Jews and Mormons

Email | Print | Text - Text +

December 4, 2011 | 11:07 pm

Answers to a rabbi, part 2: Do Mormon politicians take orders from Utah?

Posted by Mark Paredes

Photo

Part 1: Mormon temples and Mitt: answer to a rabbi’s question

“I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.” – Joseph Smith

——-

This is the second post written in response to Rabbi Mordecai Schnaidman’s letter to the editor of The Jewish Week. He posed three questions about Mormonism in relation to Mitt Romney’s candidacy. My last post addressed the rabbi’s concerns about LDS temple rites, and I will now address his second question. My standard disclaimer bears repeating: This is not a political blog, and I have no interest in advocating Mitt’s candidacy here.

Q: Since the supreme leader of the Mormon faith is considered by its adherents to be endowed with prophetic powers, might not the independence of a faithful Mormon elected to the presidency of the United States be compromised by his loyalty to his faith’s ultimate authority?

A: Mormons do indeed believe that prophets are indispensable to Israelite worship (Amos 3:7) and are grateful for prophetic guidance. It’s important to note, however, that this guidance follows the pattern established by Joseph Smith of teaching correct and moral and spiritual principles to church members and then letting them work out the details for themselves.

While LDS doctrinal teachings are often clear and unambiguous, they do leave room for individual members, including politicians, to apply them in their own lives. Let’s take the case of gay marriage, which the church clearly opposes. Can an LDS governor, while personally opposing gay marriage, not make its prevention a top priority in his administration? The answer is obviously yes, since that’s what Mitt did while serving as governor of Massachusetts. Of course, another LDS governor could choose to fight gay marriage tooth and nail during his term. In both cases the church’s doctrine is the same, but individual members are free to figure out how best to apply it in their personal and professional lives.

The immigration issue is also an interesting one from a Mormon perspective, since our scriptures teach us both to have charity for others and to be obedient to the laws of our country. Church leaders issued an official statement last June calling for a “balanced” and “civil” approach to the issue. They also criticized state legislation (read “Arizona”) that only contains enforcement provisions for “fall[ing] short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God.” The church also declared its support for legalizing undocumented immigrants “without this necessarily leading to citizenship.” In spite of this statement, the chief sponsor of the Arizona immigration legislation was an LDS state senator, and Mitt Romney currently has one of the toughest anti-illegal immigrant positions in the Republican field (though he held different views during the 2008 campaign).

The LDS Church issues a letter prior to every national U.S. election that is read from the pulpits of every ward (congregation) in the country. The letter encourages members to vote, but emphasizes its political neutrality. The church’s official policy on political neutrality (yes, it has one) includes a statement that the church “does not attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader,” though it does reserve the right to “address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church.” Every other large church in the country also reserves (and in many cases exercises) the right to address important moral issues. 

Could an LDS politician be unduly influenced by the President of the Mormon Church? I think it’s telling that Rabbi Schnaidman and others who have posed similar questions are unable to cite an example of an LDS governor, senator, congressman, cabinet member or mayor who took orders from Salt Lake City. In the specific case of Mitt Romney, although his church opposes abortion and same-sex marriage, he supported abortion rights and gay marriage while serving as governor. It’s highly unlikely that LDS leaders were dictating Massachusetts policy on these moral issues during Mitt’s term. [It’s also unlikely that they told Sen. Harry Reid to advocate public funding of Planned Parenthood’s abortions earlier this year, but I digress]. 

It’s also hard to cite examples of LDS leaders attempting to influence politicians, LDS or not, on political issues. The last example I can think of was the 1981 letter by the church’s top three leaders asking the federal government not to base the MX missile in Utah. Since then, only gay marriage (a moral issue for us) has merited a similar response by top LDS leaders.

