Mormons and politics. Thoughts?

[tww]

A few quotes, this time with cites to make sure I don't misattribute again:

Are we a political people? Yes, very political indeed. But what party do you belong to or would you vote for? I will tell you whom we will vote for: we will vote for the man who will sustain the principles of civil and religious liberty, the man who knows the most and has the best heart and brain for a statesman; and we do not care a farthing whether he is a whig, a democrat, a barnburner, a republican, a new light or anything else. These are our politics.

If the Government knew what the wants of the people were, they would take away the salaries of political demagogues, and stop their running and their stump preaching, from one end of the land to the other, to make proselytes to their cause. This would have a tendency to put an end to party names, to party jealousies, and to party conflicts forever. And the people should concentrate their feelings, their influence, and their faith, to select the best man they can find to be their President, if he has nothing more to eat than potatoes and salt—a man who will not aspire to become greater than the people who appoint him, but be contented to live as they live, be clothed as they are clothed, and in every good thing be one with them.

Unity is power; and when I reflect on the importance of it to the stability of all governments, I am astounded at the silly moves of persons and parties to foment discord in order to ride into power on the current of popular excitement; nor am I less surpised at the stretches of power or restrictions of right which too often appear as acts of legislators to pave the way to some favorite political scheme as destitute of intrinsic merit as a wolf's heart is of the milk of human kindness.

Church leaders feel themselves free and under obligation to discourse on any and every need of the day and of man, no matter under what man-given name it appears. They would be poor leaders if silence was enjoined upon them within any field of human interest. Indeed, the very life of the Church is involved in this free discussion of man’s welfare.

However, let no misconception arise. The Church holds itself aloof from propagandists or parties. In politics, for example, it is neither Republican, Democratic nor “mugwump.” It tests and measures every man-made policy by the eternal, unchanging principles of the gospel. If a proposed policy is in harmony with these principles, it is approved by the Church, if in opposition to gospel principles it is disapproved. The ax hews at untruth no matter where the chips may fall. Whether Democrats wail or Republicans weep is of no consequence. The Church is not in politics, but up to the shoulders in the fight for truth, which is the battle for humanity’s welfare.

In the Church, there are members who favor the Democratic party. There are other members who sincerely believe and advocate the principles and ideals of the Republican party. The First Presidency, the Council of the Twelve, and other officers who constitute the General Authorities of the Church, preside over members of both political parties.

The President is President of the Church, not favoring in this election either political party. The welfare of all members of the Church is equally considered by the President, his Counselors, and the General Authorities. Both political parties will be treated impartially.... This does not mean however, that error will be condoned. Teachings and ideologies subversive to the fundamental principles of this great Republic, which are contrary to the Constitution of the United States, or which are detrimental to the progress of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, will be condemned, whether advocated by Republicans or Democrats.

We are all united in admonishing the members of the Church to register. We confirm the admonition already given from this pulpit regarding that important duty. We advocate the necessity of all members of the Church showing appreciation of your franchise, your citizenship, by voting, exercising your right to say who shall be your leaders. They become our servants. That is the spirit of the Constitution.

Time and time again modern prophets have disclaimed the idea that the Church supports any candidate or party. Many in the Church think this is a wink-wink-nudge-nudge endorsement of the Republican Party ("If they came out they would lose their tax exemptions!!") as if the Church and the prophets of god were influenced by tax treatments rather than principles.

My $0.02--parties and people change. While a party or candidate may embrace correct principles today, they may deviate down the road. The role of the Prophets is to serve as watchmen on the tower, to teach and warn and let us act for ourselves. They have been pretty clear in recent years that we need to study the candidates and issues prayerfully and then make our own best decisions. I don't think I've ever heard any of the statements from the pulpit encourage us to study the parties...

Where there are principles at stake, the prophets and the Church step into action--see Prop 8 in California and the Utah Compact on immigration. What's interesting is to those who roundly embraced the Church's engagement in Prop 8 become nearly apoplectic and resort to strained logic to explain how they are comfortable on the opposite side of the Utah Compact policy.

Since you have brought it up. What is your legal analysis of the utah compact? I can't figure it out.

As a side note, the utah compact reminds me of the "slavery is a peculiar institution" speech.

[BoiseBYU]

Snoscythe: I had not read that statement by Joseph Smith before. Where can I find it?

The only point I'd add is the insight gleaned from Nibley and CS Lewis. Both warned against viewing liberalism vs. conservativism or any politics as what life and our morality are all about...as though Keynesism, gun control, a 36% vs 39.9% top marginal rate, etc are principles of eternal value worth getting riled up over rather than being quite distant from what actually matters: individually striving to over come our selves and become Christlike.

This is not my understanding of Mormonism. This sounds like sophistry developed by an academia void of common sense or real life experience. Why is it assumed that the concepts are mutually exclusive? I do not believe one can be Christlike and at the same time side step responsibility and let the world go to crap around them.

