Politics in Church arg

[NeuroTypical]

Ok - your position makes sense. Thanks - I have things to think about. One thing to mention:

We don't have temple police, do we?

Actually, I had a run-in with temple security once. He came in the form of a kindly elderly gentleman. After hearing me explain how I had been there the week before and left something behind, he ushered me past the person checking temple recommends (something else I had also left behind), and took me to his security office, where I looked through the lost and found and claimed my stuff. He made detailed notes of the encounter in his log book, in some of the neatest handwriting I've ever seen in my life.

So yeah, I think I get what you're saying. :)

[skalenfehl]

I had sort of a similar experience. My wife and I were vacationing up in Oregon and Washington last Summer. We briefly visited the temple and walked around the grounds, which were just beautiful. We came to a spot that looked like some kind of booth. Next thing we know, a kindly elderly gentleman appeared out of nowhere with a warm smile dressed in white, who I am sure was temple security. I don't remember much of the conversation other than him sharing some history about the temple and/or the grounds. We parted ways and my wife and I continued on our way taking in the scenery and the spirit that was there. It's a beautiful thing, really. He didn't need to be there on our account and we were very respectful of his 'authority' and didn't go anywhere that we didn't think we needed to be. He also didn't forbid us from going anywhere that we weren't supposed to be. I'm sure it was exactly like what you experienced. And that is how I am sure it will be during the millennium. :)

[LDSJewess]

Hate to sound harsh and do not mean to be. But if people leave the church because they have problems hearing someone's political opinion, they need to work on their testimony a little. That of course applies to me and everyone.

No I do not think it os proper to do open campaigning for a candidate in any church during services or Sunday school etc because we are there for worship and learning about the gospel. But when it comes to social discussions or at social events I see it as fine and perhaps even appropriate.

I realize there is a true separation of church in this country, however, that being said, these days there is an extremily fine line between politics aand social issues (and for that matter church policies).

For instance social issues such as abortion and gay nmarriage to mention just a few are very much in the forefront of the political arena as they are also in the forefront of church policy.

Certain political groups take a very firm stand on some of these issues as do churches including the LDS church. In fact these above issues are discussed prior to baptism and obtaining a Temple recommend.

For us not to feel allowed to discuss these issues less they be seen as political discussions then we are not being clear on our beliefs and what we stand for.

So although mentioning a special political candidate, it shoudl be well within appropriateness to discuss the issues, and then the individual can look into the issues that the various candidates stand for.

This would be helpful for people trying to make decisions that are in line with the church policies.

[MarginOfError]

Hate to sound harsh and do not mean to be. But if people leave the church because they have problems hearing someone's political opinion, they need to work on their testimony a little. That of course applies to me and everyone.

No I do not think it os proper to do open campaigning for a candidate in any church during services or Sunday school etc because we are there for worship and learning about the gospel. But when it comes to social discussions or at social events I see it as fine and perhaps even appropriate.

I realize there is a true separation of church in this country, however, that being said, these days there is an extremily fine line between politics aand social issues (and for that matter church policies).

For instance social issues such as abortion and gay nmarriage to mention just a few are very much in the forefront of the political arena as they are also in the forefront of church policy.

Certain political groups take a very firm stand on some of these issues as do churches including the LDS church. In fact these above issues are discussed prior to baptism and obtaining a Temple recommend.

For us not to feel allowed to discuss these issues less they be seen as political discussions then we are not being clear on our beliefs and what we stand for.

So although mentioning a special political candidate, it shoudl be well within appropriateness to discuss the issues, and then the individual can look into the issues that the various candidates stand for.

This would be helpful for people trying to make decisions that are in line with the church policies.

I don't think the concern is talking about doctrine and policy at church. I think the issue has more to do with people trying to promote their interpretation of doctrine and policy as the only correct way to apply it to political practice.

Let's take me, as an example. I believe in a political pro-choice platform. I vote pro-choice, and I believe it is better public policy at the present time. If I were to hear routinely at church that anyone who votes pro-choice is supporting wickedness and failing to live up to their covenants, I would find church attendance to be a socially unpleasant experience. If the topic were brought up and people always glared at me with the I-especially-want-MOE-to-hear-this look, I would feel unwelcome and unaccepted.

Whether we like it or not, a large part of the church-going experience is social. A person who doesn't feel comfortable socially is going to have a harder time feeling and responding to the Spirit than a person who feels accepted and integrated into the ward.

So when you say, " if people leave the church because they have problems hearing someone's political opinion, they need to work on their testimony a little" I can just as well counter, "If someone is making a church a hostile atmosphere for another through political outspokenness, then that person needs to develop some Christlike attributes."

It's a two way street, and we shouldn't give either party a free pass.

[LDSJewess]

I don't think the concern is talking about doctrine and policy at church. I think the issue has more to do with people trying to promote their interpretation of doctrine and policy as the only correct way to apply it to political practice.

