There has been lots of fascinating discussion recently of whether Mormons are Christians and whether religion has any place in politics. Not much of that discussion has really gotten into the definition of a "cult." (All of this results from a claim from Southern Baptism minister named Jeffress that Mormonism is a cult and that Mormons are not Christians.)
One writer who has tackled the definition of the word "cult" is my son, Robert Young. His piece, posted on Facebook (see http://www.facebook.com/RobTenken), is thought provoking, and much of it is well stated and well thought out. But it's certainly not immune from question or correction. I offer some of both in my analysis, which follows (his text in regular type face, with my comments in bold and in square brackets):
I [this is my son Robert speaking at this point] feel like chiming in on one ongoing debate: The Mormon church was recently called a "cult."
There have been many definitions of the word "cult" throughout history, including:
1) "A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister." [My comment: This is more or less the common, current, popular meaning of the word–in other words, when people use or hear the word nowadays, this is usually pretty much what they understand it to mean. By the way, this definition is from the OED and was added to that admirable source in 2004.]
2) "A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure, person, or object." [This is the original meaning, but is no longer current except in some technical, usually academic settings. In this sense, “cult” is essentially synonymous with “religion” or “system or act of worship.” I like the OED versions of this definition: "Worship; reverential homage rendered to a divine being or beings" (obsolete); "A particular form or system of religious worship; esp. in reference to its external rites and ceremonies" (often in reference to primitive religions).]
3) "A religious or spiritual organization that requires financial dues in exchange for religious truth." [Where’s this from? I don’t think this is a standard definition, though I’m sure some people have chosen to define the word this way for whatever purposes and with whatever justification they’ve given themselves. It’s not, however, a widespread or historically supported use of the word.]
[Another important definition: In the 1930s, a sociologist tried to classify religions as “churches,” “denominations,” “sects,” and “cults,” with the last of these being “small religious groups lacking in organization and emphasizing the private nature of personal beliefs” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult). Note that this is similar to definition #1 above, but without the negative connotations.]
[There’s one other definition that the Southern Baptism minister who recently used the word apparently had in mind: what he himself called a "theological" definition, a definition that has been created by evangelical or conservative Christians to identify a certain kind of “false” religion, a definition they use in their theology schools, their literature, and sometimes in their sermons or in-house discussions. The minister himself identified two elements of "cults": they have human founders rather than a divine one (so in the case of Mormonism, Joseph Smith rather than Jesus Christ--not of course how Latter-day Saints view the matter since they believe Jesus is himself the founder of their church), and they use other scriptures besides or in addition to the Bible. This view of "cults" includes the connotation of “sinister”—or even worse, of “diabolic” and “evil”—and “heretical” or “false.” Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult ) indicates that this view goes back to the 1940s when, among conservative Christians, “all new religious groups deemed outside of Christian orthodoxy were considered ‘cults.’”]
In all of these cases, there is an argument to call the LDS church a cult. [The arguments are stronger in some cases than in others, as some of the following indicates.] It is true that they require tithes and offerings for temple worthiness, and thus temple ceremonies. Those ceremonies contain keys to the gospel and eternal salvation, so yes, this is "cult-ish." [But this is not quite the same as exchanging religious truth for financial dues, for the following reasons: the religious truth conveyed in the temple is conveyed in a special and powerful way, but there is no specific doctrinal content that is not also available for free to anyone. Also, strictly speaking, you don’t have to pay anything to go to the temple: if you have no tithable income, you can still attend, assuming that you would pay tithing if you could, showing that the principles involved are faith and obedience, not money.]
In early phases of the Mormon church, and in some present functions of it, Joseph Smith is worshipped and adored as a separate figure. [Joseph Smith has never been worshipped in the LDS Church; “adored” is an ambiguous term, but if it is defined strictly as “worshipped,” then it’s not accurate either. “Praised,” “admired,” “revered”: yes. The claim of Joseph Smith worshipping as ever being an official practice or doctrine of the Church is false. Note that "cult" is used in a derivative sense in connection with politicians, movie stars, musicians, and even writers: "Devotion or homage to a particular person or thing, now esp. as paid by a body of professed adherents or admirers" (OED def. 3). This could perhaps apply to Joseph Smith--as well as to Barack Obama and the Beatles, among many others.] The song "Praise to the Man" serves as one example. Additionally, the concept of a living prophet who members should obey (essentially without question) taps the same vein. [Very arguable: “in the same vein” stretches faith that a human being can speak for God into the idea of worshipping the human intermediary. And though a lot of people have promoted the idea of “without question,” that’s not an accurate reflection of the real-life experience of many Latter-day Saints—and I can give an essay full of quotations indicating that it is the teaching of the Church, whether or not people understand it very clearly, that “questioning” in the sense of “thinking” and “testing” is an appropriate part of listening to a prophet, and that prophets themselves have taught that prophets are humans who are not constantly and perfectly conveying the divine will but must be listened to with spiritual discernment because they sometimes speak non-prophetically.] While not really sufficient to call the faith a cult (the religion does focus on Christ for the most part), this is – sorry – "cultish." [In any case, “mode of worship” as a definition of “cult” is a mostly archaic definition that applies to all religions since religion involves worship.]
Additionally, the idea of a "relatively small group" that has strange spiritual beliefs, is quite well founded. As a small presence in the U.S. and abroad the believes in non-traditionals like abstaining from tobacco and alcohol, proxy baptisms, and eternal families, the Mormons are bizarre. Again, this qualifies as "cultish." [“Relatively” is obviously a relative term. But it’s not very helpful here. Yes, Latter-day Saints probably constitute less than 2% of the US population, but that still amounts to millions of people. And most standard sources place the Church as the 4th, 6th, or 8th largest Christian church in the US (depending mostly on whether various Lutheran and Presbyterian churches are grouped together or considered separately). That means that the LDS Church in the US is larger than the Episcopalian Church (which I’ve never heard called a “cult”) and larger than the major separate bodies of Lutherans or Presbyterians in the country. With roughly 14 million Latter-day Saints in the world, the Church is a major global player and has been called by one non-LDS scholar “an emerging world religion.” Academic students of religion (apart from conservative evangelicals and a few others) normally classify Mormons as a “church” or even a “people” (sort of like the Jews), but not as a “cult.”
