The Role of The LDS Church in Utah's Politics

[lundbaek]

I agree with JWharton that "Throwing the rights of the people under the bus in order to grab a little bit of hope to have some institutional rights is hypocrisy." But I see this as a possible means to prevent (or postpone) retribution against the Church to buy more time before real persecution begins, thus gaining more time to bring more people into the fold. That is the only reason I can think of for much of the apparent hypocrisy we are seeing.

Here in Arizona LDS state legislators have, in past, gone head to head with certain local Church leaders, even so far as suggesting that they stop telling members to register and vote in elections because, as one AZ LDS legislator put it to an area seventy, "most Mormons vote in ignorance and just make things worse".

[samizdat]

I agree with JWharton that "Throwing the rights of the people under the bus in order to grab a little bit of hope to have some institutional rights is hypocrisy." But I see this as a possible means to prevent (or postpone) retribution against the Church to buy more time before real persecution begins, thus gaining more time to bring more people into the fold. That is the only reason I can think of for much of the apparent hypocrisy we are seeing.

Here in Arizona LDS state legislators have, in past, gone head to head with certain local Church leaders, even so far as suggesting that they stop telling members to register and vote in elections because, as one AZ LDS legislator put it to an area seventy, "most Mormons vote in ignorance and just make things worse".

That is what I am thinking too Lundbaek.

[marktheshark]

Marktheshark, if these issues are so important then why did the Church not support it until now?

Probably to avoid the public misconceptions that have been spread by ignorant media that Mormons are intolerant bigots that hate gay people.


Doctrine has not changed. This is important. Doctrine and the official stance at the pulpit on the matter has not been altered. The Family Proclamation stands firm.

First, the Family Proclamation is not doctrine, Elder Packer learned that the hard way when his statements were edited out of General Conference.

Second, I asked why now the Church is all supportive of what 20 years ago would have been considered radical support of gay rights? Look, I have no problem with the Church saying that we should be nice to gay people, not deny them artificial insemination to create families (this legislation mandates that doctors will have to do this, but I am uncomfortable with state force), or not kick them out of our homes as many conservative Christian parents of all types are known to do. However, saying that LDS legislators must support legislation because they are LDS irks me to the point that I might be inclined not to vote for LDS candidates again, and instead support conservative Christian and Jewish office seekers instead.

As for the religious exemption you must recall that Utah falls into the 9th Circuit based in San Francisco. There is a part of me that might find it humorous if, in a few years, the court rules that such an exemption is unconstitutional.

It absolutely is doctrinal, and it carries the signatures of 15 PSR's as a stamp of approval of every single word contained therein.

For proof that it was declared doctrinal, read the words of Gordon B Hinckley just prior to reading the statement publicly in September 1995:

In furtherance of this we of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history. I now take the opportunity of reading to you this proclamation:

Elder Packer's words were altered because he said it was a revelation. Technically, he was correct, but the revelations surrounding the content were not new. They were already established.

[marktheshark]

But I see this as a possible means to prevent (or postpone) retribution against the Church to buy more time before real persecution begins, thus gaining more time to bring more people into the fold. That is the only reason I can think of for much of the apparent hypocrisy we are seeing.

This much I can agree to.


However, I don't see any hypocrisy in reality. Perceived by many? Sure. Actual hypocrisy? Not in my opinion.

[Fiannan]

Elder Packer's words were altered because he said it was a revelation. Technically, he was correct, but the revelations surrounding the content were not new. They were already established.

Don't get me wrong, I like the context of the Proclamation. However, it seems weird to edit an apostles words if it technically is a revelation.

[jwharton]

I agree with JWharton that "Throwing the rights of the people under the bus in order to grab a little bit of hope to have some institutional rights is hypocrisy." But I see this as a possible means to prevent (or postpone) retribution against the Church to buy more time before real persecution begins, thus gaining more time to bring more people into the fold. That is the only reason I can think of for much of the apparent hypocrisy we are seeing.

