Jonathan Rauch, "Civic Theology" and the Church

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is really not resisting Trump in any meaningful way.

It is trying to keep some moral distance and slipping in some vague caveats about your support while still supporting him politically in every way it concretely matters. Hoping that will lead to some break or change is a long shot. Hoping it will transform American society and buttress democracy is an even longer shot.

I good example of this is Governor Cox.

[Benjamin McGuire]

29 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I live here, it doesn't feel like Utah is hugely resisting Trump. With Mike Lee and now the Governor it's not feeling all that good. Especially when Governor Cox attended the Arlington National Cemetery with Trump when Trump got what looked like political photos that were not allowed to be done in the certain areas.

It's easy to speak of a center-right in Utah. When I lived there, Bill Clinton came in third in both presidential elections. Which means that Utah has consistently had the equivalent of two conservative demographics. But Trump won Utah in this last election cycle by more than 20 points. There is certainly a majority of support for Trump and his policies in Utah. And while the center-right is more visible in Utah than in other areas, Utah isn't hugely resisting Trump by any stretch of the imagination.

[sunstoned]

I agree. As a Utah resident, I saw little in the way of Trump resistants in the last election.  The Utah legislature seems to have taken Trump's rhetoric as a template of sorts.  In Utah higher education, it is approaching a crime to even verbalize diversity, equity, and inclusion.

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I am so much a part of the problem Rauch is describing that I have started two threads about, and complimenting and endorsing, Rauch:

It seems to me your praise of Rauch is based on his praise of Mormonism more than anything else.

I think Rauch is pointing to what the Church is doing and publicly commenting on it, and I think his commentary about the Church was a worthy topic for this board.

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

As I have noted, it seems to me that Mormonism being plagued and heading the way that Rauch describe Evangelical Christianity. 

Not sure about that.  There are quite a few checks in place.  The Church's long-held political neutrality and prohibition against politicking at the local level.  The First Presidency letter a while back cautioning against rotely voting based on political party.  The NY Times article I quoted earlier (discussing indicia that the Latter-day Saints are drifting away from the GOP).  The data Mr. Rauch presented showing that the Latter-day Saints are not marching in lockstep with a particular political party (as opposed to EVs, who apparently are). 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 19, 2025 by smac97

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well maybe I should clarify. I said birth rates can be reversed not that they are being reversed. So it was more an opinion rather than an assertion of fact. It just seems that the declining birth rate could be reversed. I wonder how China is doing since their reversal of the one child policy.

My recollection is that they are doing very poorly.  After a few generations of enforcement, the One Child Policy became so entrenched that even after its removal the Chinese have elected not to replenish themselves.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well maybe or maybe not. The US tax code has typically been pro family and children. I wonder if historically our birth rates would have dropped had such things not been in place.  And US birthrates are falling as well.  

Immigration can also make up lost ground for low birthrates but that can bring cultural issues.

Agreed.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Having children is difficult on its own.  In post-agrarian societies, children are only a financial burden, not a benefit.  And we have spent many decades now conditioning society to view in utero babies as clumps of cells, parasites, etc., to be aborted for any reason or no reason at all. 

Oh brother. Over the top hyperbole. I am fairly certain even those who favor abortion as an option do not hold that view and there is a small but perhaps loud minority who would hold the ludicrous fictional position.

Okay.

I find elective abortion to be one of the great moral stains of our time.  On par with the dehumanizing and misanthropic effects found in chattel slavery, eugenics, and other amoral concepts and practices.  

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

The misanthropy inherent in elective abortion rhetoric has had, in my view, a permanently harmful effect.  That and the self-indulgent and money-centered mindsets that too many of us have.

I think you live in the Happy Valley bubble and have little to no experience interacting with people outside of the Mormon Corridor. My experience our in the "real" world and with people I interact with do not reflect this. The young people I interact with seem interested in family and children though they do not have the numbers of children that Latter-day Saints historically have. Most the child bearing people I know are having children and usually they have two or three and a few I know have 4.

