The title of my post could suggest many different directions for discussion. But for now, I'm just offering a few short comments.
Terryl Givens wrote something about Captain Moroni that reminds me of a friend and former roommate I’ve recently been in touch with. Here’s what Givens writes:
Moroni's uncompromising intolerance for slackness, his violent repression of dissent and his impetuous judgment, make him a stark counterpoint to his contemporaries, the long-suffering Alma and the pacifist converts of Ammon. But he seems to be the preferred hero of the book's editor Mormon, himself a general caught up on the losing side of an apocalyptic war. "Verily I say unto you," he writes, "if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of men" (Alma 48:17). (54)
This is from Terryl Givens's The Book of Mormon: A Very Short Introduction (published by Oxford University Press). Many things in the description of Moroni--the passionate commitment, the refusal to give any quarter to what is viewed as dangerous or evil, the instinct for quick, pointed judgments, and the high idealism, including a love for what is judged as supremely good and valuable--remind me of my friend.
Givens also notes Captain Moroni's capacity to be passionately mistaken--specifically in his accusations against Pahoran. In his response to Moroni's accusations (including the accusation of treason, accompanied by a threat of military attack), "we see Pahoran's magnanimity overshadow even Moroni's righteous outrage: 'And now, in your epistle you have censured me, but it mattereth not; I am not angry, but do rejoice in the greatness of your heart.' And then invoking Moroni's miitary assistance, he closes his epistle to his 'beloved brother, Moroni' (Alma 61:9, 21)" (53-54).
Earlier Givens notes how the message of the Book of Mormon transcends what would seem to us a stark political or even ethical choice--namely in the accounts of the people of Ammon and of their sons who served in the army of Helaman. In these "stories of steadfast pacifism and lethally efficient militarism,” “[t]wo groups, separated only by a generation, are lauded respectively for their pacifism even at the cost of life, and for their valor and disciplined effectiveness as warriors. Yet the former are not condemned for inaction in the face of national peril and the death of their protectors. And their children are not condemned for their armed struggle against their former brethren. . . . The moral of this story, where righteous pacifism and righteous warfare find comfortable co-existence, would seem to be that faithfulness to covenants righteously entered into trumps both" (48, 50-51). Which would be why, I think, humble obedience to God brings salvation, while commitment to one side or another of an issue or a partisan or ideological divide, even when these seem critical in human terms, doesn't.
Seeing my friend as a Captain Moroni--and myself perhaps as an Alma or Pahoran or maybe a humble member of the people of Ammon--helps me view our partisan division as less crucial than our covenantal connection. That relative valuation of politics and covenants is part of what explains the importance of this warning from twentieth-century Church president George Albert Smith: “Whenever your politics cause you to speak unkindly of your brethren, know this, that you are upon dangerous ground." President Gordon B. Hinckley similarly 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).
One of the many lessons of the Book of Mormon may be that our parties and positions on the issues of the day are less important than our covenants--and that as long as we can remember that, we can all, Pahoran and Captian Moroni, people of Ammon and sons of Helaman, not only live at peace but join as companions in the records of righteousness.
Not only did people respond, over the next month, with comments on the Facebook post, but I received e-mail messages--including earnest expressions of concern from someone who worried he might have offended me (more on that below). A Facebook friend reposted the quotation, and there were also comments on the original blog post.
What follows is a record of that "afterlife" of the blog post and the Facebook sharing. First, Facebook (with one confession: when I first posted on Facebook I wrote "Politics" with a typo as "Politcs"--and because people had added comments, couldn't correct it, till now!):
A brief excerpt: George Albert Smith, a president of the Church during the
mid-twentieth century, warned, “Whenever your politics cause you to speak
unkindly of your brethren, know this, that you are upon dangerous ground.” More
recently, President Gordon B. Hinckley reminded us that “political differences
never justify hatred or ill will,” and added, “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).
§Bruce Young Garry, I want
you to know that every time you agree with me (or "like" something
I've said), I feel honored and validated. There's something reassuring in
having someone who disagrees with me on some things (especially someone of
intelligence and good will like yourself) agree with me on other (more
important) things.
Brett Jensen I think the
issue is bigger than politics and facebook... it has more to do with the
perception of anonymity on the internet. People that would in person treat one
another with respect will hide behind a machine and use every unkind word.
Brett Jensen By the way,
for facebook, consider unsubscribing from individuals if their posts bother
you. I have friends that like completely innapropriate images, and that has
worked out well.
