- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
During World War II, the Pope was criticized for not stepping up against the Nazi’s, nor did he speak out against the mandate by A.H. that ordered that the Jews go to concentration camps to be slaughtered. The Pope was exercising political neutrality. How is that any different than the church staying out of politics?
Just wondering what people thought.
I think the distinction is this: what AH and the National Socialist Party represented was a manifestation of evil. Anyone who collaborated with their political platform was abetting a crime, and in the religious context, sinning against god. In the US, neither political party’s platforms and position are evil. Those who work in either a R or a D administration are not abetting crime. Ultimately, whether the marginal tax rate remains at 35% or goes to 38% is not a matter God (and by extention the Church) cares about. In 1941, sending ethnic minorities to their deaths was a matter God cared about, and so too should the Catholic Church.
I’m confused, Ezra Taft Benson spoke out against communism and socialism, yet if America goes down that rode, President Monson would allow us to embrace what we disdained during the cold war. The Church wants Fathers to be unemployed? I’m having a faith crisis. I hear many people claim that Obama is the Anti-Christ. I believe that as well when he was elected in 2008. I don’t know why the First Presidency congratulated him on his victory, when they have to be politically neutral. It is like they are endorsing Obama. I read the Book of Mormon and it speaks very blatantly about despots and those that want to take freedom away from people. Obama sees the Constitution as a road block and a negative and our Doctrine & Covenants talks about how the Constitution is inspired and ordained of God.
It seems like it is going against the gospel beliefs.
I just don’t think Zion will survive in an environment that may turn antagonistic against the freedom or religion. Why are we told not to fight, but just to cower in fear.
Why not just become evangelical and believe that Jesus is the only person that can save us? Why not be as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and call all earthly Kingdoms an evil abomination? I just don’t think politics and the church gel well. We are encouraged to vote and participate in the political process, yet the whole process seems anti-Christ to begin with. I think I’m gonna err on the side of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I’m very close to denouncing my faith as I had it conceptualized. Are we just supposed to give up and wait for Jesus? What I have been taught my whole life does not fit into the present paradigm. The Church is like the 1960s hippies just singing Kumbaya, and holding hands and telling everyone that love is all you need, and I am full of hate for my fellow men. I think I may become an evangelical Christian since Jesus is the only person that can save us from evil. I can still believ in the CK. I can still be an inside the closet Mormon. I just think it’s ridiculous going to church and people just stick their noses in their curriculum books and don’t have discussions out of the box. It is almost like we want to be sitting ducks placed in concentration camps.
Kumahito wrote:I think the distinction is this: what AH and the National Socialist Party represented was a manifestation of evil. Anyone who collaborated with their political platform was abetting a crime, and in the religious context, sinning against god.
In the US, neither political party’s platforms and position are evil. Those who work in either a R or a D administration are not abetting crime. Ultimately, whether the marginal tax rate remains at 35% or goes to 38% is not a matter God (and by extention the Church) cares about. In 1941, sending ethnic minorities to their deaths was a matter God cared about, and so too should the Catholic Church.
Soooo… Hmmm.
Should the church have spoken out against the invasion of Iraq. That was, under UN definitions, a crime. Some people are pushing for a war-crimes trial for Bush and Blair. There were no WMD. Shouldn’t the church have stepped in and stopped a needless war? Or was it a righteous cause because Saddam was evil? In which case why did/does the church stand by silent while Syria, Somalia, Cambodia happened or continues to happen. Was Pol Pot any less evil than Hitler.
Summary being, it’s a messy, complicated world. I think the church would do best to stay out of politics and stick to theology.
It was not the Pope’s role to stop Hitler. It was not Hinkley’s role to stop Bush/Blair.
I was fully against the war on Iraq. My neighbour on the pews at sacrament might be entirely the opposite. Why should the church choose between us?
FWIW, I think church led campaigns on any political topic are inappropriate – including Prop 8.
jamison wrote:I’m confused, Ezra Taft Benson spoke out against communism and socialism, yet if America goes down that rode, President Monson would allow us to embrace what we disdained during the cold war.