And yet, cumulative, Americans are having far fewer children than in the past.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 19, 2025 by smac97

[smac97]

7 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

You appear to have no understanding of what I am saying.  Sorry I was not clear enough I suppose

Yes of course "IF"'- that is the whole point.   Odd folks like me get into philosophical "IF's" all the time and attorneys typically want to talk about arguments that will stand up to 12 random people in court

Sooner or later philosophical abstractions must be brought into and applied in the real world.  I'm willing to entertain both.

7 hours ago, Mfbnew said:

Ann Taves has some interesting views.   I was getting into her views but now I see that this topic is HUGE if you have never read her stuff. 

I have a bit, and commented on it (see, e.g., here and here)

Her approach to the Plates and the Witnesses is interesting, but in the end seems to not really engage the historical evidence.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

I find elective abortion to be one of the great moral stains of our time.  On par with the dehumanizing and misanthropic effects found in chattel slavery, eugenics, and other amoral concepts and practices.  

 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

I dislike this either/or characterization as much as I dislike the "you're either an ally or a bigot" one that gets thrown the other way.

We need to avoid hazardous over-simplifications of very complex issues, particularly when doing so involves passing moral judgments on individuals.

Again, physician heal yourself. Heaven forbid someone call you a bigot. But you calling those who disagree with you slavers, eugenicists and baby killers a-ok. Amiright!? 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Again, physician heal yourself.

I don't follow.  What "either/or" thing am I doing?

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Heaven forbid someone call you a bigot. But you calling those who disagree with you slavers, eugenicists and baby killers a-ok. Amiright!? 

I am condemning elective abortion.  I am not imputing motives onto you.  Do you see the difference?

If I find X morally problematic for reasons A, B and C, none of which is "bigotry," then some online person calling me a bigot is inappropriate.

On the other hand, if that some other person finds X morally acceptable, then have I publicly indicted their character by holding - and expressing - a contrary view?  Well, let's see.

A few days ago I had a discussion with a friend who has previously characterized people who do not support same-sex marriage as "bigots."  He has since retracted that characterization, as he acknowledged that people of good will and decency can have reason- and principle-based grounds for their non-support that do not include "hatred" or "fear" of homosexuals.  Nevertheless, he still believes - and states - that not supporting same-sex marriage is a "great moral wrong."  That's about as far as he can go.  In other words, he allows for a reasonable and principled - but still ultimately morally incorrect - position on same-sex marriage.

Is there a "reasonable and principled" position to be found for supporting elective abortion?  IMO, yes.  Can I evaluate that position and still find it to be ultimately morally incorrect?  IMO, yes.  Should any of this involve me imputing terrible motives onto online strangers I have never met and do not know personally?  No.  Is publicly comparing characterizing elective abortion as being "{o}n par with the dehumanizing and misanthropic effects found in chattel slavery, eugenics, and other amoral concepts and practices" akin to imputing terrible motives onto strangers?  In retrospect, it probably is, or can come across that way.  So I retract the published statement to that effect and apologize for it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 19, 2025 by smac97

[BlueDreams]

On 2/17/2025 at 4:47 PM, smac97 said:

I square my appreciation for Rauch's sentiments this way: Absent a particular endorsement or ratification, I am not beholden or responsible for broad rhetorical excesses and recriminations from people toward my end of the political spectrum, and I would extend the same courtesy and exculpatory expectation to folks like you.  If you can point me to instances where I have endorsed or ratified characterizations of people as "an enemy or potential enemy to the US," then I would retract such endorsements and apologize.  As it is, though, I don't think I've done that.

Finally have a moment to read through a few of your posts and write. 

From what I gather from this post is that you separate other people's actions and thoughts from your own within communications about politics. Which I think in abstract, I agree with. There's plenty that I'm likely ideologically similar to that I don't agree with in their tone, actions, methods, specific policies etc. It would be a mistake to assume that all people within a broad political orientation think and engage the same way. Where I see this falling apart is in the specifics. Namely blindspots in language that is demeaning to the other side. Or tacit approval or dismissal of sources that one did support to some degree who are incendiary. I don't have the time to follow most the threads on this board, but one that I do remember fairly recently that I found highly demeaning and stereotyping of political liberals (can't remember where. It was an article). I assume you didn't see it that way. I as a passive reader, definitely did. I would have responded but if I remember correctly, Calm and others answered plenty. It was  one of the "dogpiles" moments and I didn't feel a need to add to it. 

