Opposition to political parties?

[JohnBirchSociety]

  Elphaba said:

Down boy!

What is wrong this? Obviously the statement is meant to let the Church's members exercise their free agency?

Note the quote does not say "All Principles." Thus, each party may contain some of the "principles" referred to, which is, in my opinion, true.

Also note the word "various." "Various" does not mean all. The way the word various is used in this sentence, it is not all encompassing.

First, there is not a "multitude" of different political parties in America. There are many, but not a multitude. Edit: I googled "American Political Parties," and found there was indeed, a "multitude" of them. So I was wrong about this.

Second, I'm curious to know what parties you believe do have some good in them.

Again, the Communist party does not necessarily fit into the category of "various. The comment does not preclude your opposition to the Communist Party.

Elphaba

1) The Church must oppose any movement that seeks to destroy human liberty. To make a blanket statement that the Church does not oppose political parties, is absurd.

2) You're right various doesn't equal a multitude.

3) Actually, I stand with George Washington is stating that there is nothing good to be had with political parties. They are all contributing to our destruction as a people.

[JohnBirchSociety]

  Prodigal_Son said:

We're also taught that "he who must be commanded in all things is a slothful and not a wise servant."

I suspect that the church is working hard to establish neutrality. If we openly condemn communism and socialism, how are we going to ever get missionaries into China and other such places??

Any righteous saint who's worth their salt knows the truth of these matters. But "the church" has to work in a politically correct world in such a manner that we don't shoot ourselves in the foot.

The church doesn't need to say it. We should all already know it.

I believe it was Monson who, years ago, said "just because something is a truth doesn't mean it always needs to be said." (He was referring to using tact in our relationships. I think it applies here, too.)

Hmmm...I don't buy this obtuse view.

GOD is actually opposed to any system / party that would destroy human liberty or seeks tyranny.

For the Church to say otherwise is WRONG.

[JohnBirchSociety]

  Moksha said:

I dislike reliving the cold war. It produced too many extremists. Moderation in all things is great.

Moderation against tyranny is tyranny.

Supporting liberty is not extreme.

[JohnBirchSociety]

  Palerider said:

Another thing to keep in mind is...back when there was a East and West Germany...the Church encouraged all memebrs living in East Germany to obey the laws of the land etc just like they teach everywhere in the world. Obey the laws of the land...

It sure is easy to say this from our "arm-chair-patriot" positions.

In many nations it does come down to, obey or die. Nonetheless, the scriptures, in particular the Book of Mormon, clearly do NOT support the supposition that we are to obey tyranny.

Wow...

[JohnBirchSociety]

  Wingnut said:

Excellent example, Palerider. As a result of church members being such upstanding citizens in East Germany, many of the saints were permitted by the government to actually cross the borders in order to attend the temple.

So some of us think that the tacit approval of brutal dictatorships around the globe is an appropriate position to take?

We should actually support tyranny and submit to it, wherever it is to be had?

I wonder where we would be if the American Founders had such an absurd view?

[JohnBirchSociety]

  Heavenguard said:

It's really the church's way of saying they're not going to tell you how to vote, which, I think, is very smart. To endorse a political party would pressure the church body to vote a certain way, which borders on infringing on each individual person's right to choose and vote for themselves. My church doesn't endorse (or oppose) any party, but it does oppose certain political views regardless of parties involved.

Besides ... I agree with communism ... in theory. No so much the practical application of it, because I don't believe that anyone in politics has pure enough intentions to actually do it right. But in theory.

If you agree with communism, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you've got no idea what communism is (even in theory).

[MarginOfError]

Calm down a bit there John. I'm pretty sure that the Church's view on how to change society follows something like what Boyd K. Packer said in 1997: "I have long believed that the study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than talking about behavior will improve behavior." Washed Clean [Note: taken a little out of context, but the principle still applies]

Essentially, the Church is not a political entity and does not interfere with the governments set up by man. It changes the world by changing individuals. That attitude is even reflected in the very government of the Church, where families are the fundamental unit, with the second most important unit being the wards and branches. It would not matter in the least bit if the Church stood against a government, because change does not work from the top down, it works from the bottom up.

