What if the Church went politically left?

[captainfearnot]

The thread on Oaks moving to the left has got me thinking. What if the LDS Church did move to the left, politically? What if, instead of just a handful of token Democrats in the leadership, there were only a handful of token Republicans? What would be your response?

Would you move to the left along with the church? In other words, if you are first and foremost a believing Mormon, and you're only politically conservative because that's where the church seems to lean, then if it changed its leaning it would make sense to change yours along with it.

Would you maintain your religious beliefs and your right-leaning politics? In that case, you would adopt a similar position as LDS Democrats today. You believe LDS doctrine, but you also take its stated political neutrality seriously and exercise independence from the church's leanings in political matters. Those few token leaders who go against the political grain would be your primary examples to follow in that regard.

Or, would you consider the church to be in apostasy if it began to skew left? in other words, you are first and foremost a conservative, and only consider Mormonism to be true so long as it is based on those same fundamental, eternal principles. There can be no such thing as a true church that is politically liberal, so that would be a sure sign that it is in apostasy, and time to find a new church.

[samizdat]

The Church is neither politically left nor right. It is neutral.

In the United States, the Church has a historical political right bent due to the fact that the Presidents of the Church from about Heber J. Grant down to Ezra Taft Benson were definitely anticommunist firebrands. It was not always so.

Brigham Young moaned about the economic inequalities of his days. Spencer W. Kimball seemed to follow that same line too especially against military spending.

Since President Hunter, the Church has been seeking political balance. And it's positions would startle many staunch Democrats and Republicans.

Outside of the United States, the Church was picked up mostly by those who are left of center. The first native Mexican branch president, was an avowed socialist. Most Mexican members today are PRD/Morena which is an openly socialist party (albeit there are some PAN/PRI as well).

The only Latino members that are more right than left, are perhaps the Chileans, given that there were hundreds of thousands of baptisms during the Pinochet dictatorship.

I believe Uchtdorf is a Social Democrat which would put him on the left wing of German politics. The latest letter asking the Church members to help the refugees sent out to EU as well as the rest of the world, is reflective of that.

There is a diversity of political thought in the Church. Such is to be treasured, not to be spurned.

[lundbaek]

Prophets have warned us against socialism and admonished us to learn, uphold and abide by the principles of the US Constitution. I believe those statements have never been repealed. When a Prophet says on two different occasions that "Next to being one in worshiping God, there is nothing in this world upon which this Church should be more united than in upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States." there is no room that I can see for socialist principles.

I believe the Church has distanced itself from the cause of liberty in recent years for fear of provoking retribution by the latter-day gadiantons in control of our no longer so well hidden government, and fear of alienating members and prospective members by promoting the kind of freedom they reject in favour of dependence on socialism and government care. Yet just over a year ago Elder Oaks stated in an interview that "I see it a a responsibility for well-educated citizens, members of the bar and opinion leaders to be acquainted with the United States Constitution and its guarantees." So the freedom fires are still smoldering, at least.

[captainfearnot]

Samizdat, I happen to agree with you, but my question is mainly for those posters who believe the church is politically right-leaning.

Lundbaek, your observation that LDS leadership has always warned against socialism in the past is apt, but you also seem to allow that the church could "repeal" those statements and reverse its view. My question is how you would interpret such a reversal. Would you follow their lead and change your own view on socialism, maintain political independence on the issue, or consider it a sign of apostasy?

[Robin Hood]

Prophets have warned us against socialism and admonished us to learn, uphold and abide by the principles of the US Constitution. I believe those statements have never been repealed. When a Prophet says on two different occasions that "Next to being one in worshiping God, there is nothing in this world upon which this Church should be more united than in upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States." there is no room that I can see for socialist principles.

Who is "us"?
Your comment may well apply to US based saints, but remember, there are more Mormons outside the US.
This whole Republican/Democrat issue just doesn't apply to us. It's a complete non-issue.

In my ward I would say most members probably vote Labour (a social democratic party).

[2EstablishZion]

The Church is neither politically left nor right. It is neutral.

In the United States, the Church has a historical political right bent due to the fact that the Presidents of the Church from about Heber J. Grant down to Ezra Taft Benson were definitely anticommunist firebrands. It was not always so.

Brigham Young moaned about the economic inequalities of his days. Spencer W. Kimball seemed to follow that same line too especially against military spending.

Since President Hunter, the Church has been seeking political balance. And it's positions would startle many staunch Democrats and Republicans.