Stewardship DOES have eternal ramifications. As in the parable of the talents for example.

I believe we are under a curse because too many people believe that you can be Christlike while at the same time being ignorant, detached and irresponsible about the gifts and stewardship we have been given.

Nibley is a sophist academic? Apparently you have not read the man. You really should before spouting off like that. There are things much more important than deciding whether President Obama is a socialistic Kenyan. Nibley and others did NOT say the two were mutually exclusive as you slipped in but that there is hierarchy of matters of import. I am surprised you disagree with that.

I have read enough of Nibley to know that he is a mixed bag of chips. All of his statements have been subject to change so his earlier writings are not always in agreement with later stuff.

My comment was not a judgement on him or anyone else but an evaluation of the statement and that it falls very close to naive beliefs that I hear expressed quite often.

I fear that we sometimes gravitate to the very thing we preach against, like "all I have to do is believe" kind of stuff.

I respectfully think you have not read anywhere enough to form that conclusion of him. President Hinckley has. Here's what he said of Dr. Nibley in General Conference:

"The other evening I picked up a new publication of the writings of Dr. Hugh Nibley, a man my age whom I have known and admired for many years. On the dust jacket of the book I read these words:

'As a young man he memorized vast portions of Shakespeare and studied Old English, Latin, Greek, and other languages. As a student at Berkeley, he began reading at the southwest corner of the ninth level of the library and worked his way down to the northeast corner of the first level, studying every significant book that caught his eye.' (Old Testament and Related Studies, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1986.)

His encyclopedic knowledge has given him tremendous and well-deserved status among his academic peers. It also has made him a powerful advocate of the work of the Lord. His appetite for learning has been whetted by the gospel he loves."

The fact that everything Dr. Nibley writes on does not fit your political ideology does not make him someone engaged in sophistry from some academic ivory tower.....You might be wrong

[tww]

Snoscythe: I had not read that statement by Joseph Smith before. Where can I find it?

The only point I'd add is the insight gleaned from Nibley and CS Lewis. Both warned against viewing liberalism vs. conservativism or any politics as what life and our morality are all about...as though Keynesism, gun control, a 36% vs 39.9% top marginal rate, etc are principles of eternal value worth getting riled up over rather than being quite distant from what actually matters: individually striving to over come our selves and become Christlike.

This is not my understanding of Mormonism. This sounds like sophistry developed by an academia void of common sense or real life experience. Why is it assumed that the concepts are mutually exclusive? I do not believe one can be Christlike and at the same time side step responsibility and let the world go to crap around them.

Stewardship DOES have eternal ramifications. As in the parable of the talents for example.

I believe we are under a curse because too many people believe that you can be Christlike while at the same time being ignorant, detached and irresponsible about the gifts and stewardship we have been given.

Nibley is a sophist academic? Apparently you have not read the man. You really should before spouting off like that. There are things much more important than deciding whether President Obama is a socialistic Kenyan. Nibley and others did NOT say the two were mutually exclusive as you slipped in but that there is hierarchy of matters of import. I am surprised you disagree with that.

I have read enough of Nibley to know that he is a mixed bag of chips. All of his statements have been subject to change so his earlier writings are not always in agreement with later stuff.

My comment was not a judgement on him or anyone else but an evaluation of the statement and that it falls very close to naive beliefs that I hear expressed quite often.

I fear that we sometimes gravitate to the very thing we preach against, like "all I have to do is believe" kind of stuff.

I respectfully think you have not read anywhere enough to form that conclusion of him. President Hinckley has. Here's what he said of Dr. Nibley in General Conference:

"The other evening I picked up a new publication of the writings of Dr. Hugh Nibley, a man my age whom I have known and admired for many years. On the dust jacket of the book I read these words:

'As a young man he memorized vast portions of Shakespeare and studied Old English, Latin, Greek, and other languages. As a student at Berkeley, he began reading at the southwest corner of the ninth level of the library and worked his way down to the northeast corner of the first level, studying every significant book that caught his eye.' (Old Testament and Related Studies, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1986.)

His encyclopedic knowledge has given him tremendous and well-deserved status among his academic peers. It also has made him a powerful advocate of the work of the Lord. His appetite for learning has been whetted by the gospel he loves."

The fact that everything Dr. Nibley writes on does not fit your political ideology does not make him someone engaged in sophistry from some academic ivory tower.....You might be wrong

How did this turn into an attack on Nibley? I haven't seen anyone even post a contextual quote from Nibley.

I respect him a lot especially because he was a non-conformist. But he was a researcher that did not take himself as seriously as others have.

[valleus]

TWW: Hugh Nibley and Lewis can be called many things, but sophistry is diametrically opposite to their methods of argument, analysis, and conclusions. It is precisely real world experience that led them (and me) to the conclusion of the distant importance of politics on the hierarchy of what is important.

