Church Head Of Public Affairs Responds To "Dangerous Religion" Claim

[Kenngo1969]

can you articulate the difference between voting because of ones religion and voting against candidate because of the candidate religion.

In terms of religion, perhaps both are equal of supporting a false religion, which means eternal damnation is worse. Though, I would say both are equal in terms of ones religious beliefs. which goes to the question above.

I've never had my eternal welfare put into question by virtue of what I do in a voting booth. Sadly, notwithstanding my unmistakable, unquestionable brilliance , I have yet to meet a candidate who agrees with me on absolutely everything.

Church Statement on Political Neutrality

The Church’s mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to elect politicians. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics. This applies in all of the many nations in which it is established.

The Church does not:

•Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms.

•Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for partisan political purposes.

•Attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether or not a candidate for office is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

•Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader.

The Church does:

•Encourage its members to play a role as responsible citizens in their communities, including becoming informed about issues and voting in elections.

•Expect its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters.

•Request candidates for office not to imply that their candidacy or platforms are endorsed by the Church.

•Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church.

In the United States, where nearly half of the world’s Latter-day Saints live, it is customary for the Church at each national election to issue a letter to be read to all congregations encouraging its members to vote, but emphasizing the Church’s neutrality in partisan political matters.

Relationships With Government

Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position. While the Church may communicate its views to them, as it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent.

Modern scriptural references to the role of government: Doctrine and Covenants, Section 134.

[Jeff K.]

is there a difference between not voting for candidate because of that candidate's religion, and voting for legislation because of one's religion?

Yes. The person has a number of issues from which we judge them. Their honesty for example, their competence, their plans for the future and direction. None of these are singular in a deciding factor. A Muslim who was competent and honest, and had a good plan for the nation would be of equal worth to me as a Mormon of the same type, and more so if the Mormon were of a different standard. I would not, for example vote for Harry Reid in political office, but I would not have a problem with him teaching Sunday School to my children.

Legislation is a single issue which is more clear as to the impact. For example if legislation came forward that legalized prostitution, I would be against it, since I see it as a brutality against women. Or perhaps legalizing pedastry, there too I see something that goes against the moral code I adhere to.

The differences tend to follow those lines in my view.

[Kenngo1969]

Here is David French's response to Warren Cole Smith. Mr. French is (one of) the founder(s) of Evangelicals for Mitt.

[frankenstein]

Thank you Kenngo and Jeff

Kenngo, Yes, the Church does claims nuetrality. And a "political" test isn't given for Temple attendance or Sacrement partaking. I should have been clear earlier, I believe the person who wrote the article is talking about the impact on your immortal soul in the eternities. if we are judge by our works, and though, my understanding of that and a "christians" are quite different, then I think there is place in the understanding of a EV, Fundementalist, to be concerned about the religion of the person they vote for.

Though, I do not think the intended audience for the article thinks that deeply about religion but rather waits to be told what, where and whys of their respective religion.

-----------

Jeff, admittedly I can not think of something off hand, though perhaps the repeal of prohibition (if what I heard is true that the prophet told the saints not to repeal it), I can not think of something that a person of religious leaning would be opposed too strictly because of that persons religion. You stated you would oppose legalization of prostitution on the basis of what it does to women, and I am sure the LDS Church would be opposed to it as well. Even with other issues in Ca. you have expressed first hand experience of why things should be opposed - reasons outside instruction from the Church. So, thanks for throwing a wrinkle into the question.

Though, I suppose there could be situation wherein a person votes a certain way only because of what their religions stance on the issue.

[frankenstein]

Here is David French's response to Warren Cole Smith. Mr. French is (one of) the founder(s) of Evangelicals for Mitt.

We don't think “I like those Bush tax cuts. I think I’ll check out the Methodist church.” <-- hilarious

[Jeff K.]

Thank you Kenngo and Jeff

Kenngo, Yes, the Church does claims nuetrality. And a "political" test isn't given for Temple attendance or Sacrement partaking. I should have been clear earlier, I believe the person who wrote the article is talking about the impact on your immortal soul in the eternities. if we are judge by our works, and though, my understanding of that and a "christians" are quite different, then I think there is place in the understanding of a EV, Fundementalist, to be concerned about the religion of the person they vote for.