As for strange practices, I guess that’s in the eyes of the beholder: abstention from tobacco and alcohol doesn’t seem to me bizarre and is recommended or expected in other religious traditions. “Eternal families”: unusual, yes, but I don’t think it’s an idea that strikes most outsiders as “bizarre.” Proxy baptisms seem strange to some, especially if they think corpses are involved (note that many pagans thought early Christianity involved cannibalism and incest), but the practice of baptism for the dead is Biblical (1 Corinthians 15:29). There are other things you don’t mention, though, that might some as more strange than any you have mentioned. I’ll save those for another day. But there’s nothing stranger than what you can find in virtually any religion—Catholicism is full of odd practices, and some find the general Christian practice of symbolically partaking of Christ’s body and blood to be strange. Emerson kind of lost his belief in orthodox Christianity in part over his revulsion at the idea.]
So, is the LDS church a cult? Maybe. There's certainly an argument to calling them one. But we must note that many other groups qualify by these same standard. As a few examples:
1) Scientologists. (Small, non-standard, religious, require payment for scans.)
2) Ron Paul supporters. (Small, definitely non-standard, pseud-religious, requests campaign contributions.)
3) Early Christians. (Small, very radical, requested complete communal living)
4) All early protestants. (Small, counter-political, required funding and voice to operate.)
5) Martin Luther King Jr. (Minority support, very vocal and against the grain, much of the reverence focused toward a single man and his beliefs.)
[Yes, there’s a good deal of truth in your list, though there are obviously lots of distinctions among these. Oh, by the way, all religions pretty much require some kind of funding to operate.] The list goes on. So while we can argue that Mormonism is a cult, we should really be asking the following: Is it really a bad thing to be a cult? Are there are substantial ways a "cult" religion differs from the beliefs of "standard" faiths that would apply to the political arena? And why do we always preoccupy ourselves with name-calling instead of asking the real and practical questions?
[Good questions.]
Monday, October 17, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
A letter to Jon McNaughton
I sent the letter copied below to artist Jon McNaughton to share my thoughts about his reaction to the BYU Bookstore deciding not to sell his political paintings. (He pulled all of his paintings from the store and suggested that BYU has become "infected" with liberalism.) I sent the letter via the comment form on McNaughton's website. I haven't heard back from him, so I don't know whether he's read what I had to say.
My comments are rooted in frustration I've felt for many years at some Latter-day Saints who take what I believe with all my heart to be the glorious gospel of salvation--a message of peace and joy offered to all humankind and expressing God's love for all his children--to be an extension of their narrow conservative ideology. Sometimes their theological positions are closer to fundamentalist or conservative evangelical ones than to authoritative or mainstream Latter-day Saint thought. Politically, their view that one party or one political ideology is true and in harmony with the gospel contradicts official statements of the Church and views expressed by its leaders. Their emphasis on protecting America is sometimes joined with hostility toward other nations, cultures, and religions and as a result seems to me out of harmony with the expansive international emphasis of the Church. And sometimes they engage in dangerous doomsday or conspiracy-theory discourse.
I believe many of their political views amount to distortions of true gospel principles. Many argue that the gospel principle of agency necessarily entails pure capitalist economics and virtually no role for government in relieving of human suffering or ensuring of the public welfare. They are sometimes what I would call selectively strict Constitutionalists--meaning that they don't have much problem with limiting civil liberties if national security is the rationale and don't put much emphasis on freedom of speech, assembly, or the press. What they emphasize are the limits set on the federal government, especially on economic matters, and sometimes states' rights. In their positive principles, I see some merit. But their emphasis is selective--and is connected with their claim to be the only true protectors and upholders of the Constitution.
What bothers me most are not the ideas of many of these folks as it is the spirit and tone with which they present their views. Latter-day Saints are rightly troubled by the ugly spirit of most anti-Mormon discourse. But right-wing Latter-day Saints often treat their "enemies" with the same kind of irrational hostility, unfair stereotyping, and self-righteous judgmentalism. I favor open discussion and am happy to hear various view expressed with civility and goodwill. But it seems to me that human beings ought to express their views not only civilly and respectfully but humbly. Even in our deepest convictions about the things that matter most, none of us has attained a perfect understanding. When it comes to politics--to the sorts of issues on which political passions make it hard to be unbiased, issues on which (in addition) divine revelation and official Church teachings have not defined a position--we ought to be even more careful to exercise humility and to consider respectually the views of those who disagree with us.
In my letter (reproduced below), I have not been as insightful or eloquent as I would like to have been. But I have shared my thoughts and feelings in something I hope approaching a good spirit. For a better written and more incisive discussion of McNaughton's paintings, see the following piece by Ben Park: "Arts, Politics, and Religion" < http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Art-Politics-and-Religion-McNaughtons-Agenda-Benjamin-Park-05-17-2011.html >
Now for my letter to Jon McNaughton:
I’m aware of the recent controversy concerning on of your paintings--though of course you’ve created other paintings with even more controversial political messages. You’re right in pointing out that the BYU Bookstore sells books from various political viewpoints, while having a policy of not selling politically oriented paintings. I don’t have direct knowledge of their reasons but suspect it has something to do with the powerful “in your face” character of visual propaganda. There are statements of all sorts in books sold in the Bookstore that would be extremely offensive if they were portrayed and displayed in a visual format. You’ve argued that the criticism of your Constitution painting comes from “liberals.” My own criticism, I believe, has a deeper basis.
I believe some of your judgments and attitudes are contrary to important aspects of the spirit of Christ, differ from some attitudes expressed by the current First Presidency, make harsh judgments on some humble followers of Christ, and convey attitudes that impede rather than aid the progress of the Lord’s work. I would need a good deal of space to explain my views. But I can give a few thoughts here and link you to longer expressions.
Some quick thoughts: Church leaders have repeatedly warned against certain kinds of conspiracy theories about “threats to America.” They have also sought to separate the Church and the gospel from partisan politics, not (I am confident) as a concession to some “weaker brethren,” but because the gospel transcends partisan politics. Elder Dallin H. Oaks once said: "Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them" (“Criticism,” Ensign, Feb 1987, 68ff.).
