Should politicians heed their prophet or pope?

One day he's dissing gay activists as immoral "buggers" and perhaps the "greatest threat" to the nation. Then, he's embracing anti-discrimination legislation and conceding the "right" gay residents have to job and housing protections.

In November, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced its support of Salt Lake City's measures safeguarding gay and transgender residents from discrimination.

Suddenly, Buttars, R-West Jordan, and his Mormon colleagues on the right who had vigorously -- and vociferously -- opposed such laws faced a choice: Should they back or buck their church?

This same "follow the prophet" pressure gripped LDS liberals when the Utah-based church came out in favor of California's Proposition 8, defining marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. For Latter-day Saints, adherence to their prophet's instructions is more than an abstract notion. It is repeated often from the pulpit and written into the Mormon identity.

Roman Catholic lawmakers bump into similar dilemmas when the pope or bishops weigh in on issues from abortion to health care to capital punishment. How much deference, if any, do politicians of faith owe to their ecclesiastical leaders, especially in religions with top-down hierarchies?

Catholics regard their leaders as stand-ins for Christ who speak on moral issues with an undeniable authority. The church's catechism states "the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms."

"Whenever people claim, 'the church says,' that's a clue that one side [of the debate] is trying to shut down the other," says Alpine resident Charles Randall Paul, a Mormon and president of the Foundation for Interreligious Diplomacy. "It's possible for Mormons to say, 'You're a prophet, but I think you're wrong about this.' "

Like many religious people, Kristine Haglund, an LDS writer in Boston, embraces statements by church leaders "that tend to confirm my prejudices, and [looks] for ways to rationalize, historicize, relativize or contextualize the ones that are challenging."

Still, Haglund, editor of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought , says she takes seriously the idea that the Holy Spirit can help members know when the LDS prophet is speaking for God.

"In the absence of that witness," she says, "I feel that God expects me to exercise my own intellect and the capacity for moral judgment that is a gift to all God's children to arrive at a position that seems reasonable and just."

But that's a complicated, messy process. What if not everyone arrives at the same conclusion?

Latter-day dilemma » At some point in their careers, all Mormon politicians face the prospect that their opinions could diverge from LDS stands on issues such as women's rights, abortion, euthanasia, immigration, same-sex marriage, liquor laws or even what to do with a particular block of downtown Salt Lake City.

"If the church takes a position on a public-policy issue contrary to popular sentiment, as a public official, I have two choices: Either I follow the will of the people and be popular or follow my faith leaders, risking the rejection of the voters," says Stuart Reid, a former Salt Lake City councilman. "When faced with this dilemma, it's my guiding principle that devoted Mormons involved in politics should always choose to follow their faith leaders no matter their own personal views or the political consequences."

Reid, now an Ogden developer who lost a bid for Salt Lake City mayor, says he "held to that principle and experienced the consequences."

For its part, the LDS Church long has said it is politically neutral and, even on those occasions when it takes a stand, members usually are free to follow their conscience without facing church sanctions. Mormon voters, however, may not approve of politicians who seem to either blindly follow or openly disagree with the church.

Utah legislators who are LDS mention the need to balance their respect for Mormon officials with representing the voters who elected them.

"I am a really devout, committed member and believe strongly in the tenets of the religion. I take seriously whatever positions the church takes on a particular issue," says Rep. Ronda Menlove, R-Garland, whose husband is an LDS stake president. "I am also a pragmatist, [so] not all of my votes are driven by what the LDS Church says."

She -- like Sens. Lyle Hillyard, R-Logan, and Curt Bramble, R-Provo -- agrees with the LDS Church's endorsement of the city's anti-discrimination ordinances (also adopted by Salt Lake County), but Menlove is cautious about how broadly to apply them in the state.

Lawmakers reached a tenuous truce last week delaying any action for or against such statutes until next year. The buzz around the Capitol was that some LDS lawmakers were ready to defy their faith's leaders and strike down Salt Lake City's anti-discrimination ordinances even though the church had urged legislators to leave them intact.

"I am concerned about some elements in the Salt Lake City statutes," Hillyard says. "I represent my constituency, and I suspect if the City Council [members] in Logan wanted to do it, they would have."

The longtime Republican senator says if he disagreed with Mormon officials, he would feel comfortable taking a different position.

"I understand," Hillyard says, "they have a perspective not only of Salt Lake City but of Utah and the world that may be different than my constituents'."