[Palerider]

  JohnBirchSociety said:

It sure is easy to say this from our "arm-chair-patriot" positions.

In many nations it does come down to, obey or die. Nonetheless, the scriptures, in particular the Book of Mormon, clearly do NOT support the supposition that we are to obey tyranny.

Wow...

no but the articles of faith state what....

[a-train]

  Quote

Make yourselves acquainted with the commandments of the Lord, and the laws of the state, and govern yourselves accordingly. - Joseph Smith (History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 Vols. 1:341)

  Quote

The Political Motto of the Church of Latter-day Saints: The Constitution of our country formed by the Fathers of liberty. Peace and good order in society. Love to God, and good will to man. All good and wholesome laws, virtue and truth above all things, and aristarchy, live for ever! But woe to tyrants, mobs, aristocracy, anarchy, and toryism, and all those who invent or seek out unrighteous and vexatious law suits, under the pretext and color of law, or office, either religious or political. Exalt the standard of Democracy! Down with that of priestcraft, and let all the people say Amen! that the blood of our fathers may not cry from the ground against us. Sacred is the memory of that blood which bought for us our liberty. - Joseph Smith (History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 7 Vols. 3:9)

-a-train

[rameumptom]

I think there are far too many members who can quote Ezra Taft Benson's political views by heart, but have not studied the political views of other General Authorities that differ. Perhaps we could easily find that the truth lies somewhere in the center.

I find it interesting when I let such a person know that the McConkies were all staunch Democrats, and see their response. Or Pres James Faust was the Utah Democratic Party head for many years.

I think that a purely libertarian society can only survive within the context of a moral people, as John Adams stated. I do not believe we are a pure and moral people today, and so need some regulation. I do not think we need to become a wholly socialist nation, but I do believe our nation just isn't honest and moral enough to deal with deregulation and freedom.

[Wingnut]

  JohnBirchSociety said:

Hmmm...I don't buy this obtuse view.

GOD is actually opposed to any system / party that would destroy human liberty or seeks tyranny.

For the Church to say otherwise is WRONG.

Thank you John! I have for years been seeking to know the mind and the will of the Lord on this matter. I actually have several other questions as well. Since you are obviously on the inside track, would you mind helping me out?

[a-train]

  rameumptom said:

I think there are far too many members who can quote Ezra Taft Benson's political views by heart, but have not studied the political views of other General Authorities that differ. Perhaps we could easily find that the truth lies somewhere in the center.

Let us remember though that the principles to which President Benson spoke transcend party politics. Only a tiny percentage of Democrats really want socialism, a police state, U.S. military conquest, less individual rights, cronyism, and the other evils he spoke out against. The same is true for Republicans and members of all U.S. political parties aside from those such as the Communist Party, a so-called Neo-NAZI party, or etc.

There are times that Democrats seem to be more closely aligned with the principles we hold dear than Republicans and that also plays out conversely. That is again the whole point of the statement issued by the First Presidency, there is no certain political party with some fantastic record of adherence to gospel principles. Corruption is abound.

Two LDS persons engaged in public service may use different parties to collect a constituency and motivate others to their cause while their views of the proper role of government and the principles which govern those views are precisely similar or even one and the same.

-a-train

Edited September 29, 2008 by a-train

[checkerboy]

  JohnBirchSociety said:

For the Church to say otherwise is WRONG.

Looks to me, my friend, like you just bought your one way ticket and it isn't to where you would have hoped it would be. Just wondering when you become the head of the church?

[rameumptom]

A-Train,

I agree, and that was my point. Even Pres Benson was for some social programs and government. He just didn't want it interfering with people's agency, which I also agree with.

The thing is, do some social programs make a nation socialist?