The other is tacit approval or dismissal. From my perspective this value that describes seems contradictory for voting someone where almost all of his dialogue is absolutely black and white, often extreme, demonizing of opposition, promotes violent rhetoric, etc on the regular. I don't say this from simply clips, but from purposely watching full rallies and public discord he had in varying venues. I have a hard time squaring that. (I should note, it's not the only thing I have a hard time getting, but most of that is far more overtly political). The responses I've seen who voted for him usually entails either pointing out how it is or at least could be true, minimizing problematic themes, or assuming some other meaning all together than the most obvious one. And all of these either ignore or feed into a cultural corrosion that feeds off of hyper-partisanship, distrust of other, and the mainstreaming of more and more extreme dialogue in the public sphere.  

 

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

I dislike this either/or characterization as much as I dislike the "you're either an ally or a bigot" one that gets thrown the other way.

We need to avoid hazardous over-simplifications of very complex issues, particularly when doing so involves passing moral judgments on individuals. 

Again, I don't disagree. But that's not what's being promoted by the President and his administration currently. The enemy paraphrase from me was from a number of statements from our current president while campaigning, for example.  Again it just seems inconsistent to me. To insist we need greater decorum, care, and nuance in dialogue and then placing one's support with someone who proactively and consistently does the opposite doesn't make sense to me. I get that we are all morally complex and have our own means to balance out our inconsistencies. This, for me, just seems like a really big one that I struggle to understand. 

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

Please see my response to Calm, as it may include information responsive to your query.

Thanks,

-Smac

I read it. i haven't read Calm's responses (or anyone's past this, TBH) and so some of this may be redundant. 

I didn't get that he was saying the evangelical church is not bidden to the conservative politics of the US. I would assume it's more complex of a play than that. Part of it is the drastic difference in how evangelical groups organize. It's far, far looser than a lot of the other churches mentioned which allows to very specific niche church groups that can become a bit of echo chambers in terms of beliefs and assertions. If ones doesn't like it, one can go to another church group to fit better in. Since there's been overt associations with the rep party by those within this orientation, there's going to be more of a cyclical relationship. Reps work to court and meet an important voting block, Ev's assert and support Reps they prefer, etc. Some churches have moved more and more overtly political. An example that comes to mind is how our church talks about abortion v how my brother noted talking about it. Ours has a statement and a handful of discussion that focuses more on the rule than exceptions in dialogue. My brother's very conservative non-denom ev-ish group has entire specials on the evils of abortion with testimonials etc. Our official position would not be conservative enough for his religious denom. 

I also disagree with the interpretation of the data around religious attendance and conservatism. (maybe I wouldn't if I'd read more than the parts you quoted...but I didn't). The effect varies from denomination from denomination and is negligible in all but one of the non-protestant groups. This tells me that there absolutely is social phenomena happening that can encourage or discourage sociopolitical diversity in a religious context. I would assume it's multifactored and probably not entirely unidirectional.

 

With luv,

BD 

 

Edited February 19, 2025 by BlueDreams

[BlueDreams]

21 hours ago, Teancum said:

I should note that I am rather interested in this topic and intrigues with his thoughts on Mormonism. As a skeptic I still believe he may be on to  something here in regards to Mormonism so I will listen and read to understand his ideas.  But as noted, I am concerned that I see many Latter-day Saints going down the road Evangelical Protestants have trodden.  It is hard to know to what extent but Latter-day Saints have supported Trump and MAGA, perhaps, more than other politicians and movements it seems. And I see it from the Latter-day Saints I know fairly extensively. But that is just anecdotal. 

Also anecdotal on my end, I know plenty of people who are LDS who are critical of Trump and/or skeptical of MAGA. I live in a very red area that absolutely voted for trump....and yet I heard and saw very very little overt support for him. And could find plenty of similar outlooks to mine even from members who I know are far more conservative than I am (usually within the moderate rep orientation)

I see some strong differences from the Ev orientation to the LDS one that mutes the potential relationship we could have to politics that Evs do. We are generally a more conservative religious group on par with ev's, but the exit polls do not show us falling into lock-step as ev's have. It either shows us at similar numbers to 2016 or slightly reduced in terms of Trump vote. This is before you get to outside the US, which is the majority of the LDS body nowadays...which would rapidly dilute US political outlooks and likely gives a protective factor in terms of falling to far in line with one political party or another.