The Church wants Fathers to be unemployed? I’m having a faith crisis. I hear many people claim that Obama is the Anti-Christ. I believe that as well when he was elected in 2008. I don’t know why the First Presidency congratulated him on his victory, when they have to be politically neutral. It is like they are endorsing Obama. I read the Book of Mormon and it speaks very blatantly about despots and those that want to take freedom away from people. Obama sees the Constitution as a road block and a negative and our Doctrine & Covenants talks about how the Constitution is inspired and ordained of God.
It seems like it is going against the gospel beliefs.
I just don’t think Zion will survive in an environment that may turn antagonistic against the freedom or religion. Why are we told not to fight, but just to cower in fear.
Why not just become evangelical and believe that Jesus is the only person that can save us? Why not be as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and call all earthly Kingdoms an evil abomination? I just don’t think politics and the church gel well. We are encouraged to vote and participate in the political process, yet the whole process seems anti-Christ to begin with. I think I’m gonna err on the side of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I’m very close to denouncing my faith as I had it conceptualized. Are we just supposed to give up and wait for Jesus? What I have been taught my whole life does not fit into the present paradigm. The Church is like the 1960s hippies just singing Kumbaya, and holding hands and telling everyone that love is all you need, and I am full of hate for my fellow men. I think I may become an evangelical Christian since Jesus is the only person that can save us from evil. I can still believ in the CK. I can still be an inside the closet Mormon. I just think it’s ridiculous going to church and people just stick their noses in their curriculum books and don’t have discussions out of the box. It is almost like we want to be sitting ducks placed in concentration camps.
I realise that some Utah and American Mormons are probably waking up feeling a little sore today after the $2.5bn slugfest went the way of the Dems. But Obama the anti-christ?
The majority of non-US mormons saw Bush as a war-mongering liability and celebrated the election/re-election of Obama. The perception in Europe/Asia is that Obama is reaching out the hand of friendship to countries you’ve previously been at war with. He’s creating a system of caring for society’s poor and elderly.
I know that’s not how you see it. I’m just trying to help you appreciate that most Mormons aren’t Republicans, in fact many Mormons have a more socialist approach to politics outside Utah, and certainly outside US. So why should the prophet speak out politically?
Monson is not the Prophet for Utah/America, he’s supposed to be the prophet for the world.
jamison wrote:I don’t know why the First Presidency congratulated him on his victory, when they have to be politically neutral. It is like they are endorsing Obama.
A congratulations is in no way shape or form an endorsement. In my mind they are simply trying to send a little message to the overly zealous extreme-right members, especially with the “now is the time to come together” comment.
jamison wrote:Obama sees the Constitution as a road block and a negative and our Doctrine & Covenants talks about how the Constitution is inspired and ordained of God.
I think this is an unfair and inaccurate representation and is putting words in his mouth that I have never heard him say or had it reported by reputable news source that he said. This kind of comment is in the exact same spirit of people putting words in the mouths of Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ, or any person you want to name whom people seem to know better what they would have said/been thinking than the people themselves did.
No, I am not in any way, shape or form comparing Barak Obama to the above mentioned figures. But the situations of casting aspersions where they are not in direct evidence is a tactic long used to ill-effect in the history of people trying to improve and become more civilized in relation to their neighbors. We should know better, having experienced it ourselves. Let’s cool the rhetoric down a little, everyone?
[Speaking as an individual commenter] Frankly, Jamison, I disagree so strongly with most of what you’ve said in this thread that I’m not going to try to respond – other than to say that there is a HUGE difference between the type of political neutrality the Church practices currently and what the Catholic Church did in relation to the Holocaust, and that a congratulations is nothing close to an endorsement. I am really glad they issued the congratulations, since it sent a clear message, imo, that members shouldn’t be out there predicting the apocalypse as a result of the election.
Other than that, there is nowhere productive my comments could take this thread.
[Speaking as an admin]
If the conversation continues along the lines of extreme political charges directed at individuals and political parties, the thread will be locked. It simply isn’t relevant to our mission in any way.
