The coming reconfiguration of Latter-day Saint politics

[stemelbow]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865678972/Spencer-Fluhman-The-coming-reconfiguration-of-Latter-day-Saint-politics.html

Quote

Our moment might fully destabilize what Latter-day Saints have sometime offered as pat explanations of what constitutes a “moral” position.

I'm excited to see the future unfold.  I think great things are ahead of us, as a church community.  I don't think we need to make this about politics, but I found the linked piece quite interesting.  I think in the near future we'll see some changes not just in our political affiliations but in many things.  Let's face it the above quote from Fluhman nails something about us--offering "pat explanations of what constitutes a "moral" position" won't cut it anymore.

He's wrong here, "Historians make poor prophets, but it may be that the current administration’s moral lapses and brewing scandals will propel the statement’s prescient vision of the LDS political future"

He doesn't know if a historian would make a poor prophet.  Methinks he's trying to sound humble, as an historian. 

Quote

In the future, LDS political action will necessarily crisscross the partisan divide if a vibrant pluralism is to become a reality.

Yep.  But that seems obvious. 

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865678972/Spencer-Fluhman-The-coming-reconfiguration-of-Latter-day-Saint-politics.html

I'm excited to see the future unfold.  I think great things are ahead of us, as a church community.  I don't think we need to make this about politics, but I found the linked piece quite interesting.  I think in the near future we'll see some changes not just in our political affiliations but in many things.  Let's face it the above quote from Fluhman nails something about us--offering "pat explanations of what constitutes a "moral" position" won't cut it anymore.

He's wrong here, "Historians make poor prophets, but it may be that the current administration’s moral lapses and brewing scandals will propel the statement’s prescient vision of the LDS political future"

He doesn't know if a historian would make a poor prophet.  Methinks he's trying to sound humble, as an historian. 

Yep.  But that seems obvious. 

So because the current executive administration is temporarily taking a hard line on admitting refugees from terrorist-infested states and may be caught in some future scandals, a large proportion of LDS Church membership is going to feel compelled to move over to the side of an -- at very least -- equally corrupt and scandal-ridden political party? Won't it be wonderful to see the day when millions of formerly pro-life Latter-day Saints come to support Planned Parenthood and government funded abortion on demand? I'm sure the Lord will feel most pleased.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

So because the current executive administration is temporarily taking a hard line on admitting refugees from terrorist-infested states and may be caught in some future scandals, a large proportion of LDS Church membership is going to feel compelled to move over to the side of an -- at very least -- equally corrupt and scandal-ridden political party? Won't it be wonderful to see the day when millions of formerly pro-life Latter-day Saints come to support Planned Parenthood and government funded abortion on demand? I'm sure the Lord will feel most pleased.

Judging by your comment, my gut is telling me you severely misread the piece.  But if that's what you got out of it, then so be it. 

[probablyHagoth7]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865678972/Spencer-Fluhman-The-coming-reconfiguration-of-Latter-day-Saint-politics.html

I'm excited to see the future unfold.  I think great things are ahead of us, as a church community.  I don't think we need to make this about politics, but I found the linked piece quite interesting.  I think in the near future we'll see some changes not just in our political affiliations but in many things.....

As part of that, I believe the seemingly minor change in the stated mission(s) of the church reflects a shift that will be tectonic in its cumulative impact as things roll forward with increased momentum. 

It is a restored focus/element that rapidly transformed Nephite & NT society. Anxious to see how such things unfold in our generation.

[probablyHagoth7]

9 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

So because the current executive administration is temporarily taking a hard line on admitting refugees from terrorist-infested states and may be caught in some future scandals, a large proportion of LDS Church membership is going to feel compelled to move over to the side of an -- at very least -- equally corrupt and scandal-ridden political party? Won't it be wonderful to see the day when millions of formerly pro-life Latter-day Saints come to support Planned Parenthood and government funded abortion on demand? I'm sure the Lord will feel most pleased.

