60 replies to this topic

[Carborendum]

I'm going to bring up the "topic" of politics without actually getting into politics.  I'm not going to actually state positions, opinions, or issues.  I hope any who respond to this post can answer in kind.

A family in my ward (most vocally, the mom) has some very strange doctrinal/theological ideas that are mostly born out of her political ideology.  She 100% believes them.  She also believes she receives revelation for the ward.  And she's told the Bishop this on at least one occasion.

I tried opening the scriptures and church manuals to her to refute some claims.  Her response was "My personal revelation trumps any book you can shove in my face."  She didn't actually say it that way. She meandered for 20 minutes to kind of describe something like this.  After seeing some posts on this board, I am thinking at least a few agree with her in many ways.  So, I've been wondering...

How far can you actually follow your political ideology (where it differs from your faith) before you just can't keep justifying things anymore?
How far can you claim personal revelation before you really are apostate?
How much can you separate your political ideas of right and wrong vs. your religious ideas of right and wrong?

Example: My FIL was on one side of an issue.  The Church came out on the other side.  (Gee which issue could that be?)  I'm guessing he prayed about it for a while.  He decided to support the Church in any political way possible.  But when asked in private, he stated his political ideology on the matter was still his position.  But as a matter of faith, he supported the Church in this political matter.  In this instance, faith trumps politics.

What is your take?

[altersteve]

Carborendum, on 16 August 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

How much can you separate your political ideas of right and wrong vs. your religious ideas of right and wrong?

For me, I tend to not separate them at all. My political and religious beliefs do not fall into two distinct categories. They simply fall into one category, labeled "What I Believe."

[ERayR]

Carborendum, on 16 August 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

I'm going to bring up the "topic" of politics without actually getting into politics.  I'm not going to actually state positions, opinions, or issues.  I hope any who respond to this post can answer in kind.

A family in my ward (most vocally, the mom) has some very strange doctrinal/theological ideas that are mostly born out of her political ideology.  She 100% believes them.  She also believes she receives revelation for the ward.  And she's told the Bishop this on at least one occasion.

I tried opening the scriptures and church manuals to her to refute some claims.  Her response was "My personal revelation trumps any book you can shove in my face."  She didn't actually say it that way. She meandered for 20 minutes to kind of describe something like this.  After seeing some posts on this board, I am thinking at least a few agree with her in many ways.  So, I've been wondering...

How far can you actually follow your political ideology (where it differs from your faith) before you just can't keep justifying things anymore?
How far can you claim personal revelation before you really are apostate?
How much can you separate your political ideas of right and wrong vs. your religious ideas of right and wrong?

Example: My FIL was on one side of an issue.  The Church came out on the other side.  (Gee which issue could that be?)  I'm guessing he prayed about it for a while.  He decided to support the Church in any political way possible.  But when asked in private, he stated his political ideology on the matter was still his position.  But as a matter of faith, he supported the Church in this political matter.  In this instance, faith trumps politics.

What is your take?

What political issue are you talking about.  The church does not become embroiled in political issues, only moral issues some of which certain groups have politicized.   Right or wrong is right or wrong wherever it is encountered.

[Buzzard]

I don't know that most LDS would consider a political position to be 100% religiously based. The just see an alignment between their politics and their world view. I am fairly vocal about a couple of things about the "local culture" that tee me off. (MLM's and 4-Wheelers). This can get awkward since our bishop is an executive at a prominent MLM, and I am about the only guy on my block without a garage full of 4-wheel ATVs-and while they are hooking them up to their pickups, I am throwing my backpack into the trunk. From time to time, our discussions on these topics have gotten kind of tense, but both myself and my fellow LDS have resisted the temptation to label the other  as less than worthy solely because we disagree, even profoundly, on issues.

[cesc101]

Personally, I'd always consoled myself; that both Religion & Politics, were created to ensure/safeguard Morality. Hence, for as long as one does not disturb the practice of the other: all is well.
But, forcing one's view on others (as Revelation), is another issue entirely.