In short, there is no history of LDS politicians allowing themselves to be “compromised” by their prophet. There is also no history of LDS prophets attempting to “compromise” presidents. I’m sure that any LDS president would consult with LDS leaders on the moral issues of the day, just as he would with leaders of other faiths. In the end, however, he or she is the one who is elected to run the country. Based on the track records of leading Mormon politicians, there is every reason to believe that they would be able to maintain a necessary division between their spiritual and professional lives.

Part 1: Mormon temples and Mitt: answer to a rabbi’s question

Mark Paredes blogs for the Jewish Journal, the Deseret News, and Meridian Magazine. He will be leading a tour to Israel for Morris Murdock Travel next spring. You can contact Mark at deverareligione@yahoo.com and follow him on Twitter @jewsandmormons.

47 Comments — Leave your comment

Share this post: del.icio.us Favicondel.icio.us Digg FaviconDigg Facebook FaviconFacebook Google FaviconGoogle Reddit FaviconReddit StumbleUpon FaviconStumbleUpon Technorati FaviconTechnorati YahooMyWeb FaviconYahooMyWeb

COMMENTS

We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.

Privacy Policy

Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.

Terms of Service

JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.

Mark writes: “It’s hard to cite examples of LDS leaders attempting to influence politicians.”

And to drive home his point, he includes a photo of Monson and Oaks (Mormon leaders) plus Harry Reid… meeting with our current US president.

Apparently, where citations are lacking, photographic evidence will do in a pinch. wink

Comment by Jason Echols on 12/05/11 at 4:28 am

About the photo shown above of Obama with Pres of Mormon Church:
The church leaders gave the president five large leather-bound volumes by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints tracing back the genealogy of the president’s family, as they did for President George W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/07/president-obama-meets-with-mormon-leaders/

Comment by voiceofreason on 12/05/11 at 7:28 am

Jason, if you’re going to use my quote, please finish it. I wrote that it’s hard to cite examples of LDS leaders attempting to influence politicians ON POLITICAL ISSUES. Thanks, voiceofreason, for your clarification.

Comment by Mark Paredes on 12/05/11 at 7:39 am

How can we still be asking the same questions today, that we did in 1960?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy
Addressing the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September 12, 1960, “I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters – and the Church does not speak for me.”[34] Kennedy questioned rhetorically whether one-quarter of Americans were relegated to second-class citizenship just because they were Catholic, and once stated that, “No one asked me my religion [serving the Navy] in the South Pacific.”

Comment by Kristi on 12/05/11 at 8:43 am

No need to shout, Mark.  We all understand that it’s not politics when you guys do it.

Comment by Jason Echols on 12/05/11 at 9:37 am

LDS Apostle Elder Stapley wrote to Michigan governor George Romney advising him on civil rights issues. I do not claim a conspiracy theory—I only give an example of an LDS leader attempting to influence an LDS politician on a political issue.

http://www.boston.com/news/daily/24/delbert_stapley.pdf

Elder Stapely explicitly attempts to step out of his role as an LDS apostle, but his Apostleship underlies his arguments as he refers the Prophet Joseph Smith,  President McKay, and “the Lord’s position in relation to the Negro.”

It is unclear how far believing members will take the mantra “follow the prophet” and voluntarily conform their opinion to that of their Church leaders.

Comment by Hal Smith on 12/05/11 at 9:43 am

In response to Hal Smith -

I think this could be a concern with any candidate, not just Mormons.  How do we know they won’t allow their minister, rabbi, pope, shaman, etc. to guide their political agenda?  Religious extremism is not confined to Mormonism, and I think Mark Paredes has adequately argued that, for the most part, LDS politicians have successfully seperated their political lives from their spiritual lives.

Comment by Aaron on 12/05/11 at 11:10 am

I, for one, applaud the influence of the LDS church on Utah politics, especially in recent years on such issues as immigration and nondiscrimination ordinances.

