Can Political Statements Disqualify for Callings?

[HappyJackWagon]

For many years Harry Reid has been hated amongst members in my neck of the woods. Discussions of politics would inevitably decline into conversations about Reid and how he shouldn't be allowed to hold a temple recommend or even be a member of the church. Those on the right were judging Reid on his leftist ideology. But people on the left judge people on the right in similar ways. Sometimes a Democrat will judge an outspoken Republican about their stance on immigration and how it doesn't match the church's position. The political rancor intersects religion regularly and the harshness of the judgments get really tired.

I admit that...but...

Last night I was reading a Facebook post from a prominent member in my area. This person referenced a Tennessee law that removes civil liability for a motorist who hits a protestor in a street. This person called it a "Proud moment that allows someone to run over another person for blocking the road in protest". This mindset absolutely disgusts me and I am shocked that anyone, let alone a church leader, would voice approval of running protestors down.

At the risk of being a hypocrite, because I hate judging people's worthiness on their politics, I find myself really focused on whether or not I can sustain a person in leadership, or any calling, who would advocate this kind of violent behavior.

http://wearechange.org/tennessee-passes-controversial-law-allowing-drivers-injure-protesters/

Are there legitimate reasons to judge a person based on their politics and oppose them in a calling?

[emeliza]

I try to judge by actions, not words.  I had friends seriously tell me they wished people coming into the US would die of thirst or starvation in the deserts trying to get here.  They thought this was a good and legitimate punishments for crossing the border illegally.  I was appalled, but I have never witnessed an action by these ladies that indicates they would truly let someone starve. They were called to RS and Primary Presidencies and I substained them.  I am still friends with them, although that conversation has always left a negative impression on me.

Substaining (I believe) isn't a vote, but more of you backing the person up in their calling.  So I was able to put aside their comments because I guess I decided maybe they didn't mean them. 

If you feel this person would seriously run over protestors, that is a good reason to not substain them.  If you think they were just talking big, but that isn't really who they are, substain them.

As someone who has received messages from other ward members calling my TR into question, I have made it a decision to never do the same.  

[emeliza]

I should add that it would still probably depend on the calling and if this person has done other things or said other things that made me question their ability to handle the calling. 

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, emeliza said:

I try to judge by actions, not words.  I had friends seriously tell me they wished people coming into the US would die of thirst or starvation in the deserts trying to get here.  They thought this was a good and legitimate punishments for crossing the border illegally.  I was appalled, but I have never witnessed an action by these ladies that indicates they would truly let someone starve. They were called to RS and Primary Presidencies and I substained them.  I am still friends with them, although that conversation has always left a negative impression on me.

Substaining (I believe) isn't a vote, but more of you backing the person up in their calling.  So I was able to put aside their comments because I guess I decided maybe they didn't mean them. 

If you feel this person would seriously run over protestors, that is a good reason to not substain them.  If you think they were just talking big, but that isn't really who they are, substain them.

As someone who has received messages from other ward members calling my TR into question, I have made it a decision to never do the same.  

Thanks for the thought about judging by actions instead of by words. There's a lot to think about.

But isn't there some level of responsibility for a person who advocates violent action even if they don't personally engage in it?

[rongo]

I think there definitely could be repercussions (as in, not getting a high-profile calling one might otherwise get) if one has public, extreme political social media postings. While most recommendations for bishop ordination are approved by the First Presidency, some are not. I have no idea how much "vetting" happens, but names could be googled and if there are extreme political rants, I could see that as a reason to turn down the recommendation and select another candidate. With a stake president, usually 30+ men are interviewed and asked for names, and it is unlikely that a political ranter will consistently be recommended by his peers. 

[emeliza]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 

But isn't there some level of responsibility for a person who advocates violent action even if they don't personally engage in it?

Oh yes, I agree there should be and in many cases there are.  But unless this person did it in their calling, I am not sure it can relate to their calling.  

Now if someone actually goes and hits protestors with their car and sites this persons post on social media as the reason, there might be some type of legal consequences.....but I am not sure they would have much of a case there either.  

My youngest recently commented on wishing someone would be assinated.  I was quite shocked and had to remind her that words had power and that this was a human.  I had to remind her that they had a family as well and that it is okay to wish they didn't have the position they do, but it is not ok to wish them death.  

[ksfisher]

55 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

For many years Harry Reid has been hated amongst members in my neck of the woods. Discussions of politics would inevitably decline into conversations about Reid and how he shouldn't be allowed to hold a temple recommend or even be a member of the church. Those on the right were judging Reid on his leftist ideology. But people on the left judge people on the right in similar ways. Sometimes a Democrat will judge an outspoken Republican about their stance on immigration and how it doesn't match the church's position. The political rancor intersects religion regularly and the harshness of the judgments get really tired.