[ERayR]

Buzzard, on 16 August 2012 - 10:09 PM, said:

I don't know that most LDS would consider a political position to be 100% religiously based. The just see an alignment between their politics and their world view. I am fairly vocal about a couple of things about the "local culture" that tee me off. (MLM's and 4-Wheelers). This can get awkward since our bishop is an executive at a prominent MLM, and I am about the only guy on my block without a garage full of 4-wheel ATVs-and while they are hooking them up to their pickups, I am throwing my backpack into the trunk. From time to time, our discussions on these topics have gotten kind of tense, but both myself and my fellow LDS have resisted the temptation to label the other  as less than worthy solely because we disagree, even profoundly, on issues.

Why would you have a problem with ATVs?  Just because you backpack and they four wheel.  I wish I could afford a couple.

[ERayR]

cesc101, on 17 August 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:

Personally, I'd always consoled myself; that both Religion & Politics, were created to ensure/safeguard Morality. Hence, for as long as one does not disturb the practice of the other: all is well.
But, forcing one's view on others (as Revelation), is another issue entirely.

Forcing ones view on another without due process is always questionable, no matter how it is done.

[rpn]

I read recently that the biggest thinking danger of all is "certainty".   Once one gets there, confirmation bias will forever make the thinking "right".   The woman stepped over the line when she claimed without stewardship that she got revelation for the ward.  Depending on what her bishop then advised, she may also be in apostasy (which can only happen when she keeps doing what the bishop has told her to quit doing).

Politically and even thought wise, we are free to do anything we want to do (and will be held accountable for doing so.  After I learned that in the 1920's the Church officially opposed a proposed law in Utah and members voted FOR the law after being explicitly asked to oppose (I think it was on alcohol), I wondered what would have then or is now been different if members had followed the official counsel.   But it is sometimes simply the road not taken that is the problem with being out of sync with prophetic counsel, not that the roads we take are themselves obviously bad.

[thesometimesaint]

I believe in the absolute separation of Church and State. IF there is any overlap it is purely coincidental.

[CV75]

Carborendum, on 16 August 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

What is your take?

I tend to put my religion and other things first and politics much further down the line from that. I’ve never asked for revelation about a political issue; I believe I have the Lord’s help in making the best decisions I can in general. I’m sure if the Lord wanted me to vote a certain way I would be receptive to His prompting, but that’s never happened and most of my voting has been pretty angst-free.

Separating right and wrong politically requires a level of canniness I do not possess. For me, politics is an amoral process influenced by individuals’ morals / moralities. On the other hand, it is very easy for me to separate right from wrong spiritually, and this is what defines my morals / morality that influence my decisions. Where this overlaps with politics, the decisions are straightforward.

I don’t see any kind of personal revelation (real or imagined, and from any source) equating with apostasy, but what one does with it does.

Edited by CV75, 17 August 2012 - 08:09 AM.

[TAO]

Carborendum, on 16 August 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

I'm going to bring up the "topic" of politics without actually getting into politics.  I'm not going to actually state positions, opinions, or issues.  I hope any who respond to this post can answer in kind.

A family in my ward (most vocally, the mom) has some very strange doctrinal/theological ideas that are mostly born out of her political ideology.  She 100% believes them.  She also believes she receives revelation for the ward.  And she's told the Bishop this on at least one occasion.

I tried opening the scriptures and church manuals to her to refute some claims.  Her response was "My personal revelation trumps any book you can shove in my face."  She didn't actually say it that way. She meandered for 20 minutes to kind of describe something like this.  After seeing some posts on this board, I am thinking at least a few agree with her in many ways.  So, I've been wondering...

How far can you actually follow your political ideology (where it differs from your faith) before you just can't keep justifying things anymore?
How far can you claim personal revelation before you really are apostate?
How much can you separate your political ideas of right and wrong vs. your religious ideas of right and wrong?