You're assuming the status quo...a (supposed) two-party system...will be the norm moving forward.

I wouldn't hold my breath on that expectation. 

[Maidservant]

I feel that young people all over the world are more explicitly finding political solutions to be irrelevant when there are many more governance choices on the table, and more to be created and the imagination and freedom to do so.  LDS youth will (I feel) be, not an incidental portion of that segment, but a significant and van guard portion of the unraveling of politics.  (When I say explicit, I mean not merely a rueful opinion held in the heart, but as other options are acted upon and politics consciously left to the side.)

It's all about morality now.  We just don't all understand morality the same way yet due to our personal experiences, but I think the chaos will emerge into an order that is hard to see right now, but that I for one, trust.  I think we have a beautiful world future ahead.

I used to think I would be terrified when the United States as we know it dissolved, but at this point I'd just be relieved.  I think there are enough structures in place to effect and maintain society, that we wouldn't miss it (a political, national structure) in the long run.

[Bobbieaware]

Just now, stemelbow said:

Judging by your comment, my gut is telling me you severely misread the piece.  But if that's what you got out of it, then so be it. 

What else does a new LDS political pluralism mean other than large numbers of members abandoning conservatism in favor of more liberal/progressive oriented political philosophies? After all the fancy rhetoric, isn't this what it all boils down to?

[RevTestament]

I don't really see this as a big topic. To me the Church is tending to go down the same political path it has for decades while the political scene is changing around it. Personally, I don't think I have changed my political views much, but this last election just didn't leave me with options I liked. I honestly feel that has been the case basically my whole adult voting life. I feel the last good president was Reagan.  I voted for W over Gore because I felt he was the better of two not-so-good options. Then he started up with the Persian Gulf War II and I was decidedly against his international policies from that point on. He failed us on the home front too, by allowing the "right to housing" govt sponsored house lending started by Clinton's admin to continue, even when it became obvious that "liar loans" and the like were heading us for a crash - at least to economists it was apparent. So in my view he was a failure as a President, and I blame the liberal Obama Presidency on him. The politics of the country have just moved to a place I don't like. i didn't want to vote for Trump, and felt that Clinton was a complete sell out to Arab interests. To me it is actually scary. I see the country heading to financial disaster and no one has the political will to stop it. The Republicans are about as big government as the Dems, and the political landscape of the country has changed so much that I fear for our Democracy. I guess some have cause to be excited about that, but I am concerned. I don't really see Utah LDS members really changing their affiliations much either. I feel the Republican party will continue to be viewed as the preferable party (more in line with Christian values), but just have real concerns about where it is currently taking us. There does not seem to be the political will to get things done. It seems they just want to tread the waters of the status quo. They're scared to reign in government it seems. Trump so far has some things going for him, but seems a bit of a loose cannon who doesn't seem to have a clear direction with congress. Some of his recent international moves concern me as well. I suppose that leaves room for a pluralism to take root, and that will perhaps provide new fertile ground for the Church.

I see the Church continuing to pick and choose its traditional political fights within a political scene with ever increasingly changing views. Maybe that will give the Church more opportunities, but I doubt it. I see the US heading for big changes with the Church continuing to toss out anchors hoping some will grab hold and stop the ship from "going over." But perhaps that will afford new opportunities to forge new relationships with other Christian sects.

[clarkgoble]

35 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

What else does a new LDS political pluralism mean other than large numbers of members abandoning conservatism in favor of more liberal/progressive oriented political philosophies? After all the fancy rhetoric, isn't this what it all boils down to?

Pluralism generally means both views and tolerance for both views are present. I think we have that now even though Mormons are fairly Republican in the US (and fairly conservative in Canada). But there have always been Democrats and neither party has a monopoly on truth. Heaven knows that while I'm conservative I can find plenty to criticize in the contemporary GOP.