Here in Arizona LDS state legislators have, in past, gone head to head with certain local Church leaders, even so far as suggesting that they stop telling members to register and vote in elections because, as one AZ LDS legislator put it to an area seventy, "most Mormons vote in ignorance and just make things worse".

Excellent points. Thank you.

[Fiannan]

His warning at 40 minutes should serve as a warning for Utah:

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/20 ... 150316.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[marktheshark]

Elder Packer's words were altered because he said it was a revelation. Technically, he was correct, but the revelations surrounding the content were not new. They were already established.

Don't get me wrong, I like the context of the Proclamation. However, it seems weird to edit an apostles words if it technically is a revelation.

It's neither here not there for me. I can confidently conclude that the Proclamation has the Lord's stamp of approval and that's all that really matters. The content speaks for itself.

[KMCopeland]

I am struck by several things.

That although the Church does not endorse political candidates, platforms, or parties, it pays lobbyists to influence legislation in at least one state, Utah. And to be fair, influencing legislation is not the same thing as endorsing political platforms. But those lobbyists' pay comes from tithing no matter how they spin it. Which doesn't seem right.

And how the Church's political agenda for Utah is less conservative than the original poster's is, and from what he says, less conservative than plenty of other members of the legislature who are also members of the Church.

Also, the Church's full court press on Prop 8 in California seems contradictory to their backing of what the poster is calling "pro-LGBT legislation," but that the Church more correctly, and more compassionately, calls "anti-discriminatory legislation."

[Joel]

I am struck by several things.

That although the Church does not endorse political candidates, platforms, or parties, it pays lobbyists to influence legislation in at least one state, Utah. And to be fair, influencing legislation is not the same thing as endorsing political platforms. But those lobbyists' pay comes from tithing no matter how they spin it. Which doesn't seem right.

To be fair sometimes the church skips the lobbyist and just sends an apostle to hold the PPI ;) directly with a LDS politician:

While serving in the Utah State Senate, I prepared religious freedom legislation with the intent to protect religion and individual religious conscience, absent non-discrimination protections. The public was never made aware of my religious freedom legislation for one reason alone: Elder Oaks personally asked me not to advance it. He felt that if I introduced my legislation, it would disrupt efforts to discover common ground for each party to obtain rights without trampling on the rights of the other. Solely, because of his request, I “protected” my legislation from public access and withheld it for two successive legislative sessions from being introduced in the Senate.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... ights.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[KMCopeland]

I wasn't very impressed with giving illegal aliens any paperwork other than a choice between the death penalty and deportation. It seemed to me like trying to prevent identity theft would be solved by immediate execution or death penalty to all illegal aliens and so the rest of it just amounted to amnesty. Or maybe I didn't understand it correctly.

I feel that people that break into our country are enemies of the state and worse than traitors. I think the death penalty is appropriate on sight as they cross and since they are not citizens, I see absolutely no reason for them to have due process.

In fact, I would suggest that a bounty be placed on illegal aliens and that $1000.00 cash be given to the person bringing the illegal alien in. No identification of the bounty hunter should be required. It would cost less than food stamps to implement and could completely wipe out the illegal alien population in a very short time.

I can see where tithing receipts would increase with the illegal alien having an American job instead of earning pesos in Mexico, but it destroys our country. Besides, the illegal aliens that I see do not pay tithing.

In your opinion, what is the real reason that the church would be willing to have a dramatic increase in crime, destruction of property by graffiti, millions of dollars lost by church members whose back yards are stolen, billions spent on messages to people that shouldn't even be here in the first place, etc.?

Do you feel these sentiments are in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ?

[KMCopeland]

Social media does not equal "private."

You actually stated the correct word -- tolerance.

First we abhor the sin, then we tolerate it, and then we embrace it. This is the ongoing pattern of the natural man. The slippery slope. The only sure path is standing firmly on the Rock, who is Christ. He loves all mankind, He atoned for us all, but He does not tolerate sin in even the least degree. He abhors it, and homosexuality and abortion are the sins that will bring the wrath of God upon this nation.