Bruce Young Brett: Great
points. I rarely look at the comments section of online news articles or
opinion pieces because most of the comments seem to come from people whose
inhibitions against incivility and abuse have dissolved--probably, as you say,
because of anonymity.
Thanks for the feedback, Bruce. I have always believed
that the spirit of contention is of the devil, but apart from that, I don't
claim to know everything -- from which it logically follows that sometimes the
people who disagree with me might actually be right after all. And then,
especially with regard to political issues, reasonable people can disagree over
those as well. At the Judgment Bar, the Lord might have questions for each of
us, but I really don't think He is going to be too concerned about whether we
were Republicans, Democrats, or just about anything else (although I realize
that this assertion might run afoul of unofficial Utah Valley doctrine). The
only exceptions, as I see it, might be if we become card-carrying Nazis, or
members of some other extremist group that espouses hatred and/or violence, and
I can't see either of us ever joining their ranks!
ght actually be
right after all. And then, especially with regard to political issues,
reasonable people can disagree over those as well. At the Judgment Bar, the
Lord might have questions for each of us, but I really don't think He is going
to be too concerned about whether we were Republicans, Democrats, or just about
anything else (although I realize that this assertion might run afoul of
unofficial Utah Valley doctrine). The only exceptions, as I see it, might be if
we become card-carrying Nazis, or members of some other extremist group that
espouses hatred and/or violence, and I can't see either of us ever joining
their ranks!July 9 at 2:58pm
· LikeUnlike
Thanks for sharing Bruce. I was at a family
reunion and mentioned one of the candidates and my oldest cousin went totally
ballistic! I walked away and she came back the next day and all was well with
NO mention of politics or religion... I feel these are very personal and we
really don't owe anyone an explanation of how we feel. I am going to just keep
quiet and love my own candidates and never tell anyone. My mother and I were
talking about it the other day and she said what we all need to do is pray to
our Heavenly Father and ask him to help the leaders of our country. I kind of
liked that idea.
Great thoughts, Jill. It would be nice if
we could be totally open with friends and relatives and not have hurt feelings
result. But as you know, family is complicated. I guess it's good to learn
strategies for keeping the peace. And your mother's comment on praying for our
leaders: absolutely! We all need the good will and prayers of other people. I
can't imagine how anyone could deal with the burdens of leadership without
having that kind of help.
Professor Young, I have to disagree with
your opinion on Facebook and politics. Facebook, along with other social media
tools, is as much as anything else a chance for people whose influence would
have been very small in pre-social-media days to have a larger voice.
Think of "United Breaks Guitars"
(you can Google that if you're not familiar with it, you'll get a YouTube
video). That's an example of how individuals can wield greater influence in
their dealings with corporations, but politics is exactly the same. If Facebook
users are interested in politics, it's completely appropriate for them to post
about those interests.
And, Facebook doesn't really have
"rules" ... but I think rather than hoping for the establishment of
an unlikely apolitical decorum, a good policy is to assume that somebody's
political post showing up on your wall isn't directed at you and doesn't
require your response, unless it's directly calling you out. It's more like
hearing someone talking about it across the room - you may disagree, but that
doesn't mean the conversation shouldn't be happening.
I think the larger problem is the animosity
that exist in American politics. There's no civility. I used to think that was
a modern evil, until I learned about the namecalling in the Adams/Jefferson
presidential race ...
You make good points, Andrew, and I don't
totally disagree with what you say. Facebook has few rules--making it a bit of
a free for all. To its credit, Facebook has also provided some ways to opt out
of some elements of the free for all.
I value the way Facebook gives
people--including virtually anyone--a larger voice. And I'm not entirely
opposed to dealing with some political content. It's good for me to develop
some tolerance for opinions I disagree with.
What
I don't like are the following:
(1)
Large quantities of political material each day (much of it from just a couple
of people).
(2)
Mean spirited, unfair, disrespectful, uncivil content--much of it also badly
distorting what I would recognize as a fair representation of reality.
(3)
The fact that I cannot respond to most of these items, even the most outrageous
ones--at least if I follow counsel I feel bound to respect and if I include
ward members among my Facebook friends. Even if it were appropriate for me to
respond, I'm not sure how effective I'd be in "talking some sense"
into my friends--while at the same time keeping them as friends.