Though, I do not think the intended audience for the article thinks that deeply about religion but rather waits to be told what, where and whys of their respective religion.

-----------

Jeff, admittedly I can not think of something off hand, though perhaps the repeal of prohibition (if what I heard is true that the prophet told the saints not to repeal it), I can not think of something that a person of religious leaning would be opposed too strictly because of that persons religion. You stated you would oppose legalization of prostitution on the basis of what it does to women, and I am sure the LDS Church would be opposed to it as well. Even with other issues in Ca. you have expressed first hand experience of why things should be opposed - reasons outside instruction from the Church. So, thanks for throwing a wrinkle into the question.

Though, I suppose there could be situation wherein a person votes a certain way only because of what their religions stance on the issue.

I appreciate the response. I try to be, in a sense like the Jesuits some of whom I know and admire. To use reason to help justify the faith, even in the end it relies upon faith.

I think, for example, it would be wrong to vote for Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon, just as it would be wrong to vote for Harry Reid because he is a Mormon. I think religions in general are good things, and honest and moral atheists are just as valid for support.

Prohibition is an interesting case because the general accepted theory is it did not work. But in fact what changed people's minds was more along the lines that revenue from alcohol sales would bolster the economy. Given the killing criminal elements made the argument was not a moot point.

[Kenngo1969]

I believe the person who wrote the article is talking about the impact on your immortal soul in the eternities. (I)f we are judge[d] by our works … then I think there is place in the understanding of a EV' date=' Fundementalist, to be concerned about the religion of the person they vote for.[/quote']

Perhaps, but, as even Mr. Dalrymple argues (and remember, he, apparently, is at least somewhat sympathetic to Mr. Smith’s position) Mr. Smith does a poor job of supporting his case. As I state above, Mr. Smith’s logic, carried to its natural conclusion, would dictate that an evangelical voter, when deciding for whom to vote, say to him- or herself, in essence, “Yes, I know his positions are closest to mine on social and moral issues [i.e., the issues upon which one’s positions are most likely to affect one’s standing before God in the eternities], but … he’s Mormon.” By Mr. Smith’s logic, even if all other candidates hold positions which the voter is opposed on religious grounds while the Mormon candidate does not, apparently, voting for a Mormon would still be the greater of those two evils.

And yes, I do think it's wrong to vote for a Mormon candidate just because s/he happens to be Mormon.

[Kenngo1969]

... In terms of religion, perhaps both [voting for a Mormon candidate and voting for a candidate who supports unfettered abortion on demand] are equal of supporting a false religion ...

Really? You think evangelicals have an Eleventh Commandment which reads, "Thou shalt not vote for Mormons!"? (Shhhh! Nobody tell David French, et al; for that matter, nobody better tell Mr. Dalrymple! )

[Kenngo1969]

Another dissenting vote from Mr. Smith's position.

My response:

“… LDS voters are perfectly free to vote for Romney or Huntsman on the simple basis that they are LDS candidates.”

True, but I don’t know a single Mormon who would cast a vote on that basis alone.

“While Smith disclaims the notion that his approach is in any way 'bigoted', I must disagree. While the reflexive and immediate hurling of epithets such as 'bigot' in some responses to Smith has unfortunately obscured thoughtful critique that could have otherwise been made, there is no principled reason why one may not conclude that Smith's view is no less bigoted than that of a person who would refuse to vote for an Evangelical on analogous grounds, or than that of a person who would declare women generally 'unfit to serve' on the grounds that women in politics must presumably be feminists and therefore have an objectionable political philosophy, or than that of a person who would make a similar declaration with regard to African-Americans by assuming that they must surely adhere to some sort of black liberation ideology and hence could not possibly be as fit for leadership as, say, a white Protestant male.”