I admit that...but...

Last night I was reading a Facebook post from a prominent member in my area. This person referenced a Tennessee law that removes civil liability for a motorist who hits a protestor in a street. This person called it a "Proud moment that allows someone to run over another person for blocking the road in protest". This mindset absolutely disgusts me and I am shocked that anyone, let alone a church leader, would voice approval of running protestors down.

At the risk of being a hypocrite, because I hate judging people's worthiness on their politics, I find myself really focused on whether or not I can sustain a person in leadership, or any calling, who would advocate this kind of violent behavior.

http://wearechange.org/tennessee-passes-controversial-law-allowing-drivers-injure-protesters/

Are there legitimate reasons to judge a person based on their politics and oppose them in a calling?

Just curious, but was the facebook post that you read written sarcasticly?  That's how the little snippet that you quoted sounds to me.

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Just curious, but was the facebook post that you read written sarcasticly?  That's how the little snippet that you quoted sounds to me.

No. Not at all.

[thesometimesaint]

I normally don't question the worthiness of other members of the Church. But to advocate for violence against someone makes me wonder.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

For many years Harry Reid has been hated amongst members in my neck of the woods. Discussions of politics would inevitably decline into conversations about Reid and how he shouldn't be allowed to hold a temple recommend or even be a member of the church. Those on the right were judging Reid on his leftist ideology. But people on the left judge people on the right in similar ways. Sometimes a Democrat will judge an outspoken Republican about their stance on immigration and how it doesn't match the church's position. The political rancor intersects religion regularly and the harshness of the judgments get really tired.

I admit that...but...

Last night I was reading a Facebook post from a prominent member in my area. This person referenced a Tennessee law that removes civil liability for a motorist who hits a protestor in a street. This person called it a "Proud moment that allows someone to run over another person for blocking the road in protest". This mindset absolutely disgusts me and I am shocked that anyone, let alone a church leader, would voice approval of running protestors down.

At the risk of being a hypocrite, because I hate judging people's worthiness on their politics, I find myself really focused on whether or not I can sustain a person in leadership, or any calling, who would advocate this kind of violent behavior.

http://wearechange.org/tennessee-passes-controversial-law-allowing-drivers-injure-protesters/

Are there legitimate reasons to judge a person based on their politics and oppose them in a calling?

Excellent question.  I saw a video about someone hitting a protester on my facebook feed recently, the person that posted the video was insinuating that the protester got what they deserved and I was disgusted by it.  I had no idea about that Tennessee law, that is shockingly backwards for a civilized society.  

I think you have a right to consider not sustaining a local leader for their views on a subject like this.  However, are you being hypocritical?  Would a conservative minded person have the right to not sustain a leader who supports SSM or Abortion?  Its a good question, and makes me think more deeply about what it means to sustain someone, and whether or not certain disagreements on moral grounds rise to the level of not sustaining that person in a calling. 

Perhaps it depends on what the calling is for, and whether their views on any particular subject have direct relevance for their called responsibilities?  I don't have an answer for you, this is a difficult question and I'm still thinking about it.  Thanks for the post.  

[bsjkki]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

For many years Harry Reid has been hated amongst members in my neck of the woods. Discussions of politics would inevitably decline into conversations about Reid and how he shouldn't be allowed to hold a temple recommend or even be a member of the church. Those on the right were judging Reid on his leftist ideology. But people on the left judge people on the right in similar ways. Sometimes a Democrat will judge an outspoken Republican about their stance on immigration and how it doesn't match the church's position. The political rancor intersects religion regularly and the harshness of the judgments get really tired.

I admit that...but...

Last night I was reading a Facebook post from a prominent member in my area. This person referenced a Tennessee law that removes civil liability for a motorist who hits a protestor in a street. This person called it a "Proud moment that allows someone to run over another person for blocking the road in protest". This mindset absolutely disgusts me and I am shocked that anyone, let alone a church leader, would voice approval of running protestors down.

At the risk of being a hypocrite, because I hate judging people's worthiness on their politics, I find myself really focused on whether or not I can sustain a person in leadership, or any calling, who would advocate this kind of violent behavior.

http://wearechange.org/tennessee-passes-controversial-law-allowing-drivers-injure-protesters/

Are there legitimate reasons to judge a person based on their politics and oppose them in a calling?