LDS legislators also are divided on immigration policies, although their church has urged a "compassionate" approach.

"My constituency has been very adamant in support of legal immigration," Sen. Karen Morgan, D-Cottonwood Heights, says, "and I've been pretty firm with that position. I haven't been influenced by any one religious organization, whether my own or anyone else's."

For his part, Bramble, who grew up Methodist and attended Notre Dame and then Brigham Young University, where he joined the LDS Church, says he never has found himself at odds with his faith.

"The stands they have taken have not been inconsistent with my own personal philosophy," says Bramble, who opposed last year's Common Ground initiative that included housing and employment safeguards for gays but now supports Salt Lake City's statutes. "It's a chicken-or-the-egg question."

"Ecclesiastical positions and political positions are not the same thing," he says, referring particularly to the church's views on immigration. "I certainly know the church's position on compassion for all human beings, but I don't think it's appropriate for any church to be in the position of enforcing immigration laws."

Catholic model » There are as many ways of responding to issues as there are Catholics and politicians, but the church has clear moral teachings on issues such as abortion, euthanasia, stem-cell research, same-sex marriage, immigration, health care and social justice. It teaches, for example, that abortion is wrong, that people ought not be involved and that government ought not support it.

What about Catholic politicians, then, who support abortion rights? Are they, to use the faith's vernacular, "wrongfully cooperating with evil"?

Some bishops, including former Utah Bishop William Weigand, now retired in Sacramento, Calif., believe such politicians should not take Communion during Mass.

"As your bishop," he said in a 2003 homily, "I have to say clearly that anyone, politician or otherwise, who thinks it is acceptable for a Catholic to be pro-abortion is in very great error, puts his or her soul at risk and is not in good standing with the church."

Some go further and argue that Catholics who vote for such politicians should be denied Communion.

Notre Dame theologian and legal scholar Cathleen Kaveny opposes such sanctions, which she believes politicize the issues, without considering a politician's motivations. She also points to difficulties facing other public officials.

"Should a district judge quit rather than issue a decision that supports Roe v. Wade? Most Catholics would say no. That's not within his scope," Kaveny says. "When are you allowed to go along with something and when do you have to stop and say, 'I can't do that?' "

The strong emphasis on obedience to authority in Catholicism is matched by an equally strong emphasis upon individual conscience as "the voice of God inside us," explains Mathew Schmalz, a Catholic who teaches Mormon studies at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass. "One's conscience might very well dictate that one has to disobey that teaching in special circumstances. I am required to take [church teaching] seriously and to critically examine my own conscience if I disagree."

As a Catholic, Sen. Ross Romero, D-Salt Lake City, respects Utah Bishop John Wester on his faith's overall teachings, but disagrees on some public-policy issues.

"I would be strongly in favor of counseling any family member about alternatives to abortion, and I would encourage adoption or foster care that would accommodate for that life," he says. "Yet, legislatively, I don't believe it is appropriate for the government to be overly engaged in that decision-making for individuals. As a matter of public policy, I have defended a woman's right to choose."

Romero also backs capital punishment, while his church opposes it. He does align with the bishops on welcoming and not punishing those coming to America for a better life.

The church has a role relative to "advancing the human condition," Romero says. "Elected officials share that role but also have the additional burden for public safety, knowing who is in our community and that they're behaving well, not committing crimes and that they're not manipulated or abused in a black market."

Romero says he recently met with Wester to discuss upcoming legislation, much as other legislators huddled with LDS officials.

Catholic bishops are free to talk about morality, says Patrick Shea, a Utah attorney and former director of the Bureau of Land Management under President Bill Clinton, "but cannot and should not, in ecclesiastical roles, speak on ethics. That is a secular matter suited for give and take in the marketplace of ideas."

Shea, a Jesuit-trained Catholic, was outraged by the bishops' opposition to health-care reform because they feared government funds would go toward abortions.

"The idea that some nuanced and Machiavellian statements from bishops sitting in Washington would negate the opportunity for 40 million Americans who don't have health insurance is incongruous and, in my judgment, immoral," Shea says. "I am against abortion, but I don't think Roe v. Wade should be set aside. It is the law of the land."

Shea, who doesn't think there has been a good pope since John XXIII died in 1963, says he would take advice from Weigand or from Monsignor Terrence Fitzgerald, the Salt Lake City Diocese's vicar general.