Mr. Dalrymple argues that Mr. Smith’s position is not “bigotry per se” (my phrase) because religion is not an immutable characteristic, as are (for example) gender and race. While I agree with this assessment as far as it goes, I would argue that Mr. Smith’s position certainly seems like bigotry when one considers that politically-conservative Mormons such as Mr. Romney are very likely to share the views of a great many evangelicals on moral and social issues, yet Mr. Smith essentially argues that an evangelical’s response in the voting booth should be, “Yes, I know, but he’s—‘Mormon’.”

Just as I believe most all Mormons would hesitate to vote for someone simply because s/he’s a fellow Mormon—for example, Senator Harry Reid is certainly entitled to his views, but I doubt he’d get much support among politically-conservative Mormons if he were running for president—I also believe that Mr. Smith’s implication that Mr. Romney would use the presidency’s “bully pulpit” to advocate for Mormonism is off-base because most Mormons (even as missionary-minded as we are) would consider that use of the presidency to be a very bad idea.

[Jeff K.]

Just as I believe most all Mormons would hesitate to vote for someone simply because s/he’s a fellow Mormon—for example, Senator Harry Reid is certainly entitled to his views, but I doubt he’d get much support among politically-conservative Mormons if he were running for president—I also believe that Mr. Smith’s implication that Mr. Romney would use the presidency’s “bully pulpit” to advocate for Mormonism is off-base because most Mormons (even as missionary-minded as we are) would consider that use of the presidency to be a very bad idea.

If a Mormon President were acting as a missionary tool, then he is not doing his job, representing the people of the United States (and consequently I would find it hard to vote for him either before an election or in a re-election). If the church mentioned the president were Mormon, it would not be a big issue. If the church were to suddenly make the President who happened to be Mormon the center of its missionary campaign (something I believe they aren't dumb enough to do), then I would be particularly disturbed by it and I would make my concerns known.

[Kenngo1969]

If a Mormon President were acting as a missionary tool, then he is not doing his job, representing the people of the United States (and consequently I would find it hard to vote for him either before an election or in a re-election). If the church mentioned the president were Mormon, it would not be a big issue. If the church were to suddenly make the President who happened to be Mormon the center of its missionary campaign (something I believe they aren't dumb enough to do), then I would be particularly disturbed by it and I would make my concerns known.

One sure vote that the president using the bully pulpit to promote Mormonism would be a bad idea: check!

[Kenngo1969]

Another vote contra Warren Cole Smith (Jeremy Lott).

Here, I think, is the "money quote":

There may indeed be good grounds to oppose a Mormon candidate for office. Yet they ought to be the same grounds that you would use to oppose someone from your own religious tradition. Random traditional Christian voter X should not vote for Mormon candidate Y for the same reason that he would not for a Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish candidate—because you disagree with the candidate about political matters of great import.

The only thing I disagree with Mr. Lott about, somewhat, is when he says this:

Fortunately, there are a few ways to respond to this prejudicial reflex that do not involve accusations of out-and-out bigotry.

As I've said before, if, when confronted with the myriad social and moral issues about which a Mormon candidate and an evangelical voter are apt to agree, an evangelical voter's response is, "Yes, I know, but he's ... Mormon," that does seem an awful lot like bigotry to me. If you doubt that, just substitute some other characteristic for the word "Mormon": "Yes, I know, but he's ... black"; "Yes, I know, but she's a ... woman"; "Yes, I know, but he's ... Jewish"; et cetera.

[Kenngo1969]

Another interesting perspective, in reply to Should Evangelicals Vote for a Mormon?

What would the effect be on the social acceptance of the LDS faith if an LDS presidential candidate was elected?