Of course my circles are also pretty different from the US LDS average members. It's also anecdotal. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Finally have a moment to read through a few of your posts and write. 

From what I gather from this post is that you separate other people's actions and thoughts from your own within communications about politics. Which I think in abstract, I agree with. There's plenty that I'm likely ideologically similar to that I don't agree with in their tone, actions, methods, specific policies etc. It would be a mistake to assume that all people within a broad political orientation think and engage the same way.

Agreed.

19 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Where I see this falling apart is in the specifics. Namely blindspots in language that is demeaning to the other side.

Yes, I'm seeing that.  In myself, in others.

19 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Or tacit approval or dismissal of sources that one did support to some degree who are incendiary. I don't have the time to follow most the threads on this board, but one that I do remember fairly recently that I found highly demeaning and stereotyping of political liberals (can't remember where. It was an article). I assume you didn't see it that way. I as a passive reader, definitely did. I would have responded but if I remember correctly, Calm and others answered plenty. It was  one of the "dogpiles" moments and I didn't feel a need to add to it.

I think the "dogpiles" assume that I have an "all in" position on the current administration (or, indeed, on any political philosophy, party, etc.).  I don't. 

19 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

The other is tacit approval or dismissal. From my perspective this value that describes seems contradictory for voting someone where almost all of his dialogue is absolutely black and white, often extreme, demonizing of opposition, promotes violent rhetoric, etc on the regular.

I see both sides doing this, and I dislike it from both sides.

19 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Quote

I dislike this either/or characterization as much as I dislike the "you're either an ally or a bigot" one that gets thrown the other way.

We need to avoid hazardous over-simplifications of very complex issues, particularly when doing so involves passing moral judgments on individuals. 

Again, I don't disagree. But that's not what's being promoted by the President and his administration currently. The enemy paraphrase from me was from a number of statements from our current president while campaigning, for example.  Again it just seems inconsistent to me. To insist we need greater decorum, care, and nuance in dialogue and then placing one's support with someone who proactively and consistently does the opposite doesn't make sense to me. I get that we are all morally complex and have our own means to balance out our inconsistencies. This, for me, just seems like a really big one that I struggle to understand. 

"Support" is not an all-or-nothing thing.  I may have some disagreements as to the particulars of how it has been done, but in the main I have wanted the border secured.  It now is, and I think that's great.  Same goes for detecting and reducing government waste, corruption, etc.  On the international diplomacy front, I thought Mr. Vance's talk on Free Speech was excellent and necessary, but I dislike the disrespect shown to Canada, and the apparent bullying of Denmark.  I vary a lot from how to treat otherwise law-abiding illegal aliens who have been here a long time.  And so on.

I'd rather not pursue this, as I want to honor the board rules against politics (I have disregarded that rule a lot lately, and I'm trying to get back into compliance with it).

19 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I didn't get that he was saying the evangelical church is not bidden to the conservative politics of the US. I would assume it's more complex of a play than that. Part of it is the drastic difference in how evangelical groups organize. It's far, far looser than a lot of the other churches mentioned which allows to very specific niche church groups that can become a bit of echo chambers in terms of beliefs and assertions.

That sounds about right.

Meanwhile, the Church remains overwhelmingly apolitical, emphasizes a "teach correct principles and let them govern themselves" approach, and specifically prohibits politicking at the local level.  The Church's generalized "top-down" hierarchical structure sure have some downsides, particularly where the Church is international and has millions of members.  But that structure sure is useful here.

19 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

If ones doesn't like it, one can go to another church group to fit better in. Since there's been overt associations with the rep party by those within this orientation, there's going to be more of a cyclical relationship. Reps work to court and meet an important voting block, Ev's assert and support Reps they prefer, etc. Some churches have moved more and more overtly political. An example that comes to mind is how our church talks about abortion v how my brother noted talking about it. Ours has a statement and a handful of discussion that focuses more on the rule than exceptions in dialogue. My brother's very conservative non-denom ev-ish group has entire specials on the evils of abortion with testimonials etc. Our official position would not be conservative enough for his religious denom.