On conspiracy-theory and end-of-the world activism, note these words of Elder Boyd K. Packer (“To Be Learned Is Good If . . ." Oct. 1992 General Conference): "There are some among us now who have not been regularly ordained by the heads of the Church and who tell of impending political and economic chaos, the end of the world--something of the 'sky is falling, chicken licken' of the fables. They are misleading members to gather to colonies or cults. Those deceivers say that the Brethren do not know what is going on in the world or that the Brethren approve of their teaching but do not wish to speak of it over the pulpit. Neither is true." (See more at http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2009/08/conspiracy-theory-mentality.html .)
About the need for harmony and political tolerance within the Church, consider this warning from George Albert Smith: “Whenever your politics cause you to speak unkindly of your brethren, know this, that you are upon dangerous ground.” President Hinckley reminded us that “political differences never justify hatred or ill will,” adding, “ I hope that the Lord’s people may be at peace one with another during times of trouble, regardless of what loyalties they may have to different governments or parties” (see “Instruments of the Lord’s Peace,” Ensign May 2006).
For more thoughts from Church leaders, see http://lds.org/general-conference/2006/04/instruments-of-the-lords-peace?lang=eng & http://www.kevinashworth.com/ldr/268/gop-dominance-troubles-church .
My own thoughts on the relation of the gospel and politics may be found at various spots, including http://english.byu.edu/faculty/peace.htm , http://faceofother.blogspot.com/2011/01/two-speeches.html , http://faceofother.blogspot.com/2010/09/thoughts-on-september-11.html , http://faceofother.blogspot.com/2010/08/change-in-status.html , http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2009/09/respecting-president-political-bullying.html & http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2009/05/politics-where-do-i-fit-on-spectrum.html
Thanks for your patience.
Best wishes,
Bruce Young
My comments are rooted in frustration I've felt for many years at some Latter-day Saints who take what I believe with all my heart to be the glorious gospel of salvation--a message of peace and joy offered to all humankind and expressing God's love for all his children--to be an extension of their narrow conservative ideology. Sometimes their theological positions are closer to fundamentalist or conservative evangelical ones than to authoritative or mainstream Latter-day Saint thought. Politically, their view that one party or one political ideology is true and in harmony with the gospel contradicts official statements of the Church and views expressed by its leaders. Their emphasis on protecting America is sometimes joined with hostility toward other nations, cultures, and religions and as a result seems to me out of harmony with the expansive international emphasis of the Church. And sometimes they engage in dangerous doomsday or conspiracy-theory discourse.
I believe many of their political views amount to distortions of true gospel principles. Many argue that the gospel principle of agency necessarily entails pure capitalist economics and virtually no role for government in relieving of human suffering or ensuring of the public welfare. They are sometimes what I would call selectively strict Constitutionalists--meaning that they don't have much problem with limiting civil liberties if national security is the rationale and don't put much emphasis on freedom of speech, assembly, or the press. What they emphasize are the limits set on the federal government, especially on economic matters, and sometimes states' rights. In their positive principles, I see some merit. But their emphasis is selective--and is connected with their claim to be the only true protectors and upholders of the Constitution.
What bothers me most are not the ideas of many of these folks as it is the spirit and tone with which they present their views. Latter-day Saints are rightly troubled by the ugly spirit of most anti-Mormon discourse. But right-wing Latter-day Saints often treat their "enemies" with the same kind of irrational hostility, unfair stereotyping, and self-righteous judgmentalism. I favor open discussion and am happy to hear various view expressed with civility and goodwill. But it seems to me that human beings ought to express their views not only civilly and respectfully but humbly. Even in our deepest convictions about the things that matter most, none of us has attained a perfect understanding. When it comes to politics--to the sorts of issues on which political passions make it hard to be unbiased, issues on which (in addition) divine revelation and official Church teachings have not defined a position--we ought to be even more careful to exercise humility and to consider respectually the views of those who disagree with us.
In my letter (reproduced below), I have not been as insightful or eloquent as I would like to have been. But I have shared my thoughts and feelings in something I hope approaching a good spirit. For a better written and more incisive discussion of McNaughton's paintings, see the following piece by Ben Park: "Arts, Politics, and Religion" < http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Art-Politics-and-Religion-McNaughtons-Agenda-Benjamin-Park-05-17-2011.html >
Now for my letter to Jon McNaughton:
I’m aware of the recent controversy concerning on of your paintings--though of course you’ve created other paintings with even more controversial political messages. You’re right in pointing out that the BYU Bookstore sells books from various political viewpoints, while having a policy of not selling politically oriented paintings. I don’t have direct knowledge of their reasons but suspect it has something to do with the powerful “in your face” character of visual propaganda. There are statements of all sorts in books sold in the Bookstore that would be extremely offensive if they were portrayed and displayed in a visual format. You’ve argued that the criticism of your Constitution painting comes from “liberals.” My own criticism, I believe, has a deeper basis.
I believe some of your judgments and attitudes are contrary to important aspects of the spirit of Christ, differ from some attitudes expressed by the current First Presidency, make harsh judgments on some humble followers of Christ, and convey attitudes that impede rather than aid the progress of the Lord’s work. I would need a good deal of space to explain my views. But I can give a few thoughts here and link you to longer expressions.
Some quick thoughts: Church leaders have repeatedly warned against certain kinds of conspiracy theories about “threats to America.” They have also sought to separate the Church and the gospel from partisan politics, not (I am confident) as a concession to some “weaker brethren,” but because the gospel transcends partisan politics. Elder Dallin H. Oaks once said: "Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them" (“Criticism,” Ensign, Feb 1987, 68ff.).
On conspiracy-theory and end-of-the world activism, note these words of Elder Boyd K. Packer (“To Be Learned Is Good If . . ." Oct. 1992 General Conference): "There are some among us now who have not been regularly ordained by the heads of the Church and who tell of impending political and economic chaos, the end of the world--something of the 'sky is falling, chicken licken' of the fables. They are misleading members to gather to colonies or cults. Those deceivers say that the Brethren do not know what is going on in the world or that the Brethren approve of their teaching but do not wish to speak of it over the pulpit. Neither is true." (See more at http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2009/08/conspiracy-theory-mentality.html .)