If less government is good, then is NO government best? If so, then D&C 94 has some explaining to do, as we are warned that anarchy is worse than a strong government. The church experienced that when both the state and US governments refused to protect them from mobs.

And the Church in America leaned Democratic for many decades until Ronald Reagan became president.

[Justice]

There are members of the church who are governed by many different political systems. So, of course, the church has to be neutral. The Lord declared we must keep church and state separate.

Also, the Communist Party does have some basic ideas that are promoted in Zion, they just don't get there "the Lord's way." Once you remove a person's choice, it is not the Lord's way. But, sharing all things in common should be a familiar notion to any Latter-Day Saint.

[Wingnut]

Keeping the Church out of the State is what keeps the State out of the Church, which is just as important, and was just as big a concern to the founding fathers.

[Moksha]

  JohnBirchSociety said:

Moderation against tyranny is tyranny. Supporting liberty is not extreme.

A candy bar with chocolate covered peanuts, caramel and noughat is not a Babe Ruth. Hey wait a minute, it is a Babe Ruth.

Almost sucumbed to the extreme vice of Candy Barism! My blood sugar and waist line are better off with moderation.

[a-train]

  rameumptom said:

The thing is, do some social programs make a nation socialist?

Yes. What makes a nation socialist other than socialist government programs? Can there be a socialist state that has no socialist programs? Perhaps you want me to draw the line between a state with some socialist programs and a socialist state. Perhaps we could say that a state is not totally socialist until it abolishes all private property, but what then do we call that state that is half way bewteen that and no socialist programs at all? I'd say: somewhat socialist.

Some try to pretend that taxes collected to build a bridge is a form of socialism. This would be a new definition of socialism. Socialism is the work of the redistribution of wealth. Yes, technically some wealth was redistributed by the state that built a bridge with tax dollars. However, the intent and the end thereof was not to equalize the outcome of wealth.

Social Security for example is not on the surface a socialist program, but it really does fall under that definition because it takes wealth from the laborers and gives it to those not working. It does little more than redistribute wealth.

  rameumptom said:

If less government is good, then is NO government best?

In a way, yes. If the people all governed themselves with total virtue, there would be no other operation of government but a common cooperation of public business. There would be no courts, there would be no police, no military, no regulatory bodies. We know that this is not possible.

The Framers knew that a government of the people and of the sole purpose of protecting the liberty of the people was necessary. As the government steps outside those bounds trouble arrives. Redistribution of wealth is in opposition to liberty. If the work of your hands is not yours to distribute as you see fit, you don't have economic liberty.

Libertarianism is not Anarchism. Libertarianism requires a government that protects liberty. Most Americans want equal opportunity, economic freedom, religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, and liberty in general. This can only come with public protection of that liberty. A government built on that purpose alone is what libertarians are looking for, that is exactly what the Framers wanted and what most Americans really want. However, we don't have that. We have a runaway government with powers far beyond constitutionality.

-a-train

[Elphaba]

  JohnBirchSociety said:

At the Church website, regarding "Political Neutrality":

"The Church does not: Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms..." (Emphasis Added)

Are we SERIOUS? Do we not oppose the Communist Party? Is this possible?

As a Church, we do not oppose the Communist Party, or any other political party that has, as its' goal, the abject destruction of human liberty?

SERIOUSLY?

Then, from the recent letter from the First Presidency (September 11, 2008, I can't stand the irony on this!):

"Latter-day Saints as citizens are to seek out and then uphold leaders who will act with integrity and are wise, good, and honest. Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties." (Emphasis Added)

You have got to be kidding me? Are we saying there is good in the multitude of different political parties? REALLY?

I'm really floored by this. Maybe it is nothing to you, to me, it is monumental.

As a Latter-Day Saint I am opposed to the Communist Party. I am opposed to the Socialist Party. There is NOTHING of good or the gospel in either of them. They both advocate slavery.

Come on, this cannot REALLY be true?