Wow. What a bizarre OP. Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
cwald wrote:Wow. What a bizarre OP.
Yeah. Ain’t it cool?Just been reading a book by Jehovah’s Witnesses on Revelation. It really lays into the RCs and blames them for Hitler… Quote:I think the distinction is this: what AH and the National Socialist Party represented was a manifestation of evil. Anyone who collaborated with their political platform was abetting a crime, and in the religious context, sinning against god.
It’s easy to say that in retrospect, but it’s not how he was necessarily seen at the time.
jamison wrote:During World War II, the Pope was criticized for not stepping up against the Nazi’s, nor did he speak out against the mandate by A.H. that ordered that the Jews go to concentration camps to be slaughtered…
The Pope was exercising political neutrality. How is that any different than the church staying out of politics?…Just wondering what people thought. Is the Church staying out of politics? When did that start? The impression I get is that they won’t hesitate to get heavily involved in politics but they usually only do this with specific issues where they are convinced that they have the moral high ground such as all the alcohol restrictions here in Utah and their hard-line position against gay marriage. For example, look at the following that Gordon B. Hinckley had to say about politics:
Gordon B. Hinckley wrote:…
we deal only with those legislative matters which are of a strictly moral nature or which directly affect the welfare of the Church.We have opposed gambling and liquor and will continue to do so…Latter-day Saints are working as part of a coalition to safeguard traditional marriage…God-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of civilization for thousands of years…This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality…we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out. This is already too much political activism out of a church for my taste but there is no way that I would want to see them trying to draw the line concerning how much the government should tax and spend or not or what business regulations would be better or not. Why should they know (Mark 12:14-17)? These everyday concerns that Democrats and Republicans typically bicker about the most just don’t fit the simple pattern of, “thou shalt not” because it’s basically a matter of degrees unless you want complete anarchy.
What would happen if Church leaders came out and said Obama is the worst president in U.S. history? Would that change anything for the better? My guess is that they would mostly come across as racist right-wing fanatics if they did something like that so I don’t blame them for leaving opinions like this to Fox News and conservative talk radio. Also, I wouldn’t blame the Pope if he was afraid of how the Nazis would react if he tried to do more to stop or publicly condemn their atrocities. It’s easy to dream up some idealistic fantasy that the Pope should have done more to take a stand against evil but it’s not so simple and obvious when he was faced with the very real possibility that not only would this not do much to deter them anyway but it could have also made things much worse for Catholics in any countries already under Nazi control.
SamBee wrote:Just been reading a book by Jehovah’s Witnesses on Revelation. It really lays into the RCs and blames them for Hitler…
Quote:I think the distinction is this: what AH and the National Socialist Party represented was a manifestation of evil. Anyone who collaborated with their political platform was abetting a crime, and in the religious context, sinning against god.
It’s easy to say that in retrospect, but it’s not how he was necessarily seen at the time.
The JWs got a hard time in WW2. They were sent to the concentration camps along with the Jews, though not the gas chambers.
JWs had the option of a ‘get out’ clause (Jews were persecuted on ethnicity). If they signed a document denouncing their faith they could be left alone. The fact that 10,000 didn’t and were imprisoned is admirable.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jehovah’s_Witnesses_in_Nazi_Germany That doesn’t justify their accusations against the catholics.
I think we ought to have a little more respect for the JWs who are so often mocked or villified in LDS circles.
mackay11 wrote:Should the church have spoken out against the invasion of Iraq. That was, under UN definitions, a crime.
Actually, the UN Security Council unanimously voted to find Iraq in material breach of previous UNSCRs in November 2002. Recall the now-infamous SecState Colin Powell speech. Try Googling “UNSCR 1441.” While your facts are wrong, your point is actually one worth making. At what point would an armed conflict of the United States be so egrigious that the Church would be compelled to respond against it? With the number of Mormons serving on active duty in the armed forces, that would be a sticky wicket, indeed.
Kumahito wrote:mackay11 wrote:Should the church have spoken out against the invasion of Iraq. That was, under UN definitions, a crime.