Pluralism doesn't mean relatively even distribution of views. Rather it's respecting each other's views. Now I'd be the first to say the current political climate isn't as pluralistic as I'd like. Both sides tend to demonize the other far too much. Respecting people for a difference of opinion doesn't happen as much as it ought. But looking at many countries I think we still do reasonably well overall. We definitely need to improve though. 

Edited May 2, 2017 by clarkgoble

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

So because the current executive administration is temporarily taking a hard line on admitting refugees from terrorist-infested states and may be caught in some future scandals, a large proportion of LDS Church membership is going to feel compelled to move over to the side of an -- at very least -- equally corrupt and scandal-ridden political party? Won't it be wonderful to see the day when millions of formerly pro-life Latter-day Saints come to support Planned Parenthood and government funded abortion on demand? I'm sure the Lord will feel most pleased.

No administration since (possibly) Nixon has been as corrupt as the current one.

Short of nuclear war the worst thing that could happen to the United States would be for this Presidency to be ineffective or even mildly successful as it will encourage more of the same. After this administration I want, looking back at this time, for the mantra to be: "Never Again! Never!"

I want the Republicans to come back from their ideological obsession with "principles" and back to the realm of practicality, the Democrats to branch out more and start messaging, and the partisan enmity to cool off. I want the good old days of this kind of thinking:

Quote

A popular story told about the House of Representatives is that a freshman Democrat declared that a Republican across the aisle was his enemy. A House colleague told the freshman Representative that “Republicans are the opposition and the Senate is the enemy.”

We have lost all sense of political humility. I hope we can find it again.

[clarkgoble]

Quote

A popular story told about the House of Representatives is that a freshman Democrat declared that a Republican across the aisle was his enemy. A House colleague told the freshman Representative that “Republicans are the opposition and the Senate is the enemy.”

Don't even need that. First Democratic debate Hillary said Republicans are the enemy. And heaven knows you don't have to look far to find Republicans saying the same sorts of things.

Edited May 2, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Guest]

Simply put, the 12th Article of Faith sates that, "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law". It is the role of the Church to allow all who wish to come to Church and worship, and to be charitable to all. Lately however many including leaders have come out in open opposition to almost all laws concerning those who enter (at least this country) illegally, or those that might cause harm, calling it racist among many other terms. Yes, this is a Nation of immigrants, and much of the Church is a collection of those from Nations where missionaries went and found converts. But, those converts came legally to this Nation, and none where enticed to come him in violation of the laws of the Nation. I am not just speaking to the link, the thread, but to both and what others have said. I am also not speaking politically, but to one of the tenants of our Faith, one that cannot be ignored...no matter how well intentioned it might be. For those who are members of this Church, and to those who have come here legally, all must show their allegiance to the laws of both the Church a and the State, as those living outside of the U.S., must do the same. I know not what changes others may think or hope is coming, what matters now are the laws of our Faith, and the laws of our Nation...no mater who is in office, or who may be in office; we must live our Faith, and not just lend lip service to it. Politics is irrelevant, we are a Nation of Laws, and if we of all people refuse to abide by such laws; who will? 

The only justification for opposing any laws are spelled out by the Prophet himself, in D&C 134 5"...(when such laws)...at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience." In fact it would be a great idea for all to read D&C 134, to know how we should all act according to the laws of whatever Nation they live. 

Also, there is no Muslim ban, no Mexician or South Americian ban on anyone who wishes to come legally and abide by the laws of this Nation. Also, Islam is a belief system, not a race. Other than recent events, Muslim's can come from every Nation on the Earth, except for the current nine or ten countries in the news. However the "Courts" have overruled that so far, so that is the "law of the land" by which all must abide. But for those who think and believe in our emigration laws should be followed are racists, this thinking and comments are unworthy of those who believe in the Articles of Faith and the Constitution. 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Simply put, the 12th Article of Faith sates that, "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law"........................

...............................