About the need for harmony and political tolerance within the Church, consider this warning from George Albert Smith: “Whenever your politics cause you to speak unkindly of your brethren, know this, that you are upon dangerous ground.” President Hinckley reminded us that “political differences never justify hatred or ill will,” adding, “ I hope that the Lord’s people may be at peace one with another during times of trouble, regardless of what loyalties they may have to different governments or parties” (see “Instruments of the Lord’s Peace,” Ensign May 2006).
For more thoughts from Church leaders, see http://lds.org/general-conference/2006/04/instruments-of-the-lords-peace?lang=eng & http://www.kevinashworth.com/ldr/268/gop-dominance-troubles-church .
My own thoughts on the relation of the gospel and politics may be found at various spots, including http://english.byu.edu/faculty/peace.htm , http://faceofother.blogspot.com/2011/01/two-speeches.html , http://faceofother.blogspot.com/2010/09/thoughts-on-september-11.html , http://faceofother.blogspot.com/2010/08/change-in-status.html , http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2009/09/respecting-president-political-bullying.html & http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2009/05/politics-where-do-i-fit-on-spectrum.html
Thanks for your patience.
Best wishes,
Bruce Young
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Politics?
On Facebook I describe my political views as "Moderately liberal, mildly progressive, and somewhat conservative." But I wouldn't want even that eclectic mix to box me in.
I agree with Elder Dallin H. Oaks, who once said: "Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them" (“Criticism,” Ensign, Feb 1987, 68ff.).
I discuss my "Political views" status on Facebook more at length at http://faceofother.blogspot.com/2010/08/change-in-status.html
I agree with Elder Dallin H. Oaks, who once said: "Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them" (“Criticism,” Ensign, Feb 1987, 68ff.).
I discuss my "Political views" status on Facebook more at length at http://faceofother.blogspot.com/2010/08/change-in-status.html
Monday, November 1, 2010
Making phone calls for Mark Peterson
I've spent some time over the past few days making phone calls for Mark Peterson, a friend who is running for Utah State House of Representatives, District 62.
Of the 100 or so names I've worked with so far, 28 don't have phone numbers listed, 25 are listed with numbers that are no longer working, a few who answered no longer live in the district, one hung up on me, and about 15 didn't pick up (I left messages when I could). That means I probably talked with about 30 directly, and I appear to have persuaded a few. I was surprised at how many actually wanted to listen to my brief case for why they should vote for Mark Peterson.
The time to vote approaches--tomorrow, November 2, 2010. Is there any chance Mark will win? I suppose so. But whether or not he wins, he is, in my opinion, clearly the better qualified of the candidates--a good two or three or four times better than his opponent.
Here's why I think so. (This is a copy of what I sent to family and friends living in District 62.)
Mark Peterson is an excellent candidate, smart, mature, and experienced. I’ve known him for many years as a colleague at BYU, where he teaches Korean, and am confident he will make a great state legislator. Besides his many years of experience as an educator, he also has experience in economic development, having helped set up an office in Korea to facilitate Korean investment in Utah and Utah exports to Korea.
Mark has sensible, pragmatic, moderate positions on various issues, including education, economic development, immigration, and air pollution. To help improve air quality in Utah and Salt Lake valleys (which have some of the worst air pollution in the country), Mark proposes specific ways of limiting range fires, among other things. He proposes humane and compassionate immigration reform, including going after exploitive employers, refining NAFTA so as to improve economic conditions in Mexico, and finding ways to help undocumented residents come out of the shadows without destroying their families. His main focus will be on education—an area of deep concern, since the scores of Utah students have been declining in recent years despite all the money Utah spends on education. Mark will seek to make education the legislature’s top priority so that the required time and effort can be put into finding a solution to Utah’s complex education problems. Improving education is the best thing we can do for economic development.
One reason I support Mark is that his opponent—Chris Herrod—is, in my opinion, one of the least capable legislators in recent memory. Herrod has taken extreme positions and supported off-the-wall bills. For instance, he has proposed doing away with the booster seat requirement for small children. There’s no question that booster seats improve safety for small children; I believe the requirement should stay. Herrod has also proposed spending $3 million for Utah to sue the federal government, in ways that legal experts say would have no standing and probably wouldn’t even get off the ground.
Herrod’s main qualification, for many, is that he is running as a Republican. But the past few years have made it clear that the extreme domination of Republicans in Utah state government has been bad for the state and bad for the Republican Party, as the party has run weak candidates who have not had to face real election challenges and as it has come to be dominated by its more extreme elements. Among the signs that more balance is needed is that wacky bills are regularly proposed and taken seriously—for instance, a bill proposing doing away with 12th grade, something that simply by being proposed brought Utah negative publicity (with economic consequences) that undid much of what our economic development efforts have tried to accomplish.
Mark Peterson is supported by both Democrats and Republicans, including Karl Snow, a Republican and former Utah Senate Majority leader. Among others who support him are Susan Easton Black, Reese and Kathryn Hansen, Richard L. and Carma de Jong Anderson, Ned Hill, Thomas Alexander, Scott and Chris Cameron, Randy and Janet Jones, Jim Toronto, and of course many, many others.
Mark will help restore sanity to the Utah legislature. He will be a voice of reason and moderation.
For more details on his positions, go to http://www.electmarkpeterson.org/
And be sure to vote on Tuesday.
Best wishes,
Bruce Young
P.S.: This is a P.S. to the blog post, not something I put in the e-mail I sent to friends and family. Though I live in District 62, all the people on my phone list live in a different part of the district, away from my neighborhood. Because of my local church responsibilities, I feel I need to avoid getting associated with political labels. So I have no bumper stickers or yard signs and have held no neighborhood meetings with candidates. Nor have I knocked on doors or made phone calls in my neighborhood (for political purposes).
One of my neighbors asked me who I'd recommend voting for--but asked me while we were in the church building. I told him I'd feel more comfortable talking to him in another location and at another time--and maybe (it occurs to me now) after I took off my white shirt and tie. Maybe I'm going overboard, but I really do feel I need to separate the roles very clearly. Still, I feel torn at times--I'd love to tell everybody what I think about ballot issues. But there are far more important things I need to do as well. And I need to not get the two confused, or weaken the more important things by focusing too much on the less important ones.