Let's take me, as an example. I believe in a political pro-choice platform. I vote pro-choice, and I believe it is better public policy at the present time. If I were to hear routinely at church that anyone who votes pro-choice is supporting wickedness and failing to live up to their covenants, I would find church attendance to be a socially unpleasant experience. If the topic were brought up and people always glared at me with the I-especially-want-MOE-to-hear-this look, I would feel unwelcome and unaccepted.

Whether we like it or not, a large part of the church-going experience is social. A person who doesn't feel comfortable socially is going to have a harder time feeling and responding to the Spirit than a person who feels accepted and integrated into the ward.

So when you say, " if people leave the church because they have problems hearing someone's political opinion, they need to work on their testimony a little" I can just as well counter, "If someone is making a church a hostile atmosphere for another through political outspokenness, then that person needs to develop some Christlike attributes."

It's a two way street, and we shouldn't give either party a free pass.

Margin,

I don't entirely disagree with what yoyu are saying. No doubt a number of people join the church for social reasons. However, if we don't believe in the church doctrine and church policies, why don't become members of another church with more open minded viewpoints. We could become members of a Unity Church, a Unitarian Church or a protestant denomination that remains neutral in issues like these. If I want just a social church I could have stayed a Reform Jew where they are extremily open minded and even hold special Hanukkah parties for gays.

Many people join the LDS church not only because they belief in the restoration of the Gospel but also because they are in agreement with the policies and social morals of the church.

I respect your belief in pro choice even though I do not agree with you, and no I am not likely to glare at you if you made your opinion known in the social setting of the church. And I would also welcome a friendly debate about what joy it is to personally be alive today when had abortion been legal when my mother was pregnant with me I would not be alive to be typing this post.

But aside from what you or I personally believe on this issue; the fact remains that the church policy is not pro choice. Indeed if you had an abortion, you would likely be called to the Bishops office for a counseling and not likely receive a Temple recommend. The same goes for gay marriage. What we think if we are members may not matter in a general social discussion peoviding we are not gay and wanting to be married; since by doing so wound revoke our membership and at the very least have us on probation with the church.

So you see you may feel unwelcome and unaccepted, but in fact if you actually acted on your belief the church may not fully accept you as a worthy member. Is is the way it is.

I get that we all want to feel welcome and accepted, but I have to ask myself would I convert to Islam even when I do not agree with their policies for social reasons? The answer is no.

So what I am saying is, I think it is very fair to have ope discussions among members in a social setting so long as it is not in sacrament meeting or planned Sunday school lessons.

If we don't, many joining for "social reasons" may not know how the church stands on political/socieo policy. Otherwise the church would simply appear to sweep their policies under the table for the sake of getting more members coming in for social reasons. Where would that end though?

[LittleWyvern]

In related news, the combination of a recent Supreme Court ruling and the 1st Sunday of the month is going to make for a fun Testimony Meeting.

[MarginOfError]

Margin,

I don't entirely disagree with what yoyu are saying. No doubt a number of people join the church for social reasons. However, if we don't believe in the church doctrine and church policies, why don't become members of another church with more open minded viewpoints. We could become members of a Unity Church, a Unitarian Church or a protestant denomination that remains neutral in issues like these. If I want just a social church I could have stayed a Reform Jew where they are extremily open minded and even hold special Hanukkah parties for gays.

Many people join the LDS church not only because they belief in the restoration of the Gospel but also because they are in agreement with the policies and social morals of the church.

I actually know people that have left the church and joined more open minded churches. Not because the disagreed with the doctrine, but because the social experience at the LDS church became unbearable. We, as a church, need to be able to address the spiritual, physical, emotional, and social needs of our members if we want them to thrive in the gospel.

I respect your belief in pro choice even though I do not agree with you, and no I am not likely to glare at you if you made your opinion known in the social setting of the church. And I would also welcome a friendly debate about what joy it is to personally be alive today when had abortion been legal when my mother was pregnant with me I would not be alive to be typing this post.

I'm delighted with your mother's decision. Furthermore, I hope that all men and women can be brought to a knowledge of the gospel sufficient that abortions will only be performed when necessary.

But aside from what you or I personally believe on this issue; the fact remains that the church policy is not pro choice.

That isn't entirely accurate. The Church's policy is that abortion is a grievous sin. Members who undertake, perform, encourage or pay for abortions may be subject to Church discipline. I have never done nor indicated any interest in doing so.

Indeed if you had an abortion, you would likely be called to the Bishops office for a counseling and not likely receive a Temple recommend. The same goes for gay marriage. What we think if we are members may not matter in a general social discussion peoviding we are not gay and wanting to be married; since by doing so wound revoke our membership and at the very least have us on probation with the church.

If I had an abortion, I would expect to be subjected to Church discipline, and rightfully so. But I still hold a divide between my civic and my religious convictions. Such a divide is, in the Church's policy, perfectly amenable to living in accordance with the laws of the gospel.

So you see you may feel unwelcome and unaccepted, but in fact if you actually acted on your belief the church may not fully accept you as a worthy member. Is is the way it is.