While, "obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law" is a  hallmark of Mormon behavior in every country on this planet, one must always ask what that law really is.  Any top executive of a state or country may issue executive orders, but the crucial question is always whether such orders are lawful.  For that determination, we depend upon the judiciary.  In other countries, there may be no judiciary worthy of the name, and the orders may be recklessly carried out, as for mass executions in the Philippines by Pres Duterte, just as the extermination order against Mormons was issued by the Governor of Missouri, just as the extermination of Jews and Gypsies was ordered by Hitler, just as illegal trials, gulags, executions were ordered by Stalin.  If men were angels, we would not need a Constitution -- which was established to guarantee a govt of laws not men.  The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all executive orders, judicial decisions, and legislation must comply with it.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Don't even need that. First Democratic debate Hillary said Republicans are the enemy. And heaven knows you don't have to look far to find Republicans saying the same sorts of things.

There has been a shift. In the past you could expect representatives and senators to break with the party line and sometimes there was no party line on legislation. What that story meant was that the other house was the big problem and not the opposition party as they could be won over by compromise but the other house meant you had to start from scratch.

Somewhere along the way a large proportion of the people started seeing the other party as the enemy and that trickled up to their representatives. This is not a good thing. If we are going to start running our government by party line we might as well give up the idea of senators and representatives being elected by their districts and switch to a parliamentary system.

[halconero]

All ya'll need to join the glorious Canadian reality of a multi-party system. You got your neo-Conservative big tent party, your neo-liberal big tent party, your social democrats, your separatists, your economically conservative environmentalist party and more! Nobody is an enemy when everybody is an enemy!

Edited May 3, 2017 by halconero

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Simply put, the 12th Article of Faith sates that, "We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law". It is the role of the Church to allow all who wish to come to Church and worship, and to be charitable to all. Lately however many including leaders have come out in open opposition to almost all laws concerning those who enter (at least this country) illegally, or those that might cause harm, calling it racist among many other terms. Yes, this is a Nation of immigrants, and much of the Church is a collection of those from Nations where missionaries went and found converts. But, those converts came legally to this Nation, and none where enticed to come him in violation of the laws of the Nation. I am not just speaking to the link, the thread, but to both and what others have said. I am also not speaking politically, but to one of the tenants of our Faith, one that cannot be ignored...no matter how well intentioned it might be. For those who are members of this Church, and to those who have come here legally, all must show their allegiance to the laws of both the Church a and the State, as those living outside of the U.S., must do the same. I know not what changes others may think or hope is coming, what matters now are the laws of our Faith, and the laws of our Nation...no mater who is in office, or who may be in office; we must live our Faith, and not just lend lip service to it. Politics is irrelevant, we are a Nation of Laws, and if we of all people refuse to abide by such laws; who will? 

The only justification for opposing any laws are spelled out by the Prophet himself, in D&C 134 5"...(when such laws)...at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience." In fact it would be a great idea for all to read D&C 134, to know how we should all act according to the laws of whatever Nation they live. 

Also, there is no Muslim ban, no Mexician or South Americian ban on anyone who wishes to come legally and abide by the laws of this Nation. Also, Islam is a belief system, not a race. Other than recent events, Muslim's can come from every Nation on the Earth, except for the current nine or ten countries in the news. However the "Courts" have overruled that so far, so that is the "law of the land" by which all must abide. But for those who think and believe in our emigration laws should be followed are racists, this thinking and comments are unworthy of those who believe in the Articles of Faith and the Constitution. 

The 12th Article of Faith is a general principle and not an overriding mandate. Even the leaders who wrote it did not follow it. Plural Marriage, illegal immigration into Mexico, sending soldiers to fight the Mexican government, fighting the US army in the Utah War, and in many cases in the past (not so much now) proselyting illegally.

I am under no moral obligation to support deportation efforts and I believe this nation is cutting itself off from the blessings of heaven by closing its borders and forcing out those who came here seeking a better life. I don't care what the law says. In any case prophecy is clear that efforts to stem the tide of immigration will fail so why bother?