Homosexuality and abortion have been around for along time. You folks always sound like you think theyr'e both some kind of new fad. And I don't know where you got the idea that those two things are what will bring the wrath of God upon this nation, unless you've been listening to certain Protestant evangelical-type ministers. They're always talking about how 9/11 was caused by homosexuals, and the tornado in Oklahoma was God's wrath about abortion -- stuff like that. Do you really feel those two sins are worse than any other sins?

[KMCopeland]

My husband was selected by the church to be part of opinion polling surveys. His last one he submitted was just after Kate Kelly's excommunication. I assume they are done with him since it has been awhile since they've sent him a survey. One of the surveys was quite focused on this issue. I don't remember the questions exactly but mostly were about how one felt about the church getting involved in Utah politics. Other surveys focused on gay marriage. Feelings about recent excommunications and feelings about moving to a 2 hour block. I get frustrated when opinion polling is used or pilot programs and we all jump and call changes revelation.

My goodness. I suppose tithing money pays for those polls & surveys too.

[KMCopeland]

I am grieved by what he said about the Church's unwillingness to engage on abortion issues.

The unborn don't have parades and demand rights in public housing, transportation and employment.

I think abortion is a horrible thing. I think widespread, thoughtless abortion is even worse. But can you help me understand how, if it were to be made illegal again, how that law would be enforced?

[KMCopeland]

Now the Church is caving on homosexuality.

The Church fought pretty hard on Prop 8. How are they caving, and why?

[David13]

I think the cave in is that this is a 180 degree u turn from Prop 8.
I see it as something quite different than the cave on polygamy. I see polygamy as prohibited, but not as ethically and morally wrong.
And there was pressure from the federal government. Maybe that's what happened here. Does anyone see the possibility of intervention into state affairs by the federal government regarding this issue?
I do.
And I don't like it. I believe in states rights.
dc

[Fiannan]

We know the CIA promoted feminism and "modern art" and I would not doubt the US government has a hand in the promotion of pornography and gay rights. Ever notice that in the late 1960s the government saw population growth as the #1 issue to confront? Soon afterwards society began a shift from traditional morality, which tends to facilitate marriage and family?

Anyone have any info on the US role in these activities?

[Tribunal]

I can't speak for the reasons why the leadership of the LDS church hasn't lobbied for the anti-abortion cause or why they seem to be lobbying for the homosexual cause, but I can speak for the behind-the-scenes during the easing of the alcohol restrictions and the easing of documentation for illegal immigrants in the great state of Utah. Just a few examples:

I was in the Provo city chamber when the eighteen members of the Utah County delegation to the Utah house and senate spoke about easing the alcohol restrictions. It was all about generating more money. Three of the members of the delegation, one of whom became the speaker, even acknowledged that they were in conflict between their moral belief in promoting the Words of Wisdom and generating more money for the state. The members of the delegation wouldn't give an answer on how they would vote. Most of the members of the delegation said they were going to have to put a lot of thought into the issue because it conflicted with their moral beliefs. We now know what side won!

I was also there when politicians from Utah wanted to give "paperwork" to illegal immigrants. I was a legislative chairman for the state's party at the time and was also serving as the elder's quorum president in my ward. It was during a time in Utah when there was a large influx of Latinos coming into the country and the Latino population in Utah was growing fast. Utah County had a huge population of Latinos and the Catholic church was capitalizing on this. They built a very large church down in Orem and it was attracting a lot of attention. To compete against this the LDS stakes down in Orem began their own campaign to welcome the prospective members. The Latino members were given full access to one of the stake centers, even allowed to hold flea markets at the stake center. And, in order to use to the stake center you had to make sure it wasn't being used by the Latino members. In many cases you had to have their permission to schedule anything. This caused a lot of complaints and so the members of the stake presidency began visiting the wards to 'explain' the situation.

I will never forget when a member of the stake presidency walked into the middle of a lesson in elders quorum and asked to speak. He explained that these people who were coming from central and south America were our brothers and sisters, and they were coming to Utah to establish Zion. An elder in the quorum questioned the member of the stake presidency, saying something about how we are supposed to establish Zion where we live. That started a heated argument that got shut down when the member of the stake presidency said the First Presidency supported their arrival and we should too. Case closed!