Actually, the UN Security Council unanimously voted to find Iraq in material breach of previous UNSCRs in November 2002. Recall the now-infamous SecState Colin Powell speech. Try Googling “UNSCR 1441.” While your facts are wrong, your point is actually one worth making. At what point would an armed conflict of the United States be so egrigious that the Church would be compelled to respond against it? With the number of Mormons serving on active duty in the armed forces, that would be a sticky wicket, indeed.
This is probably neither the thread nor even forum to go into a detailed debate over the war’s legality. I think both of us have used the kind of ‘absolutist, dogmatic’ phrasing that many on this avoid at church.
With that in mind it would be better for us to say ‘some people consider the invasion illegal (such as Kofi Annan and some legal experts) and that certain war crimes were committed. Others consider the war to be legal (US/UK governments and some legal experts).
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War Setting that aside as you have done. The question arises as to whether Pres Hinkley should have opposed it or not.
His October 2003 conf talk is, for me, an uncomfortable piece.
http://www.lds.org/pa/library/0,17905,4880-1,00.html Quote:The present war is really an outgrowth and continuation of (the 2001) conflict. Hopefully it is now drawing to a conclusion.
Over 10 years later it’s still not (I appreciate that was a hope not prophecy, but brings in to question how much a seer, sees – I may use this next time someone tells me the prophet knows how the stock-market will move!).
He initially denounces war as cruel, ugly and destructive (citing the empires of history, but not any of the American wars). He then goes on to quote canonised scripture against war, but then ads what he describes as his own opinion:
Quote:…modern revelation states that we are to “renounce war and proclaim peace” (D&C 98:16).
In a democracy we can renounce war and proclaim peace. There is opportunity for dissent. Many have been speaking out and doing so emphatically. That is their privilege. That is their right, so long as they do so legally. However, we all must also be mindful of another overriding responsibility, which I may add, governs my personal feelings and dictates my personal loyalties in the present situation.
The opinion he goes on to give is that when action is taken in defence of family/home/freedom, war is justified.
Again, this is a hotly debated topic but I believe US/UK were under no immediate threat from Saddam, he had not invaded our countries. There were no WMD. This, in my view, is not comparable to Nephites having their crops burnt and cities crushed by the Lamanites and fighting to defend themselves.
In Pres Hinkley’s opinion:
Quote:When all is said and done, we of this Church are people of peace. We are followers of our Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ, who was the Prince of Peace. But even He said, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34).
This places us in the position of those who long for peace, who teach peace, who work for peace, but who also are citizens of nations and are subject to the laws of our governments. Furthermore, we are a freedom-loving people, committed to the defense of liberty wherever it is in jeopardy. I believe that God will not hold men and women in uniform responsible as agents of their government in carrying forward that which they are legally obligated to do. It may even be that He will hold us responsible if we try to impede or hedge up the way of those who are involved in a contest with forces of evil and repression.
So even though we are a peace loving people, he thinks it may be that God will hold those responsible those who impede those in a contest with evil. I guess that’s the closest he can come to saying ‘I approve of the war and think you shouldn’t oppose it.
If the prophet and the church are “committed to the defense of liberty wherever it is in jeopardy,” then why do they stay silent over the countries where there is a very real threat to liberty (or a complete lack of it)? Is it simply that they are only willing to support the conflicts the American government consider worthwhile?
In 2001 he also said that Americans “stand solidly with the president.” I’m sure plenty of TBM American Mormons actually didn’t, but may have been made to feel unfaithful with this statement. My very faithful (British) Mum nearly walked out of conference at that statement and never came back and had to reassure herself he was pandering to the Utah jarheads. She joined marches against the war and was sick to the stomach at the thought that the church’s president was supporting the president.
I loved Gordon B Hinkley as a church president. I miss the wonderful uplifting messages and beautiful timbre of his voice.
I’m reassured that in the 2003 talk he makes it clear that he is sharing his opinion. It’s not one I agree with.
Given we are such a diverse global church I’d prefer our leaders to stay out of politics and stick to teaching the gospel.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.