Yesterday was fast and testimony meeting, and I had an interesting experience. One member of the congregation stepped up to bear his testimony, talked about going to a "tea party" meeting the day before, and discussed some of the things he learned there. There was actually very little in his remarks that most LDS church members would find offensive, but I was troubled by it nonetheless. I guess I think asking conservative church members whether his comments were offensive is kind of like asking white people whether the Florida State Seminoles mascot is offensive.
I admit that I am extremely sensitive on this issue. I carry around a huge chip on my shoulder, because throughout my adult life I have been treated by many LDS church members as though my political views make me an apostate. Church leaders have repeatedly expressed the Church's official neutrality on political matters. Here is their official statement on the issue:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/political-neutrality
Before every general election in the US, the Church reiterates its neutral stand, and reminds us, as they did in 2008, that, "Principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties."
Nevertheless, many LDS Church members seem to completely disregard this official view. They believe Glenn Beck is a worthy Latter-day Saint, but Harry Reid is not. They believe that they, not the appropriate bishop or stake president, have the right to determine Brother Reid's worthiness to hold a temple recommend or call himself a Latter-day Saint. Such attitudes are not restricted to elected officials. I have repeatedly been asked by well-meaning church members how I can possibly be a good Latter-day Saint and a democrat. My commitment both to my religion and to my political views has been questioned by those who think they know what I should believe better than I do. I have several friends who have actually left the Church because they were falsely made to feel that their political views were inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ.
After church yesterday, I had a conversation with a good friend who happens to be a John Bircher. Despite my considerable disagreement with him on many political issues, I have great respect for him. He pointed out to me that LDS Birchers are even more rare than LDS liberals, at least everywhere except Appleton, Wisconsin. He has taken the approach to just let things like this roll off his back, and not say anything about it. I wish I could adopt that approach. I know I should. But I just have a really hard time figuring out why it is that when someone else thinks it's ok to espouse their political views in church, and I challenge them on it, I'm the bad guy. I'm the one who is being confrontational and not following the principles of the gospel, while the person who started it is excused. I don't get that. Maybe someday, when I develop greater humility, I will understand, but right now I don't.
I should also say that I consider the man who bore his testimony yesterday to be a friend. I like him, respect him, and enjoy working with him in my church calling. I believe him to be a very good person, far better than I am, who is true to his convictions. He also makes no secret of his political views. It is not uncommon for him to find opportunities to insert references to his politics into conversations or comments during priesthood and Sunday School lessons. As a result, my guard was already up when he went to the pulpit yesterday. It shouldn't have been, but it was.
I am not going to go through the entire testimony word for word to discuss what I found offensive. I certainly wouldn't want anyone to dissect my comments from the pulpit that way. The essential message in his comments, as I understood it, was that our right to practice Christianity should be defended and that we should vote for candidates who will uphold this right. This is not at all inconsistent with the principles of the gospel. However, I think the point could have been made just fine without referring to the discussion of this issue at a tea party meeting or the implication that tea party candidates are the only ones who believe in protecting Christian values. I also found comments about "our stimulus dollars at work" and the political correctness of showing respect to other religions but not Christianity to be unnecessary and distracting.
One final thought. After the meeting, I had a pleasant conversation with my friend, where I tried to politely express my concerns. I want to reiterate here one of the things I said to him. In his testimony, he made reference to the comments of a Christian minister at the tea party meeting, who was calling for tolerance for Christian beliefs and values. I asked my friend if he had ever stopped to think that this Christian minister very likely has no respect for our religious beliefs, considers us to be members of a cult, and refuses to consider us Christians. An interesting thought to contemplate, as we decide with whom we should ally ourselves in our zeal to protect our values and beliefs.
Monday, September 27, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
Can't we all just get along?
Interesting article in the Christian Science Monitor today. Various groups of American Muslims are trying to combat increasing hatred and violence shown towards them by mounting public relations campaigns designed to point out that they are peaceful, ordinary Americans just like you and me. Some of them, like this one, are very touching:
The need for such responses is both increasingly apparent and frightening. Alarming accounts of violence and persecution aimed at people for the sole reason that they are Muslim are being heard throughout the country. Several examples are given in the Christian Science Monitor article. Those accounts make it clear that there is a segment of our society which views hatred and discrimination against an entire religion as an appropriate response to the violent actions of a few members of that faith. This proposition should be rejected by all who value religious freedom.
