DiscussMormonism.com

Personally, I feel uncomfortable anytime I see the Church blended with politics. It is like they are striking up a deal with Mammon, and that cannot be good for the Church. Even if Church members have gotten themselves entangled with right wing politics, it is better if they do not drag the Church into it.

The Church is an international entity, dealing with diverse groups of people, and whose mission can only be hurt by an identification with American right wing politics. Let if focus instead on being the Church of Jesus Christ.

Just a thought.


...

I'd rather see the Church a little more involved in politics. When one thinks about it, it's quite involved already. We teach the people correct principles and they apply them at the voting booth.

bcspace wrote: When one thinks about it, it's quite involved already. We teach the people correct principles and they apply them at the voting booth.

Yes, I know in the past they have been heavily involved, but isn't it better when they do politics as individuals rather than as an extension of the Church? Hopefully, they are not teaching the principles of voting for specific candidates or parties.

The LDS Church has a long tradition of mixing politics and religion. It is no surprise that they are true to this tradition.

bcspace wrote:I'd rather see the Church a little more involved in politics.

If you had your way, just how involved in politics would it be, and what would such involvement look like?

I find it very difficult not to mix politics or law with religion or philosophy. Both seem concerned with moral knowledge. It seems like they all go together. I understand that we don't live in a theocracy and that a prophet has no more influence than the number of people he influences unlike the Pope in the Holy Roman Empire. I guess what you're referring to is the Church not endorsing a political canidate, which I don't see them doing. Doesn't the church seem watered down enough? To me it seems so wishy washy these days that I find that more repulsive than those views that I find hard to accept. For me that would be the law of consecration. I know others have different views.

Yes, I know in the past they have been heavily involved, but isn't it better when they do politics as individuals rather than as an extension of the Church? Hopefully, they are not teaching the principles of voting for specific candidates or parties.

Not as such. However, applying LDS doctrine in the voting booth absolutely precludes certain political parties such as the Democrats.

If you had your way, just how involved in politics would it be, and what would such involvement look like?

Some reminders about comparing doctrine with candidate/party platform and/or modus operandi would be good.

I find it very difficult not to mix politics or law with religion or philosophy. Both seem concerned with moral knowledge. It seems like they all go together.

I agree. One cannot separate the two and that because politics is religion applied.

Doesn't the church seem watered down enough?

Yes. Too watered down imho.

To me it seems so wishy washy these days that I find that more repulsive than those views that I find hard to accept. For me that would be the law of consecration. I know others have different views.

The nice thing about the law of consecration is that one has the freedom to join or leave. Under socialism, no one has a choice.

bcspace wrote: One cannot separate the two and that because politics is religion applied.

So Mormons should not complain then about their annual April 15th tithing donations? Did you go the the voting booths today to raise your hand to the square?

Back in the 1970s, Sonja Johnson, fifth-generation Mormon who disagreed with the Church's political maneuverings over the Equal Rights Amendment, delivered a speech before the American Psychological Association in New York - a speech titled, "Patriarchal Panic: Sexual Politics in the Mormon Church". In this speech she said:

The Mormons, a tiny minority, are dedicated to imposing the Prophet’s moral directives upon all Americans and they may succeed if Americans do not become aware of their methods and goals. Because the organization of the Church is marvelously tight and the obedience of the members marvelously thorough-going, potentially thousands of people can be mobilized in a very short time to do—conscientiously—whatever they are told, without more explanation than "the Prophet has spoken."

I hope she will be proved wrong on this point!
I would hate to see the constitution hanging by a thread.

How does exercising one's right to vote and to influence others how to vote equate to imposition?