Jesus speaking to the Nephites:

Quote

14 And the Father hath commanded me that I should give unto you this land, for your inheritance.

15 And I say unto you, that if the Gentiles do not repent after the blessing which they shall receive, after they have scattered my people—

16 Then shall ye, who are a remnant of the house of Jacob, go forth among them; and ye shall be in the midst of them who shall be many; and ye shall be among them as a lion among the beasts of the forest, and as a young lion among the flocks of sheep, who, if he goeth through both treadeth down and teareth in pieces, and none can deliver.

17 Thy hand shall be lifted up upon thine adversaries, and all thine enemies shall be cut off.

The descendants of Lehi are going to win in the Americas. Doesn't sound good for us Europeans. There is one way to survive. Not a big beautiful wall or deportation efforts. Only repentance will save us.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, halconero said:

All ya'll need to join the glorious Canadian reality of a multi-party system. You got your neo-Conservative big tent party, your neo-liberal big tent party, your social democrats, your separatists, your economically conservative environmentalist party and more! Nobody is an enemy when everybody is an enemy!

I prefer the American system as long as representatives are more interested in their constituents and their then the dubious ideology and principles of their political party. Part of me thinks we would be better off if we banned political parties and forced everyone to run as independents. It would be closer to what many of the founders wanted. Unlikely.

But, if we are going to do party-line voting we might as well go to a parliamentary system and bring in some new parties. Bull Moose Party 2020!!!! 

[Robert F. Smith]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There has been a shift. In the past you could expect representatives and senators to break with the party line and sometimes there was no party line on legislation. What that story meant was that the other house was the big problem and not the opposition party as they could be won over by compromise but the other house meant you had to start from scratch.

Somewhere along the way a large proportion of the people started seeing the other party as the enemy and that trickled up to their representatives. This is not a good thing. If we are going to start running our government by party line we might as well give up the idea of senators and representatives being elected by their districts and switch to a parliamentary system.

Most Mormons live outside the USA and so are governed by a variety of political systems, including parliamentary ones.  In fact, parliamentary systems seem to be far more responsive to the people than the U.S. system.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most Mormons live outside the USA and so are governed by a variety of political systems, including parliamentary ones.  In fact, parliamentary systems seem to be far more responsive to the people than the U.S. system.

They also have their own problems. I prefer an idealized version of the US system but the US system is currently very difficult to idealize.  

[clarkgoble]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There has been a shift. In the past you could expect representatives and senators to break with the party line and sometimes there was no party line on legislation. What that story meant was that the other house was the big problem and not the opposition party as they could be won over by compromise but the other house meant you had to start from scratch.

There's been a big sorting both in terms of ideology and geography. However there actually is a lot more diversity on both sides than the media tends to portray. That's why Republicans are struggling passing tax or health care reform. There's huge divisions within the party on those matters. Likewise on the left you're seeing the same thing. Huge divisions over how much social liberalism should be pushed over economic progressivism. And even over the economic policies (the pro-Wall Street Clinton camp or the more socialist Bernie camp)  It's true that on many issues the middle has been lost, but with respect to particular policies there's more middle than again the media typically portrays.

Quote

Somewhere along the way a large proportion of the people started seeing the other party as the enemy and that trickled up to their representatives. This is not a good thing. If we are going to start running our government by party line we might as well give up the idea of senators and representatives being elected by their districts and switch to a parliamentary system.

Identity politics became more significant as you had the geographic shifting which was tied to very different culture. While the divisions aren't absolute you are seeing big splits culturally on religion, rural vs. urban life privileged, and much more. Again I think there's a lot that unites us - but for a variety of reasons mostly tied to the economics of media those aren't being focused on.

What you're seeing is that opposition to other side is becoming more and more party line. However trying to pass legislation isn't going like that. So under Obama the GOP was pretty united against Democrats but didn't even bother trying to reach consensus on policies they were for. Now the same thing has happened to the Democrats. 