But when the bishops "cross the wall and move from morality to ethics," he says, "they have no greater credibility than the bus driver or the garbage man."

From the article: One day he's dissing gay activists as immoral "buggers" and perhaps the "greatest threat" to the nation. Then, he's embracing anti-discrimination legislation and conceding the "right" gay residents have to job and housing protections. What swayed state Sen. Chris Buttars? His church. Suddenly, Buttars, R-West Jordan, and his Mormon colleagues on the right who had vigorously -- and vociferously -- opposed such laws faced a choice: Should they back or buck their church?

From the article: "I am a really devout, committed member and believe strongly in the tenets of the religion. I take seriously whatever positions the church takes on a particular issue," says Rep. Ronda Menlove, R-Garland, whose husband is an LDS stake president. "I am also a pragmatist, [so] not all of my votes are driven by what the LDS Church says."

The spirit of Ezra Taft Benson lives on...

I suppose the actions of the lds church in this matter would explain the warm welcome they gave to Dingy Harry Reid and in also giving him a platform in the lds colleges so he could talk to college students.

The lurch into liberalism demonstrated by the church leaders and the subsequent lemmings jumping over the cliff in following their church is of great significance.

The fact that elected mormon representatives of Utah voters are now following in lockstep with their church “leaders” as opposed to following the will of their constituents is quite telling.

Which way is the wind blowing today? Or has the thinking been done and they are not to question or criticize their “leaders” even if the criticism is warranted?

I can’t speak for anything regarding LDS faith and practices.

However, I can say that any Catholic, particularly a Catholic politician, has the obligation to form his conscience according to the teachings of the Church. Once he does that, his actions will naturally follow.

Unfortunately, we have a couple of generations whose consciences were either not formed or malformed.

I pray that the efforts of the Holy Father (and those few bishops who are not suffering from the same malformation as the rest of society) will prove fruitful.

In conclusion let us summarize this grand key, these “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet”, for our salvation depends on them.

1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true. If we want to know how well we stand with the Lord then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His mortal captain—how close do our lives harmonize with the Lord’s anointed—the living Prophet—President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency.

Ezra Taft Benson

(Address given Tuesday, February 26, 1980 at Brigham Young University)

From the article: "If the church takes a position on a public-policy issue contrary to popular sentiment, as a public official, I have two choices: Either I follow the will of the people and be popular or follow my faith leaders, risking the rejection of the voters," says Stuart Reid, a former Salt Lake City councilman. "When faced with this dilemma, it's my guiding principle that devoted Mormons involved in politics should always choose to follow their faith leaders no matter their own personal views or the political consequences."

Now, I just wonder what Mitt Romney's response would be to that? It's one thing for Utah-theocracy politicians to "follow their faith leaders", but how would the flipper talk his way out of that statement in regards to POTUS?

I have a strong suspicion that after four years of the muslim-atheist Obama in office, there will be a strong aversion to electing a president who has taken the vow of consecration in the mormon temple....

"The Law of Consecration

One of the covenants we make with the Lord when we receive our temple endowments is to live the law of consecration. The Lord has called this law a celestial law, under which we give our time, talents, and possessions to build the Lord’s kingdom.

• Read Doctrine and Covenants 88:22 and D&C 105:1–5. Why must we understand the law of consecration and be willing to live it?

Concerning this law the Prophet Joseph Smith said, “A religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation” (Lectures on Faith [1985], 69).

As the Prophet explained, we must develop the kind of faith that will lead us to eternal life. Such faith comes as we put the things of God’s kingdom first in our lives. "

VOW of consecration in LDS temple ritual.

"You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, 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."

NOTE: "The Kingdom of God" described here does not refer to the Kingdom of God as most Christians believe, and ZION is described here: "Zion is often used in this way to refer to the Lord's people or to the Church and its stakes (see D&C 82:14). It has also been used to refer to specific geographical locations. "

I suppose the actions of the Church in this matter would explain the warm welcome they gave to Dingy Harry Reid and in also giving him a platform in the BYU so he could talk to college students. (edit)

***

By the way there was no warm welcome and not many students attened!

Just remember-
The apostle Judas Iscariot had a seat at the Lord’s Last Supper Which means Jesus gave Judas every opportunity to exercise his will to do the right thing.

Mainstream faith does not seem understand something that was given to all mankind free will as it says in

For it is said “Choose ye this day, whom ye will serve.”