Of the 100 or so names I've worked with so far, 28 don't have phone numbers listed, 25 are listed with numbers that are no longer working, a few who answered no longer live in the district, one hung up on me, and about 15 didn't pick up (I left messages when I could). That means I probably talked with about 30 directly, and I appear to have persuaded a few. I was surprised at how many actually wanted to listen to my brief case for why they should vote for Mark Peterson.
The time to vote approaches--tomorrow, November 2, 2010. Is there any chance Mark will win? I suppose so. But whether or not he wins, he is, in my opinion, clearly the better qualified of the candidates--a good two or three or four times better than his opponent.
Here's why I think so. (This is a copy of what I sent to family and friends living in District 62.)
Mark Peterson is an excellent candidate, smart, mature, and experienced. I’ve known him for many years as a colleague at BYU, where he teaches Korean, and am confident he will make a great state legislator. Besides his many years of experience as an educator, he also has experience in economic development, having helped set up an office in Korea to facilitate Korean investment in Utah and Utah exports to Korea.
Mark has sensible, pragmatic, moderate positions on various issues, including education, economic development, immigration, and air pollution. To help improve air quality in Utah and Salt Lake valleys (which have some of the worst air pollution in the country), Mark proposes specific ways of limiting range fires, among other things. He proposes humane and compassionate immigration reform, including going after exploitive employers, refining NAFTA so as to improve economic conditions in Mexico, and finding ways to help undocumented residents come out of the shadows without destroying their families. His main focus will be on education—an area of deep concern, since the scores of Utah students have been declining in recent years despite all the money Utah spends on education. Mark will seek to make education the legislature’s top priority so that the required time and effort can be put into finding a solution to Utah’s complex education problems. Improving education is the best thing we can do for economic development.
One reason I support Mark is that his opponent—Chris Herrod—is, in my opinion, one of the least capable legislators in recent memory. Herrod has taken extreme positions and supported off-the-wall bills. For instance, he has proposed doing away with the booster seat requirement for small children. There’s no question that booster seats improve safety for small children; I believe the requirement should stay. Herrod has also proposed spending $3 million for Utah to sue the federal government, in ways that legal experts say would have no standing and probably wouldn’t even get off the ground.
Herrod’s main qualification, for many, is that he is running as a Republican. But the past few years have made it clear that the extreme domination of Republicans in Utah state government has been bad for the state and bad for the Republican Party, as the party has run weak candidates who have not had to face real election challenges and as it has come to be dominated by its more extreme elements. Among the signs that more balance is needed is that wacky bills are regularly proposed and taken seriously—for instance, a bill proposing doing away with 12th grade, something that simply by being proposed brought Utah negative publicity (with economic consequences) that undid much of what our economic development efforts have tried to accomplish.
Mark Peterson is supported by both Democrats and Republicans, including Karl Snow, a Republican and former Utah Senate Majority leader. Among others who support him are Susan Easton Black, Reese and Kathryn Hansen, Richard L. and Carma de Jong Anderson, Ned Hill, Thomas Alexander, Scott and Chris Cameron, Randy and Janet Jones, Jim Toronto, and of course many, many others.
Mark will help restore sanity to the Utah legislature. He will be a voice of reason and moderation.
For more details on his positions, go to http://www.electmarkpeterson.org/
And be sure to vote on Tuesday.
Best wishes,
Bruce Young
P.S.: This is a P.S. to the blog post, not something I put in the e-mail I sent to friends and family. Though I live in District 62, all the people on my phone list live in a different part of the district, away from my neighborhood. Because of my local church responsibilities, I feel I need to avoid getting associated with political labels. So I have no bumper stickers or yard signs and have held no neighborhood meetings with candidates. Nor have I knocked on doors or made phone calls in my neighborhood (for political purposes).
One of my neighbors asked me who I'd recommend voting for--but asked me while we were in the church building. I told him I'd feel more comfortable talking to him in another location and at another time--and maybe (it occurs to me now) after I took off my white shirt and tie. Maybe I'm going overboard, but I really do feel I need to separate the roles very clearly. Still, I feel torn at times--I'd love to tell everybody what I think about ballot issues. But there are far more important things I need to do as well. And I need to not get the two confused, or weaken the more important things by focusing too much on the less important ones.
Friday, September 24, 2010
MTC Reunion (French-speaking branches)
For more information see http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=152149834808962
I still haven't been able to contact the following:
Adam Michael Ross
Alexander Williams
Benjamin John Spence
Brady Nicholas Rust
Brett Jackson Riley
Brian Douglas Nelson
Brittany Call
Brock Dennis Rose
Catherine Luz Cerdhe
Christopher Joseph Perry
Christopher Allen Carlsen
Clifton Todd Crosland
Daniel Ray Porter
Daniel Jaymes Skeen
Daniel James Lee
Daniel Guillermo Antivilo
David Cahrles Phillips
David Wesley Olsen
Eric Wesley Wilcox
Geoffrey Tucker Lang
Gregory Alan Garrett
Gyson Delmar Gray
James Matthew Ritchie
James Aarl Sykes
Jason Stuart Walke
Jaysen Varselle Williams
John Aaron Sones
Jonathan Wesley Hales
Jordan Dale Harding
Joseph Brandt Jorgensen
Joshua Michael Barney
Kade Brett Hansen
Kevin Mtthew Dennis
Kyle McKay Poulsen
Laurence James Wynder
Luke Thomas Sherry
Marco Antonio De Leon Jr.
Mark Ryan Wight
Matthew Jay Stokes
Matthew Frank Maylett
Michael Recio
Michael Ray Christensen
Michael Pierce Johnson
Michael Alexander De La Torre
Michael Crosby Long
Miguel Moreira Da Mota
Nathan Samuel Gill
Ninoska Altamirano
Omar Doctolero Ramil
Paul Benjamin McConnell
Richard McKay Childs
Robert Isaac Andersen
Robert Scott Runyon
Ryan Scott Sorensen
Scott Robert McIntosh
Seth Neal Ellsworth
Stephanie Ann Smith
Stephen David Hunter
Stephen R. Crooks
Thomas Cameron Waller
Tonya Michelle Olsen
Tyler Kimble Jestet
Tyler David Kelley
William Thomas Garner
Zachary Mark Bowman
If you know any of those listed, please invite them.
