Church leaders condemn political violence

[Scott Lloyd 20,428]

This just in:

A message from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Principles of government that allow God’s children to maintain human dignity and freedom belong to all mankind. (see Doctrine and Covenants 98:5).

With great concern we observe the political and cultural divisions in the United States and around the world. We condemn violence and lawless behavior, including the recent violence in Washington, D.C. and any suggestion of further violence. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics, we remind our members—whatever their individual political views—to be united in our commitment to the Savior, Jesus Christ, and His teachings. As His followers, we should treat one another and all of God’s children with respect, dignity, and love. No political or other affiliation should supersede that covenant and sacred responsibility.

We urge all people to remember the precious and fragile nature of freedom and peace. As citizens of the United States look ahead to the Inauguration of a new President, we urge our members to honor democratic institutions and processes, and to obey, honor, and sustain the law (see Articles of Faith 1:12).

 

[JustAnAustralian 98]

Great to see. Unfortunately the usual lot will just say it came too late, but at least they can no longer say they church didn't say anything.

 

Whether it will have any affect on the more rabid members will be known in coming days I guess. 

Edited January 15 by JustAnAustralian

[rchorse 614]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

...No political or other affiliation should supersede that covenant and sacred responsibility...

 

This can't be said enough. Sadly, I see too many church members that I know all over the political spectrum choosing to follow political rather than church leaders. If your politics conflict with the gospel of Jesus Christ, change your politics, not your faith.

[Calm 40,636]

14 minutes ago, rchorse said:

This can't be said enough. Sadly, I see too many church members that I know all over the political spectrum choosing to follow political rather than church leaders. If your politics conflict with the gospel of Jesus Christ, change your politics, not your faith.

I completely agree as long as we are mostly allowing people to decide for themselves...and hopefully most will be realistic about it and not make excuses.  I see too many assuming that someone of a different political party than them can’t also be truly a faithful Saint if they are also committed to the party.

[rchorse 614]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I completely agree as long as we are mostly allowing people to decide for themselves...and hopefully most will be realistic about it and not make excuses.  I see too many assuming that someone of a different political party than them can’t also be truly a faithful Saint if they are also committed to the party.

I was thinking more along the lines of people going inactive or leaving because the church doesn't toe a desired political line. Judging someone's faithfulness based on their politics is not what I was getting at.

[InCognitus 1,232]

33 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Unfortunately the usual lot will just say it came too late

It seems to me that they said something early, for anyone that is a member of the church at least.  They saw it coming:

Quote

And our article of faith, written by the Prophet Joseph Smith after the early Saints had suffered severe persecution from Missouri officials, declares, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (Articles of Faith 1:12).

This does not mean that we agree with all that is done with the force of law. It means that we obey the current law and use peaceful means to change it. It also means that we peacefully accept the results of elections. We will not participate in the violence threatened by those disappointed with the outcome.  In a democratic society we always have the opportunity and the duty to persist peacefully until the next election.  (October 2020 General Conference, President Dallin H. Oaks, Love Your Enemies)

 

[2BizE 119]

I have heard some criticize the church for not responding sooner.  I’m not sure why simple people expect the church to respond to every event.  The church is a corporation (literally). I didn’t read a statement from McDonalds or AT&T on the political violence.  Why should the church be obligated to respond?

oops, I was wrong. I guess most corporations made a statement.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/amp/financing/mcdonalds-ceo-chris-kempczinski-condemns-attacks-us-capitol

 

https://about.att.com/story/2021/congress_capitol.html

 

[Calm 40,636]

1 hour ago, rchorse said:

I was thinking more along the lines of people going inactive or leaving because the church doesn't toe a desired political line. Judging someone's faithfulness based on their politics is not what I was getting at.

I have seen problems leading to people leaving the Church because of being treated poorly as well as nonAmerican Saints being turned off by American Saints insisting their government is the only one anyone should want.  But I agree there is also the problem where a member is deciding not to go to church because leaders aren’t doing what they think is right politically speaking.

Edited January 15 by Calm

[Calm 40,636]

19 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

The church is a corporation (literally).

The Church is a unique organization.  To expect it to act like others is, IMO, unrealistic.

[Scott Lloyd 20,428]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

The Church is a unique organization.  To expect it to act like others is, IMO, unrealistic.

If not cynical. 

[The Nehor 26,542]

2 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I have heard some criticize the church for not responding sooner.  I’m not sure why simple people expect the church to respond to every event.  The church is a corporation (literally). I didn’t read a statement from McDonalds or AT&T on the political violence.  Why should the church be obligated to respond?

oops, I was wrong. I guess most corporations made a statement.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/amp/financing/mcdonalds-ceo-chris-kempczinski-condemns-attacks-us-capitol

 

https://about.att.com/story/2021/congress_capitol.html

 

There was a picture of Axe body spray in one picture of the Capitol attack so they denounced the attack.

