I have thought for some time about the political neutrality of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka LDS Church or Mormon faith), of which I am a happy member. I believe in the teachings of the church, because the Holy Spirit has answered my prayers and affirmed to my soul the teachings of the church.
How, then, does an organ of good and the very church of our Savior himself remain silent on matters that are actually not political at all, but are clearly moral at their root?
Here is a letter, hastily written and not as well thought out as is deserved, in response to an article about the Democratic Party reaching out the members of the LDS church in Utah.
Dear sir:
From this article: http://www.deseretnews.com/m/article/865554878 , I was disappointed to see the lack of balance and multiple perspectives, as well as documentation. I understand that it was essentially a piece on the counter-culture under-dog, as it were; even so, one who has an understanding of the doctrines of the church and of the planks of the respective parties cannot escape the stark contrasts.
"The LDS Church continues to maintain political neutrality, telling its members that principles compatible with church teachings can be found in the platforms of both major political parties". -- Will you please provide a source and the rest of the source text as context? It may be true in some small part, but embracing communism (at worst, or progressive socialism at best), abortion, and violence are pretty bad red marks against one party; the problem with the other party, is how much it has become like the first, progressively.
"This extremism that has taken over the Republican Party" This comment deserved to be challenged. Liberal progressivism has taken over the Republican party; whereas a strong libertarian (small "el") philosophy is actually a (the?) core component of the traditional Republican party. On "extremism": one is considered extremist if one actually believes in God, actually believes that our rights come from our creator, and that the federal government should be and was originally intended to be limited in scope, deriving certain explicitly enumerated powers, and those by the consent of the governed...or if one believes that the people are the ultimate watchmen.
How is it become extreme now to think that the government structure as it was founded and intended is the right way, to think that innocent life should be protected at all costs, and to think that one ought not spend money one hasn't got -- especially when the taking of that money is enforced at the point of a gun and threat of imprisonment?
Remember, to the atheist and agnostic, if you actually believe that there is a God in Heaven, that Jesus Christ is His son who suffered for the sins of the world, that Jesus walked on water and fed 5000 men and their families from a few fishes and loaves, if you actually believe that people today talk to God and are empowered to speak in His name... if you believe that you should actually live God's teachings and give at least 1/10th of your increase to the church, then you, too, are a radical fundamentalist Christian.
If you merely espouse such faith as a "faith tradition", then you are not fundamentalist. But if you actually believe your professed faith, then you are 'fundamentalist.'
The church remains politically neutral. That the church remains silent on many politically (ultimately moral) issues does not mean, for example, that Hitler was justified in his platform of eugenics and national socialism. Rather, we must conclude that the church expects good, moral people to recognize and to do the right thing. Political neutrality should not be mistaken for consent or endorsement.
Heavenly Father, I believe, is (small "el") libertarian, having granted all men their agency, and the freedom to choose -- including the inescapable consequences of their actions; and eternal consequences attend the enslavement of, murder of, or deprivation of the rights and property of others.
Regards,
Lane Bryson
(Originally published 1 May 2012; Edited 9 May 2012 for clarity.)
(Originally published 1 May 2012; Edited 9 May 2012 for clarity.)
Posts