Example: My FIL was on one side of an issue.  The Church came out on the other side.  (Gee which issue could that be?)  I'm guessing he prayed about it for a while.  He decided to support the Church in any political way possible.  But when asked in private, he stated his political ideology on the matter was still his position.  But as a matter of faith, he supported the Church in this political matter.  In this instance, faith trumps politics.

What is your take?

Personal Revelation trumps all things, for you yourself.  It does not trump things for anybody else.  Think about what Brigham Young said; about each person needing to go ask God themselves whether or not to follow his leadership.  She can consider herself following her own personal revelation, but, as we know the Church is true, by asking God, and we know that the church teaches that revelation does not come in that manner, I think it is fine for us to be skeptical of what she claims is revelation.

In any case, all 3 questions are pretty much up to the person.  Different people think differently.  Some may stay for certain reasons, and others for other reasons. I wouldn't say we can establish any case-typing classification system.

Instead, we should remember, that it's important for us to follow Heavenly Father, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and listen to the Prophets and Apostles they have put upon the Earth.

[KevinG]

The 1st Amendment ensures we live in a country where we can freely exercise our religion.  Crossing those lines and using religion to dictate politics would endanger that precious right that secured the ability for the restoration to happen.

I don't take that lightly.  I may not like Brother Romney or Brother Reid's politics but I'm not about to pretend to know their relative worthiness or godliness based on their political actions.

[calmoriah]

rpn, on 17 August 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

Politically and even thought wise, we are free to do anything we want to do (and will be held accountable for doing so.  After I learned that in the 1920's the Church officially opposed a proposed law in Utah and members voted FOR the law after being explicitly asked to oppose (I think it was on alcohol), I wondered what would have then or is now been different if members had followed the official counsel.   But it is sometimes simply the road not taken that is the problem with being out of sync with prophetic counsel, not that the roads we take are themselves obviously bad.

I think it was Prohibition.

http://eom.byu.edu/i...php/Prohibition

Quote

After the depression began in 1929, anti-Prohibition forces gained strength in Utah and the rest of the country. Nevertheless, led by Grant, who had become President of the Church in 1918, LDS leaders continued to support national Prohibition. Despite this support, the citizens of Utah voted in November 1933 for both national and state repeal. One month later Prohibition ended in Utah and the rest of the nation.

[DavidB]

ERayR, on 16 August 2012 - 09:51 PM, said:

What political issue are you talking about.  The church does not become embroiled in political issues, only moral issues some of which certain groups have politicized.   Right or wrong is right or wrong wherever it is encountered.

What is the difference between a moral issue and a political issue? Can you provide a intellectually coherent definition?

[Carborendum]

rpn, on 17 August 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

The woman stepped over the line when she claimed without stewardship that she got revelation for the ward.

To be fair, I need to clarify.  She did not mean that she was receiving what the Bishop should be receiving.  It was more like she was everybody's home teacher and was receiving revelation for each individual as they came to her.  I don't believe I've heard of such a church office.

rpn, on 17 August 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

After I learned that in the 1920's the Church officially opposed a proposed law in Utah and members voted FOR the law after being explicitly asked to oppose (I think it was on alcohol), I wondered what would have then or is now been different if members had followed the official counsel.   But it is sometimes simply the road not taken that is the problem with being out of sync with prophetic counsel, not that the roads we take are themselves obviously bad.

Actually there is an example even earlier.

In the 1850s or 1860s or so. . . But I shouldn't mention the actual issue right now.  The Church actually told everyone to vote against the issue. The membership voted for it.  Now we have what I and many others consider to be one of the biggest evils of our day.

Also, in the days of Nauvoo, Independence, Kirtland, the trek west, and in much of the settling of Utah, there are multiple examples of when the Church leadership spoke out on issues both personal and political that the membership ignored.  (And people say we just mindlessly follow our leaders).  Each time, the counsel of the apostles went unheeded with disastrous consequences.

