Politics becoming our religion.

[Rivers]

This thread will probably get closed since it contains  the word “politics.”  I notice that a lot of church members let their political views become their religion.  Or they view their religion through the lens of their political ideology.  I see it on both sides of the spectrum.  Lots of people do it.  I know I sometimes do it.  People on both sides quote Jesus to support their politics. 
 

But the gospel should be apolitical.  Christ said His kingdom is not of this world.  The gospel of Jesus Christ should transcend worldly politics.  
 

Is it possible to truly divorce our politics from our religion?

Edited February 22, 2022 by Rivers

[JustAnAustralian]

You could go the Australian way. People here seem to make politics their sport, and sport their religion.

[kimpearson]

Not as long as politics deals in social issues that are also important to religious people.  Not as long as religious people identify one political party over another as being the party of God.  It has been that way through all recorded history.  Christ was apolitical but it didn't take His followers long to get caught up in all kinds of politics.  I think it is part of the plan that requires us to learn good from bad based on experience.  Nothing better than politics to determine where your heart and feelings toward your fellow man are at.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Rivers said:

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

Is it possible to truly divorce our politics from our religion?

No, but partisan politics might be a problem.  After all the U.S. Constitution is supposed to be a holy document, inspired by God to enable His Church to function freely -- without being impeded by a state religion (such as existed in England and Europe).  Moreover, humans are highly political animals, constantly attempting to engage in mutually beneficial transactions with their fellow humans.  The Brethren deliberately and consciously take a neutral point of view -- unless some legislation fits their needs, or is inimical to religious interests.  Meantime they urge us all to vote and take an active part in our secular institutions -- working for the common good.

[CV75]

7 hours ago, Rivers said:

This thread will probably get closed since it contains  the word “politics.”  I notice that a lot of church members let their political views become their religion.  Or they view their religion through the lens of their political ideology.  I see it on both sides of the spectrum.  Lots of people do it.  I know I sometimes do it.  People on both sides quote Jesus to support their politics. 
 

But the gospel should be apolitical.  Christ said His kingdom is not of this world.  The gospel of Jesus Christ should transcend worldly politics.  
 

Is it possible to truly divorce our politics from our religion?

Yes, I divorce my politics from my religion, as it relates to partisanship and Church membership. I am a registered voter and vote my conscience even if that involves practical compromise from what I see as the ideal.

I see the difference between politics and partisanship much as I do the difference between religion and Church membership, as much as I do the difference between practice and identity.

 

[BlueDreams]

8 hours ago, Rivers said:

This thread will probably get closed since it contains  the word “politics.”  I notice that a lot of church members let their political views become their religion.  Or they view their religion through the lens of their political ideology.  I see it on both sides of the spectrum.  Lots of people do it.  I know I sometimes do it.  People on both sides quote Jesus to support their politics. 
 

But the gospel should be apolitical.  Christ said His kingdom is not of this world.  The gospel of Jesus Christ should transcend worldly politics.  
 

Is it possible to truly divorce our politics from our religion?

Yes and no. I personally vote what I think would be best for society and/or my personal views. Several of those are informed by my religious beliefs. Many are more what I think would work best in a pluralistic society…though this is also informed a little by my beliefs. In short, I think it’s hard to separate one’s beliefs from your decisions in society.

What I think is wrong is when we enmesh religion into political identity and view one way of thinking as the more correct expression of faith. That can be manifest by blurry statements of belief that would go like “as a member of the church, we would obviously want or expect xyz in society.” Or “members who don’t assume xyz party are probably not understanding the gospel or don’t apply the gospel to politics” or “I don’t know how you can be a practicing member and vote for xyz.” things like this point to an enmeshment. And that’s where you’re going to run in the most problems. 
 

with luv, 

BD

[Scott Lloyd]

It’s possible for this to happen with most any interest or pursuit. Back in the day, Scouting was a quasi-religion for some Church members. 

[the narrator]

9 hours ago, Rivers said:

But the gospel should be apolitical.  Christ said His kingdom is not of this world.  The gospel of Jesus Christ should transcend worldly politics.

Except that Jesus was incredibly political. The Kingdom he announced was very much a political kingdom, just one built on divine rather than "worldly" principles. His death, crucifixion, was a political execution used for political rebels to warn against other political rebellions.

[CA Steve]

Why do want to try and separate our politics from our religion?

 

Joseph Smith certainly didn't.

[smac97]

10 hours ago, Rivers said:

Is it possible to truly divorce our politics from our religion?

 

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, I divorce my politics from my religion, as it relates to partisanship and Church membership. I am a registered voter and vote my conscience even if that involves practical compromise from what I see as the ideal.

I see the difference between politics and partisanship much as I do the difference between religion and Church membership, as much as I do the difference between practice and identity.

 

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Yes and no. I personally vote what I think would be best for society and/or my personal views. Several of those are informed by my religious beliefs. Many are more what I think would work best in a pluralistic society…though this is also informed a little by my beliefs. In short, I think it’s hard to separate one’s beliefs from your decisions in society.

