upon core principles.
This came to an end beginning in the early seventies, with the rise of the McGovern coalition to prominence in the party and culminated in the takeover of the Democratic party by its left wing, a group of leftist revolutionaries and social reformers who’s philosophical grounding was/is a kind of cross between Frankfurt School cultural Marxism, Fabianism, and the social radicalism of the late sixties mixed with the leftovers of the old New Deal ideology of state supervision of the economy and personal welfare – the caregiver state.
This eventuated in the “Great Society” welfare state, the rise of the social work profession, and the concerted and relentless attack on the family, marriage, traditional sexual norms, men, religion, and, above all in the secular sphere, economic liberty (capitalism). That which Glenn Beck opposes is not “liberalism” (between Glenn Beck and Harry Reid, Beck is the only true liberal of the two) but “leftism” or “progressivism”, which encompasses, and has been used by the Left historically to encompass, much if not most of every school of thought or social initiative that has ever arisen within the Left as a general ideological movement.
The overheated ad hominem vitriol directed at Beck in the first several responses is key to understanding just what is at stake in this debate. Beck has been instrumental in outing and exposing key members of the Obama administration for who and what they are, and this apparently rankles. Van Jones, a unreconstructed communist (Maoist by ideological preference) revolutionary, was put out to pasture thanks, in great part, to Beck’s work. But why should this not be the case? There are yet more Maoists among the ranks, as well as other deeply subversive individuals suckled in their political youth on Marx and Alinski and Marcuse.
Should LDS people really not be opposing universal health care (socialism – the expropriation of the private health care industry by the state), the nationalization of GM (in this case a kind of fascist-syndicalist system unheard of since early in the last century), the de facto nationalization of American banks, and the systematic destruction of the economy and the currency?
Should LDS people, of all people, really not be in clear opposition to cap and trade, and the EPAs desire to regulate CO2 as a “pollutant”, all in the name of a threat called anthropogenic global warming that never existed and the consequences of which will be steeply declining living standards in the West and the settling of the Third World into dire poverty for any foreseeable future? Should LDS people, of all people, not stand in opposition to the militant Gnostic pantheism that is the environmental movement (when it is not, as in much of its overtly political guise, simply the old communism wrapped in green linen) in its relentless hostility to human growth and prosperity, technological progress, economic freedom, property rights, and the entire Judeo-Christian social ethos?
Harry Reid, with his party, invested himself and his political fortunes in securing the defeat of his own country in war time. Can LDS people support this? When someone like Beck brings the message, should we shoot the messenger? Why?
Reid is the best friend the gaming industry in Vegas ever had. His smarmy dismissals of questions regarding this indicates very much the same brazen arrogance of power one can detect yes, among many Republicans, but which is now endemic to and definitive of the Democrat party because of its ideological character and the kind of people this ideology inevitably attracts to a party immersed in this philosophical framework.
Steve says:
“ Ditto for Republicans who think that Democrats intentionally wish to take property and freedom from other”s
But of course they do, as goes those who actually have power. They’ve been saying so for upwards of forty years in countless op-eds, House floor debates, books, magazine articles, stump speeches, and party conventions. Why Steve thinks there is some need for interpretation here, such that a conservative might misperceive such motives, is mysterious to me. I don’t doubt that many Americans who think of themselves as liberal do, indeed, have good intentions, but here the rubber meets the road yet again, because “liberals” are heirs to a political tradition, and perhaps the only one, in which they may reasonably expect their policies to be judged, not on outcome and consequences, but only upon the intentions that spawned them, no matter how destructive. No conservative or libertarian will ever have that luxury.
At the very least, he/she who votes to give others the power to plunder the fruits of their labor by force and give it to those to whom it does not belong are complicit in the taking of property and freedom, and, at the very least, intended to see those policies enacted.
Just one other comment regarding Beck’s
being “divisive”. Please. We live in
a divided and divisive world, that is
the nature of the mortal experience.
We as Latter Day Saints, and we above
all, cannot afford the slightest unity
with Babylon. Philosophical seriousness
is called for here. Beck is divisive
because Obama is divisive. Those who’
call for “unity” are now and always
only calling for one side to give away
its principles.
“Calling Beck a modern Mencken is an insult to Mencken. Beck has neither Mencken’s sharp wit, nor his intellect. Beck is nothing more than a cheap
entertainer.”
Yes, much like President Obama, except
that Beck is at all events better read.
“The “intellectual disconnect” as mentioned above is not a “liberal” problem. I swear reading these comments make me think I am in Bizarro world. The president who did the most damage to the Constitution was Bush. Domestic spying, suspension of Habeous Corpus, torture for starters is why I can never be a Republican. You realize that the Republican platform on abortion is even more restrictive than the Church’s? Beck is a loudmouth liar whose only goal is to create devisiveness and contention. Good luck with him as your leader.”
This represents the modern base of the
Democratic party, and also why much of
what comes from that party is dismissed
by educated adults as the ravings of
pitchfork waving barbarians.
Torture? Suspension of Habeous Corpus?
Domestic spying? Is the fact that
these claims have no basis in reality
not a part of the anger and frustration
that have become part of the tea party
movement? Is not this kind of relentless
intellectual fivolity and dishonesty
deserving of a response?
“but I think that a society must ensure that the least well off are given a basic minimal standard of care (this would include health care, social security, unemployment benefits and a living wage).”
At which point you have just parted company with the gospel of Jesus Christ and the Constitution.
“Daniel, I can understand your concern for the poorest among us. The trick is how to help them WITHOUT making others worse off than the poorest were before we intervened.
As Justice Oliver Holmes put is, how can we lift in one place without making another place even lower?
By the by, what, exactly, is a “living wage”–and who determines what that is?
If we presuppose that adults are rational enough to make their own choices, if a person agrees to work for X, isn’t that by definition an amount that this person can live with?
And who are we to magisterially proclaim that X is insufficient to live on?
Moreover, where are businesses going to get the funds to pay this extra amount? From the consumer? This is usually the case, but then, our minimum wage worker is among them. Further, higher prices makes it less likely for consumers to buy, and hence, more likely for the business to fail, throwing our worker out of a job.
Should the business pay the “living wage” from shareholders’ funds? That would lower the return and make it less likely for shareholders to continue to invest–again, swelling the ranks of the unemployed.
Also likely is management calculating that they cannot afford to pay the unskilled a “living wage”–and stay in business, so to preserve the jobs of the rest of them the least skilled is laid off.
Can you see how this attempt to help the worst off makes them even worse off than before–without actually helping anybody?
And the vast majority of those in minimum wage jobs are either teenagers or the retired working for supplemental income–and both are supported by other means.
Perhaps, given all this, we ought to think twice before equating them with poor people.
This is one area where raising one thing causes other things to be brought down a lot more.
Am I making sense?”
Never bother a liberal regarding the potential consequences of policies he supports.
Good post and a excellent read. You’ve raised some good points. Good work, keep it up. I love returning back to this web site and digesting the good content you always have on offer.