I will also never forget when I was at a political convention in Payson, Utah. I remember sitting and watching well over a thousand faithful members of the state's political party overwhelmingly disagree with a particular issue. Then a legislator took to the stage and proclaimed that the First Presidency supported the issue. I could have sworn I heard the sound of sheep throughout the convention hall. Everyone quickly switched their opinion on the issue to be more inline with the First Presidency.

This is how politically influential the leadership of the LDS church is in the great state of Utah.

[lundbaek]

Thank you all of you for your input to this discussion, especially to those who have contributed personal observations and experiences.

A 10 June 2011 article in the Salt Lake Tribune may show just how confusing Church statements can be for many people.

http://newsroom.lds.org/article/immigra ... -statement" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

10 June 2011 — Salt Lake City

Immigration: Church Issues New Statement

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today issued the following official statement on immigration:

"Around the world, debate on the immigration question has become intense. That is especially so in the United States. Most Americans agree that the federal government of the United States should secure its borders and sharply reduce or eliminate the flow of undocumented immigrants. Unchecked and unregulated, such a flow may destabilize society and ultimately become unsustainable.

"As a matter of policy, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints discourages its members from entering any country without legal documentation, and from deliberately overstaying legal travel visas.

"What to do with the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants now residing in various states within the United States is the biggest challenge in the immigration debate. The bedrock moral issue for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is how we treat each other as children of God.

"The history of mass expulsion or mistreatment of individuals or families is cause for concern especially where race, culture, or religion are involved. This should give pause to any policy that contemplates targeting any one group, particularly if that group comes mostly from one heritage.

"As those on all sides of the immigration debate in the United States have noted, this issue is one that must ultimately be resolved by the federal government.

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned that any state legislation that only contains enforcement provisions is likely to fall short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God.

"The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship.

"In furtherance of needed immigration reform in the United States, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supports a balanced and civil approach to a challenging problem, fully consistent with its tradition of compassion, its reverence for family, and its commitment to law."

[lundbaek]

As for members of bishoprics, stake presidencies and other prominent Church members stating what they think is right on certain controversial issues, I have known such Church authorities to come up on the wrong side of constitutional principles enuf times that I would want to hear or read statements and opinions attributed to the First Presidency from them themselves, and not from local authorities who I fear may by injecting their personal persuasions in a manner that sounds like it is from the Prophet.

[Lizzy60]

Not long ago, my father told me that our leaders have always counseled us to be in the center, politically, neither to the right, nor the left. I asked him when and where they have stated this, and all he would say is that it's implied in all their political statements. He has served in Bishopric, high councils, and stake presidencies, so I understand where you are coming from, lundbaek. Some local leaders "quote" the GA's without actually being able to back up these "quotes."

[lundbaek]

I think if one were to read "The Proper Role Of Government" in the 1968 conference address ( http://scriptures.byu.edu/gettalk.php?ID=1636" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ) it should be pretty clear what our political persuasions should be.

It appears that since then, especially in more recent years the Lord may have inspired certain deviations from the principles given by Ezra Taft Benson in that address. This may not be a good example, but some 20+ years ago a husband and wife living here in Arizona were denied temple recommends and callings in their ward because ther were living in the US illegally.

[Fiannan]

Since the Church leadership today has taken no stand in reference to the US slide into fascism may we conclude that we as members should be okay with it?

[Ezra]

Since the Church leadership today has taken no stand in reference to the US slide into fascism may we conclude that we as members should be okay with it?

No we should read 2 nephi 28:30.

The majority of lds have not wanted to hear what was being taught and the lord is no longer raising the warning voice. And is taking away that knowledge.

[lundbaek]

It would not surprise me to learn that the Lord has become so fed up with our failure to do what His Prophets and Apostles have in past told us to do Re. preserving our freedoms that He is simply not directing his current Prophet and Apostles to push the subject any longer.