That depends on the subjective matter of whether or not they do a good job. If you don’t want to vote for an LDS presidential candidate because you’re afraid of increasing social acceptance of the LDS faith, then you must feel that an LDS presidential candidate would do a good job. If you feel that an LDS presidential candidate would not do a good job, then you would not fear that they would increase social acceptance of the LDS faith. Likewise if you do want the social acceptance of the LDS faith to increase, then you should vote for an LDS candidate if and only if you think he/she will do a good job. In the end it doesn’t matter because Latter-day Saints are becoming more socially acceptable whether you like it or not. Fifteen members of congress are LDS. That’s 2.8% of congress while Latter-day Saints are 1.9% of the US populace. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir is internationally famed. Articles like “Mormons Rock!” and “God’s MBAs: Why Mormon Missions Produce Leaders” are being written with more frequency. Michael Otterson, head of the LDS Church’s Public Affairs, has a column in the Washington Post. BYU Provo, BYU Idaho, BYU Hawaii, and LDS Business College are highly respected institutions of academia. People like Glenn Beck, Stephenie Meyer, the Osmond Family, and Orson Scott Card have huge fan bases. If you want to keep the world intolerant of Latter-day Saints, then you’re too late. A Latter-day Saint president is just a drop in a bucket (maybe two or three drops but still). The more you make electing a Latter-day Saint about them being a Latter-day Saint the more Latter-day Saints will probably benefit from it (assuming he/she is good).

[frankenstein]

Another interesting perspective, in reply to Should Evangelicals Vote for a Mormon?

I think hank, who provided the reply you quoted, is mistaken in places his eggs on ill-concieved assumptions. I think he also does not consider correctly where the original offending author might be speaking of in terms of "social acceptance".

Can we use the same reasoning provided by hank i.e. if you think voting for X increases the social acceptance of X you must think X will do a good job or in other words benefit society in a good way, does that reasoning apply to all things ballot, of which a person claims "a vote for legalizing marijuana; gambling; prostitution; 16yr old drinking age; State Mandated religion and non-compliance carries criminal penalities, is social acceptance and really a hiden fear that either of those things will benefit society."

Is voting against prohibition of alcohol approving of drinking and thinking consumption of alcohol is good for society or could a vote against prohibition be a persons way of stating they do not support big government, and that big government is the greater of the two evils.

[thesometimesaint]

Sometimes the proposed cure is worse than the disease.

[Kenngo1969]

I think hank, who provided the reply you quoted, is mistaken in places his eggs on ill-concieved assumptions. I think he also does not consider correctly where the original offending author might be speaking of in terms of "social acceptance".

Can we use the same reasoning provided by hank i.e. if you think voting for X increases the social acceptance of X you must think X will do a good job or in other words benefit society in a good way, does that reasoning apply to all [measures which may be found on a] ballot ...

No, and therein lies the flaw in Mr. Smith's reasoning: voting for someone for president is not a blanket approval of all characteristics a presidential candidate might have. As I noted earlier, there isn't a candidate I've ever voted for with whom I've ever agreed about absolutely everything.

Is voting against prohibition of alcohol approving of drinking and thinking consumption of alcohol is good for society or could a vote against prohibition be a persons way of stating they do not support big government, and that big government is the greater of the two evils.

Sure, that's possible, even likely in many cases.

This is what I thought was most interesting about Hank's response:

If you want to keep the world intolerant of Latter-day Saints, then you’re too late.

[Kenngo1969]

While the reasons for such opposition are many and varied, here's another example that Mr. Smith, sadly, isn't alone in his opinion. The best way to convince people that, no, the sky won't fall if a Mormon is elected president is ... to elect a Mormon president.

Of course, in the face of such opposition as this, that's not very likely to happen, at least, not in the near term.

[Kenngo1969]

More, this time from WaPo, hardly a bastion of even pro-religion (let alone pro-Mormon) or pro-conservative commentary. WaPo also makes the mistake of invoking the Constitution's "no religious test" provision, which doesn't apply to individuals in a voting booth.

Still, it's interesting to see the diversity of quarters from which opposition to antipathy toward Mormon presidential candidates has arisen. It's also interesting that, rather than being a commentary of a particular person in the paper, this piece apparently represents the official editorial position of the paper as a whole.

[Kenngo1969]

A Vote for Romney is a Vote for the LDS Church: Mr. Smith’s piece.

Part 3 of Timothy Dalrymple’s response to Warren Cole Smith.

In [Warren Cole] Smith’s view, a good President will, among other things, faithfully represent conservative values. He mentions two specific beliefs that ought to give us pause: belief in a historical narrative that is “in many particulars completely unsubstantiated and in others demonstrably false,” and belief in the doctrine of continuous revelation.