Yes, the Church has found room for compromise on abortion, rather than taking an absolutist approach.  As a result, the Church seemingly gets dinged from both sides.

19 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I also disagree with the interpretation of the data around religious attendance and conservatism. (maybe I wouldn't if I'd read more than the parts you quoted...but I didn't). The effect varies from denomination from denomination and is negligible in all but one of the non-protestant groups. This tells me that there absolutely is social phenomena happening that can encourage or discourage sociopolitical diversity in a religious context. I would assume it's multifactored and probably not entirely unidirectional.

Thank you for your thoughts.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Mfbnew]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Her approach to the Plates and the Witnesses is interesting, but in the end seems to not really engage the historical evidence.

 

Ah yes!

"His story".

I do not believe for one minute that Joseph was "lying" or being dishonest in any way.

Millions of Catholics daily walk into a church where bread becomes literal flesh of Christ and wine his blood, and also Christ's divinity, and I would not deny for a minute that they are "wrong" to believe that.

If every Catholic has the faith to  understand that, I will not call Joseph a fraud because he had the same faith that today's Catholics still affirm.

It's sad that so many LDS folks throw out such a wonderful way to see the world, that we can create miracles through faith.

There are at least two kinds of "truth".   One is social truth or "objectivity", truth that many accept AS "truth" because everyone can verify it- like the boiling point of water.

Objective.  

Then there is "subjective truth" that relies on your own heart - when you decide, for example to marry someone.   You "subjectively" KNOW that THIS is the right person for me!

What school do I need to attend? Subjective. What religion should I affirm?  Subjective.  How many children should we have?  Subjective.  Who do I vote for?  Subjective.

Should I believe the plates came from God- however that was done is God's business - having the faith to accept that?   Subjective.

Moroni 10:4 changed my life.  Subjective, but I KNOW it was the path God/the Force/the Universe/my heart/ my gut wanted me to take, and it will be forever.

But no, it will not stand up in court.

It's not supposed to!  "Hope for things unseen"   Every post on this board should have that as a preface!   But we are too busy talking about murder mysteries, and the latest news from Church Headquarters.

 

Edited February 19, 2025 by Mfbnew

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

Ah yes!

"His story".

I do not believe for one minute that Joseph was "lying" or being dishonest in any way.

Which leaves either A) he was telling the truth, B) he was deluded, or C) some variation of A or B.

6 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

Millions of Catholics daily walk into a church where bread becomes literal flesh of Christ and wine his blood, and also Christ's divinity, and I would not deny for a minute that they are "wrong" to believe that.

Nor would I.  But I would not affirm it, either, as transubstantiation is a matter of faith.

6 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

If every Catholic has the faith to  understand that, I will not call Joseph a fraud because he had the same faith that today's Catholics still affirm.

It's sad that so many LDS folks throw out such a wonderful way to see the world, that we can create miracles through faith.

I don't quite understand what you are saying here.

6 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

There are at least two kinds of "truth".   One is social truth or "objectivity", truth that many accept AS "truth" because everyone can verify it- like the boiling point of water.

Objective.  

Then there is "subjective truth" that relies on your own heart - when you decide, for example to marry someone.   You "subjectively" KNOW that THIS is the right person for me!

What school do I need to attend? Subjective. What religion should I affirm?  Subjective.  How many children should we have?  Subjective.  Who do I vote for?  Subjective.

Respectfully, I disagree with this.  "Truth" exists, but our capacity to discern and fully understand it is limited.  

Then there are matters of "opinion," which are subjective.

6 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

Should I believe the plates came from God- however that was done is God's business - having the faith to accept that?   Subjective.

I think the existence of the Plates, and their origins, are matters of objective truth.  We just happen to lack means of empirically confirming or repudiating Joseph's narrative.  

6 minutes ago, Mfbnew said:

Moroni 10:4 changed my life.  Subjective, but I KNOW it was the path God/the Force/the Universe/my heart/ my gut wanted me to take, and it will be forever.