What I think is wrong is when we enmesh religion into political identity and view one way of thinking as the more correct expression of faith. That can be manifest by blurry statements of belief that would go like “as a member of the church, we would obviously want or expect xyz in society.” Or “members who don’t assume xyz party are probably not understanding the gospel or don’t apply the gospel to politics” or “I don’t know how you can be a practicing member and vote for xyz.” things like this point to an enmeshment. And that’s where you’re going to run in the most problems. 

As regarding "divorcing" my political views from my religious views, I would echo BlueDreams comment about the latter "inform{ing}" the former, and also her comment about difficulty in separating political beliefs from religious beliefs.  So a few thoughts:

1. Never Married, Never Divorced: My politicial beliefs are separate from my religious beliefs.  Thus I don't need to "divorce" them since they aren't "married" to each other.  

2. Subordination: Rather than "divorce" the political from the moral/religious, I deliberately subordinate my political beliefs to my moral/religious beliefs.  That is, the former (my political sentiments) take their cues from the latter (my moral/religious beliefs).  I do not want a political ideology or party platform as the basis for answering or establishing a position on any moral question.

3. Political Philosophy as Intermediary: There is an intermediary between what I would call my religious beliefs/actions and my political beliefs/actions.  That intermediary is what I would call my "political philosophy."  That is, I first seek to ascertain what my religious beliefs are (based on scriptures, modern prophetic counsel, prayer and study, etc.).  Into that basic mix I add my experiential observations, my reading and information, my training in the law, and so on to arrive at a set of basic philosophical precepts pertaining to political considerations.  I then go looking for political parties, concepts, candidates, and so on that approximate these precepts.

4. Political Affinity is Finite: I have nowhere near a sense of affinity with, or a sense of fealty to or trust in, any political group/party as compared to my affinity with and devotion to my faith and family.  Allegiance to a political party is purely a matter of preference for me, to be given or withdrawn, to be increased or decreased, at my sole discretion.  

5. Perspective on Political Leaders v. Perspective on Religious Leaders: I also have a very different perspective on political leaders as compared to religious ones.  Per its own doctrines, the Church disclaims any civil authority:

Quote

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

In contrast, civil authorities are by design supposed to exercise civil authority over society and citizens.  Under the law I am entitled to participate in the political process, to publicly support things I like and oppose things I dislike.  I therefore feel utterly free to publicly disagree with and criticize and oppose any individual politician or political group or subgroup. 

The foregoing is quite different from my perspective on my religious leaders.  On this point I have been strongly influenced by then-Elder Oaks' 1987 Ensign article, "Criticism," in which he explains some concepts that I think are too frequently overlooked these days by members of the Church:

Quote

I am persuaded that many do not understand the Church’s teachings about personal criticism, especially the criticism of Church leaders by Church members.

I do not refer to the kind of criticism the dictionary defines as “the act of passing judgment as to the merits of anything.” (Random House Dictionary, unabridged ed., s.v. “criticism.”) That kind of criticism is inherent in the exercise of agency and freedom. In the political world, critical evaluation inevitably accompanies any knowledgeable exercise of the cherished freedoms of speech and of the press. In the private world, we have a right to expect critical evaluation of anything that is put into the marketplace or the public domain. Sports writers, reviewers of books and music, scholars, investment analysts, and those who test products and services must be free to exercise their critical faculties and to inform the public accordingly. This kind of criticism is usually directed toward issues, and it is usually constructive.

The entire article is worth a read, as he goes on to explain how criticism and disagreement should be handled in the Church.

6. Political Parties/Affiliations as Risky Necessities: I think political parties are both a practical necessity and a risky source of corrupting influences.  We must therefore engage with them (due to the former) while constantly being on guard about them (due to the latter).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 22, 2022 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, the narrator said:

Except that Jesus was incredibly political. The Kingdom he announced was very much a political kingdom, just one built on divine rather than "worldly" principles. His death, crucifixion, was a political execution used for political rebels to warn against other political rebellions.

The Wikipedia definition of politics is this:

“Politics (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, 'affairs of the cities') is the method of rulership over a national government[disambiguation needed], state government and local government in groups, or other forms of ruling power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status.”

That would seem not to include the divine, as it pertains to national, state and local government — worldly forms — not to God’s kingdom. 

[the narrator]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The Wikipedia definition of politics is this:

“Politics (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, 'affairs of the cities') is the method of rulership over a national government[disambiguation needed], state government and local government in groups, or other forms of ruling power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status.”

That would seem not to include the divine, as it pertains to national, state and local government — worldly forms — not to God’s kingdom. 

The Kingdom of Heaven that Jesus announced would have very much been a localized government (such as that established in the BofM after Jesus's visitation) and very akin to the Zion that Joseph Smith sought to establish. The differences between the Kingdom of God and other "worldly" kingdoms would have largely just been the principles and way in which power/authority was understood and resources distributed.

[Tacenda]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

The Wikipedia definition of politics is this:

“Politics (from Greek: Πολιτικά, politiká, 'affairs of the cities') is the method of rulership over a national government[disambiguation needed], state government and local government in groups, or other forms of ruling power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status.”