Comment by Jason Echols on 12/05/11 at 11:20 am

I don’t think Harry Reid EVER was questioned as to if he would take advice from SLC  

It’s just because the candidate is a Mormon that somehow it is okay to pick apart his ideals.  As far as I can see, Mitt Romney hasn’t had any affairs and not many scandals.  He has supported issues which are blatantly against Mormon doctrine….  Maybe he should be applauded for being a less than staunch Mormon and highly palatable politition - doing what needs to be done to be reelected.  I say stop all the scrutinizing - compared to what is being offered out there as a candidate, he is clearly the one with the highest moral character - irregardless of his religion preference.

Comment by Voiceofreason on 12/05/11 at 11:21 am

As long religion is a factor in elections then considering the influences of a candidate’s religion is valid as well. If we consider the influence of lobbyists on a candidate, why not religion.

The LDS Church mobilized it’s membership to nearly universally support Prop 8. Also, Mormons covenant in LDS Temples to “consecrate (them)selves, (their) time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed (them), or with which he may bless (them), to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.”

Such obedience to leadership and devotion to a faith should be considering Romney for president.

Comment by LDSRevelations on 12/05/11 at 11:49 am

If, as they say, all politics is local, then consider this:  Living in Utah since 1969, I have yet to hear a Mayor of Salt Lake City or a Governor of Utah suggest that the LDS Church has attempted to influence local politics in any undue way.  I agree with Vocieofreason’s concept that it seem OK to pick apart “Mormons” as easy sport.  Note Jason Echol’s misquotes above as evidence of the lengths some will go to.  Imagine the indignation if we suggested that Rev. Wright (of Obama fame) had made statements of any political nature.  (Yes, I suggest that tongue-in-cheek.)

Comment by Don Ormsby on 12/05/11 at 12:18 pm

Thank you Don Ormsby.  I agree with you   Based on past political involvement- one need not fear the LDS church meddling in on policy, etc.  I think that intentionally steering clear is the protocol to avoid all appearance of impropriety

As for prop 8, it is true the lds church got involved, but is it not a church’s duty to support morality in a community?  We are in strange times, what is wrong with defending the definition of an ancient institution instated by God himself to the first mortals on this planet?

Comment by Voiceofreason on 12/05/11 at 1:19 pm

On the internet it says that Obama’s mother was posthumously baptized by the Mormons on 4 June 2008, and that she received the temple endowment via proxy by someone in Provo, Utah on the 11 June, 2008.  What were Obama’s thoughts about the baptism of her mother as a Mormon?

Comment by celeritas on 12/05/11 at 4:47 pm

Be careful believing everything it says on the Internet.  For example, I ran across this comment but surely this can’t be right:

“Don’t forget the meeting the church has with the Utah legislature just before their session begins every year telling them what they expect of them.  Very hard to fine evidence. LOL.”

Comment by Jason Echols on 12/05/11 at 5:23 pm

Still, I’m wondering how this FOX News headline happened:

Group Wants Mormon Church Blocked From Future Liquor Law Debates

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/01/group-wants-mormon-church-blocked-from-future-liquor-law-debates/

Utah Hospitality Association explains their lawsuit: “I think we’ve felt this for a long time. The church ought to butt out of state business.”

FOX wouldn’t just make something up, would they?

Comment by Jason Echols on 12/05/11 at 5:34 pm

In the original article there is a quoted statement by the LDS Church that applies to the liquor situation: “The church’s official policy on political neutrality (yes, it has one) includes a statement that the church “does not attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader,” though it does reserve the right to “address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church.” Every other large church in the country also reserves (and in many cases exercises) the right to address important moral issues.”

Comment by Don Ormsby on 12/05/11 at 5:52 pm

Churches have historically been a strong voice for moral standards.  Individuals may not like the idea, but if there is no moral demarcation, there are no morals.  While liberal humanists believe that only their point of view is “moral”, there is ample historical evidence that reasonable religious input into society has, with few exceptions, led to a more civil and humane society.  May I suggest that the Decalogue stands as a prime example?

Comment by Don Ormsby on 12/05/11 at 5:54 pm

Mr. Ormsby:  Again, well said!  Bravo on both counts.

