Calling of Political Specialists

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think you are neglecting or ignoring the scriptural injunction that “good and wise” people should be sought for public office because “when the wicked rule, the people mourn.” I don’t have a reference off hand, but it’s in the Doctrine and Covenants. I’ll find it for you if you like. 

I think that will be top of mind for people who hold this calling. It will likely be a part of the training. Which is why it becomes a problem. How likely is it that a person can influence another towards greater participation while not making any judgements about what/who is good and wise or wicked. Politics invites comparison and judgement. It's kind of a requirement in understanding issues and candidates.

So if a person feels strongly that one party is pro-life and the other is  pro-abortion, will that not influence them in the way the encourage others to participate? As you mentioned previously, politics are extremely contentious and the country is divided. I've literally heard in sacrament meeting a talk about how Republicanism is the Lord's way and Democrats reflect Satan's plan. It feels like having a calling centered on politics and/or political activity will only increase these kinds of comparisons in the church. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I mostly fear for people who really don't care much about politics. I think they are easily influenced by people they trust even though they may not have a strong personal understanding of issues and candidates.

 

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I've literally heard in sacrament meeting a talk about how Republicanism is the Lord's way and Democrats reflect Satan's plan.

But I thought the Republicans were the ones trying to criminalize sin to coerce obedience to God’s Law. You know, Lucifer’s plan.💣

I am, of course, joking. They are both promoting Satan’s plan and as long as he can get everyone to pick their favorite version they will all get a long stint in hell together arguing over which of their political idols was more wrong.

Edited May 14, 2019 by The Nehor

[Calm]

Local politics don't usually have the high profile controversial issues, while are often in my experience what the people are least aware about.  And if one gets involved at a local level, they often expand their awareness of state and national politics.  So I think one could strongly encourage local participation and avoid contention to a great extent.

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So if a person feels strongly that one party is pro-life and the other is  pro-abortion, will that not influence them in the way the encourage others to participate? As you mentioned previously, politics are extremely contentious and the country is divided.

 

[rpn]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This seems like a bad idea.

It does seem strange in Utah.   But the world really needs voters who love God, who believe in personal responsibility, and civic duty, who are interested in government that is honest, and thrifty, and that respects parental rights.  And our country deeply needs those who believe God should be part of how we live our lives, even while preserving agency.  It needs people who can talk though hard differences to reach solutions consistent with faith.  It needs people who believe that God and the Ten Commandments matter.

So every church in every state should be helping its members register and actually vote.   In fact none of us should be waiting for anyone at church to be inspiring us to reach out to encourage all those of good will to be thoughtful voters.   The proposed Equality Act that is about to pass the house of representatives, and some say have a shot in the Senate too ought to alarm everyone ---- it will mean parents/drs who don't sign off on transgender operations for their minor children, will lose their parental rights and their children will get them anyway.   It will mean that people of faith will lose jobs by refusing to support not so scientifically based but for the moment popular causes.   There isn't going to be any more important time to be a voter to preserve a God fearing civil society.

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Local politics don't usually have the high profile controversial issues, while are often in my experience what the people are least aware about.  And if one gets involved at a local level, they often expand their awareness of state and national politics.  So I think one could strongly encourage local participation and avoid contention to a great extent.

 

But is this only for "local" participation?

Even so, I met with county commissioners a couple of weeks ago. Even though federal politics had nothing to do with the issue we were discussing, it sure came up. Why? Because the philosophical differences between conservatives and liberals pop up in virtually everything that is done. We were talking about the difference between collecting county taxes based on sales tax versus property tax and I got to hear all about conservative philosophy. I'm not saying they were right or wrong, but the philosophical distinctions come up on virtually any issue. I think it's unavoidable.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, rpn said:

It does seem strange in Utah.   But the world really needs voters who love God, who believe in personal responsibility, and civic duty, who are interested in government that is honest, and thrifty, and that respects parental rights.  And our country deeply needs those who believe God should be part of how we live our lives, even while preserving agency.  It needs people who can talk though hard differences to reach solutions consistent with faith.  It needs people who believe that God and the Ten Commandments matter.