That would seem not to include the divine, as it pertains to national, state and local government — worldly forms — not to God’s kingdom. 

Last night started listening to the book "Kingdom of Nauvoo". I only got through the first or second chapters and nodded off. But it seems that the early church started out very political. And I believe many in the church today, feel like the nation needs help, and needs rebuilding. 

A review of the book below:

"Mormon Nauvoo represents one of the most audacious and consequential religious experiments in US history. Using newly available sources from the men and women who staked their lives to build a new world and redeem the nation, Benjamin E. Park explores the singular interpretation of democracy and political power nourished briefly in the swampy soils of the Mississippi. This engaging study does not shy away from the controversies, the failures, and the deeply held faith that mark an astonishing moment in our past." - Laurie Maffly-Kipp, Archer Alexander Distinguished Professor, Washington University in St. Louis, and author of Setting Down the Sacred Past

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Moreover, humans are highly political animals, constantly attempting to engage in mutually beneficial transactions with their fellow humans.

I miss the good old days when I believed that.

[Dan McClellan]

13 hours ago, Rivers said:

Is it possible to truly divorce our politics from our religion?

No. Neither concept exists outside of our discourse about them, and their distinction is a product of the structuring of power and values that began in the Renaissance and really took off during the Reformation and Enlightenment. They are both just socially contingent ways to organize knowledge about that power and those values. We live in a world structured by the Enlightenment, and as long as their categories facilitate the continued structuring of power and values on the part of the privileged and the powerful, we're stuck with them.  

Edited February 22, 2022 by Dan McClellan

[Scott Lloyd]

I see pure religion as transcending politics. However, latter-day scripture affirms that God’s people are justified in befriending principles in the U.S.Constitution that protect moral agency. To me, those principles are most clearly embodied in the First Amendment, that champions freedom of speech, of the press, of religion and assembly. 
 

I don’t mean to imply American exceptionalism here, as I know that constitutions of other nations also promote such principles to one degree or another. But the passages in the Doctrine and Covenants make specific reference to the U.S. Constitution. 

[Robert F. Smith]

37 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I miss the good old days when I believed that.

So do I . . .

[pogi]

53 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I see pure religion as transcending politics. However, latter-day scripture affirms that God’s people are justified in befriending principles in the U.S.Constitution that protect moral agency.

What about the principles in the constitution that betray moral agency?  Does our religion not justify us in supporting those principles?  We are not an anarchy, after all.  There are limits.  

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, pogi said:

What about the principles in the constitution that betray moral agency?  Does our religion not justify us in supporting those principles?  We are not an anarchy, after all.  There are limits.  

Well obviously, our religion does not justify unrighteous ideas in our or any other constitution. That should go without saying, right?

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you. 

[pogi]

34 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well obviously, our religion does not justify unrighteous ideas in our or any other constitution. That should go without saying, right?

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you. 

Your comment triggered memories of a conversation I had with my MIL.  She is a die-hard republican and Latter-day Saint, who believes the 2 can't be divorced because of our religious teachings on moral agency.  I had to disagree.  That may not have been your intent at all, but I know it is a fairly common belief among many republican latter-day saints.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

Your comment triggered memories of a conversation I had with my MIL.  She is a die-hard republican and Latter-day Saint, who believes the 2 can't be divorced because of our religious teachings on moral agency.  I had to disagree.  That may not have been your intent at all, but I know it is a fairly common belief among many republican latter-day saints.

Good thing it wasn’t my intent, then. 

[Olmec Donald]

9 hours ago, the narrator said:

Except that Jesus was incredibly political. The Kingdom he announced was very much a political kingdom

"My kingdom is not of this world." - Jesus Christ

Edited February 23, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, the narrator said:

Except that Jesus was incredibly political. The Kingdom he announced was very much a political kingdom, just one built on divine rather than "worldly" principles. His death, crucifixion, was a political execution used for political rebels to warn against other political rebellions.

Pontius Pilate disagreed that his death was politically useful as a warning. It is almost as if the competing religious ideals were the main threat.

[the narrator]

16 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

"My kingdom is not of this world." - Jesus Christ

Your point being? The Nephite Zion that existed after Jesus's visit to them was very much an instantiation of the Kingdom of God that Jesus proclaimed during his ministry. It was very much a political kingdom that existed on the planet. The difference between it and "worldly" kingdoms is that instead of being built on "worldy" principles such as the accumulation of power and wealth, it was instead built on divine principles wherein the poor would cease to lack, the mourning would be comforted, the once-powerless would finally have land to call their own, the starving would be fed, the merciful would receive the same, the pure in heart will recognize the divinity of their work, those working for peace (rather than warriors seeking to conquer) would be heralded, and those demanding justice for the oppressed (like Jesus) would be no longer be persecuted and punished. 

[the narrator]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Pontius Pilate disagreed that his death was politically useful as a warning. It is almost as if the competing religious ideals were the main threat.

Except that Pilate is largely a fiction created by anti-Semitic Christians writing decades after the death of Jesus who sought to place all blame on Jesus's death on the Jews in order to avoid persecution from the Romans.