 

[clarkgoble]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Most Mormons live outside the USA and so are governed by a variety of political systems, including parliamentary ones.  In fact, parliamentary systems seem to be far more responsive to the people than the U.S. system.

In some ways. And some would say the difficulty of passing legislation in the US is a plus not a negative. It forces consensus building. It's problematic today just because so much of the population isn't interested in consensus building or persuasion.

[probablyHagoth7]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The descendants of Lehi are going to win in the Americas. Doesn't sound good for us Europeans.

False dichotomy.

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There is one way to survive....Only repentance will save us.

Agreed.

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

False dichotomy.

Agreed.

Not a false dichotomy. I am not saying both cannot win. They can if one side repents which I expect to happen only on a small scale. If they do not repent then only one side wins (that lion tearing up their prey metaphor the Savior uses does not suggest that both the prey and the predator will both win).

[RevTestament]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Jesus speaking to the Nephites:

The descendants of Lehi are going to win in the Americas. Doesn't sound good for us Europeans. There is one way to survive. Not a big beautiful wall or deportation efforts. Only repentance will save us.

 

38 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

False dichotomy.

 

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Not a false dichotomy. I am not saying both cannot win. They can if one side repents which I expect to happen only on a small scale. If they do not repent then only one side wins (that lion tearing up their prey metaphor the Savior uses does not suggest that both the prey and the predator will both win).

3 Nephi 21:14 Yea, wo be unto the Gentiles except they repent; for it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Father, that I will cut off thy horses out of the midst of thee, and I will destroy thy chariots;

15 And I will cut off the cities of thy land, and throw down all thy strongholds;

16 And I will cut off witchcrafts out of thy land, and thou shalt have no more soothsayers;

17 Thy graven images I will also cut off, and thy standing images out of the midst of thee, and thou shalt no more worship the works of thy hands;

18 And I will pluck up thy groves out of the midst of thee; so will I destroy thy cities.

19 And it shall come to pass that all lyings, and deceivings, and envyings, and strifes, and priestcrafts, and whoredoms, shall be done away.

20 For it shall come to pass, saith the Father, that at that day whosoever will not repent and come unto my Beloved Son, them will I cut off from among my people, O house of Israel;

21 And I will execute vengeance and fury upon them, even as upon the heathen, such as they have not heard.

22 But if they will repent and hearken unto my words, and harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them, and they shall come in unto the covenant and be numbered among this the remnant of Jacob, unto whom I have given this land for their inheritance;

23 And they shall assist my people, the remnant of Jacob, and also as many of the house of Israel as shall come, that they may build a city, which shall be called the New Jerusalem.

24 And then shall they assist my people that they may be gathered in, who are scattered upon all the face of the land, in unto the New Jerusalem.

25 And then shall the power of heaven come down among them; and I also will be in the midst.

26 And then shall the work of the Father commence at that day, even when this gospel shall be preached among the remnant of this people. Verily I say unto you, at that day shall the work of the Father commence among all the dispersed of my people, yea, even the tribes which have been lost, which the Father hath led away out of Jerusalem.

I don't know how many Gentiles will be left, but I believe many in the U.S. will convert as Gentiles will flow unto the ensign. Many left in Europe will also come to the Church in the New Jerusalem rather than fight in Europe - for war/fighting will be everywhere. So it is not a matter of the Lehites "winning." They will join with the Gentiles left, and the process of regathering Israel will begin in earnest. Note that although Yeshua will not be here in person, He says He will be in the midst of the Church to personally guide it. Don't know if this means a changing role for the Holy Spirit or not. This is what is meant that Yeshua will rule in the millennium.

[probablyHagoth7]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Not a false dichotomy. I am not saying both cannot win. They can if one side repents...

By dichotomy, I'm referring to your assertion that Lehi's seed and European descendants are two separate/exclusive sets of people.

Believe that if you wish.

When it comes to Lehi's posterity, I firmly believe something else.