But no, it will not stand up in court.

Secular courts are not designed to adjudicate matters of faith, and are instead prohibited from doing so, so we're safe there.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

am condemning elective abortion.  I am not imputing motives onto you.  Do you see the difference?

When you are discussing the topic with someone who is pro choice and you label abortion as self indulgent, etc how is that not imputing at the very least the motive of selfishness onto that person?

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Agreed.

Yes, I'm seeing that.  In myself, in others.

I think it's human. I've had to proactively work to keep it back. If a person asks my opinion about Trump and the current MAGA movement, I will be fairly blunt and clear about just how problematic and corrosive I think it is to a functioning democracy in particular. But where I stop (or at least try to) is what that means about the people who voted for at least him if not the movement itself. I won't lie, that's not easy. As I've mentioned before, there's been multiple times that even adding nuance and understanding to why a person may adhere to a position, does not necessarily absolve the problems I see in the reasoning. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the "dogpiles" assume that I have an "all in" position on the current administration (or, indeed, on any political philosophy, party, etc.).  I don't. 

No idea. I only partially pay attention to them when they happen. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I see both sides doing this, and I dislike it from both sides.

I'm not a fan of "both sides" arguments. Within my field I'm often working with couples. Often times both couples are accountable for the problems they bring in the office. But often, they're not equally accountable. One often is pulling more weight in problematic behaviors. That's similar to what I see in our current political climate. Yes, both sides had/have issues that without Trump would've needed addressing and shifts to promote healthier democracy and representation. But what Trump brings is not equivalent to what was going wrong prior. It represents something worse. Including in terms of degree of bad mouthing the "other side." When I hear "both sides" on this it generally translates into not seeing clearing what one side is bringing to the mix. Again, I should note much of this doesn't just come from analyses or political commentary. It comes from proactively listening to both sides in campaign, official addresses, etc in full. It's just not true that what they were doing was equivalent in rhetoric. One was clearly worse than the other.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Support" is not an all-or-nothing thing.  I may have some disagreements as to the particulars of how it has been done, but in the main I have wanted the border secured.  It now is, and I think that's great.  Same goes for detecting and reducing government waste, corruption, etc.  On the international diplomacy front, I thought Mr. Vance's talk on Free Speech was excellent and necessary, but I dislike the disrespect shown to Canada, and the apparent bullying of Denmark.  I vary a lot from how to treat otherwise law-abiding illegal aliens who have been here a long time.  And so on.

I can understand that. I just don't agree with it. Going back to my couples therapy. I am adament in reducing and working to eliminate emotional abuse in my office. When I see it, I call it out. When I hear signs of it, I don't ignore it. If it's there, it becomes a main focus of therapy because I deeply believe that any other goal will be hamstrung by psychological disrespect and harm. If I just say I don't tolerate or believe in emotional abuse, but ignore the emotional abuse for other goals the couple has, I'm going to lose credibility in that. Abusers are often not flat characters, they have empathizable stories, legitimate concerns, often underlying psychological issues. I could easily focus on something else in therapy, but if I'm not really addressing the abuse patterns while talking about how important it is to not abuse it will fall flat. Worse, I will likely normalize and minimize what's happening for the couple. It becomes just one of their quarks or arguments. 

That's my problem with this. I get that for people who vote for Trump there is a range of interests and concerns that led them to it. I get that they may not agree with his entire platform or methods. But if there isn't real pushback or action against said concerns, it loses credibility for me. It will come off as caring more for a speech on allowing diverse voices, while ignoring the very obvious signs that only certain speech is welcome in a Trump/MAGA orientation to government. That may work for people with a similar opinion. For those who don't, to say it falls flat is a bit of an understatement. 

I don't mean this to sound like the only solution would be to never vote for someone with MAGA leanings. There are a number of other potential ways to really show and engage to try and influence a movement for something more moderate in tone. But if all there is is lip-service to civility and pluralism it's not going to go very far. And it will land wrong for others outside said circle.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'd rather not pursue this, as I want to honor the board rules against politics (I have disregarded that rule a lot lately, and I'm trying to get back into compliance with it).