What either of the above objections of Mr. Smith have to do with a president’s ability to “faithfully represent conservative values” I have no idea.

I too find the historical narratives of Mormonism – both the ancient narratives in which some Israelites make their way to the New World and Jesus Christ appears to them there, and the more modern narratives of Joseph Smith’s discovery of the golden tablets – highly implausible. This is not to insult Mormons. Many people find my own beliefs implausible, and I freely confess that I am not an expert in Mormonism and have not thoroughly investigated these claims. Yet the point is: even for someone like myself, who finds these beliefs implausible, it’s hard to imagine that they would actually interfere with Romney’s ability to manage our affairs foreign and domestic.

That’s good to hear.

Why should they? Would Romney bungle the Middle East peace process because he believes the descendants of the ancient Israelites did battle with a tribe of Native Americans? Is he going to invade Missouri because he believes it was the site of the Garden of Eden? The notion strains credulity.

Obviously no, on both counts.

What Smith actually claims is that these beliefs demonstrate an insufficient concern for historical factuality. Because he believes in a historical narrative that is manifestly false, Smith believes, Romney (and other Mormons like him) must believe that history is not bound to facts and evidence but is susceptible to reinvention. I found this to be the least persuasive of all Smith’s claims. Mormons do not believe we’re free to fabricate history. Some Mormons may not believe in these historical narratives at all, in the same way that some Christians do not consider some of the New Testament stories historical. But when Mormons do believe those narratives, they believe they’re actually true, they actually happened – and it’s because they feel themselves accountable to facts and evidence that they engage in apologetics and look for archeological verification. Mormon apologetics are more sophisticated than the common evangelical caricature gives them credit for, because Mormons – like evangelicals – believe that there are metaphysical and historical facts of the matter. We do not disagree that there are facts; we just disagree on what those facts are.

Indeed. I find it interesting how many detractors of Mormonism treat such notions as “historical fact” and “truth” as easily discernible in the same way that, e.g., “2 + 2 = 4.” The philosopher Stephen R. Covey says that we don’t see things as they are; we see them as we are. This is especially true of the past. People’s view of the past is often distorted by a tendency to filter the view though a set of 21st-century presuppositions, and critics of the Book of Mormon and of 19th-century Mormonism seem especially prone to that failing.

[Kenngo1969]

My Response to Dr. Dalrymple's Part 3, Continued:

What about the second belief Smith cites, the belief in continuous revelation? The LDS Church teaches that God reveals the Truth not only in the scriptures but through the prophets of the church. It was through the teachings of the prophets that Mormons recast their views on polygamy (that it was only intended by God for a certain time) and on race (that blacks should be capable of ordination). The concern here, according to Smith, is that the LDS Church might change its mind on, say, the sacredness of life in the womb. As a Mormon, wouldn’t Romney be compelled to change his views as well.

What would really blow Mr. Smith’s mind is to learn that Mormons believe continuing revelation isn’t available only to members of the Church, but to people in general—including to presidents of the United States (whatever their religious persuasion). Millions of Mormons pray for the president to receive just such inspiration—even if he’s [Gasp!] a Democrat!

Of course not. For one thing, all Mormons do not all fall in line with the teachings of their authorities any more than all Catholics do.

As interesting as it would be to see how the convictions of an “orthodox” Mormon such as Mr. Romney might affect his performance as president of the United States, in some respects it would be even more interesting to see how the convictions of an “unorthodox” Mormon such as former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China Jon M. Huntsman (who says his membership in the church is “tough to define”) might affect his performance as president.

A President who was elected on one platform could hardly abandon his promises and principles just because the LDS Church changed its teaching on something.

Well, one could abandon one’s principles; arguably, it happens all the time—but for reasons having nothing to do with shifts in doctrine of one’s faith. While I’m not suggesting that former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is less than devout or that he has abandoned the principles of his faith, Mr. Reid, church member and Mr. Reid, Senate Minority Leader likely hold private positions and public positions, respectively, which cannot easily be reconciled. (I should hasten to add that I don’t want to turn this into a political discussion.)

