Something on which I agree with John Boehner, John McCain, and Ed Rollins

Well, I violated my own rules: I got sucked into a political exchange on Facebook.  (My rules--or at least my feelings--are explained here: http://welcomingtheother.blogspot.com/ 2012/07/politics-and-facebook_09.html .) 

This time it was on Michele Bachmann's accusations against Huma Abedin.  What I did was respond to a post by a relative and friend that asked what people thought about Bachmann's defense of the accusations in an interview with Glenn Beck.  I have to admit to a bias against Beck, who strikes me as borderline crazy (that's not a clinical judgment, just a general assessment of his style and some of his opinions).  But in the Facebook exchange I was mainly thinking of Bachmann, who has been a repeat offender in misrepresenting facts and whose challenging of other people's status as "true Americans" has always bothered me and struck me as dangerous.

So I made a brief statement of my view (including my agreement with John McCain's and Ed Rollins's statements on the subject) and added a link to what Rollins said.

My relative/friend then posted a quotation from "The American Thinker" (apparently the source of Bachmann's information) and asked if it was true or false.  I had to admit I didn't really know for sure.  I speculated, "It's probably a mix of true and false," and then said: "I don't have personal knowledge about most of the accusations. I've heard some of them persuasively refuted (that her fellow Minnesota congressman, a Muslim, has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, for instance). Other accusations might be true (that the aide may be related to people who are associated with certain organizations).  I believe a lot of people are currently working on checking the facts. The reason I'm concerned about the anti-Islamic, guilt-by-association, and conspiracy-to-take-over-the-government flavor of some of the accusations is that this general approach has shown itself historically to be dangerous and destructive, even when partly based on facts. The other reason I'm cautious about the accusations is that I'm used to hearing lots of distorted accusations about the [LDS] Church, and so I like to give other persecuted groups the benefit of the doubt as much as I reasonably can.  I think all this will get sorted out with time, if people remain level headed."

I felt awkward even saying that much and felt I didn't want to get further involved, partly because really figuring out the facts in matters like this is complicated and partly because I worried that I'd do damage to my relationship with the relative/friend I was responding to.  I've learned that there are a good number of people I love and respect and get along with happily but do best to avoid engaging in political discussions with, since the love and respect and, especially, the getting along happily can be strained by political passion.

I also felt awkward because of the difficulties of having a real discussion on Facebook.  Even a full paragraph (which in my experience often corresponds with a complete thought) seems awfully long on Facebook.  And trying to put together a series of connected thoughts on a complicated subject would require the kind of space associated with an essay or a blog post.  Facebook is obviously not intended for pieces of that length.

So here--without taking the time to become an expert on the question--I'll share some of my thoughts both on the issue itself (the accusations) and on why I've reacted as I have.

When I first heard the accusations, I was suspicious for several reasons: (1) I was aware of Michele Bachmann's past history of making wildly inaccurate and sometimes inflammatory statements (see, for instance, http://www.politifact.com/personalities/michele-bachmann/ and http://www.factcheck.org/archives/search-results/?cx=000672474746801930868%3Aa87hh_euyka&cof=FORID%3A11%3BNB%3A1&ie=UTF-8&q=bachmann&sa=Search ).  (2) I'm suspicious of any accusations that seem politically motivated, whoever is making them.  (3) I generally dislike negative attacks, especially against the character or patriotism of particular people.  It's not that some people don't have character problems or flaws in their patriotism.  But I like giving people the benefit of the doubt and try not to be easily swayed into making harsh judgments about people.  (4) It also appeared to me in this case that Bachmann was depending on or even stirring up anti-Muslim sentiment, a kind of sentiment I strongly oppose, for lots of reasons.  (More on this below.)