So every church in every state should be helping its members register and actually vote.   In fact none of us should be waiting for anyone at church to be inspiring us to reach out to encourage all those of good will to be thoughtful voters.   The proposed Equality Act that is about to pass the house of representatives, and some say have a shot in the Senate too ought to alarm everyone ---- it will mean parents/drs who don't sign off on transgender operations for their minor children, will lose their parental rights and their children will get them anyway.   It will mean that people of faith will lose jobs by refusing to support not so scientifically based but for the moment popular causes.   There isn't going to be any more important time to be a voter to preserve a God fearing civil society.

CFR-

I don't think so.

CFR-

I don't think so

This sounds like propaganda to me, and likely the kind of things we'll here from "political specialists" at church  

[rpn]

You can call it propaganda if you want, but the Equality Act specifically says that no one can refuse to do anything because of their faith, AND the news already is publishing stories of parent's rights to refuse transgender operation for minor children is being overruled by courts, when there isn't any scientific evidence that biology doesn't determine sex (I'm not speaking about the rare but actual cases of ambiguous sex), and some real evidence that at least with Recent Onset Gender Dysphoria is caused by hystery and social circumstances.

I would not expect, and the SLTrib article doesn't suggest that the political specialists will be doing anything related to specific issues, but only trying to increase/assure voter participation. 

[provoman]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why must someone be neutral to serve effectively in this calling? Are you politically neutral? If not, do you believe your lack of neutrality would render you incompetent to serve in the calling?

Someone who cannot be neutral is likely to cause a situation that threatens tax exemption, ergo "Dont vote X she is a liberal".

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

49 minutes ago, provoman said:

Someone who cannot be neutral is likely to cause a situation that threatens tax exemption, ergo "Dont vote X she is a liberal".

 

 

Do you really think there is no way to avoid that? That people cannot be trained not to do that sort of thing? 

And you didn’t fully answer my questions. If you held that calling, would you not be competent enough to avoid doing what you speculate about here? 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think that will be top of mind for people who hold this calling. It will likely be a part of the training. Which is why it becomes a problem. How likely is it that a person can influence another towards greater participation while not making any judgements about what/who is good and wise or wicked. Politics invites comparison and judgement. It's kind of a requirement in understanding issues and candidates.

So if a person feels strongly that one party is pro-life and the other is  pro-abortion, will that not influence them in the way the encourage others to participate? As you mentioned previously, politics are extremely contentious and the country is divided. I've literally heard in sacrament meeting a talk about how Republicanism is the Lord's way and Democrats reflect Satan's plan. It feels like having a calling centered on politics and/or political activity will only increase these kinds of comparisons in the church. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I mostly fear for people who really don't care much about politics. I think they are easily influenced by people they trust even though they may not have a strong personal understanding of issues and candidates.

 

It’s not self-evident to me that political partisanship or bias would be “at the top of the training.” In fact, I would expect the opposite to be the case, given how careful the Church has been over the years to be politically non-partisan. 

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

How likely is it that a person can influence another towards greater participation while not making any judgements about what/who is good and wise or wicked.

Maybe I've just been fortunate to have mostly positive experiences with this topic, but in the ward we live in now - every time there is an election drawing near - there are multiple gentlemen in our Elders Quorum who remind everyone when early voting begins/ends and when election day is (for those who missed out on early voting). They never say anything about how one ought to vote - only that we should remember to do so. 

On another occasion, my wife and I lived in a ward where someone in the High Priest's group was on the City Council, and he would send out emails about all of the upcoming local elections. Again, he never included anything about how to vote, but if there was a bond measure, for example, he would provide the summary of the issue from the city's website along with a link to the original proposal so you could go and read it (and then decide) for yourself. I thought that was pretty helpful...and perfectly acceptable.

I guess that's kind of what I envision how this calling is supposed to work. You've got elderly people in the ward who can't make it out to the polls anymore? Have someone who can help them obtain mail-in ballots. Don't know how to use a computer to register in your county - we've got someone who can help you with that. Need to know when the next election is? Where your caucus meets? Etc. We've got you covered. 