(in the days of one probation before it is too late!)

Our discernment tells us to proceed with caution...

The Lord tells us
John 8

15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.

None of us mortals knows for sure the hearts and minds like the Lord.

Lets see what some of those quotes look like if abortion is replaced with something else abhorent:

“Shea, a Jesuit-trained Catholic, was outraged by the bishops’ opposition to health-care reform because they feared government funds would go toward cannabalism.”

“I am against cannabalism, but I don’t think Dahmer v. Wade should be set aside. It is the law of the land.”

“I would be strongly in favor of counseling any family member about alternatives to cannabalism, and I would encourage fast food take out that would accommodate for that cannabal feast.”

“Yet, legislatively, I don’t believe it is appropriate for the government to be overly engaged in that decision-making for individuals. As a matter of public policy, I have defended a woman’s right to eat other humans.”

Pretty disgusting. Also, according to the Church, the death penalty doesn’t compare to abortion at all, although some bishops would love top give that impression.

Freegards

See the problem with conversation is it out to be an open exchange but, when one side decides to take a global view of how they are going to manage the conversation then there is no personal interaction.

There is just one side saying that is how it is.

I mean really, who says “The question he should have asked is”?

Conversations start at different points of information learned not where you want to start.

It’s a little like someone asking about Christ and then you say “The question he should have asked.....” and then going back to the story of of Jesus birth or even going back to Old Testament.

God’s message can start from just about anywhere.

Resty, it doesn’t HOW MANY attended. The mere fact that Harry Reid is the living embodiment and represents the antithesis of lds beliefs and that the lds church even INVITED him is proof enough to me that their idealogy is subject to corruption. Just because he’s an “elected representative who happens to be lds” should not give him an open audience to the easily manipulated minds of college students.

I don’t care if it was 1 student or 1 million, the lds afforded that piece of garbage a platform in lds facilities with lds support witht the approval of lds “leadership” in which he could spew his liberal garbage. The lds church retains the responsibility.

The fact that they REFUSE to excommunicate him for his announced positions on abortion indicates that their belief in Christian morals and principles is lacking.

You fail to remain on topic again. You missed the point COMPLETELY. And posting the clips of scriptures does nothing to further your argument. It only shows that you are too emotionally biased to view anything that does not conform with your thought process as legitimate.

Interesting, now I’m “judging” when I post the FACTS! And you are a MIND READER to boot when you claim I want to deny “free agency” to others. Get a grip. You’re losing your grasp on reality.

You don’t think that the lds could have picked someone who was more appropriate? Why Harry Reid Resty? Why!?

I’m not denying anyone’s free agency Resty, I’m saying the lds church OWNS Harry Reid, they brought him in as an EXAMPLE to their children. Is he an EXAMPLE of lds beliefs? Would you allow your children to be in the audience with other students to listen to that piece of liberal garbage?

If not, why allow unfettered access to the youth of the church? Why does he still have a temple recommend Resty? Is it because his “speaking abilities” are so good? You claim he’s a MINO, yet the presidency of your church doesn’t believe that, otherwise they would have yanked his temple recommend and excommunicated him years ago.

Isn’t there a better example of “speaking abilities” within the lds church that could have been brought in for the students to learn from? Why Harry Reid?

Again, you fail to stay on topic and COMPLETELY miss the point.

Good day.

Are Mormon marriages different? Is divorce allowed?

Mormon marriages are different from most marriages because they are considered eternal. If a husband and wife are sealed together in the temple, they can be together on into the celestial kingdom. However, the church does have a process for annulment and sees divorce as an unfortunately necessary evil. In Mormon President Gordon Hinckley's words: "There is now and again a legitimate cause for divorce. I am not one to say that it is never justified. But I say without hesitation that this plague among us, which seems to be growing everywhere, is not of God, but rather is the work of the adversary of righteousness and peace and truth."

Just as a civil marriage does not automatically translate into a temple sealing for a Mormon couple, a civil divorce does not unseal them. If a divorcing couple wishes to become unsealed, they must receive a cancellation of sealing, which requires approval from high-ranking church officials. A Mormon woman must receive a cancellation of sealing prior to remarrying if she wishes her next marriage to be sealed in the temple. However, because men are permitted to be sealed to more than one woman, they do not have to cancel a previous sealing in order to remarry in the temple.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.