This
last point relates to the multifaceted functions of Facebook: for some it is a
way of keeping in touch with family and close friends; for others with
neighbors and coreligionists; for others it's a way of maintaining professional
contacts or even of promoting products or services; for others, it's a forum
for promoting political views, candidates, or one side or another in partisan
battles. Some of the dissonance comes when one is, or when one's friends are,
using more than one of these functions.
It's
true that most of what my "friends" are saying is not directed
specifically at me, and I can try to ignore it if I don't like it (despite the
large photos and biting captions). Facebook allows me to tone down the voices
of specific friends, subscribing only to their "important" content or
even unsubscribing entirely. But there's no easy way to eliminate offensive or
other unwanted content while keeping the positive and genuinely informative
content. I lament the fact that I have to eliminate much or all of the contact
I have with certain people through Facebook simply to avoid unpleasant and
contentious feelings and to avoid associating certain people I love and
respect--and in some cases have significant responsibility for--with those
feelings.
My
blog post was mainly a description of my experience and a commentary on
contemporary culture. I don't imagine I'll be singlehandedly bringing about an
era of good will and intelligent discussion. But I did learn (from some of
those who commented ) techniques for minimizing some of the discomfort. And as
a result of writing and sharing the post, I had some specific tender, bonding,
illuminating moments of interaction with some of my Facebook friends. That made
it entirely worth it.
Good points. I have to say that the
democratization of media that gives everyone a larger voice makes me wonder
about democracy sometimes ;-). A supporter of the candidate I oppose responded
to a rather inoccuous twitter post of mine the other day and used the "F"
word and "faggot". People like that actually get to vote in this
country...
It's also true that your incumbent actually
owes a good portion of his success in '08 to his savvy with social media... if
it's that important to you, maybe you'll consider voting for Romney :-D
Well, if I were free to "go
public" as a political partisan and if politics were the focus of my life,
I might just use social media for all it's worth to promote "my
candidate"--who isn't Romney, I'm afraid (sorry to say that I keep testing
out that possibiity as I watch and listen and can't feel good about it). Sorry
to hear about the abusive language you got exposed to. I'm afraid politics can
bring out the worst in people--and it's certainly not limited to one side of
the spectrum or supporters of a particular candidate. Just look at the comments
section of any number of online articles, or even listen in on the language of
political operatives working for any of the candidates. It's sad how slimy
public and private discourse has gotten
No excuse for abusive language. I'm with my
husband politically, but we've both been turned off by the language and even
figurative language we've heard in political seasons. You might not like Pres.
Obama, but his characterization of "the silly season" is spot on.
What a shame! A nation founded on such wonderful ideals should run its politics
in a dignified way, and political spokespeople should be on the front lines
defending that dignity.
amen, my brother and sister; I've been
thinking about this myself (not the Church quotes, but but how friggin' sick I
am about the whole thing. Sound-bites, out of context quotes, exaggerations,
half-truths that people latch onto as soon as they send them and click *share*
before checking to see if it is even true, knee-jerk reactions, and, most of
all, treating people who disagree with your view as if they are a.stupid and b.
evil. (whilst behaving stupidly and evilsih) .
I agree, and I believe all of the
election-year slime and mudslinging is keeping a lot of good people and
potentially great candidates out of politics altogether. I'm basically a
live-and-let-live sort of guy, and as such I am grateful that my own FB friends
list includes a number of people with whom I have rather strong disagreements
on political and social issues. (My own views tend to be definitely right of
center, but not extreme; I'm not a Tea Party type, for instance.) But I try to
treat all of my friends respectfully, and they all do the same for me. Why
can't the society at large be that way?
Jamie Zvirzdin Good post
and good quote! I differ a tiny bit in that I'm okay with letting people know
what my political positions are, but I'm definitely NOT okay with saying mean,
derogatory, or insulting things about the opposing candidates, just as you were
saying. As my mission president, Tad Callister, used to say, you can be
analytical without being critical.
Bruce Young Thanks for all
your thoughtful comments. Re: Garry's question as to why people in general
aren't as civil and agreeable as (generally speaking) our virtual community of
sorts is most of the time on Facebook--I'd guess one answer is that we value
our friendships over the pseudo-satisfaction of venting and engaging in slash
and burn tactics and proving we're "right." But with
impersonality--the failure to remember that the other people one is talking to
and about are real people--comes a suspension of ethical responsibility, a
feeling that "everything is permitted," maybe the false belief that
victory matters more than the bonds of affection (to use Lincoln's phrase).