Outside of the United States, the Church was picked up mostly by those who are left of center. The first native Mexican branch president, was an avowed socialist. Most Mexican members today are PRD/Morena which is an openly socialist party (albeit there are some PAN/PRI as well).

The only Latino members that are more right than left, are perhaps the Chileans, given that there were hundreds of thousands of baptisms during the Pinochet dictatorship.

I believe Uchtdorf is a Social Democrat which would put him on the left wing of German politics. The latest letter asking the Church members to help the refugees sent out to EU as well as the rest of the world, is reflective of that.

There is a diversity of political thought in the Church. Such is to be treasured, not to be spurned.

Requesting donations to aid refugees is not left leaning at all. Caring for your neighbor is not a left vs. right political issue. It is using the government to force people to support others that is left or right.

To me there is neither left nor right - there is correct eternal principle and there is deviation from it.

[2EstablishZion]

As far as the question posed, I would always strive to rpomote and adhere to correct principle without regard for the direction the church leadership went. Not that I think of myself as "conservative first and Mormon second". I think of myself as doing my best to understand the workings of heavenly principles, and promote and adhere to those principles. I suspect many in church leadership supported Mitt Romney. Maybe even all of them. I throw a cloak of charity over their sins.

[lundbaek]

Good question, captainfearnot. If such happened, my first assumption would be that the Church leadership is pandering to the latter-day gadiantons in control of our government, Unless an explanation for the change in stance were forthcoming PDQ I would first consult with some of my friends who I'm sure would be equally conceerned, and then bring my concern to the attention of our bishop. Thus far,there have been times when I have wondered especially what Presidents Hinkley and Monson were doing (or neglecting to do) Re. the freedom battle, but thus far as I have investigated things that have troubled me I have finally been able to figure them out. That's all I can say for sure now.

[lundbaek]

Mostly for the benefit of Robin Hood, who seems to think I am oblivious to the fact that the Church exists in countries other than the USA, I'll say this again. I have lived and worked and been active in church in Germany, England, Italy, Denmark, and Switzerland, and for about 11 years total. I believe most members in those countries have been indoctrinated to favor federal dominance and federal welfare and regulation. However, while there I found there were a few members, (including three bishops, it that matters) who seemed to understand and expressed to me their appreciation of the US Constitution and the kind of government it was intended to provide. Two of my Danish associates were active in the political arena in support of what we would call conservative legislation and programs.

[GeeR]

I believe we will see more movement to the left by the church and the tares within the public communications dept. will be the tail wagging the dog but that this is under threat of intimidation. It seems to me to be designed to force the orthodox members give up and abandon ship. At some point here I believe the Lord will intervene, then watch the tares scurry, like rats, for cover. Until then I am careful not to fault the brethren, how can you fault them if they are under duress and have a gun to their head?

[h_p]

We've already seen a change of thought in the church towards reliance on government welfare assistance. It used to be this order: rely on yourself, then family, then church, then government. Now I'm seeing more acceptance of this left-leaning order: self, government, church, family. I don't think that's coming from the top, but I see it as a change in the "church."

Meh, truth is neither left nor right. And there are many positions both sides of the political spectrum holds dear, and accuses the other of violating (eg, the refugee aid mentioned above).

I'm more concerned about philosophies of men in the church, period. But regardless, as long as I can find salvation and blessings in this church, this is where I'm staying. If priesthood authority is no longer found in this church, I'm leaving, too.

[Dave62]

The left-right political continuum is for academically lazy people who don't ever want to expend mental energy to analyse political sociology. If you look at society through this false dichotomy you will fall for the old "Shiz Vs Coriantumr" fallacy. The "left-right" fallacy is a mechanism used by those who hold social power to delude those who hold less social power into thinking that they get some kind of political choice every time they go to the ballot box. I could easily do a bit of name dropping; Marx, Weber, Nibley, Mormon to start with, but I don't quite have enough time.

In summary, if you think you are a Mormon who falls into one of the "conservative authoritarian" or "progressive authoritarian" camps you are not reading the Book of Mormon enough.

[Robin Hood]

Mostly for the benefit of Robin Hood, who seems to think I am oblivious to the fact that the Church exists in countries other than the USA, I'll say this again. I have lived and worked and been active in church in Germany, England, Italy, Denmark, and Switzerland, and for about 11 years total. I believe most members in those countries have been indoctrinated to favor federal dominance and federal welfare and regulation. However, while there I found there were a few members, (including three bishops, it that matters) who seemed to understand and expressed to me their appreciation of the US Constitution and the kind of government it was intended to provide. Two of my Danish associates were active in the political arena in support of what we would call conservative legislation and programs.