I still haven't been able to contact the following:
Adam Michael Ross
Alexander Williams
Benjamin John Spence
Brady Nicholas Rust
Brett Jackson Riley
Brian Douglas Nelson
Brittany Call
Brock Dennis Rose
Catherine Luz Cerdhe
Christopher Joseph Perry
Christopher Allen Carlsen
Clifton Todd Crosland
Daniel Ray Porter
Daniel Jaymes Skeen
Daniel James Lee
Daniel Guillermo Antivilo
David Cahrles Phillips
David Wesley Olsen
Eric Wesley Wilcox
Geoffrey Tucker Lang
Gregory Alan Garrett
Gyson Delmar Gray
James Matthew Ritchie
James Aarl Sykes
Jason Stuart Walke
Jaysen Varselle Williams
John Aaron Sones
Jonathan Wesley Hales
Jordan Dale Harding
Joseph Brandt Jorgensen
Joshua Michael Barney
Kade Brett Hansen
Kevin Mtthew Dennis
Kyle McKay Poulsen
Laurence James Wynder
Luke Thomas Sherry
Marco Antonio De Leon Jr.
Mark Ryan Wight
Matthew Jay Stokes
Matthew Frank Maylett
Michael Recio
Michael Ray Christensen
Michael Pierce Johnson
Michael Alexander De La Torre
Michael Crosby Long
Miguel Moreira Da Mota
Nathan Samuel Gill
Ninoska Altamirano
Omar Doctolero Ramil
Paul Benjamin McConnell
Richard McKay Childs
Robert Isaac Andersen
Robert Scott Runyon
Ryan Scott Sorensen
Scott Robert McIntosh
Seth Neal Ellsworth
Stephanie Ann Smith
Stephen David Hunter
Stephen R. Crooks
Thomas Cameron Waller
Tonya Michelle Olsen
Tyler Kimble Jestet
Tyler David Kelley
William Thomas Garner
Zachary Mark Bowman
If you know any of those listed, please invite them.
Friday, August 20, 2010
My view of Mitt Romney
My view of Mitt Romney is not unique, but it is a bit unusual by virtue of my having been acquainted with Mitt for over 30 years and chatted with him on a few occasions.
On the positive side, he strikes me as charismatic, intelligent, and capable. I was very impressed by his handling of the Salt Lake City Olympics. He did well as governor of Massachusetts. I liked him personally when I knew him back in the late 70s and early 80s.
On the negative side, I have a few concerns. Though I'd like to think that he has sincerely held the various positions he's taken over the years, I find it suspicious that those positions have changed to make him politically attractive to those whose support he has needed in different situations. And listening to him speak during the 2008 primaries, I often found it difficult to sense genuine conviction in his words. I worry about what seems to me a lack of integrity or at least genuineness. I don't feel like I really know his heart. I guess that's true of any other human being, but it seems even more so with Mitt Romney. He's a mystery to me, and it's hard for me to get a sense of what he truly, deeply believes--as distinguished from what he feels he needs to say to garner support.
A second concern: I liked his generally moderate approach as Massachusetts governor. In fact, on some issues, he was just a bit more liberal than I felt comfortable with. During the 2007-2008 political season, by contrast, he seemed to shift so far to the right that I found many of his positions unpalatable--some of them out of harmony with my moral convictions. And in addition to the positions themselves, his way of expressing himself sometimes seemed calculated to position him as the meanest, toughest SOB among the Republican candidates. There was a lot of jockeying for that "honor" at the time.
Finally, I've been thrown by his odd comments on occasion about his faith. I know he's walking a difficult line--being true to his LDS convictions but trying to appeal to voters who are suspicious of or downright hostile toward the LDS Church. I believe he's genuinely religious. But some of his comments have seemed odd for a believing Latter-day Saint--on one occasion, for instance, expressing uncertainty as to whether there had been any real revelation from heaven since Mount Sinai. (This was to deflect, I think, the worry some have that his positions as US President, should he attain that office, would be dictated by LDS Church leaders.)
I guess I haven't been surprised at how many Latter-day Saints, including many of my friends, have become fans of Romney. He's attractive (in many senses) and claims to represent "conservative values." And there's not much of anybody else in the Republican field who seems to be much of a credible possibility as a 2012 presidential candidate. Plus Mitt is Mormon!
Of course, so is Harry Reid--and I'll offer as my view, despite the incredulity many may greet it with, that Reid represents LDS values more truly than Romney does (see http://humanities.byu.edu/english/faculty/youngb/reid.pdf , for instance). And I find another LDS political figure, Jon Huntsman, to be much more appealing than Romney. It would be great to have an LDS president (though it would at the same time expose the Church to a lot of hostility from all sorts of directions--including of course the Evangelical Right), but I think it would be a shame if the first LDS POTUS had views that, for me, are so far out of harmony with LDS values as I believe some of Romney's to be.
Speaking of "conservative values," I believe America has been built on a combination of liberal AND conservative values, as well as on values that transcend or bridge political differences. (So much, of course, depends on your definition of the terms.) And "conservative values" are emphatically NOT equivalent to Latter-day Saint values. Some "conservative values" are--for instance, if you want to call self-discipline, self-reliance, integrity, and fidelity "conservative." But what intelligent "liberal" would really reject those values? And you could with equal justice call values like faith, hope, charity, compassion, generosity, tolerance, goodwill, respect, and fairness "liberal." And on which side would you place knowledge, wisdom, patience, and humility? For that matter, does any contemporary political approach leave much room for humility?
In any case, it seems to me to demean religious faith and eternal principles to try to align them exclusively with a political party or ideology. For Latter-day Saints who know their history, it should be obvious that Joseph Smith was NOT a typical conservative in either the nineteenth- or twenty-first century sense. (See http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2009/05/politics-where-do-i-fit-on-spectrum.html for more thoughts on this.)
I myself don't feel comfortable aligning myself with any one spot on the political spectrum (as I explain here). I've been pleased recently to find a statement by Dallin H. Oaks that expresses a similar feeling: "Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them" (for the source, click here).
So where does that leave me with Mitt. Not especially interested, unless he comes across a lot differently than he did in 2008.