[Ddawg]

I don't like Hugh Nibley - he's just too smart. Whassssup with that?

[BoiseBYU]

Snoscythe: I had not read that statement by Joseph Smith before. Where can I find it?

The only point I'd add is the insight gleaned from Nibley and CS Lewis. Both warned against viewing liberalism vs. conservativism or any politics as what life and our morality are all about...as though Keynesism, gun control, a 36% vs 39.9% top marginal rate, etc are principles of eternal value worth getting riled up over rather than being quite distant from what actually matters: individually striving to over come our selves and become Christlike.

This is not my understanding of Mormonism. This sounds like sophistry developed by an academia void of common sense or real life experience. Why is it assumed that the concepts are mutually exclusive? I do not believe one can be Christlike and at the same time side step responsibility and let the world go to crap around them.

Stewardship DOES have eternal ramifications. As in the parable of the talents for example.

I believe we are under a curse because too many people believe that you can be Christlike while at the same time being ignorant, detached and irresponsible about the gifts and stewardship we have been given.

Nibley is a sophist academic? Apparently you have not read the man. You really should before spouting off like that. There are things much more important than deciding whether President Obama is a socialistic Kenyan. Nibley and others did NOT say the two were mutually exclusive as you slipped in but that there is hierarchy of matters of import. I am surprised you disagree with that.

I have read enough of Nibley to know that he is a mixed bag of chips. All of his statements have been subject to change so his earlier writings are not always in agreement with later stuff.

My comment was not a judgement on him or anyone else but an evaluation of the statement and that it falls very close to naive beliefs that I hear expressed quite often.

I fear that we sometimes gravitate to the very thing we preach against, like "all I have to do is believe" kind of stuff.

I respectfully think you have not read anywhere enough to form that conclusion of him. President Hinckley has. Here's what he said of Dr. Nibley in General Conference:

"The other evening I picked up a new publication of the writings of Dr. Hugh Nibley, a man my age whom I have known and admired for many years. On the dust jacket of the book I read these words:

'As a young man he memorized vast portions of Shakespeare and studied Old English, Latin, Greek, and other languages. As a student at Berkeley, he began reading at the southwest corner of the ninth level of the library and worked his way down to the northeast corner of the first level, studying every significant book that caught his eye.' (Old Testament and Related Studies, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1986.)

His encyclopedic knowledge has given him tremendous and well-deserved status among his academic peers. It also has made him a powerful advocate of the work of the Lord. His appetite for learning has been whetted by the gospel he loves."

The fact that everything Dr. Nibley writes on does not fit your political ideology does not make him someone engaged in sophistry from some academic ivory tower.....You might be wrong

How did this turn into an attack on Nibley? I haven't seen anyone even post a contextual quote from Nibley.

I respect him a lot especially because he was a non-conformist. But he was a researcher that did not take himself as seriously as others have.

Pretty simple. Valleus described some things Nibley and Lewis said and your response was "This sounds like sophistry developed by an academia void of common sense or real life experience." Those are disparaging and disrespectful words to a man who was a treasure to the Church. And all because they do not fit the world you want to see. Nibley says things I do not like too. But I will never call him an ivory towered sophist because they do not fit my predilections. And to call him a "researcher" misses the mark too. He was so much more than that. But whatever.

[Metal Bubba]

I don't like Hugh Nibley - he's just too smart. Whassssup with that?

I was in his ward the first year my wife and I were married. Not that I ever struck up a conversation with him, mind you. He had a tendency to sit at the back of the chapel/class room reading, scribbling notes and whispering to himself. I don't mean that to be disparaging, I thought it was kind of cool. The whole mystery of wondering what he was writing and all that.

His wife was a bit more talkative. I remember being in their home once and enjoying her company.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[tww]

So I guess I am supposed to feel ashamed for holding the teachings of prophets like Joseph Smith over something a professor might have said. Sorry, can't do it. Nibley was a great man but he does not make doctrine. Nothing disparaging about that.

I suspect Nibley would not mind a bit. He even said that you cannot hold him to everything he said.

No need to pretend to be offended, especially when seeking truth.

[Ddawg]

I don't like Hugh Nibley - he's just too smart. Whassssup with that?

I was in his ward the first year my wife and I were married. Not that I ever struck up a conversation with him, mind you. He had a tendency to sit at the back of the chapel/class room reading, scribbling notes and whispering to himself. I don't mean that to be disparaging, I thought it was kind of cool. The whole mystery of wondering what he was writing and all that.

His wife was a bit more talkative. I remember being in their home once and enjoying her company.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

That is a very cool story. Actually, I've read a number of Nibley's books over the years and developed a great admiration for him. I wish I had a mind like his. I should have never started sniffing glue. In all seriousness, Nibley is an icon. Much to admire, and emulate.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]