If voting is acting on my belief, then I do act on my belief, and support programs that preserve the legality of abortion. At the same time, I do my best to persuade people to make choices that would prevent the need for abortion or to choose some option that is not abortion. Such action does no harm to my status as a worthy member.

From my experience, it isn't uncommon for people to jump from 'pro-choice' to 'having an abortion,' just as you did. When they become vocal about it, the environment in the ward can easily become unsuitable for spiritual growth and development.

I get that we all want to feel welcome and accepted, but I have to ask myself would I convert to Islam even when I do not agree with their policies for social reasons? The answer is no.

Because membership in the Church shouldn't be about political belief and affiliation. It should be based upon a spiritual witness that this is God's true church. But that doesn't mean that all members of the Church have to be in agreement when it comes to political affiliations and beliefs.

So what I am saying is, I think it is very fair to have ope discussions among members in a social setting so long as it is not in sacrament meeting or planned Sunday school lessons.

If we don't, many joining for "social reasons" may not know how the church stands on political/socieo policy. Otherwise the church would simply appear to sweep their policies under the table for the sake of getting more members coming in for social reasons. Where would that end though?

If I felt that we could actually have open and respectful discussions about politics during church meetings, I'd be all for it. My experience is that it usually degrades into heated debate and rhetoric that has little to do with understanding one another, let alone the doctrine.

Our church meetings need to be an emotionally and socially safe space for people if we are to accomplish the objectives of those meetings. The reality is that political beliefs are so highly emotionally charged, that it is often better to avoid the topic and prevent creating an atmosphere in which people can not be edified.

[MarginOfError]

In related news, the combination of a recent Supreme Court ruling and the 1st Sunday of the month is going to make for a fun Testimony Meeting.

Great. Now I'm dreading church this weekend. :)

Actually, if this were to happen in my ward, I'd probably make it public knowledge that I favor a single payer system. If we're going to go down that road, I may as well really get people riled up.

[Scovy]

I didn't even think about the recent high profile cases might come up in fast and testimony today, this might make for some fun testimonies to be given.

Also on a side note I keep my political opinions to myself during church, there have been recent examples and stories shared that evolved politics but it was how the church is being more exposed in the media and public and how this being a great opportunity for missionary work and dispel wrong information people might hear about us.

[Guest]

But aside from what you or I personally believe on this issue; the fact remains that the church policy is not pro choice. Indeed if you had an abortion, you would likely be called to the Bishops office for a counseling and not likely receive a Temple recommend.

LDSJewess, actually the Church allows for abortion in certain cases. So, it is pro-choice in this manner. The LDS doctrine on pre-mortal existence (spirit joins the body somewhere between conception and birth) lends to it giving the mother more choices than, for example, the Catholic Church that has a rigid Pro-Life stance owing to the Catholic doctrine that life (that is, both the body and the spirit) is created at conception.

[Over43]

My daughters had their teacher quoting Glenn Beck to them a few weeks back. Nice ()

I teach Gospel Doctrine on occassion, and so far, I have been able to keep the politics in the corral.

Right now we have tea partiers in the neighboring stake causing havoc. (Which is indicitive of them and not all tea partiers in general...)

Possibly one of the most irresponsible things I have ever heard in church was a Bishop's counselor telling the Priesthood in opening exercises that no Democrat should be allowed to have a temple recommend. Apparently it is a good thing we have a private ballot.

[annewandering]

My daughters had their teacher quoting Glenn Beck to them a few weeks back. Nice ()

I teach Gospel Doctrine on occassion, and so far, I have been able to keep the politics in the corral.

Right now we have tea partiers in the neighboring stake causing havoc. (Which is indicitive of them and not all tea partiers in general...)

Possibly one of the most irresponsible things I have ever heard in church was a Bishop's counselor telling the Priesthood in opening exercises that no Democrat should be allowed to have a temple recommend. Apparently it is a good thing we have a private ballot.

and that is WHY we have a private ballot. I sometimes wonder how many people end up hating the politics and eventually the church, of the ones who wont stop bring them up in church even though they personally dont speak up. I hope someone set him straight. If not then they have left a very wrong idea in peoples minds.

"Someone came for the Jews an I didnt do anything, Someone came for the clergy and I didnt do anything. etc and then someone came for me and there was no one left to do anything for me." Its an old saying but it is pertinent. If those things happen to you in church you need to speak up and for heavens sake dont be the one doing it to start with.

[NeuroTypical]

We had two tidbits in church today.

First, our old bishop got up in sacrament meeting and declared himself a patriot, talked much about the title of liberty and what it means, and urged us to hold fast to Christ so we can weather the storm surrounding our constitution and our culture.

Second in Elder's Quorum, we had a HP visit to instruct us on our new assignment to provide building security every night (we assign folks to be the last out, lights off, doors closed). He talked about the churches in Cali getting vandalized during prop 8, made mention that we have a mormon running for president, and asked us to consider what we may be headed for "once he is sworn in". We giggled at that, because it's widely known that he's married to the liberaliest liberal our ward has to offer, and it was a bit of lightheartedness on his part.