I hope my examples are more politics light than deep dives into policy itself. I'm bringing them up not to go down political rabbit holes, but to note inconsistencies or concerns in the main topic around Rauch. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

That sounds about right.

Meanwhile, the Church remains overwhelmingly apolitical, emphasizes a "teach correct principles and let them govern themselves" approach, and specifically prohibits politicking at the local level.  The Church's generalized "top-down" hierarchical structure sure have some downsides, particularly where the Church is international and has millions of members.  But that structure sure is useful here.

They technically are. I say technically because I think that there is a disproportionate lean socially in leadership. This can inadvertently lead to a focus on things with examples, views, and experiences that resonate more with people with similar social outlooks. I think that's lessening to some degree as the church diversifies and outreaches to other faith/social communities. But I still see it fairly regularly. It's probably more apparent to me than you due to my differing political and social outlook. As I'm more likely to be confronted with disagreement when I'm listening to something. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited February 19, 2025 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

know plenty of people who are LDS who are critical of Trump and/or skeptical of MAGA. I live in a very red area that absolutely voted for trump....and yet I heard and saw very very little overt support for him. And could find plenty of similar outlooks to mine even from members who I know are far more conservative than I am (usually within the moderate rep orientation)

I wish we could separate out the “not Biden” vote from the “pro Trump” vote.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

think the "dogpiles" assume that I have an "all in" position on the current administration (or, indeed, on any political philosophy, party, etc.).  I don't. 

Not me.  I agree that some have said things that sound like that (I can think of four who I remember as saying such things multiple times, but there could be more), but I wouldn’t make the same assumption of others who have not made those types of comments about you.  Assuming everyone criticizing your position or methodology is doing it for the same reason or has the same assumptions is problematic, especially if the dog pile is about your behaviour more than your position, such as leaning on poor stats and not engaging with data that contradicts your position as occasionally happens when you are discussing immigration for example (others appeal to poor data as well, so not saying this is just your issue).

Edited February 19, 2025 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

17 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I've had to proactively work to keep it back. If a person asks my opinion about Trump and the current MAGA movement, I will be fairly blunt and clear about just how problematic and corrosive I think it is to a functioning democracy in particular. But where I stop (or at least try to) is what that means about the people who voted for at least him if not the movement itself.

This is why you are better than me. This board is where I blow off steam in non-productive ways to prevent doing so in ways that would otherwise negatively impact in person relationships. Out here in west Kaysville it’s almost all Trump and around 90% active Latter-day Saints. That said I am aware of how I behave on this board and do try to operate within most board (current political stuff notwithstanding) guidelines. 

Edited February 19, 2025 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, the Church has found room for compromise on abortion, rather than taking an absolutist approach.  As a result, the Church seemingly gets dinged from both sides.

What compromise? What concession did the church make here on its principled stand?

[smac97]

47 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Yes, the Church has found room for compromise on abortion, rather than taking an absolutist approach.  As a result, the Church seemingly gets dinged from both sides.

What compromise? What concession did the church make here on its principled stand?

See here:

Quote

Abortion

See the Church’s official statement on abortion on the Newsroom site.

Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.

In today’s society, abortion has become a common practice, defended by deceptive arguments. Latter-day prophets have denounced abortion, referring to the Lord’s declaration, “Thou shalt not … kill, nor do anything like unto it” (Doctrine and Covenants 59:6). Their counsel on the matter is clear: Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must not submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for an abortion. Church members who encourage an abortion in any way may be subject to Church discipline.

Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.

When a child is conceived out of wedlock, the best option is for the mother and father of the child to marry and work toward establishing an eternal family relationship. If a successful marriage is unlikely, they should place the child for adoption.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

See here:

Thanks,

-Smac

Can you point to their compromise? That’s just their position. Are you saying legislating the church’s position would be a compromise when it exactly represents their preferred position?

[manol]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

I wish we could separate out the “not Biden” vote from the “pro Trump” vote.

Here's a bit of math that imo indicates the "pro Trump" shift is far from seismic:

In the four years between 2020 and 2024, the US population grew by about 2%.  I mention this because it's relevant background information that gets omitted.

Relative to 2020, in 2024 the number of votes Trump received increased by 4%.  Adjusting for population growth, votes for Trump increased by only 2%.