My ancestors felt this kind of hatred and discrimination at a time in our nation's history when there was virtually no one to stand up for them. The President of the United States told them their cause was just but he could do nothing for them. The sting of that persecution continues to this day to contribute to feelings of defensiveness and victimization felt by many Mormons. We, as much as anyone, should feel the pain of our Muslim brothers and sisters, and should reach out to them in love, peace, and understanding. We, as much as anyone, should realize that persecuting anyone for their religious beliefs endangers everyone's right to practice their religion. As one man puts it in this public service announcement, "If we don't have our rights, you don't have your rights." Amen.
The need for such responses is both increasingly apparent and frightening. Alarming accounts of violence and persecution aimed at people for the sole reason that they are Muslim are being heard throughout the country. Several examples are given in the Christian Science Monitor article. Those accounts make it clear that there is a segment of our society which views hatred and discrimination against an entire religion as an appropriate response to the violent actions of a few members of that faith. This proposition should be rejected by all who value religious freedom.
My ancestors felt this kind of hatred and discrimination at a time in our nation's history when there was virtually no one to stand up for them. The President of the United States told them their cause was just but he could do nothing for them. The sting of that persecution continues to this day to contribute to feelings of defensiveness and victimization felt by many Mormons. We, as much as anyone, should feel the pain of our Muslim brothers and sisters, and should reach out to them in love, peace, and understanding. We, as much as anyone, should realize that persecuting anyone for their religious beliefs endangers everyone's right to practice their religion. As one man puts it in this public service announcement, "If we don't have our rights, you don't have your rights." Amen.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Glenn Beck, Again!
We just can't seem to keep this guy out of the news. In an article quite relevant to the subject of this blog, the Washington Post asks today, "Is Glenn Beck's rise good for Mormonism?"
That's a pretty easy one. No. It is bad for Mormonism. Read the article. It will tell you why. Laying aside my personal disagreements with Beck, it is always bad when an entire religion is stereotyped based on the conduct and beliefs of one person. Mormon leaders have repeatedly made it clear that the Church finds good in all political parties, and the Church benefits from having prominent members in different places on the political spectrum. With Beck's emphasis on religion, the danger increases that many will see him as the sole political voice of Mormonism, particularly with the overwhelmingly conservative tenor of Utah politics. This is unfortunate.
Can someone tell me why people like Glenn Beck and Russell Pearce are seen by many as reflecting the views of all Mormons, while Harry Reid is not? With Reid so much in the public eye, wouldn't you think people would understand that Mormons come in different political flavors? But apparently it doesn't work that way. Why is that?
That's a pretty easy one. No. It is bad for Mormonism. Read the article. It will tell you why. Laying aside my personal disagreements with Beck, it is always bad when an entire religion is stereotyped based on the conduct and beliefs of one person. Mormon leaders have repeatedly made it clear that the Church finds good in all political parties, and the Church benefits from having prominent members in different places on the political spectrum. With Beck's emphasis on religion, the danger increases that many will see him as the sole political voice of Mormonism, particularly with the overwhelmingly conservative tenor of Utah politics. This is unfortunate.
Can someone tell me why people like Glenn Beck and Russell Pearce are seen by many as reflecting the views of all Mormons, while Harry Reid is not? With Reid so much in the public eye, wouldn't you think people would understand that Mormons come in different political flavors? But apparently it doesn't work that way. Why is that?
First Martin Luther King, Now 9/11
As if last week's rally on the anniversary and at the location of Martin Luther King's famous "I Have a Dream" speech wasn't arrogant and dishonorable enough, it came out this week that Glenn Beck will join with Sarah Palin in another rally to be held in Anchorage on September 11, 2010. News of the event came first in Vanity Fair, buried deep in a scathing article about Sarah Palin, which is worth a read on its own merits. Then, Beck talked about it on his show, coyly dodging questions about it and failing to mention the actual date. Here's the video:
Today, several media outlets are reporting the story, including Huffington Post, Salon, and Politico. But I believe David Weigel has hit the nail right on the head in his assessment of this event. In an article on Slate.com, Weigel says:
Beck has already desecrated the memory of Martin Luther King, and now he will dishonor the memory of the thousands who died on September 11th, taking what is an American tragedy that belongs to all of us, and claiming it for his own personal and political gain. If this isn't a window into his soul, what is?