In addition to these factors, I soon saw news articles indicating that John McCain had spoken in defense of Huma Abedin on the Senate floor (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/2chambers/post/john-mccain-defends-huma-abedin-against-accusations-shes-part-of-conspiracy/2012/07/18/gJQAFpxntW_blog.html and http://www.csmonitor.com/Media/Content/2012/0719/John-McCain-defends-Huma-Abedin ).  And then I read the opinion piece by Ed Rollins, former campaign manager for Bachmann, denouncing the accusations (see http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/18/bachmann-former-campaign-chief-shame-on-michele/ ).  The fact that these statements came from respected Republicans made me feel some confidence that the accusations were without foundation--or at least that they were distorting the facts or their significance.  More recently I learned that John Boehner (leader of the Republican majority in the House of Representatives) had also criticized Bachmann's statements (see http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0720/Boehner-says-Bachmann-accusations-on-Clinton-aide-dangerous ).  Though I hadn't investigated the facts myself, I assumed that these figures--especially McCain, who has spent time with Abedin--knew what they were talking about.

The only other information I had came from seeing a television interview with Keith Ellison, (like Bachmann) a Minnesota congressman, but unlike her, a Muslim.  He responded to accusations from Bachmann that came (if I understand or remember correctly) in the interview she did with Glenn Beck defending her previous accusations.  She apparently claimed that Ellison has ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and that he has tried to stop the inspector general from investigating the matters she's concerned about.  He responded that he has not ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, that he hasn't tried to stop any investigation but has raised questions about its basis, and furthermore that the inspector general has the task of investigating efficiency and effectiveness, not the sorts of concerns Bachmann is raising.

But having said all that (and adding that Congressman Ellison's assertions about himself seem credible to me), I have to say that I do not personally know the facts about Huma Abedin's relatives' ties to particular organizations.  I assume that any concerns about these ties were considered by the State Department or other responsible parties.  In fact, I've wondered whether these ties--if they exist--could actually be one reason Abedin might be especially qualified to assist the Secretary of State in these times following the "Arab Spring."  Certainly, as a Muslim with Middle Eastern background, she would bring understanding of things going on in the Middle East and other areas with large Muslim populations.  She might helpfully assist in making contacts and communicating.

If it turns out that Huma Abedin is secretly working for radical foreign interests, then Bachmann may have done us a service.  But I think it's extremely unlikely that Abedin is doing any such thing--especially because her ethnic and religious identity would make it very hard for her to do such surreptitious work while at the same time being under the watchful eye of other professionals in the State Department.  It would be like accusing a Mormon in the State Department of secretly working for world domination by the LDS Church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to use its official title).  I would be unlikely to believe such an accusation, even if kooky statements by this hypothetical Mormon's in-laws were quoted or passages of scripture that talk about the fall of nations and the triumph of Zion were cited by the accusers.  (Jews and Catholics, by the way, have been accused of similar conspiracies.)

I should add a word about the "Muslim Brotherhood."  I don't know much about this organization.  It's commonly referred to as radical. and perhaps it is--though I believe you could make a case for calling the Tea Party or even calling either of the major US political parties radical, especially if you're very selective in finding quotations from the most extreme adherents.  I believe Egypt recently elected a member of the Muslimi Brotherhood as president.  If this is true, it may be a cause for concern--though actually running a country tends to bring out people's moderation and pragmatism.  And I believe it will serve us better to work positively with the democratically elected leader of Egypt than to brand him "radical."  If we really want people in other countries to elect their own leaders, then we have to learn to deal with the choices people in those countries make.  I hope the era is long past when we sent the CIA in to undo election results we didn't agree with in other countries.

Finally, a few of the reasons I'm wary of the sorts of accusations Bachmann is making even though I don't know all the facts:

(A) As I've already noted, I believe attacks on people's patriotism are dangerous.  In fact, I believe that such attacks are, generally speaking, unpatriotic.  I've written recently at length on this subject at http://faceofother.blogspot.com/2012/07/of-patriots-and-patriotism.html .