For another [thing], it would be something like ecclesial suicide for the LDS Church to reverse itself in this way. The LDS Church for the most part, in its own self-interest, keeps out of partisan political issues. If it suddenly reversed its position on something like abortion or gay marriage (issues that transcend the political, where the church has taken definite stances), it would lose all credibility and would take a massive PR hit with those most likely to be receptive to their message: values conservatives.

No argument here.

Finally, the ways in which the LDS Church has reshaped its teachings over the years have been, to my knowledge, uniformly in one direction – toward and not away from orthodox Christian beliefs. In other words, it’s highly unlikely the LDS Church would change its teachings on one of these matters, any change is far more likely to one Christian conservatives would welcome than one they would reject, and a Mormon President would not be bound to honor such a change even if it were not.

If one wishes to find a textbook example of how at least one strain of Mormonism has morphed to become a more-or-less Protestant faith, one need look no further than the Community of Christ, formerly Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is, in my view, little (no?) chance that something similar would happen within the main body of the church.

Now to the second question: Do their beliefs cast such doubt on the very rationality of Mormons that a conscientious voter should reject a Mormon candidate? Smith comes closest to this claim when he says that Mormon historical teachings are so obviously false that they represent an abandonment of historical method, and when he suggests that there are “many other” peculiar beliefs that should cause concern for voters.

Again, we don’t see history as it is; we see it as we are. I have found this to be especially true of critics evaluating 19th-century Mormonism and Book of Mormon claims.

Smith comes closest to this claim when he says that Mormon historical teachings are so obviously false that they represent an abandonment of historical method, and when he suggests that there are “many other” peculiar beliefs that should cause concern for voters. To be clear, Smith never says that Mormons are foolish, or dishonest, or unethical. He, Smith, only says that they may not care enough for historical fact. And others might have this concern over rationality in mind when they say (what Warren does not say) that Mormonism is a cult or etc.

An atheist would reject a non-Mormon Christian candidate on the same grounds; I’m sure Mr. Smith would be perfectly okay with that, right? Again, historical “fact” isn’t as easily discernible as “2+2=4.”

In my view, some Mormon beliefs are false, but not so obviously or outrageously false that I cannot respect the rationality of a person who believes them.

That’s good to know; I hope a majority of evangelicals hold that view.

I’ve known many Mormons who are not only good and decent people, but abundantly rational people. The ways in which religious beliefs take shape are complex. The influences of experience and upbringing, of relationship and desire, are profound and pervasive.

Again, I hope a majority of evangelicals share that view.

Evangelicals are to some extent the victims of — and of course to some extent responsible for — years and years of Mormon caricatures.

With due respect, I have a hard time understanding how evangelicals could be victims of caricatures of Mormons, and Mr. Dalrymple (Doctor! Sorry!) And many caricatures of Mormons are done at the hands of evangelicals—perhaps most of them.

It’s easy for evangelicals to joke about the special underwear or the planet Kolob.

Mormons are hardly alone in ascribing special religious significance to clothing, and we are, to my knowledge, the only group who dares to hazard a non-metaphorical idea of where God is.

Yet many Christian beliefs also sound silly when they’re presented in caricature, and much more reasonable when they’re presented by a skilled teacher or theologian. The same goes for Mormon beliefs.

True.

To be clear, I think that historic, orthodox Christianity has the better of the argument. But I’ll give a couple examples, in a post next week, of Mormon beliefs that seem outrageous to non-Mormon Christians but are less outrageous when understood in context.

Many of our critics offer criticism on the basis of things which they’ve mercilessly ripped from the context in which they are found.

I think this is important. We need to be able to disagree with one another without falling into caricature. We need to be able to say that a certain belief is false, even that a certain belief system as a whole is fatally flawed, without saying that everyone who ascribes to those beliefs is irrational. If we can’t do so with Mormons, how can we ask atheists to treat us with the same consideration?

As I've pointed out before, I think it's less productive to talk in terms of truth or falsity than in terms of how much good fruit a person brings forth.

[Kenngo1969]

I thought this piece, comparing and contrasting the Mormonism of Ambassador Jon M. Huntsman and Governor Mitt Romney (or at least, their respective approaches to it), was interesting.