I am really curious how these bills are written. I know the reason behind them is not to run over peaceful protesters blocking traffic but to allow innocent victims caught up in violent riots the opportunity to escape without being held liable. So...after finding the bill, it is very short. I think your facebook friend made a reactionary comment. I think anyone in a position of leadership in the church, should be careful about their politics on facebook. I was friends with a bishopric member on facebook who would post the most offensive memes and articles. In a ward, it isn't wise to offend those you serve. 

HOUSE BILL 668 By Hill M AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 19; Title 20; Title 29, Chapter 34; Title 54 and Title 55, relative to civil liability. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE: SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 29, Chapter 34, Part 2, is amended by adding the following as a new section: (a) A person driving an automobile who is exercising due care and injures another person who is participating in a protest or demonstration and is blocking traffic in a public right-of-way is immune from civil liability for such injury. (b) A person shall not be immune from civil liability if the actions leading to the injury were willful or wanton. SECTION 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2017, the public welfare requiring it.

Here is an article explaining the intent of  the law. http://patch.com/tennessee/nashville/tennessee-lawmakers-want-protection-drivers-who-hit-road-blocking-protesters  “We are not endorsing anyone running over a person with a car, whether it is protesters or anyone else. If someone intentionally harms a person, they are going to be charged with a crime, period. There is a clear difference, however, between peacefully protesting and lawless rioters in the middle of a public roadway who jeopardize the safety of our families. This is a public safety bill that is meant to protect everyone’s right to peacefully protest and I look forward to seeing this commonsense legislation passed into law," he said in a statement.

 

[bsjkki]

What do you want the driver to do in these circumstances? 

 

[bsjkki]

The bills are being written due to riots and lawlessness but I don't think anyone should be happy about the prospect of running over peaceful protesters. I think many of us will remember this incident. 

 

[bluebell]

I think sometimes people don't stop to really consider what they are saying.  Like when people say something like "if you ever do that again, i'll kill you" for example.  

Obviously, the people aren't saying they are actually going to kill anyone or that they support the idea that someone can kill another for over such matters.  They use the words to convey the depth of their feelings and not to express a literal threat.  I think it's the same thing with the street protestor debate.

People tend to get pretty upset when they feel like someone is trying to bully them into agreeing with them and a lot of people see protesters in the street as exactly that-bullies who will do anything to get their way.  People also tend to get really annoyed when people make decisions that have obvious negative consequences (like standing in a road where cars drive) but expect to be treated special and not have to face those consequences.

So when i read someone getting excited about a law that focuses on the rights of the driver in a driver/protestor situation, I think they are expressing the depth of their excitement of having a legal way to escape 'the bully' as well as 'the bully' being subject to the natural consequences of his choice, than literally being excited to run over people.

 

[rongo]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think sometimes people don't stop to really consider what they are saying.  Like when people say something like "if you ever do that again, i'll kill you" for example.  

Obviously, the people aren't saying they are actually going to kill anyone or that they support the idea that someone can kill another for over such matters.  They use the words to convey the depth of their feelings and not to express a literal threat.  I think it's the same thing with the street protester debate

This is at the heart of most of the "blood atonement" statements made by the Brethren in the 1850s - 1860s (i.e., non-literal, colorful, figurative language intended to convey emotion and feeling). 

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/dead-men-tell-no-tales#head03

This is also the key principle behind the so-called "temple blood oaths." They were not literal statements, and were not interpreted by (normal) hearers as being literal.

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/dead-men-tell-no-tales#head04

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

This is at the heart of most of the "blood atonement" statements made by the Brethren in the 1850s - 1860s (i.e., non-literal, colorful, figurative language intended to convey emotion and feeling). 

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/dead-men-tell-no-tales#head03

This is also the key principle behind the so-called "temple blood oaths." They were not literal statements, and were not interpreted by (normal) hearers as being literal.

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/dead-men-tell-no-tales#head04

Maybe. But when hyperbolic rhetoric by individuals, especially church leaders, becomes violent, I think they share responsibility when perpetrators actually listen and act on the hyperbolic rhetoric. There are many examples of blood atonement being carried out. While BY could claim he never intended for anyone to actually act on his words, I think it is disingenuous to feign surprise that members would listen to their priesthood leader. The words people use are often internalized by themselves and others. They are stoking the flames of violence.

[Danzo]

The law removes civil penalties but does not remove criminal penalties.

Someone who purposefully runs someone over will obviously be charged with murder or manslaughter.  

It is also my understanding that if someone is negligent doesn't practice "Due Care" and would not be immune from civil lawsuit.

I don't think your Facebook friend was thinking clearly about what they were saying. 