[Meadowchik 2,841]

15 hours ago, 2BizE said:

I have heard some criticize the church for not responding sooner.  I’m not sure why simple people expect the church to respond to every event.  The church is a corporation (literally). I didn’t read a statement from McDonalds or AT&T on the political violence.  Why should the church be obligated to respond?

oops, I was wrong. I guess most corporations made a statement.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/amp/financing/mcdonalds-ceo-chris-kempczinski-condemns-attacks-us-capitol

 

https://about.att.com/story/2021/congress_capitol.html

 

The church needs to condemn the violence because we need to do all we can to stop sedition and treason in its tracks. LDS members are known to participate in the current movement and some are applying their religious understanding to inform their position.

Mormonism has always been extremely political, from Joseph Smith running for president, to Brigham Young running Utah as a theocracy, to Ezra Taft Benson characterizing liberalism as Satanic. Current media still recycles Benson's sentiments which continue to be popular in LDS circles.

So a clear statement from church leaders can help disabuse would-be seditionists from ideas that could compel them to make very serious mistakes.

Edited January 16 by Meadowchik

[Ragerunner 0]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The church needs to condemn the violence because we need to do all we can to stop sedition and treason in its tracks. LDS members are known to participate in the current movement and some are applying their religious understanding to inform their position.

Mormonism has always been extremely political, from Jodprh Smith running for president, to Brigham Young running Utah as a theocracy, to Ezra Taft Benson characterising liberalism as Satanic. Current media still recycles Benson's sentiments which continue to be popular in LDS circles.

So a clear statement from church leaders can help disabuse would-be seditionists from ideas that could compel them to make very serious mistakes.

I really like members using Ezra Taft Benson quotes. They don’t qualify those quotes as being said when he was a general authority. Those statements where never official church statements. Matter a fact when he became prophet he steered clear of those types of statements.

[Meadowchik 2,841]

1 minute ago, Ragerunner said:

I really like members using Ezra Taft Benson quotes. They don’t qualify those quotes as being said when he was a general authority. Those statements where never official church statements. Matter a fact when he became prophet he steered clear of those types of statements.

So he did not say them as a prophet, but you still like members sharing them? Why do you like his quotes? 

Do you like everything he said? Are you aware of his full political beliefs and statements? The conservative views he espoused were against the backdrop of a conviction that liberalism was evil and: ""Before I left for Europe I warned how the communists were using the civil rights movement to promote revolution and eventual takeover of this country. When are we going to wake up?... Now, Brethren, the Lord never promised there would not be traitors in the Church. We have the ignorant, the sleepy and the deceived who provide temptations and avenues of apostasy for the unwary and the unfaithful." 

[Teancum 1,923]

20 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This just in:

A message from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Principles of government that allow God’s children to maintain human dignity and freedom belong to all mankind. (see Doctrine and Covenants 98:5).

With great concern we observe the political and cultural divisions in the United States and around the world. We condemn violence and lawless behavior, including the recent violence in Washington, D.C. and any suggestion of further violence. While The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics, we remind our members—whatever their individual political views—to be united in our commitment to the Savior, Jesus Christ, and His teachings. As His followers, we should treat one another and all of God’s children with respect, dignity, and love. No political or other affiliation should supersede that covenant and sacred responsibility.

We urge all people to remember the precious and fragile nature of freedom and peace. As citizens of the United States look ahead to the Inauguration of a new President, we urge our members to honor democratic institutions and processes, and to obey, honor, and sustain the law (see Articles of Faith 1:12).

 

It is a good statement.  I hope the members of the church heed it.

[Scott Lloyd 20,428]

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is a good statement.  I hope the members of the church heed it.

I hope all people do. The last part is addressed to everyone. 

[provoman 1,081]

11 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The church needs to condemn the violence because we need to do all we can to stop sedition and treason in its tracks. LDS members are known to participate in the current movement and some are applying their religious understanding to inform their position.

Mormonism has always been extremely political, from Joseph Smith running for president, to Brigham Young running Utah as a theocracy, to Ezra Taft Benson characterizing liberalism as Satanic. Current media still recycles Benson's sentiments which continue to be popular in LDS circles.

So a clear statement from church leaders can help disabuse would-be seditionists from ideas that could compel them to make very serious mistakes.

What was not clear about President Oaks talk in October 2020?

The Church Leadership does not need to speak about political issues.

My preference would be the Church stay out of all political discussions.

My preference is the Leadership of the Church teach the Gospel.