George Albert Smith, a
president of the Church during the mid-twentieth century, warned, “Whenever
your politics cause you to speak unkindly of your brethren, know this, that you
are upon dangerous ground.” More recently, President Gordon B. Hinckley
reminded us that “political differences never justify hatred or ill will,” and
added, “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). via Bruce Young
Elisa KelloggShaffer So
true, I always hate election years for that reason...wish they had the same
method of electing to office by the same method the Lord uses.
This is actually exactly what I've been feeling lately. I'm not a liberal, I'm not a conservative, but I still feel attacked. I wish things would not be so negative all the time.
FYI, both of my most active blogs
("Welcoming the Other" and "The Face of the Other") borrow their titles from
Emmanuel Levinas--a philosopher whose work I much admire. You'll find more about
him here and there in the two blogs.
Hear hear ... regarding limiting posts,
just go to that little upside-down caret in the upper right corner of a person's
post in your status feed and a menu will pop up. You can then set what level of
"exposure" you will get from that person.
I have a classmate that would
just bombard FB with posts from her extreme viewpoint and it was tiresome for
me. So I just put her on "Only important" posts and viola! I'm much less annoyed
and I didn't have to "unfriend" her.
What do you think Elder Oaks' stance is re:
that same quote you cited after the Religious Freedom devotional he gave
supporting/defending the Church's involvement with Proposition 8 in
2009?
To Jefa: Thanks for the advice on how to
limit exposure. To LaShawn: I doubt Elder Oaks would disagree now with what he
said in 1987. I'm sure he would defend religious freedom (including the freedom
of the Church to take certain positions) however the positions, or even
religious freedom itself, are currently classified on the liberal-conservative
spectrum. (In other words, the principles he's talking about would apply to the
Church's support of civil rights and its opposition to the MX missile system as
well as to its opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage, or
gambling.)
Meanwhile, I'd like to report on how my post has fared via
Facebook. I shared a link on Facebook and have gotten lots of comments--besides
which, someone sent me a private e-mail sharing personal experiences and
concerns. It appears the post has touched a chord in a lot of people: many of
us, it appears, have had relationships with friends or family strained by
political disagreements. And many of us have felt the temptation to engage in
battle and let the relationships suffer. Whether we've yielded or resisted, it
appears these feelings of irritation and contention are intensely unpleasant. It
seems to me they can also be damaging--to inner peace and to social
harmony.
It's also pretty clear that negativity in the political sphere
is not limited to a particular party or ideology. People of all sorts of
political persuasions are capable of being negative, even abusive. As one
commenter pointed out, those who are responding (for instance, through comments
on Facebook) to a negative political post can sometimes be far more offensive
than the post they are responding to.
Trying to look at the positive, I
would say this situation gives all of us plenty of opportunities not only to
school our own feelings but to seek that blessed condition referred to in the
Sermon on the Mount: to act as peace makers.
Not to disagree with anything you say about
the Church's neutrality position, I would add that there is a Federal income tax
rule that also has a bearing. Although there are 1st Amendment arguments that
churches should not be taxed, the black letter law that applies is section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that provides, in part, that in order for
an organization to qualify for tax-exempt treatment it must be the case that "no
substantial part of the [organization's] activities . . . is carrying on
propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation . . . and [the
organization] does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing
or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in
opposition to) any candidate for public office." Thus, a modest amount of
"issues" statements is thought to be OK, but there is no allowance for a
501(c)(3) organization to endorse or oppose any candidate.
Indirectly (not as
a lawyer giving advice), I know that the Church has been well advised on this
matter.
By the way, I've been aware for several
hours that I misspelled the first word in my Facebook post: I wrote "Politcs"
instead of "Politics." (It's just a typo; I really do know how to spell the
word.) But if I try to change it now, I'll lose all the comments people have
made. Which would be a shame.
Chris--thanks for your comment. I've never
known exactly what the law is on that matter. I often think of the civil rights
movement as something it's easy to consider "political" (though not partisan) in
which many black churches and some white ones were heavily involved. I've also
read lots of stories about conservative Christian churches--or at least the
pastors leading particular congregations--very directly endorsing candidates and
allowing the churches' meetings and resources to be used to help in the partisan
effort. (Are they endangering their tax exempt status when they do that?) In any
case, I am very, very grateful the LDS Church doesn't allow that kind of direct
connection between the Church and partisan activity.