On the positive side, he strikes me as charismatic, intelligent, and capable. I was very impressed by his handling of the Salt Lake City Olympics. He did well as governor of Massachusetts. I liked him personally when I knew him back in the late 70s and early 80s.
On the negative side, I have a few concerns. Though I'd like to think that he has sincerely held the various positions he's taken over the years, I find it suspicious that those positions have changed to make him politically attractive to those whose support he has needed in different situations. And listening to him speak during the 2008 primaries, I often found it difficult to sense genuine conviction in his words. I worry about what seems to me a lack of integrity or at least genuineness. I don't feel like I really know his heart. I guess that's true of any other human being, but it seems even more so with Mitt Romney. He's a mystery to me, and it's hard for me to get a sense of what he truly, deeply believes--as distinguished from what he feels he needs to say to garner support.
A second concern: I liked his generally moderate approach as Massachusetts governor. In fact, on some issues, he was just a bit more liberal than I felt comfortable with. During the 2007-2008 political season, by contrast, he seemed to shift so far to the right that I found many of his positions unpalatable--some of them out of harmony with my moral convictions. And in addition to the positions themselves, his way of expressing himself sometimes seemed calculated to position him as the meanest, toughest SOB among the Republican candidates. There was a lot of jockeying for that "honor" at the time.
Finally, I've been thrown by his odd comments on occasion about his faith. I know he's walking a difficult line--being true to his LDS convictions but trying to appeal to voters who are suspicious of or downright hostile toward the LDS Church. I believe he's genuinely religious. But some of his comments have seemed odd for a believing Latter-day Saint--on one occasion, for instance, expressing uncertainty as to whether there had been any real revelation from heaven since Mount Sinai. (This was to deflect, I think, the worry some have that his positions as US President, should he attain that office, would be dictated by LDS Church leaders.)
I guess I haven't been surprised at how many Latter-day Saints, including many of my friends, have become fans of Romney. He's attractive (in many senses) and claims to represent "conservative values." And there's not much of anybody else in the Republican field who seems to be much of a credible possibility as a 2012 presidential candidate. Plus Mitt is Mormon!
Of course, so is Harry Reid--and I'll offer as my view, despite the incredulity many may greet it with, that Reid represents LDS values more truly than Romney does (see http://humanities.byu.edu/english/faculty/youngb/reid.pdf , for instance). And I find another LDS political figure, Jon Huntsman, to be much more appealing than Romney. It would be great to have an LDS president (though it would at the same time expose the Church to a lot of hostility from all sorts of directions--including of course the Evangelical Right), but I think it would be a shame if the first LDS POTUS had views that, for me, are so far out of harmony with LDS values as I believe some of Romney's to be.
Speaking of "conservative values," I believe America has been built on a combination of liberal AND conservative values, as well as on values that transcend or bridge political differences. (So much, of course, depends on your definition of the terms.) And "conservative values" are emphatically NOT equivalent to Latter-day Saint values. Some "conservative values" are--for instance, if you want to call self-discipline, self-reliance, integrity, and fidelity "conservative." But what intelligent "liberal" would really reject those values? And you could with equal justice call values like faith, hope, charity, compassion, generosity, tolerance, goodwill, respect, and fairness "liberal." And on which side would you place knowledge, wisdom, patience, and humility? For that matter, does any contemporary political approach leave much room for humility?
In any case, it seems to me to demean religious faith and eternal principles to try to align them exclusively with a political party or ideology. For Latter-day Saints who know their history, it should be obvious that Joseph Smith was NOT a typical conservative in either the nineteenth- or twenty-first century sense. (See http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2009/05/politics-where-do-i-fit-on-spectrum.html for more thoughts on this.)
I myself don't feel comfortable aligning myself with any one spot on the political spectrum (as I explain here). I've been pleased recently to find a statement by Dallin H. Oaks that expresses a similar feeling: "Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them" (for the source, click here).
So where does that leave me with Mitt. Not especially interested, unless he comes across a lot differently than he did in 2008.
Monday, August 2, 2010
My view of Mitt Romney
My view of Mitt Romney is not unique, but it is a bit unusual by virtue of my having been acquainted with Mitt for over 30 years and chatted with him on a few occasions.
On the positive side, he strikes me as charismatic, intelligent, and capable. I was very impressed by his handling of the Salt Lake City Olympics. He did well as governor of Massachusetts. I liked him personally when I knew him back in the late 70s and early 80s.
On the negative side, I have a few concerns. Though I'd like to think that he has sincerely held the various positions he's taken over the years, I find it suspicious that those positions have changed to make him politically attractive to those whose support he has needed in different situations. And listening to him speak during the 2008 primaries, I often found it difficult to sense genuine conviction in his words. I worry about what seems to me a lack of integrity or at least genuineness. I don't feel like I really know his heart. I guess that's true of any other human being, but it seems even more so with Mitt Romney. He's a mystery to me, and it's hard for me to get a sense of what he truly, deeply believes--as distinguished from what he feels he needs to say to garner support.
A second concern: I liked his generally moderate approach as Massachusetts governor. In fact, on some issues, he was just a bit more liberal than I felt comfortable with. During the 2007-2008 political season, by contrast, he seemed to shift so far to the right that I found many of his positions unpalatable--some of them out of harmony with my moral convictions. And in addition to the positions themselves, his way of expressing himself sometimes seemed calculated to position him as the meanest, toughest SOB among the Republican candidates. There was a lot of jockeying for that "honor" at the time.
Finally, I've been thrown by his odd comments on occasion about his faith. I know he's walking a difficult line--being true to his LDS convictions but trying to appeal to voters who are suspicious of or downright hostile toward the LDS Church. I believe he's genuinely religious. But some of his comments have seemed odd for a believing Latter-day Saint--on one occasion, for instance, expressing uncertainty as to whether there had been any real revelation from heaven since Mount Sinai. (This was to deflect, I think, the worry some have that his positions as US President, should he attain that office, would be dictated by LDS Church leaders.)
I guess I haven't been surprised at how many Latter-day Saints, including many of my friends, have become fans of Romney. He's attractive (in many senses) and claims to represent "conservative values." And there's not much of anybody else in the Republican field who seems to be much of a credible possibility as a 2012 presidential candidate. Plus Mitt is Mormon!