And hey, maybe you start to get involved a little - especially at the local level - and begin to see that you really can make a difference in your community. That's what happened to the fellow we knew who ended up on the City Council - he found out that the council member in his district was running unopposed, so he decided to throw his hat in the ring. He ended up winning and then running unopposed himself in the next election. Pretty cool. 

 

Edited May 14, 2019 by Amulek

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Calling of Political Specialists

This seems like a bad idea.

We get fairly heavy messaging in church (unofficially) in Elders Quorum and Sunday School that is generally supportive of GOP politics and sometimes even mockery at Democratic politics and candidates, despite the church's official stance of neutrality.

I haven't seen this happen at all, and partisan politics seems off-limits in the meetings I've attended.  Now, of course, B. H. Roberts, Hugh Nibley, and Pres James Faust were all active Democrats, so that calling into question the faith of a Democrat is pretty silly (though I have seen it on this board).

9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Assigning people to help others become more politically active seems like a disaster waiting to happen. If a hardcore Republican is assigned to help others be politically neutral, is it possible that personal feelings of politics could bleed in? What if it were a democrat?

My preference would be for the church to continue to make it's statements of neutrality, and do what it can to enforce that neutrality (ie not allowing overtly political talks, lessons, statements made at church to stand without reminder of neutrality).

Like the story suggests, this kind of initiative to help people become politically active has a potential for hard feelings, and the pushing of certain agendas.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2019/05/14/lds-church-is-assigning/?fbclid=IwAR3_75HmfHr-mJNxA9NlJU_e440TyC1Atr8C3ruZZN5sAxmTEr47Kj7JS8Q

The reason for low voter turnout in most districts in Utah is that the GOP has such a commanding lead in most races that both Republicans and Democrats need not bother to show up.  That's what happens in a one-party state, and it is bad for every one.  Only in Salt Lake County does anyone other than a GOP candidate have a chance.  Even then, the Utah Legislature will always be dominated by a single party, which can quickly lead to corruption.

[Jean-Luc Picard]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I haven't seen this happen at all, and partisan politics seems off-limits in the meetings I've attended.  Now, of course, B. H. Roberts, Hugh Nibley, and Pres James Faust were all active Democrats, so that calling into question the faith of a Democrat is pretty silly (though I have seen it on this board).

The reason for low voter turnout in most districts in Utah is that the GOP has such a commanding lead in most races that both Republicans and Democrats need not bother to show up.  That's what happens in a one-party state, and it is bad for every one.  Only in Salt Lake County does anyone other than a GOP candidate have a chance.  Even then, the Utah Legislature will always be dominated by a single party, which can quickly lead to corruption.

And dominated by a single religion. Can that lead to corruption as well?

Last I checked, the legislature is 90% LDS. 

[USU78]

Is Brian King always such an enemy of Mormon types? Why not work on making his product more palatable to his neighbors?

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Jean-Luc Picard said:

And dominated by a single religion. Can that lead to corruption as well?

Last I checked, the legislature is 90% LDS. 

It wouldn't be of real concern if we had some sort of balance to party affiliation.  I'd like to see some give and take in policy/legislative negotiations.  At present there isn't any.  Group think is not the best way to handle the people's business.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It wouldn't be of real concern if we had some sort of balance to party affiliation.  I'd like to see some give and take in policy/legislative negotiations.  At present there isn't any.  Group think is not the best way to handle the people's business.

These things shift. Back in the 1800s it was the Republicans disenfrancising the LDS and trying to destroy us. Or, to quote Brigham Young:

“Our duty is plain. There are two principal parties in the country — one is for us, the other against us.”

I don't think shifting would improve things much but I like rough parity. It is better to have two wolves fighting so the sheep can get a little peace while they hash it out.

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 Only in Salt Lake County does anyone other than a GOP candidate have a chance. 

I don't think that's altogether true across the state. In Carbon County, Democrats seem to have the upper hand.