For anyone who is interested, I'll let you
know what my completely non-expert understanding is on the issue I just brought
up (churches endorsing candidates, campaigning for them, etc.). Apparently, it's
technically against the tax code (at least if "any substantial part" of its
activities are involved). But lots of churches seem to do this sort of thing
anyway (including some black churches and some conservative evangelical ones).
Apparenty, the IRS isn't likely to go after them, though, unless they get SO
involved with the campaign efforts that they cross the line from being a church
to being a political organization. The tax code also talks about influencing
legislation--but obviously lots of churches are involved in that in various
ways, on various sides of many issues. (The civil rights movement was one
prominent example, and there have been many less prominent ones.) I suspect that
the IRS practice may be similar to what I said about campaigning: they're not
going to worry about things unless a church crosses the line from being a church
to being primarily a lobbying organization. (Again, let me emphasize that I'm
thinking out loud here, trying to process what little I know. These are "hints
and guesses," but maybe are something near the real state of things.)
To give another example: A friend of mine
shared a photo of Pres. Bush embracing a soldier, accompanied by the caption
"this is what a real 'Commander in Chief' looks like"
The Constitution
designates the President as the Commander in Chief. We're invited as citizens of
the United States to recognize our President as such.
I added this photo in response to one of Pres. Bush hugging a
soldier (and saying "this is what a real commander in chief does"). I wanted to
remind everyone that this is what ALL commenders in chief do (do you know of one
who hasn't?). In this case, to imply that Pres. Obama doesn't hug the troops (or
that Pres. Bush didn't)--especially when the photographic evidence is
unignorable--is both to disseminate a falsehood and to engage in the worse kind
of partisanship, the kind that demeans the institutions, practices, and
relationships that make up America's national life.
(You may notice the
note of frustration in that comment--not only at the mean-spiritedness of some
of what goes on on Facebook these days, but also at the awkwardness of
responding to it. Oh well.)
====================================================================== FINALLY, A BIT ON SOME E-MAIL CONVERSATION:
A friend of my e-mailed me after reading the blog post, concerned that he had been among those whose political postings had bothered me. He also recounted his difficulties when a fairly benign Facebook comment of his received a virulently antagonistic response from someone he considers a friend and brother, leading him to end Facebook contact with the friend.
Here was my response:
Hello, dear friend. First of all, I've never had negative feelings (that I
remember) about your posts, maybe because you always seem to present things with
a smile and maybe because I don't remember you crossing the line of craziness
and negativity some people sometimes do.
To be honest, I don't know that I'd want politics to be taken out of Facebook
compltely. I think it's good for me to develop a degree of tolerance for
hearing opinions different from mine, even through Facebook. My problem has
been with frequent posters whose content is often extreme (in my opinion).
It's hard to ignore a dozen or two posts in a day and hard not to let them rub
me the wrong way.
I've also seen the sort of thing you describe: comments that are far worse
(angry and demeaning) than whatever it is they are commenting on. That's always
bothered me, even when (maybe especially when) the person making the comments
shares my political views.
Anyway, be assured that I was not thinking of you in anything I said that may
have seemed critical. One reason I love the Church is that it brings me in
close contact with people who are different from me. That contact helps me
understand things I would never have understood on my own (plus giving me the
gift of many precious friendships). One example: Gene Erekson and I spent many,
many hours together when I had a stake calling--and once or twice we brushed up
against some issues we disagreed about. I decided I valued his friendship so
much I would avoid arguing with him about anything. I can truly say I love him
like a brother. My life would be much impoverished if I didn't know him.
The same goes for you. Thanks for trusting me enough to share your thoughts
and feelings with me, and thanks for your generous response to my thoughts.
Best wishes,
Bruce
================================================
P.S.: Here's a photo someone else posted--with a sentiment it's hard to disagree with:
I'm married to the marvelous Margaret Blair Young, a fine and accomplished writer and a remarkable person. We have four children and four grandchildren (plus five recently added step-grandchildren!).
I teach English at Brigham Young University, including courses on Shakespeare, C. S. Lewis, and world literature. Besides my family, my faith, and the topics just listed, my passions include the Beatles and the philosopher Emmanuel Levinas.
I currently have a number of blogs: "The Face of the Other" (for an explanation of the title, see here, here, and here); "Welcoming the Other", and several on politics and related matters (including here).
