I am moving over some posts from an older blog- so the dates are going to be out of order. This is actually from March 2011.
This particular one is an edited version of my response to an acquaintance about a whole myriad of Anti-Obama sentiment coming my way.
Our Prophet and our Church is not going to side with a political party.
But the Church has a history, even very recently, of being POLITICAL. (ERA, abortion, Prop 8 etc.) When there is a real danger in social issues- the Church speaks up- LOUDLY. There is a HUGE difference in talking about/warning of POLITICAL issues and siding with a political party.
Past prophets (though Ezra T. Benson gave his warnings against communism BEFORE he was a prophet) that you mentioned did indeed speak out against socialism and communism. Communism would threaten our ability to practice our faith as we do. It would be a HUGE concern to our leaders. I am telling you- it's not on their radar because if it were- they would be warning of it. President Monson wouldn't have to say republican or democrat, tea party or Obama if he wanted to talk about communism. And yet he hasn't. Not once. Holland and Oaks have given some recent talks on BYU campuses in the last couple of years regarding the constitution, but that is as close as any prophet or apostle speaking about any of Glenn's [Beck] "issues".
I must ask myself why this is. Instead President Monson has repeatedly advised us to be more compassionate and caring, to take better care of each other and serve more. Instead, President Monson added a FOURTH mission of the Church- to care for the poor and needy- and NOT just those that are members of our Church.
The other thing I was going to address was from your initial message... regarding agency. I believe this argument about Obama taking away our agency being like Satan's plan is FULL of flaws. Did you feel your agency was reduced when your government decided to fight a war in the middle east and fund it with taxpayer money? (This was not Obama.) Should I feel that my agency is reduced when my town increases property taxes to pay for our public schools? Is my First Selectman in cahoots with Satan to take away my "agency"? Why was this whole matter of "agency" and Satan's plan not an issue until it involved reformed healthcare for the poor? Does that not seem ironic to you? Wouldn't it be Satan who would encourage us to NOT care for others? (Especially since it is in DIRECT opposition to what our prophet has said at every General Conference?)
This "agency/Satan" argument I believe is attributed to Skousen. Are you aware the that the Church made an official statement in 1979 to advise that Skousen/The Freeman Institute did NOT represent the views of the Church?
Wanna know what Hugh Nibley (albeit not an apostle or a prophet, but an acclaimed LDS scriptural scholar) said about it? In referring to "work ethic" one of the "talking points of weathly":
"...the work ethic which is being so strenuously advocated in our day [1973]... is one of those neat magician's tricks in which all of our attention is focused on one hand while the other hand does the manipulating. Implicit in the work ethic are the ideas 1) that because one must work to acquire wealth,work equals wealth, and 2) that that is the whole equation. With these go the corollaries that anyone who has wealth must have earned it by hard work and is, therefore, beyond criticism; that anyone who doesn't have it deserves to suffer- thus penalizing anyone who doesn't work for money; and (since you have a right to all you earn) the only real work is for one's self; and, finally, any limit set to the amount of wealth an individual may acquire is a satanic device to deprive men of their free agency- thus making a mockery of the Council in Heaven. These editorial syllogisms we have heard a thousand times [and now they are back!], but you will not find them in the scriptures."
("What is Zion- a Distant View" Hugh Nibley. Given as a talk entitled "Waiting for Zion" at BYU on 25 Feb 1973)
No comments:
Post a Comment