Really....... "federal"?
I guarantee you never heard that word in England.

Conservatives in Denmark would be well to the left of the US Democrats.
I don't know anyone who gives the US constitution even a passing thought.... ever.

[lundbaek]

Wrong again on all three statements, Robin Hood. Fortunately, your persuasions do not represent those of all the English Saints I associated with.

[Robin Hood]

We don't have a federal system here. The word just isn't used.... at all.
Therefore there is no such thing as "federal" dominance or "federal" welfare.
You are simply wrong.

[OhioState001]

For that to happen either the church or the Democrats would have to switch stances on abortion, gay marriage, and self reliance/government dependence. Democrats would also have to being more constitutionally based since the church believes the constitution to be an inspired document.

[David13]

We don't have a federal system here. The word just isn't used.... at all.
Therefore there is no such thing as "federal" dominance or "federal" welfare.
You are simply wrong.

A problem, an aberration, an overstepping is the such same thing by whatever name, Robin Hood. So he is only wrong on the word, not the idea.
You don't mean to say the Labour Party is the only party there, do you? And I don't mean the Socialist Party, do I?
dc

[skmo]

There is a diversity of political thought in the Church. Such is to be treasured, not to be spurned.

In the same way that there is a diversity of very poisonous chemicals that can be crammed down the throat of an ill person in the hopes that one of the poisons will cure the patient before the others kill him. The one poison that works is still a poison. So it is with almost all political thought today.

[lundbaek]

I acknowledge that I might should have written so:
I believe most members in those countries have been indoctrinated to GOVERNMENT dominance and GOVERNMENT welfare and regulation. However, while there I found there were a few members, (including three bishops, it that matters) who seemed to understand and expressed to me their appreciation of the US Constitution and the kind of government it was intended to provide. Two of my LDS Danish associates were active in the political arena in support of what we AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONALISTS would call conservative legislation and programs.

I was writing primarily for the benefit of American readers. In the UK they just have the national government and local government, no special names for them that I know of.

So there are LDS people in the countries I have lived and worked in who understand and appreciate what the US government was supposed to have been. But I have encountered others who consider our form of government terribly hard on certain elements in our society. I remember one German colleague who had lived a while in New York City, speaking of his observation while there, "They do nothing for their people".

[Robin Hood]

We don't have a federal system here. The word just isn't used.... at all.
Therefore there is no such thing as "federal" dominance or "federal" welfare.
You are simply wrong.

A problem, an aberration, an overstepping is the such same thing by whatever name, Robin Hood. So he is only wrong on the word, not the idea.
You don't mean to say the Labour Party is the only party there, do you? And I don't mean the Socialist Party, do I?
dc

No, it's one of a number of parties, including:
Conservative Party
Liberal Democrats
Labour Party
United Kingdom Independence Party
Green Party
Socialist Workers Party
Respect
Monster Raving Loony Party

That last one is the only one that has ever produced a common sense manifesto in my opinion. They wanted to legislate for socks to be sold in 3's, because you always lose one.
They also suggested a good way to combat global warming was to install air conditioning units on the outside of buildings.
Sensible policies for a better Britain ;)

[2ndRateMind]

What if the LDS church moved politically to the left? The Cherubim would laugh with joy, the Seraphim would sing in happiness, and choirs of all the Angels would rejoice in concert. The saints would celebrate their pleasure with praise. And as for God, He would smile at the easement of the pain of His love.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[h_p]

I don't know anyone who gives the US constitution even a passing thought.... ever.

No worries, hardly anybody in the US does, either.

[David13]

You know captainfearnot, I don't think it's proper at all that you would suggest such a sickening and horrible thing as that.
dc

[lundbaek]

The only action by the LDS Church that I think was a deviation from conservative or constitutional principles was its overt (publicized) support of local legislation that prohibits business and rental property owners from refusing to hire or rent to gay persons or others who's practices they find offensive. Also, I remember well that in late 2007 or early 2008 the Church appealed to a body of state legislators to permit illegal immigrants in-state tuition rates for colleges. Those action certainly raised my eyebrows. And I think they were steps calculated to create good will among illegal immigrants and gay people.

[h_p]

Also, I remember well that in late 2007 or early 2008 the Church appealed to a body of state legislators to permit illegal immigrants in-state tuition rates for colleges.

Do you have any links to this? I'd like to read more about it.