Regarding the Election... I've been asked this a lot lately.

[Bill Peavoy]

What Does the LDS Church Say about Mixing Politics and Moral Issues?

 

[Straight out of the Official LDS Church Leadership Handbook]

 

Sec. 21.1.29   Political and Civic Activity

As citizens, Church members are encouraged to participate in political and governmental affairs... Members are also urged to be actively engaged in worthy causes to improve their communities and make them wholesome places in which to live and rear families.

 

In accordance with the laws of their respective governments, members are encouraged to register to vote, to study issues and candidates carefully, and to vote for individuals whom they believe will act with integrity and sound judgment. Latter-day Saints have a special obligation to seek out, vote for, and uphold leaders who are honest, good, and wise (see D&C 98:10).

 

The Church does not endorse any political party or candidate. Nor does it advise members how to vote. However, in some exceptional instances the Church will take a position on specific legislation, particularly when it concludes that moral issues are involved. 

 

Members are encouraged to support measures that strengthen the moral fabric of society, particularly those designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

[Steve Pedersen]

Bill, 

I would love you to explore this concept more if you would.  I know many people wonder about how much right they have to vote their consciences because they worry they will be perceived as 'pushing their religion"

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MoreGoodMen.com" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to moregoodmen...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to moreg...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/moregoodmen.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Bill Peavoy]

In answer to your inquiry Steve, for deeper study, see the attached 8 pages of General Authority quotes on the subject.  I'm sure there are many more out there if a person wanted to go searching.  One of the problems with this list is that the general authorities so often discuss the U.S. Constitution which I believe puts off many truth seekers from other countries.  I think the point is to find ways to apply these principles in whatever country you are from.

In addition to these, Elder Quentin L. Cook coincidentally gave some specific counsel on this issue in this month's Ensign in his talk titled Act Well Thy Part.  The last 3 paragraphs are of particular interest, especially if you ask yourself, "Why, in this talk regarding our personal self mastery, did he end by addressing our Civic Responsibilities?"  As your reading the final paragraph, you might want to ponder on why he (and other general authorities) seem to separately distinguish "The Church" and "The Kingdom."   Many modern Latter-day Saints see these two as the same thing.  Historically and scripturally, however, there is a difference between the two including the fact that the kingdom of God will eventually include all people, not just members of the Lord's church.  I find it interesting that it is the church who is supposed to support the kingdom, not the other way around.

[last 3 paragraphs]

http://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/10/act-well-your-part?lang=eng

From a non LDS perspective, one book I would strongly recommend is "Legislating Morality" by Geisler and Turek.  In it they add some incredible insight and perspective into the modern misguided libertarian objections such as:

"As long as I don't hurt anyone the government should leave me alone."

"No one should force their morals on anyone else."

"You cannot make people be good."

"Legislating morality violates the separation of church and state."

   and

"Whose Morality Should We Legislate?"

To give you one small taste of the content of that book allow me to copy here one paragraph in which the authors are trying to answer the question, "But isn't morality relative and therefore different from person to person?"

Page 49  "If there is no absolute moral reference point, statements like "Hitler was evil," "Racism is wrong," or "You shouldn't abuse children" have no objective meaning.  They're merely someone's opinion on par with "Chocolate tastes better than vanilla."  But we know Hitler was wrong, as is racism and child abuse, because we have an absolute reference point called the Moral Law."  Then the authors proceed to prove (against the claims of so many modern philosophies) that there is a standard above all others called The Common Moral Law against which all other laws are and should be measured.  In the appendix they show how the standards of The Common Moral Law transcend culture and nationality.

In addition to that book, I recently found out that my mentor and good friend Oliver DeMille is currently finishing the followup to his incredible book LeaderShift (in which he proposed some solutions to the problems occurring at the Federal level in the U.S.) which he will be calling "We Hold These Truths To Be Self Evident" coming out in December, where he focuses clearly on the separation of responsibilities between the very very limited Federal level of government (who should only concern themselves with defending inalienable rights), versus the more detailed and less specific Local/Community level of government (who have to address the more practical things like water and sewage treatment, the operating hours of public parks or chickens running wild in the streets). 

I will be pre-ordering this book as soon as it becomes available.  I am confident it will contain many more detailed answers to these critically important questions.

Bill

[Rob Picolo]

HI Bill,

If i may add a 2 cents worth, I have also heard it taught that the
Church and the Gospel are 2 different things... The Gospel is perfect,
it is complete and contains everything for us to be exalted, whereas
the Church is the vehicle for the Gospel to be spread throughout the
world. In addition to that, the Church is full of imperfect people,
mistakes are made, often inadvertently, there are no mistakes in the
Gospel, while the Church also provides us an opportunity to apply the
principles we are taught in the Gospel in everyday life and "Church"
life through callings.

The Church then becomes the field/place for the application of all the
many things we are taught and learn in the Gospel and from the
Saviour...