[why me]

Carborendum, on 16 August 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

A family in my ward (most vocally, the mom) has some very strange doctrinal/theological ideas that are mostly born out of her political ideology.  She 100% believes them.  She also believes she receives revelation for the ward.  And she's told the Bishop this on at least one occasion.

What is your take?

She has a problem. Something is going on in her life that is causing her to behave this way. And I am sure that the bishop is being gracious with her. I don't think that anyone can help her by showing her where she is going wrong because she really believes that right is on her side.

She can become a disruptive influence if she is taken seriously, not understanding that she may have a problem.

[why me]

TAO, on 17 August 2012 - 09:18 AM, said:

Personal Revelation trumps all things, for you yourself.  It does not trump things for anybody else.  Think about what Brigham Young said; about each person needing to go ask God themselves whether or not to follow his leadership.  She can consider herself following her own personal revelation, but, as we know the Church is true, by asking God, and we know that the church teaches that revelation does not come in that manner, I think it is fine for us to be skeptical of what she claims is revelation.

And this is my point. To take what she says seriously. We shouldn't. I do believe that there is something going on in her life that is causing this kind of behavior. But only the OP may know for sure. There could be other personal issues in the background. And it seems that the bishop is tolerating this behavior for a reason. We are not really dealing with a political/religious issue here. But maybe something deeper. Receiving revelation for the ward is a clue.

[Carborendum]

why me, on 17 August 2012 - 11:12 PM, said:

We are not really dealing with a political/religious issue here. But maybe something deeper.

Actually, we are.  There are some ineffable qualities to her positions that I cannot outline here.  But the source of her woes have to do, I believe, with her willingness to let politics trump faith.  In every issue, no matter how clear the Church is on an issue, she justifies her politics first, her faith second.

On any other issues that are not politically driven, she uses her faith to justify everything.

[changed]

Carborendum, on 16 August 2012 - 09:37 PM, said:

How far can you actually follow your political ideology (where it differs from your faith) before you just can't keep justifying things anymore?

I choose political views that match my faith (in as much as the two are able to match that is)

Quote

How far can you claim personal revelation before you really are apostate?

This is a hard one.  Eve went apostate in Eden, but now we are all happy she did... are there instances where we need to prove our own independent testimonies?  part of it is becoming united in all things, one heart and one mind though, and you don't get that unification experience by going out on your own.  I'd say personal revelation is personal and only applies to yourself, and those you have stewardship over (perhaps family?), and then if the church asks you to do something that goes against personal revelation, I guess in most instances I might be a little like Pilot - go along with it, but also wash my hands of it, and put it on the backs of those who are commanding it.

Quote

How much can you separate your political ideas of right and wrong vs. your religious ideas of right and wrong?

Political ideals are created to govern an imperfect population, and are constrained by the actions (or in-actions) of that population.  For instance, it would be wonderful if welfare needs were 100% met through voluntary organizations, friends, and family.  If welfare needs were met this way, there would be no need for gov run welfare programs.  as it is, the general population is not doing things with their own free will, and so now we have some trying to push Satan's plan of forcing everyone to be good through forced taxes, vs. the idealists plan of trusting that in the absence of taxes everyone will suddenly become altruistic, step up to the plate, and take care of all the world's problems on their own without being coerced into doing so.  Political leadership is not like church leadership - nothing about politics will ever be a perfect solution, because there is no perfect way to govern people who are imperfect.  To me, politics are just a gauge showing the state of the population, the population's ability to govern themselves, vs. how much they have to be babysat and disciplined because they refuse to do it on their own....

Edited by changed, 18 August 2012 - 07:38 AM.

[ldsboy]

Carborendum, on 17 August 2012 - 10:01 PM, said:

Now we have what I and many others consider to be one of the biggest evils of our day.

What's the issue?
Why hide it?