Of course, so is Harry Reid--and I'll offer as my view, despite the incredulity many may greet it with, that Reid represents LDS values more truly than Romney does (see http://humanities.byu.edu/english/faculty/youngb/reid.pdf , for instance). And I find another LDS political figure, Jon Huntsman, to be much more appealing than Romney. It would be great to have an LDS president (though it would at the same time expose the Church to a lot of hostility from all sorts of directions--including of course the Evangelical Right), but I think it would be a shame if the first LDS POTUS had views that, for me, are so far out of harmony with LDS values as I believe some of Romney's to be.
Speaking of "conservative values," I believe America has been built on a combination of liberal AND conservative values, as well as on values that transcend or bridge political differences. (So much, of course, depends on your definition of the terms.) And "conservative values" are emphatically NOT equivalent to Latter-day Saint values. Some "conservative values" are--for instance, if you want to call self-discipline, self-reliance, integrity, and fidelity "conservative." But what intelligent "liberal" would really reject those values? And you could with equal justice call values like faith, hope, charity, compassion, generosity, tolerance, goodwill, respect, and fairness "liberal." And on which side would you place knowledge, wisdom, patience, and humility? For that matter, does any contemporary political approach leave much room for humility?
In any case, it seems to me to demean religious faith and eternal principles to try to align them exclusively with a political party or ideology. For Latter-day Saints who know their history, it should be obvious that Joseph Smith was NOT a typical conservative in either the nineteenth- or twenty-first century sense. (See http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2009/05/politics-where-do-i-fit-on-spectrum.html for more thoughts on this.)
I myself don't feel comfortable aligning myself with any one spot on the political spectrum (as I explain here). I've been pleased recently to find a statement by Dallin H. Oaks that expresses a similar feeling: "Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them" (for the source, click here).
So where does that leave me with Mitt. Not especially interested, unless he comes across a lot differently than he did in 2008.
On the positive side, he strikes me as charismatic, intelligent, and capable. I was very impressed by his handling of the Salt Lake City Olympics. He did well as governor of Massachusetts. I liked him personally when I knew him back in the late 70s and early 80s.
On the negative side, I have a few concerns. Though I'd like to think that he has sincerely held the various positions he's taken over the years, I find it suspicious that those positions have changed to make him politically attractive to those whose support he has needed in different situations. And listening to him speak during the 2008 primaries, I often found it difficult to sense genuine conviction in his words. I worry about what seems to me a lack of integrity or at least genuineness. I don't feel like I really know his heart. I guess that's true of any other human being, but it seems even more so with Mitt Romney. He's a mystery to me, and it's hard for me to get a sense of what he truly, deeply believes--as distinguished from what he feels he needs to say to garner support.
A second concern: I liked his generally moderate approach as Massachusetts governor. In fact, on some issues, he was just a bit more liberal than I felt comfortable with. During the 2007-2008 political season, by contrast, he seemed to shift so far to the right that I found many of his positions unpalatable--some of them out of harmony with my moral convictions. And in addition to the positions themselves, his way of expressing himself sometimes seemed calculated to position him as the meanest, toughest SOB among the Republican candidates. There was a lot of jockeying for that "honor" at the time.
Finally, I've been thrown by his odd comments on occasion about his faith. I know he's walking a difficult line--being true to his LDS convictions but trying to appeal to voters who are suspicious of or downright hostile toward the LDS Church. I believe he's genuinely religious. But some of his comments have seemed odd for a believing Latter-day Saint--on one occasion, for instance, expressing uncertainty as to whether there had been any real revelation from heaven since Mount Sinai. (This was to deflect, I think, the worry some have that his positions as US President, should he attain that office, would be dictated by LDS Church leaders.)
I guess I haven't been surprised at how many Latter-day Saints, including many of my friends, have become fans of Romney. He's attractive (in many senses) and claims to represent "conservative values." And there's not much of anybody else in the Republican field who seems to be much of a credible possibility as a 2012 presidential candidate. Plus Mitt is Mormon!
Of course, so is Harry Reid--and I'll offer as my view, despite the incredulity many may greet it with, that Reid represents LDS values more truly than Romney does (see http://humanities.byu.edu/english/faculty/youngb/reid.pdf , for instance). And I find another LDS political figure, Jon Huntsman, to be much more appealing than Romney. It would be great to have an LDS president (though it would at the same time expose the Church to a lot of hostility from all sorts of directions--including of course the Evangelical Right), but I think it would be a shame if the first LDS POTUS had views that, for me, are so far out of harmony with LDS values as I believe some of Romney's to be.
Speaking of "conservative values," I believe America has been built on a combination of liberal AND conservative values, as well as on values that transcend or bridge political differences. (So much, of course, depends on your definition of the terms.) And "conservative values" are emphatically NOT equivalent to Latter-day Saint values. Some "conservative values" are--for instance, if you want to call self-discipline, self-reliance, integrity, and fidelity "conservative." But what intelligent "liberal" would really reject those values? And you could with equal justice call values like faith, hope, charity, compassion, generosity, tolerance, goodwill, respect, and fairness "liberal." And on which side would you place knowledge, wisdom, patience, and humility? For that matter, does any contemporary political approach leave much room for humility?
In any case, it seems to me to demean religious faith and eternal principles to try to align them exclusively with a political party or ideology. For Latter-day Saints who know their history, it should be obvious that Joseph Smith was NOT a typical conservative in either the nineteenth- or twenty-first century sense. (See http://secret-memo.blogspot.com/2009/05/politics-where-do-i-fit-on-spectrum.html for more thoughts on this.)
I myself don't feel comfortable aligning myself with any one spot on the political spectrum (as I explain here). I've been pleased recently to find a statement by Dallin H. Oaks that expresses a similar feeling: "Those who govern their thoughts and actions solely by the principles of liberalism or conservatism or intellectualism cannot be expected to agree with all of the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ. As for me, I find some wisdom in liberalism, some wisdom in conservatism, and much truth in intellectualism—but I find no salvation in any of them" (for the source, click here).
So where does that leave me with Mitt. Not especially interested, unless he comes across a lot differently than he did in 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