Is it possible the Church would lose its tax-exempt status if it promoted a candidate or party? A friend was reading the thread and asked me about that.

Is it similar to how we cannot discuss candidates on this board because of its tax-exempt status?

Elphaba

[rameumptom]

We have to remember that the Church is now a global church. Its mission is to spread the fullness of the gospel of Christ to all the earth. To become political and make a huge stance against communism will only close doors to the Church. It is akin to polygamy in 1890: does one continue with the commandment, and let the rest of the Church fall apart (temples, missionary work, etc), or push forth the important elements.

Pres Benson spoke little on these things as President of the Church. His actions as prophet were very different than as an apostle. He worked closely with many communist nations to open them up to the missionary work. He sent Elder Nelson (IIRC) to East Germany to talk with communist leaders there to allow husbands and wives to go to the Switzerland temple for their sealings (only one could leave the country at a time). The East Germans asked why they just didn't build a temple in their country, and so it happened. A year and a half after the dedication, the Berlin Wall fell.

Elder Nelson once discussed political belief systems with his East German official. The official explained how he knew communism was very similar to the United Order. Elder Nelson smiled and told him that the East Germans were not living communism though. The official replied that the Church wasn't living the United Order, either.

So, while we do not believe communism to be the optimal government, our relationship with them has changed in order to move forth the gospel.

[Hemidakota]

  JohnBirchSociety said:

At the Church website, regarding "Political Neutrality":

"The Church does not: Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms..." (Emphasis Added)

Are we SERIOUS? Do we not oppose the Communist Party? Is this possible?

As a Church, we do not oppose the Communist Party, or any other political party that has, as its' goal, the abject destruction of human liberty?

SERIOUSLY?

Then, from the recent letter from the First Presidency (September 11, 2008, I can't stand the irony on this!):

"Latter-day Saints as citizens are to seek out and then uphold leaders who will act with integrity and are wise, good, and honest. Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties." (Emphasis Added)

You have got to be kidding me? Are we saying there is good in the multitude of different political parties? REALLY?

I'm really floored by this. Maybe it is nothing to you, to me, it is monumental.

As a Latter-Day Saint I am opposed to the Communist Party. I am opposed to the Socialist Party. There is NOTHING of good or the gospel in either of them. They both advocate slavery.

Come on, this cannot REALLY be true?

It comes to this phrase: VOTE FOR THE LESSER EVIL.

[Misshalfway]

Seriously, hemi. I agree. I mean we do the best we can. We stand for as much right as we can politically and I think all of us try to vote with our conscience.

And in this case....could we please vote soon? I mean this campaigning has been going on FOREVER! If I see one more political add, I think I might shoot myself or move to Canada. They have nice trees in Canada...quiet trees.....

[christmasvalleyfarms]

I agree with the reasons for Church neutrality stated above; we also have to appreciate that in these latter days as the opposition to the Kingdom of God increases it becomes a legal issue - the enemies of religion in general and Christianity in particular (funny, to some we are definitely "Christian"!) are just foaming at the mouth, waiting for churches to cross that line of political neutrality so they can drag us into court and remove our tax-exempt status. It has already become an issue in the news in this election as pastors from some Christian churches have thrown down the gauntlet and preached support for particular candidates across the pulpit. Be interesting to see where it leads.

[FunkyTown]

... And wait - Are you saying that the proposed goals of the Communist Party is the abject destruction of human liberty?

You'd think not many people would vote for a party like that. I mean... Besides me. I vote for the 'Kicking puppies and burning down orphanages' party.

[Moksha]

  Elphaba said:

Is it possible the Church would lose its tax-exempt status if it promoted a candidate or party? A friend was reading the thread and asked me about that.

Is it similar to how we cannot discuss candidates on this board because of its tax-exempt status?

Elphaba

This hitting the nail on the head approach makes sense. Also, there is the political pluralism that exists among Church members, whether it is recognized or not.

As to the nice quite trees in Canada that Misshalfway spoke of, some even give maple syrup.