Comment by voiceofreason on 12/05/11 at 8:47 pm

I don’t think you guys have thought through the problems that arise when you suggest that every instance of LDS political involvement is predicated on moral concerns.

Comment by Jason Echols on 12/05/11 at 9:19 pm

Thank you, Voiceofreason.  Well, Mr. Echols, I would be pleased to continue the discussion if you would like to enlarge on your comment.  And if the moderators of this page feel we should move the discussion elsewhere, please let us know.  I would be happy to provide my personal email if anyone wishes to engage in friendly discussion.

Comment by Don Ormsby on 12/05/11 at 10:58 pm

The general public is not aware that the restored gospel
brought with it all the blessings that are unique to the
United States of America. Those who say they are Christians and regard the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a cult are envious of LDS high
standards and trying to protect their investments in the
“Jesus Industry unlimited”. Only illiterates can be
easily deceived, shocking to discover gullibility in
the United States of America many wishing to eat their
cake and have it. Another example of absolute freedom
sitting on top of common sense.

Comment by Sam ' Momoh on 12/06/11 at 12:14 am

Mark, thank you for initiating this discussion.
I do wish to point out that the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the State constituion required gay marriage, and the Democrat controlled state legislature refused to consider any measures to amend the State constitution to overturn that ruling. Romney lacked legal authority to ignore that ruling. But he did locate a state law that made it illegal to allow residents of other states to marry in Massachsetts if those marriages would be invalid in their home states. By enforcing that law, Romney prevented the Massachusetts state supreme court from enabling gay marriage in other states.

Comment by Raymond Takashi Swenson on 12/06/11 at 8:05 am

After Ambassador Guttman’s remarks in Belgium why do we worry about the LDS? Our own betray Israel!!

Comment by Honey Bee on 12/06/11 at 8:57 am

Raymond - many thanks to you and others who wrote to me on Mitt and gay marriage in MA. As a result, I have slightly edited the offending sentence. I appreciate your taking the time to write.

Comment by Mark Paredes on 12/06/11 at 12:47 pm

People who pick apart Mormon involvement in political issues seem to have no problem with the National Council of Churches, which has been mixing religion with politics for decades - or with the Unitarian Church, which in practice is little more than a liberal political agenda.  As a Mormon and former Unitarian I find this rather amusing.

Comment by L.L.Edmiston on 12/07/11 at 11:22 am

The Church endorsed the cleverly crafted pro-amnesty Utah Compact, and lobbied state legislators to defeat targeted immigration; and was involved in the recall of Arizona Senate President Pearce who “too” tough on protect the borders. Local Mormon leaders led parishioners to oppose Pearce and support another Mormon that they claimed “was more faithful to the Prophet” instead.

The Mormon Church slanted Prop 8 from a political football into a “moral” issue

So much for the Church’s pretended political neutrality. It appears that while the Mormon Prophet may not directly cajole, the Church bureaucracy has no such scruples at pressuring politicians to fall into line.

Comment by Kara Stone on 12/08/11 at 2:53 am

The Atlantic magazine published a very good article today regarding the similaries between Mormons and Jews:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/could-mitt-romney-be-the-first-jewish-president/247882/

Comment by voiceofreason on 12/08/11 at 7:20 am

Don, here’s an example of what I was referring to:

http://blogs.standard.net/the-political-surf/2011/12/13/lds-church-through-church-news-praised-hitler-nazi-germany/

Comment by Jason Echols on 12/13/11 at 1:54 pm

Jason, you should write a book, call the book “
The Proticals of the Elders of Utah” JFK’s father supported the Nazis also.

Comment by Honey Bee on 12/13/11 at 3:32 pm

Honey Bee- Perhaps you could comment on Ezra Taft Benson’s foreword to this book:  http://www.affirmation.org/images/covers/the_black_hammer.gif

Was Benson’s opposition to Civil Rights “moral”?  Some interesting thoughts here:  “Making Sense of Ezra Taft Benson, Civil Rights and Glenn Beck” 

http://dagblog.com/reader-blogs/making-sense-ezra-taft-benson-civil-rights-and-glenn-beck-7492

I suspect that many Mormons would argue that Benson’s politics were separate from his work as an apostle and prophet of the Mormon church.  Were they?