Today, several media outlets are reporting the story, including Huffington Post, Salon, and Politico. But I believe David Weigel has hit the nail right on the head in his assessment of this event. In an article on Slate.com, Weigel says:
"I think you're going to see a sequel to Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally. Like I noted in my article on that rally, it wasn't overtly political for the same reasons that his paid speeches aren't overtly political. The people who show up for these events are already converts. The point of these events is to bolster their political anxiety by telling them they are needed to reclaim America in the name of God."Of course Beck wasn't and won't be overtly political! Everyone knows the religious conservatives have already co-opted God, so when Beck talks of returning to God, he is inviting a new conservative crusade to rid the country of the infidel liberals into whose hands we foolishly entrusted the government. He never has to use the words "conservative" or "liberal," "Republican" or "Democrat," because everyone, especially his millions of bleating disciples, already know the code. I have already talked about who the God is that Beck is talking about, but the point is quite clear. Beck has placed himself in the enviable position of being able to talk politics without talking politics, to seek converts and still be able to deny that he is proselyting.
Beck has already desecrated the memory of Martin Luther King, and now he will dishonor the memory of the thousands who died on September 11th, taking what is an American tragedy that belongs to all of us, and claiming it for his own personal and political gain. If this isn't a window into his soul, what is?
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Another view of Glenn Beck's "Ministry"
Saw this today and found it interesting:
Glenn Beck Calls America Back – To a Generic God
Posted: Monday, August 30, 2010 6:24 am
Section: EthicsDaily.com's Latest Articles
One excerpt:
Beck tries to unite all religious people to support his cause, but instead appeals only to the conservative tea party members whose generic mix of patriotism and religion leads them to believe that they are the only true patriots and believers.
The other interesting thing about this article is that its author, a Baptist leader, resists the opportunity to rail on Mormonism in general. Thank you for that little tidbit.
Glenn Beck Calls America Back – To a Generic God
Posted: Monday, August 30, 2010 6:24 am
Section: EthicsDaily.com's Latest Articles
One excerpt:
And another:At the very beginning of the "Restoring Honor" Rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, Beck proclaimed, "Something beyond imagination is happening. Something that is beyond man is happening. America today begins to turn back to God."
Of course, in the mind of Glenn Beck, it is his rally, not any other factor or combination of factors, that starts America turning back to God. Of course, this assumes the need for such a revival, and that America has turned away from God in the first place. And then Beck has to walk a fine line, trying to encourage a belief in God, without being too specific so as to offend anyone who sees God differently than he does. This is especially important given Beck's own religious persuasion, which is far from the American mainstream.No amount of Bible reading, sermons masquerading as prayers and Christian hymns can cover up Beck's civil religion that slides back and forth between the Bible and nationalism, between authentic faith and patriotic religion.
Beck tries to unite all religious people to support his cause, but instead appeals only to the conservative tea party members whose generic mix of patriotism and religion leads them to believe that they are the only true patriots and believers.
The other interesting thing about this article is that its author, a Baptist leader, resists the opportunity to rail on Mormonism in general. Thank you for that little tidbit.
Ashamed of Christ?
Today, I received a forwarded e-mail from an LDS friend, which contained some beautiful images of Christ. It also included this message:
I always have a problem with the many e-mails I receive which threaten bodily harm, calamities, and all sorts of evil results if I don't forward the e-mail to at least 10 friends. I find this to be a despicable infringement on my agency, and I routinely delete them, as I'm sure most people do. Maybe that's why my life is in shambles. However, this one might take the cake. Even without the political statement in the e-mail, it would be wrong for my friend to tell me how I must demonstrate that I am not ashamed of Christ. But with politics inserted, the offense becomes even more egregious. Now, not only am I ashamed of Christ if I choose not to forward your images, but I am also ashamed of Christ if I disagree with your politics. Sorry, but I find extreme arrogance and coercion in this approach, and I reject my friend's right, or anyone's right, to tell me how I must demonstrate my devotion to God, especially when that demonstration involves agreement with a particular political point of view. Somehow, I don't think Christ will be ashamed of me for feeling this way. Sorry, Tim.
Now let's talk about the political statement itself. It is not uncommon for Christians to complain about God being taken out of our government, by which of course they mean the Holy Trinity, their God, not the God in which Muslims, Jews, or anyone else believes. I have often argued against this proposition, but today I simply pose a number of questions to my LDS friend, which are directed specifically to Mormons. Here they are:
If you are not ashamed of Christ, wouldn't you want him in your church and your private worship, not in your government? Wasn't he the one who commanded us to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's (a bold pronouncement on separation of church and state)?
If you are not ashamed of Christ, wouldn't you want to honor the Constitution he inspired, which grants freedom of worship to all, not just to Christians?