That's why (in my opinion) it is important to have a Testimony of the
Gospel as well as the Church, almost as 2 separate entities in some
ways, so when someone says or does something that you either disagree
with or find offensive, we can apply some perspective and realize it
isn't the "Gospel/Church" offending me but someone who is trying to
apply or live the lessons from the Saviour/Gospel, in which case, they
are not perfect as are we, so some slack is always good... :)

Just a thought.

Love reading your guys discussions.

Regards

Rob

Rob Picolo
06 1757 8178

The Dictionary is the only place that success comes before work. Hard
work is the price we must pay for success. I think you can accomplish
anything
if you're willing to pay the price.

Vince Lombardi

[Bill Peavoy]

Thanks Rob. Those were good points.  In the 8 page "Civic Duties" PDF one of my favorite points is on Page 4 where President Benson gives us the 6 Arguments from the devil that reduce the priesthood to sleeping giants in regards to their civic duty. He ends by telling us who could actually be responsible for bringing about civic changes for good, " It would not be those who were sitting on the sidelines prior to that time or those who were appeasing the enemy. It would be those choice spirits who, not waiting to be "commanded in all things" [D&C 58:26], used their own free will, the counsel of the prophets, and the Spirit of the Lord as guidelines and who entered the battle "in a good cause" [D&C 58:27] and brought to pass much righteousness in freedom’s cause. . . ."

I was recently asked by a Cardston voter why I thought that the Sunday Sports issue was so important. This was my answer...

"In reality the Sunday sports thing is a tiny battle I'd be happy to concede. Honestly, if people want to play sports on Sunday, more power to them. Seriously, why would anyone care? However, it is what that law represents in this town that is much more important. It actually represents two things.  

First, it perpetuates the idea that a majority can still choose their laws. Much of what is being legislated in our modern world panders to special interest and minority groups. Finding yourself among a majority these days in considered a negative thing. Truth is, majority rule is still the only rule that makes sense as long as the rights of the minority are not being violated. Granted, when the majority of the people are making bad choices then society suffers, but it is still better than the “elites” telling the people what is best for them (aristocracy). Closing the public parks after 8 pm doesn't take away anyone’s rights. Closing the public parks all day Wednesday would be a bummer, but again wouldn't infringe on anyone’s rights and if Wednesday is within the realm of acceptable, than why not Sunday. Even if the majority actually do have a religious motive, it is still not infringing on anyone’s rights. Contrary to popular belief, people do not have the “right” to use public owned buildings and parks at times and days they are closed. If that bylaw gets changed against the will of the majority it will open the barn door to a number of future bylaw changes where the town bows to the will of the minority (all in the name of inclusion).

Second, it is our moral line drawn in the sand. It would be really difficult to get local citizens to allow alcohol, pornography or gambling as long as they are still fighting for their Sabbath day. Contrary to what others might have us believe, there are some prominent people in town who believe that bringing alcohol to Cardston is the solution to our economic development concerns. They were moving forward with their plans until they saw the incredibly passionate turn out for the Sunday sports thing. Most of them have since abandoned the alcohol issue entirely. That is a major victory for people who still believe it is OK to stand for good moral values. I always knew it was right to uphold moral laws, but it wasn't until I read the book “Legislating Morality” that I could reconcile my desire for good laws with my absolute defense of freedom and liberty. My heroes, the American Founding Fathers, realized the danger in “total” freedom (which in its extreme leads to anarchy) and tried to set up safeguards against it. In their state and local community governments the Founding Fathers were in favor of legislation against immoral behavior. For instance, both adultery and fornication were prosecuted as crimes. George Washington spoke extensively on this issue during his Farewell Address, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." France didn't learn that lesson and they bounced back and forth between horrific anarchy and tyranny for many years during their revolution. It is OK to have moral laws. If you don’t understand this principle it would be very easy to fall into the trap that, in the name of freedom, people should be free to _______ if they want to (fill in the blank with anything; same sex marriage, gambling, prostitution, illegal drugs, etc.). It is OK to legislate against things that are morally destructive. In doing so, you need to be extremely careful and wherever there is doubt it is probably always better to err on the side of too much freedom.

Anyway, that is probably more than you wanted to hear, but that’s how I feel and I see Cardston as one of the few remaining places in North America that can potentially hold out against the influences of Babylon and maintain its unique moral standards through the next decade."

Bill

P.S. I just find it remarkable that according to the Official Handbook of the Church, the only time the church isn't neutral in political affairs is on moral issues. It really helps keep it in perspective when there are so many people today who are trying to remove moral issues from governance. The modern trend is clear and was clearly evidenced by the heavy opposition recently directed toward the Cardston Values Alliance. I'd love to know at what point in the past Adultery stopped being an illegal activity. That was a sad day for true freedom toward the misguided direction of agency without accountability.