Comment by Jason Echols on 12/13/11 at 5:13 pm

Jason Echols:  I read with great interest the article you referenced.  Frankly, I do not see any connection to your original point.  To suggest that an article written by an LDS author, even in a Deseret News publication, in some way represents a church endorsement of Hitlerian politics is a fanciful stretch of the imagination.  Indeed, the views on Hitler by many people in 1933 were a far cry from those same folks’ views only one year later.  It was not only the author of the article that found himself deceived, but most of the world fell victim to the wiles of Hitler’s lies.

Comment by Don Ormsby on 12/13/11 at 7:31 pm

Don- I read it as an example of how whatever happens to be currently contested/supported in the public arena by LDS gets characterized as a moral struggle.  Only later, if/when it’s discredited as public policy, does it get re-assigned and dismissed by later LDS as simply politics.

Comment by Jason Echols on 12/14/11 at 4:41 am

Jason:  You are welcome to your read on the issue, but I can tell you with complete surety that articles published in the Church News are specifically noted as carrying no weight in the arena of either establishing doctrine or policy, with the possible exception of an article reporting on some matter specifically announced as such.  In regard to E.T. Benson, it is a tenet of the LDS faith that a person is free to pursue a political posture as a representative of his own personal point of view, but one ought not to represent it as an official position of the church.  The church has a formal and well-defined process of announcing its stand on issues, if and when it takes a stand.

Comment by Don Ormsby on 12/14/11 at 7:11 am

Jason, I live in the South.  I remember when racist attitudes were the privailing attitudes.  But times have changed, Thank G-d, even among the hard-shelled.  So give the LDS some slack. Benson was only a man of his times and those times have passed.

Comment by Honey Bee on 12/14/11 at 9:28 am

Honey Bee- I’d be curious to read your explanation of the ban (pre-1978) against extending the priesthood to black members of the LDS church.

I’m entirely prepared to cut the LDS some slack, but please humor me and let me know your thoughts on why/how that ban ever came about.

Comment by Jason Echols on 12/14/11 at 9:07 pm

Jason: Trusting that you are seeking a better understanding of LDS thought, I would suggest you study the following exposition on the situation with blacks and the LDS Church.  It will answer most of the questions you may have, hopefully to your satisfaction, as it has to mine.  http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_LDS_Church_and_the_Race_Issue.html

Comment by Don Ormsby on 12/14/11 at 9:49 pm

I own this DVD, Don:

http://www.untoldstoryofblackmormons.com/

Fascinating stuff.  FAIR’s apologetics notwithstanding, the average Mormon of a certain age still carries around offensive explanations for the ban (in my experience).

Comment by Jason Echols on 12/15/11 at 4:20 am

Did you see that horrendous bomb dropped by MSNBC regarding the “Keep America American” statement by Romney?  MSNBC said it was a KKK slogan from the 1920’s and later in the day apologized.  (After the damage was done).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/12/14/msnbc_likens_romney_to_the_kkk_with_his_keep_america_american_slogan.html
and
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/chris-matthews-apologizes-for-appalling-lack-of-judgment-in-msnbc-story_b102583

Comment by voiceofreason on 12/15/11 at 5:33 am

Kudos for the exquisite non sequitur, voiceofreason.

Comment by Jason Echols on 12/15/11 at 11:21 pm

Jason, I do not beieve in collective guilt.

Comment by Honey Bee on 12/16/11 at 3:35 pm

Bottom line:  By their fruits (works) ye shall know them.  As a believer in the Mormon faith, I have NO problem with a Mormon in the White House.  Keeping a current temple reccommend is quite a high bar to jump:  Keeping the Sabbath day holy (Sunday), Being honest with your fellow man, Paying a FULL tithe, etc.
I have a firm conviction that the Prophet is truly called of God.  This belief is not held by many in the world, but does not change the facts. Mormons are GOOD people, I know this for myself.  No one is perfect, but Mormons try really hard (a lot of them anyway).