If you are an LDS Church member who is not ashamed of Christ, wouldn't you believe the 11th Article of Faith, which allows all men to worship how, where, or what they may?
If you are an LDS Church member who is not ashamed of Christ, wouldn't you agree with Joseph Smith's pronouncement in the 134th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, which says: "we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion?"
If you are an LDS Church member who is not ashamed of Christ, wouldn't you want to worship him according to your own understanding of who he is and what he taught, rather than having your government prescribe worship according to Protestant or Catholic beliefs?
Doesn't putting Christ in government mean giving preference to those who believe in him over those who don't? Doesn't it mean imposing the beliefs and practices of the majority upon all the religious minorities? Even though Mormons consider themselves Christians, don't we really belong to a religious minority not unlike Jews, Muslims and others? If a belief system were chosen by our government to be the preferred method of worship, is there any chance it would be ours?
Haven't Mormons historically been persecuted for their beliefs by the Christian majority, and don't we continue to endure the criticism of many Christians who say we are a cult, and that our beliefs do not reflect true Christianity? Is this Christian majority really the group we want to control how Christ is made a part of our government? Do we really want to pursue the goal of putting God back in government by joining with the very fundamentalist Christians who constantly criticize us, mischaracterize our beliefs, and deny our right to call ourselves Christians? Isn't this a very unlikely and unwise alliance?
Wouldn't it be wiser to pursue the goal of retaining the right to worship our way in private and not being required to worship someone else's way in public?
Just a little food for thought. Have a great day.
"I'm not ashamedAnd then, later, this one:
He is the only one that can save this country and
they want him removed from the government..
Our great nation will not stand if we delete HIM
from all aspects of our government as the atheists
want."
"Jesus TestNow, I think I love Christ, and I don't believe I'm ashamed of him, nor do I lack appreciation for all the marvelous things God has done for me. However, unfortunately, I scored a zero on the Jesus test.
This is an easy test, you score 100 or zero.
It's your choice.
If you aren't ashamed to do this, please follow the directions.
Jesus said, 'if you are ashamed of me, I will be ashamed of you
before my Father.'
This is the simplest test If you Love God, and are not ashamed
of all the marvelous things he has done for you..
Send this to ten people"
I always have a problem with the many e-mails I receive which threaten bodily harm, calamities, and all sorts of evil results if I don't forward the e-mail to at least 10 friends. I find this to be a despicable infringement on my agency, and I routinely delete them, as I'm sure most people do. Maybe that's why my life is in shambles. However, this one might take the cake. Even without the political statement in the e-mail, it would be wrong for my friend to tell me how I must demonstrate that I am not ashamed of Christ. But with politics inserted, the offense becomes even more egregious. Now, not only am I ashamed of Christ if I choose not to forward your images, but I am also ashamed of Christ if I disagree with your politics. Sorry, but I find extreme arrogance and coercion in this approach, and I reject my friend's right, or anyone's right, to tell me how I must demonstrate my devotion to God, especially when that demonstration involves agreement with a particular political point of view. Somehow, I don't think Christ will be ashamed of me for feeling this way. Sorry, Tim.
Now let's talk about the political statement itself. It is not uncommon for Christians to complain about God being taken out of our government, by which of course they mean the Holy Trinity, their God, not the God in which Muslims, Jews, or anyone else believes. I have often argued against this proposition, but today I simply pose a number of questions to my LDS friend, which are directed specifically to Mormons. Here they are:
If you are not ashamed of Christ, wouldn't you want him in your church and your private worship, not in your government? Wasn't he the one who commanded us to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's (a bold pronouncement on separation of church and state)?
If you are not ashamed of Christ, wouldn't you want to honor the Constitution he inspired, which grants freedom of worship to all, not just to Christians?
If you are an LDS Church member who is not ashamed of Christ, wouldn't you believe the 11th Article of Faith, which allows all men to worship how, where, or what they may?
If you are an LDS Church member who is not ashamed of Christ, wouldn't you agree with Joseph Smith's pronouncement in the 134th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, which says: "we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion?"
If you are an LDS Church member who is not ashamed of Christ, wouldn't you want to worship him according to your own understanding of who he is and what he taught, rather than having your government prescribe worship according to Protestant or Catholic beliefs?
Doesn't putting Christ in government mean giving preference to those who believe in him over those who don't? Doesn't it mean imposing the beliefs and practices of the majority upon all the religious minorities? Even though Mormons consider themselves Christians, don't we really belong to a religious minority not unlike Jews, Muslims and others? If a belief system were chosen by our government to be the preferred method of worship, is there any chance it would be ours?