Relative to 2020, in 2024 the Democratic candidate received 8% less votes.  Adjusting for population growth, votes for the Democratic candidate decreased by 10%.  Imo THAT is seismic.  Imo THAT is the story, rather than the one that's being told.

Imo the failure on the part of the Democrats was that they did not use the democratic process to choose their candidate.  Rather than having a compressed primary so that the will of the members of the Democratic party would be represented by their presidential candidate, the Democratic party leadership bypassed that process and appointed/anointed their candidate.  Imo the result was insufficient enthusiasm for Harris because she was not chosen by the voice of her party's members.  Nobody had gone to the polling place and voted for her to be their candidate.  Given half a chance, I think the Democratic party members would have chosen a winning candidate.  The democratic process works but you gotta actually use it even if you're the majority party. 

(To illustrate my point about insufficient enthusiasm, even if I'm wrong about its cause:  Without using Google, how many of you know what Kamala Harris's campaign slogan was?)

Edited February 19, 2025 by manol

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Can you point to their compromise?

I did.  I quoted it and bolded/italicized it.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That’s just their position.

Which reflects a compromise. 

As opposed to an absolutist, no-abortion-under-any-circumstances position, which does not reflect a compromise.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Are you saying legislating the church’s position would be a compromise when it exactly represents their preferred position?

I haven't said anything about "legislating the church’s position."  That's not the way our secular system of governance works.  We legislate the will of the people, through their representatives and subject to the U.S. and state Constitutions.

I am saying that the Church's position reflects a compromise, an accommodation.  Similarly, the Church has made concessions/compromises on questions affecting immigration, Utah Senate Bill 296, and so on.

Broadly, the Church remains politically neutral.  On those few issues for which the Church publicly weighs it, it often takes an approach that promotes accommodation and compromise.  This is perhaps most acutely reflected in Pres. Oaks' 2021 speech at the University of Virginia.

Thanks,

-Smac  

Edited February 19, 2025 by smac97

[Mfbnew]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Which leaves either A) he was telling the truth, B) he was deluded, or C) some variation of A or B.

Nor would I.  But I would not affirm it, either, as transubstantiation is a matter of faith.

I don't quite understand what you are saying here.

Respectfully, I disagree with this.  "Truth" exists, but our capacity to discern and fully understand it is limited.  

Then there are matters of "opinion," which are subjective.

I think the existence of the Plates, and their origins, are matters of objective truth.  We just happen to lack means of empirically confirming or repudiating Joseph's narrative.  

Secular courts are not designed to adjudicate matters of faith, and are instead prohibited from doing so, so we're safe there.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well it appears we are making no progress.

In fact I re-discovered that we already had this discussion back years ago, and it mirrored what is happening here.

Positivism is dead.

The nature of "Truth" has been debated for at least 2500 years now in the western world, and no consensus has been reached on a good definition.

 And what does it mean that "truth exists"?   If we say that "chairs exist" at least we can understand what the speaker means- but "truth exists"?  Where?  What color is it?  How much does it weigh?   If you can define it in a way that makes sense, you may be

Most people believe that truth "corresponds" to "reality" which does not solve the problem- it simply complicates it!  There is no point in carrying this on further.

And you referenced an old post (2017?) where we have already had this discussion- essentially - and it ended the way this one is ending.  The basis of EVERY statement called "true" is about human experience - about what people believe in- and so "truth" cannot "exist" independent of human psychology.   Truth might be said to exist in the human mind, but we cannot define it, hold it in our hands, etc.

No progress.

The statement below could have come from hundreds of notable philosophers.  It's not as if Taves or any one philosopher made it up.  It goes back to at least Kant.   You want historical facts?  Well this is one of them then.

 

Edited February 20, 2025 by Mfbnew

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Not quite. Smac likes Rauch when he praises Latter-day Saints and when Rauch takes secularists to task! When Rauch criticizes SMAC’s evangelical friends and political allies? That’s where he draws the line. 

Even though the whole point Rauch is praising the Church is he sees it as a bulwark or check against the politicized evangelicals who he sees (correctly) as a huge threat to democracy.