(B) I believe promoting conspiracy theories also tends to be dangerous and destructive.  It's true that there are and have been conspiracies, of various kinds.  But most conspiracy theories are extreme and irrational, and they tend to feed a spirit of suspicion, fear, and antagonism.  They also lead people into a kind of craziness in which they may end up doing things as bad as or worse than the things they are opposing.  Naziism used conspiracy theories about the evil intentions of Jews to stoke up antagonism and justify horrific persecution.  Senator Joseph McCarthy, though perhaps having some facts on his side, went so far with speculative and inaccurate accusations that he famously created an atmosphere of fear and did damage to many good people's lives and reputations until finally the Senate, with Utah's Senator Arthur V. Watkins as a leading figure, voted to censure him.

In my view, the conspiracy theory mentality tends to damage the three great virtues of faith, hope, and charity.  As a Latter-day Saint, I agree with Elder Boyd K. Packer's view that we should trust in God and look to our Church leaders rather than succumb to the mentality often associated with conspiracy theorists.  (In 1992, at a time when some fringe political figures were arguing for extreme responses to what they considered the dangers posed to the country, Elder Packer said, "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 “To Be Learned Is Good If . . .," Oct. 1992 General Conference.)

(C) Closely connected with the conspiracy theory mentality is the tendency to engage in guilt by association.  Given the nature of human life, it's hard for any of us not to be related to or otherwise associated with people who might draw suspicion on us if it's assumed that we share the same views or are guilty of similar deeds.  Someone has pointed out that the Bush family (meaning the family of two recent presidents of the United States) had personal association with the bin Laden family--the very family with which the man behind the September 11 attacks was connected.  I believe any assertion of guilt by association should be treated with suspicion; if it appears to be based on fact, it still needs to be examined carefully for the significance of the association to be determined.

(D) A particular kind of "guilt by assocation"--one based on religious belief--is especially prone to abuse.  Currently, Muslims are among those most likely to be thought ill of in America simply because of their religious beliefs.  Though some Muslim extremists have done terrible things, I believe there are serious dangers with focusing on Muslims or on Islam in general as a threat.  I empathize with Muslims because, as a Mormon, I've seen my own religion treated in similar ways.  I believe Islam is a great religion worthy of respect and that the vast majority of Muslims contribute as positively to the world as people of any other large group.  Many Latter-day Saint scholars and Church leaders have had positive things to said about Islam and Muslims.  I've collected and linked some of these statements in the following blog post: http://faceofother.blogspot.com/2010/09/thoughts-on-september-11.html

I look forward to learning more about the facts in the case of Huma Abedin.  I'm depending on credible and reasonable people to do the fact checking.  But in the meantime--whatever the precise facts may be--I have many reasons for finding the approach Michele Bachmann has taken on this issue to be wrong headed and even "dangerous," to quote John Boehner--with whom I often disagree, but who I think has the right instincts on this issue.  And I greatly respect John McCain for his strong defense of Abedin--and even more, his defense of values that help unite us in positive ways as a nation.
****************************************************
P.S. (7-23-2012):
Since writing this I've run into another article on the subject: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57475759-503544/bachmann-under-fire-from-more-republicans/?tag=re1.galleries

Two paragraphs especially caught my attention, again because they quote Republicans I like and respect (not that I entirely agree with them on other matters):

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, meanwhile, told Politico the attacks were "ridiculous." Abedin, he said, "is about as far away from the Muslim Brotherhood view of women and ideology as you possibly could get. She's a very modern woman in every sense of the word, and people who say these things are really doing her a disservice because they don't know what they're talking about, and I don't know what their motivations are, but clearly it says more about them than it does her."

On Thursday morning on NPR's Diane Rehm show, Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida said, "I don't share the feelings that are in that letter. Obviously, every member of Congress has a right to express their opinion and every member of Congress is held accountable for their opinion, if they're right or if they're wrong... I'm very very careful and cautious about ever making accusations like that about anyone."

What is a cult?

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.]

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

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

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.

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.

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://english.byu.edu/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.