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Maybe. But when hyperbolic rhetoric by individuals, especially church leaders, becomes violent, I think they share responsibility when perpetrators actually listen and act on the hyperbolic rhetoric. There are many examples of blood atonement being carried out. While BY could claim he never intended for anyone to actually act on his words, I think it is disingenuous to feign surprise that members would listen to their priesthood leader. The words people use are often internalized by themselves and others. They are stoking the flames of violence.

I believe this applies very much to the Mountain Meadows Massacre.  If you read the speeches given during the reformation period by Church leaders (BY, Jedediah Grant and George A.Smith), you can see how members were caught up in revenge, fear, and hatred.

I have often wondered why the local leaders even felt they needed to send a messenger up to BY about the group of immigrants passing through their area (mostly women and children, iirc). 

Why didn't they just know to help them pass through safely on their way to California?

Did they really have to ask what BY wanted them to do...pass safely or kill them?  If so, why?

[HappyJackWagon]

20 minutes ago, Danzo said:

The law removes civil penalties but does not remove criminal penalties.

Someone who purposefully runs someone over will obviously be charged with murder or manslaughter.  

It is also my understanding that if someone is negligent doesn't practice "Due Care" and would not be immune from civil lawsuit.

I don't think your Facebook friend was thinking clearly about what they were saying. 

I agree completely. This person was actually taking it farther than the law would allow...and condoning it as a "proud moment".

[Calm]

5 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

For many years Harry Reid has been hated amongst members in my neck of the woods. Discussions of politics would inevitably decline into conversations about Reid and how he shouldn't be allowed to hold a temple recommend or even be a member of the church. Those on the right were judging Reid on his leftist ideology. But people on the left judge people on the right in similar ways. Sometimes a Democrat will judge an outspoken Republican about their stance on immigration and how it doesn't match the church's position. The political rancor intersects religion regularly and the harshness of the judgments get really tired.

I admit that...but...

Last night I was reading a Facebook post from a prominent member in my area. This person referenced a Tennessee law that removes civil liability for a motorist who hits a protestor in a street. This person called it a "Proud moment that allows someone to run over another person for blocking the road in protest". This mindset absolutely disgusts me and I am shocked that anyone, let alone a church leader, would voice approval of running protestors down.

At the risk of being a hypocrite, because I hate judging people's worthiness on their politics, I find myself really focused on whether or not I can sustain a person in leadership, or any calling, who would advocate this kind of violent behavior.

http://wearechange.org/tennessee-passes-controversial-law-allowing-drivers-injure-protesters/

Are there legitimate reasons to judge a person based on their politics and oppose them in a calling?

I don't think that has anything to do with politics and is instead how they treat their fellow human beings.

Are you sure he wasn't being sarcastic?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No. Not at all.

Strange...

Ignore my comment since answered.

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree completely. This person was actually taking it farther than the law would allow...and condoning it as a "proud moment".

Which would be murder.  Are you sure that this "prominent member" in your area was advocating this?  Is there anymore to the quote you shared?  Or was it just the one line? 

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I believe this applies very much to the Mountain Meadows Massacre.  If you read the speeches given during the reformation period by Church leaders (BY, Jedediah Grant and George A.Smith), you can see how members were caught up in revenge, fear, and hatred.

I have often wondered why the local leaders even felt they needed to send a messenger up to BY about the group of immigrants passing through their area (mostly women and children, iirc). 

Why didn't they just know to help them pass through safely on their way to California?

Did they really have to ask what BY wanted them to do...pass safely or kill them?  If so, why?

There were other options, including whether or not to sell them food or other supplies, allow them to camp in nicer places that might ruin resources for the settlers, arrest any who mouthed off, etc.

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

There were other options, including whether or not to sell them food or other supplies, allow them to camp in nicer places that might ruin resources for the settlers, arrest any who mouthed off, etc.

They had to ask whether to sell them food or help them with needed supplies?  Why?  

This group was mostly women and children.  They had to ask Brigham if they should help them and allow them to pass safely? 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

They had to ask whether to sell them food or help them with needed supplies?  Why?  

This group was mostly women and children.  They had to ask Brigham if they should help them and allow them to pass safely? 

If you read the context of the massacre, it was during a time of anticipation of war in the future and limited supplies in the present.  Iirc, there had been a previous order not to sell needed supplies to those passing through.  Money received would not be helpful if there weren't merchants around to bring in additional supplies.  Competition for grazing was significant as well.

On my old ipad which doesn't let me quote off lds.org, but if you read the second section on historical context, it explains some of the questions that might occur based on concern that helping the emigrants might mean shortages for their own wives and children as well as themselves and their own livestock later on.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/09/the-mountain-meadows-massacre?lang=eng