Comment by voiceofreason on 1/16/12 at 8:45 am

I loved the quote about the Jews planning to buld a temple in Jerusalem - when it came up what will they do in there, the response was “I don’t know, go ask the Mormons”—Here’s the quote:  “I was in Jerusalem being guided through recent excavations in a tunnel to the left of the present “wailing wall” of the old temple. In that tunnel we saw Jewish rabbis praying for the day that the third temple would be built in Jerusalem. We were told that someone had asked Israel’s famous archeologist, Yigael Yadin, what would they do in the temple if rebuilt. His reply: “I don’t know. Ask the Mormons. They’ll know.”  (—Mormon faith is truly the ancient religion restored.)

Comment by voiceofreason on 1/16/12 at 8:50 am

I just went to a beautiful wedding reception over the weekend - a Jewish man who converted to Mormonism and his non Jewish Mormon wife - their son who they raised in the Mormon faith married in the Salt Lake Temple.  Lovely.  I know how hard it is, crossing the line into Christianity is forbidden by those presiding in your faith.

Comment by voiceofreason on 1/16/12 at 8:53 am

It appears Mitt Romney will be president, the attacks on Mormons will increase in the coming months, to be sure.  The gloves will be coming off.  The recent attack piece - picked up by the media of a Youtube video stating that Romney’s faith is racist, as blacks were not given the priesthood until the mid 1970s.  http://youtu.be/RckqB2u9r3k http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/53281720-90/romney-huntsman-video-campaign.html.csp
These types of things will continue, but will not harm the faith called Mormonism because it is true. Brigham Young stated: Every time you kick ‘Mormonism’ you kick it upstairs; you never kick it downstairs. The Lord Almighty so orders it.

Comment by voiceofreason on 1/16/12 at 8:56 am

Just look at all of the attention the church has received from the slanderous “Book of Mormon Musical” selling out to large crowds on Broadway.  People who havent seen it, but have seen the advertisements for it are opening up their doors to the real Mormon Missionaries they see in their neighborhoods—excidely saying:  Aren’t they running a Broadway Show about you guys?!

Well, all I am saying is the buzz word for the next 10 months will be Mormon, for better or worse.  It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.  Romney appears to be the one who will be the next President - he’s too good.  Who wouldn’t vote for such a clean cut guy with no immoral baggage?

Comment by voiceofreason on 1/16/12 at 8:57 am

The very fact that the late Elder Stapley’s letter was even publicized should demonstrate that Mitt’s father thought ill of the then-Apostle’s attitudes on race and civil rights.  But heck, only ten years previously, Stapley’s fellow Apostle, one Mark E. Petersen, in speaking at BYU, championed the “right” of the “Negro” to drive a CADILLAC if he could afford one (well, thank yuh, Massah Mark, foah lettin’ us po’ dum’ darkies drive dem Caddy-lacs!).  I’m sure both brethren were good-hearted but their attitudes towards races could be best described as “quaint”.  Likewise my kids probably think me “quaint” as well.

Comment by Douglas on 1/20/12 at 11:30 pm

I would loooove a new Escalade!  Those are SHARP!

Comment by jody on 1/21/12 at 9:32 am

Post a Comment

Name:  
Email:  

Type the word you see below:

Comment:



About this Blog

Blog Home
About the Blogger(s)
Contact

RSS


Blog Archive






Newspaper

Serving a community of 600,000, The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles is the largest Jewish weekly outside New York City. Our award-winning paper reaches over 150,000 educated, involved and affluent readers each week. Subscribe here.

© Copyright 2012 Tribe Media Corp.
All rights reserved. JewishJournal.com is hosted by Nexcess.net. Homepage design by Koret Communications.
Widgets by Mijits. Site construction by Hop Studios.

counter fake hit page