Haven't Mormons historically been persecuted for their beliefs by the Christian majority, and don't we continue to endure the criticism of many Christians who say we are a cult, and that our beliefs do not reflect true Christianity? Is this Christian majority really the group we want to control how Christ is made a part of our government? Do we really want to pursue the goal of putting God back in government by joining with the very fundamentalist Christians who constantly criticize us, mischaracterize our beliefs, and deny our right to call ourselves Christians? Isn't this a very unlikely and unwise alliance?
Wouldn't it be wiser to pursue the goal of retaining the right to worship our way in private and not being required to worship someone else's way in public?
Just a little food for thought. Have a great day.
LDS Church in China
This week, the LDS Church announced that it is on the verge of concluding an agreement with the government of the People's Republic of China which will "regularize" the Church's activities in China. More information about this agreement was given in an LDS Newsroom article found here. Of interest to me is the fact that these talks were actually initiated by the Chinese government, who sent a high-ranking official to Salt Lake City to address the issue, after earlier meetings in China. A church spokesman pointed out that this does not mean the Church will be sending missionaries to China, only that church activities in China among those who are already members of the church will be more carefully defined. The representative, Michael Otterson, had this to say:
This issue is of significant personal interest to me, because my son recently returned from an LDS mission to England, where most of his proselyting efforts were directed towards Chinese people. He was taught Mandarin, and was able to bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to many Mandarin-speaking people, most of whom were students attending university in England. Some of these students have already returned to China, and others will do so in coming years. This week's announcement means it will be easier for them to practice their religion and receive support from church leaders once they return to their homeland. This will bring inestimable blessings into their lives, and great joy to us, and particularly to my son, who has worried about how these new converts would be able to maintain their commitment to the gospel in a place that is so hostile toward religion.
England is not the only unlikely place to which the LDS Church has sent Mandarin-speaking missionaries. I have known of such missionaries being sent to several states and other countries. Those efforts will surely accelerate in light of this week's announcement. While the church may not be able to proselyte in China, they can still proselyte to Chinese people elsewhere in the world. Now, those people will be able to return to China and enjoy the fellowship of other church members there.
I appreciate the LDS Church's liberal approach on this issue, which recognizes the value of taking the blessings of the gospel to all people, wherever or under whatever circumstances they live. It reminds me of the immigration issue I have discussed earlier. In both situations, the Church's compassionate approach has made it clear that politics will not stop it from fulfilling its mission to share the good news throughout the world. Even godless communists, like illegal aliens, need to experience the love of Christ and the blessings of his atonement. This brings great comfort and happiness to me.
"The Church deeply appreciates the courtesy of the Chinese leadership in opening up a way to better define how the Church and its members can proceed with daily activities, all in harmony with Chinese law.”Otterson also points out that this agreement reflects the trust that has built up between the LDS Church and Chinese government over the last 30 years, as the Church has demonstrated its willingness to comply with restrictions placed upon it in China. This change will bring great benefits to Chinese members of the church, and to expatriates living in China.
This issue is of significant personal interest to me, because my son recently returned from an LDS mission to England, where most of his proselyting efforts were directed towards Chinese people. He was taught Mandarin, and was able to bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to many Mandarin-speaking people, most of whom were students attending university in England. Some of these students have already returned to China, and others will do so in coming years. This week's announcement means it will be easier for them to practice their religion and receive support from church leaders once they return to their homeland. This will bring inestimable blessings into their lives, and great joy to us, and particularly to my son, who has worried about how these new converts would be able to maintain their commitment to the gospel in a place that is so hostile toward religion.
England is not the only unlikely place to which the LDS Church has sent Mandarin-speaking missionaries. I have known of such missionaries being sent to several states and other countries. Those efforts will surely accelerate in light of this week's announcement. While the church may not be able to proselyte in China, they can still proselyte to Chinese people elsewhere in the world. Now, those people will be able to return to China and enjoy the fellowship of other church members there.
I appreciate the LDS Church's liberal approach on this issue, which recognizes the value of taking the blessings of the gospel to all people, wherever or under whatever circumstances they live. It reminds me of the immigration issue I have discussed earlier. In both situations, the Church's compassionate approach has made it clear that politics will not stop it from fulfilling its mission to share the good news throughout the world. Even godless communists, like illegal aliens, need to experience the love of Christ and the blessings of his atonement. This brings great comfort and happiness to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