At least that's how it was when I lived and worked there in the early '80s. It's coal-mining country, don't you know, heavily unionized, and labor unions tend to lean Democratic.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't think that's altogether true across the state. In Carbon County, Democrats seem to have the upper hand.

At least that's how it was when I lived and worked there in the early '80s. It's coal-mining country, don't you know, heavily unionized, and labor unions tend to lean Democratic.

When were you there, Scott?  I taught at Carbon HS during the '80-81 school year.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

When were you there, Scott?  I taught at Carbon HS during the '80-81 school year.

I lived in Helper and worked for the Price Sun Advocate from mid 1980 to the end of 1982. It was my first job out of college. 

So, yes, we were there at the same time. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't think that's altogether true across the state. In Carbon County, Democrats seem to have the upper hand.

At least that's how it was when I lived and worked there in the early '80s. It's coal-mining country, don't you know, heavily unionized, and labor unions tend to lean Democratic.

That certainly was true at one time.  Now however, it is primarily natural gas production.  As to politics, Wikipedia says: 

Quote

After the turn of the millennium, however, Carbon County has trended Republican. It voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, while voting for the Democratic gubernatorial candidates. In 2008, John McCain won Carbon County with 52.60% of the vote, versus 44.59% for Barack Obama. In 2012, the county's Democratic vote fell further as Mitt Romney carried 67.3% to 30.1% for Obama. In 2016, despite Utah's strong swing against the Republicans due to the presence of conservative independent Evan McMullin, Carbon County was the only county in the state to swing more Republican, as Donald Trump won 66% to Hillary Clinton's 21.5% percent.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_County,_Utah .

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That certainly was true at one time.  Now however, it is primarily natural gas production.  As to politics, Wikipedia says: 

 

Very interesting. There’s been a real sea change since I moved away from there in 1982. 

I wonder how the old timers are coping with it. Maybe they’ve mostly died off — or moved away themselves. 

Edited May 15, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I lived in Helper and worked for the Price Sun Advocate from mid 1980 to the end of 1982. It was my first job out of college. 

So, yes, we were there at the same time. 

I taught English and German, coached Sophomore football, and choreographed and had a bit part (Doc) in the high school's production of West Side Story.  It's quite a coincidence.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I taught English and German, coached Sophomore football, and choreographed and had a bit part (Doc) in the high school's production of West Side Story.  It's quite a coincidence.

Football, languages, dance and drama — you, sir, are a renaissance man. 

[USU78]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Football, languages, dance and drama — you, sir, are a renaissance man. 

You are plainly and hilariously wrong.  I am a mean old man, a moral monster, and without opinions worthy of consideration.  Just read my press clippings.

[nuclearfuels]

On 5/14/2019 at 10:29 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

This seems like a bad idea.

We get fairly heavy messaging in church (unofficially) in Elders Quorum and Sunday School that is generally supportive of GOP politics and sometimes even mockery at Democratic politics and candidates, despite the church's official stance of neutrality.

Assigning people to help others become more politically active seems like a disaster waiting to happen. If a hardcore Republican is assigned to help others be politically neutral, is it possible that personal feelings of politics could bleed in? What if it were a democrat?

My preference would be for the church to continue to make it's statements of neutrality, and do what it can to enforce that neutrality (ie not allowing overtly political talks, lessons, statements made at church to stand without reminder of neutrality).

Like the story suggests, this kind of initiative to help people become politically active has a potential for hard feelings, and the pushing of certain agendas.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2019/05/14/lds-church-is-assigning/?fbclid=IwAR3_75HmfHr-mJNxA9NlJU_e440TyC1Atr8C3ruZZN5sAxmTEr47Kj7JS8Q

Whoa. The Trib is once again questioning everything the Church does.  

I need a breather to overcome the surprise first.

I too share thr Trib's fear that the majority of LDS people in UT will vote for the GOP until their Theocracy is instituted.

What can I do to avoid this terribel outcome?

Vote, campaign and contribute to socialists perhaps?

Aw, now I feel better