[Ragerunner 0]

On 1/16/2021 at 10:04 AM, Meadowchik said:

So he did not say them as a prophet, but you still like members sharing them? Why do you like his quotes? 

Do you like everything he said? Are you aware of his full political beliefs and statements? The conservative views he espoused were against the backdrop of a conviction that liberalism was evil and: ""Before I left for Europe I warned how the communists were using the civil rights movement to promote revolution and eventual takeover of this country. When are we going to wake up?... Now, Brethren, the Lord never promised there would not be traitors in the Church. We have the ignorant, the sleepy and the deceived who provide temptations and avenues of apostasy for the unwary and the unfaithful." 

Sorry for the miss type. It’s was suppose to say “I dislike ....”

If you read some history about some of his political statements and comments when he was a general authority, it was clear the the first presidency and other general authority didn’t always agree with those statements. Sometimes it was very apparent and out in the open.

[Meadowchik 2,841]

Just now, Ragerunner said:

Sorry for the miss type. It’s was suppose to say “I dislike ....”

If you read some history about some of his political statements and comments when he was a general authority, it was clear the the first presidency and other general authority didn’t always agree with those statements. Sometimes it was very apparent and out in the open.

True, however, that historical context is often not known by people quoting him as an expert on these issues, especially since he was both a prophet and the Secretary of Agriculture during his lifetime.

[Ragerunner 0]

Unfortunately some look for quotes or comments to support their point of view. They don’t want to take the time to make sure the statement is real, the context it was said in or is it even the church’s position. 

I would like to say more but it would probably move this thread into a political conversation and against the forums rules. 

 

[Ragerunner 0]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

True, however, that historical context is often not known by people quoting him as an expert on these issues, especially since he was both a prophet and the Secretary of Agriculture during his lifetime.

I will say this - hopefully it’s not to political.

I think our current church leaders do recognize that political extremism is now a real issue among US Saints and they are trying to rebalance it. But it’s very hard to undue something quickly that has been growing for decades.

I think many US Saints have developed the idea that the gospel and conservatism are the same.

I find this statement from Elder Oaks very useful. 

“Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them.”
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1987/02/criticism

 

 

[Meadowchik 2,841]

40 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

I will say this - hopefully it’s not to political.

I think our current church leaders do recognize that political extremism is now a real issue among US Saints and they are trying to rebalance it. But it’s very hard to undue something quickly that has been growing for decades.

I think many US Saints have developed the idea that the gospel and conservatism are the same.

I find this statement from Elder Oaks very useful. 

“Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them.”
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1987/02/criticism

 

 

I daresay it has been at issue for a long time, there have long been groups splintering off LDS-heavy centers especially since the Manifesto on plural marriage. When people believe people can have that much authority, we cannot totally control who they believe has it.

[Scott Lloyd 20,428]

On 1/16/2021 at 3:24 AM, Meadowchik said:

The church needs to condemn the violence because we need to do all we can to stop sedition and treason in its tracks. LDS members are known to participate in the current movement and some are applying their religious understanding to inform their position.

Mormonism has always been extremely political, from Joseph Smith running for president, to Brigham Young running Utah as a theocracy, to Ezra Taft Benson characterizing liberalism as Satanic. Current media still recycles Benson's sentiments which continue to be popular in LDS circles.

So a clear statement from church leaders can help disabuse would-be seditionists from ideas that could compel them to make very serious mistakes.

In very clear terms, the Church leaders have denounced political violence. That is sufficient to the moment. You want them to take a partisan position that coincides with your own. Not going to happen. 

[Meadowchik 2,841]

44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In very clear terms, the Church leaders have denounced political violence. That is sufficient to the moment. You want them to take a partisan position that coincides with your own. Not going to happen. 

Why do you say that? I was responding to someone who seemed to be saying that a church statement was unnecessary:

On 1/15/2021 at 11:24 PM, 2BizE said:

I have heard some criticize the church for not responding sooner.  I’m not sure why simple people expect the church to respond to every event.  The church is a corporation (literally). I didn’t read a statement from McDonalds or AT&T on the political violence.  Why should the church be obligated to respond?

oops, I was wrong. I guess most corporations made a statement.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.restaurantbusinessonline.com/amp/financing/mcdonalds-ceo-chris-kempczinski-condemns-attacks-us-capitol

 

https://about.att.com/story/2021/congress_capitol.html

 

I am very grateful for the church's statement.

[Meadowchik 2,841]

23 hours ago, provoman said:

What was not clear about President Oaks talk in October 2020?

The Church Leadership does not need to speak about political issues.

My preference would be the Church stay out of all political discussions.

My preference is the Leadership of the Church teach the Gospel.

Well I for one and very glad that the church issued this recent statement, in addition to the one in President Oak's October talk.