Conference tecrus::mormonism

    To what extent is the state of Utah a theocracy?

    Good question,
    
        
    technically - no
    
    If by that you mean is the state of Utah governed by the LDS church.
    The state of Utah has a system of government similar to many other
    states. ie House of representatives, senate, and governor.
    Since the majority of those in Utah are LDS (at least by name) the
    members of the church can have great influence on what is done.
    
    That does not mean that the church influences who is elected.  They
    very emphatically avoid all endorsements of any kind, even to the
    extent that any political activity cannot take place in a church
    building. 
    
    Members of the church are encouraged to learn about candidates, issues
    etc. and then vote as they see fit.
    
    The church itself does occasionally voice an opinion on specific kinds
    of issues.  They are generally on issues that the church feels are moral
    in nature.  Even in these cases the influence of the church is restricted
    to lobbying.  No member of the state legislature is ever "threatened"
    with his membership if he dosen't vote "right"                       
    
    A lot of things are blamed on the church that are really common sense
    and generally accepted elsewhere, but some see them as "oppressive"
    because it is done in Utah.  For example our "indoor clean air act".
    This law prohibits smoking in public places except in designated areas.
    When this law was enacted many decried it as "those mormons" forcing
    their standards on everybody.  But the same law or similar ones were
    in other states.  (even at digital now)
    
    Anyway the LDS church does have a great influence but Utah is definitly
    not a theocracy.
    
    Later,
    Russell Murray
    

If persons interested in this topic haven't already read them, there are
two notes that relate to this topic.

Note 70 contains the statement Russell referred to that prohibits political
activity in Church owned buildings.

Note 188 discusses charges from "The God Makers" that the Church has
put a "Zion Curtain" around Utah.

The keyword POLITICS connects these notes together.

    
    There are two very disturbing trends in Utah politics: 1)the church's
    influence is pervasive and 2) its influence is constantly denied.
    Let me illustrate: a couple of years ago Calvin Rampton (former
    governor of Utah) wrote an article which appeared in the Salt Lake
    tribune, wherein he said that the church does not need to have a
    formal lobby because there are so many elected representatives who
    are former bishops, stake presidents, regional representatives,
    etc. WHO KNOW HOW THE CHURCH FEELS ABOUT THINGS and vote "the church
    line." About the same time as the Rampton article, the utah State
    liquer laws were up for revision: the revision was made by J. Bonner
    Ritchie (sp?) who was chairman of the state liquer commission and
    head of the Department of Organizational Behavior at Brigham Young
    University.Everybody in the state, practically, agreed that the
    laws needed revision, and everyone liked (almost everyone, that
    is) Ritchie's revisions, but literally not one single senator or
    representative was willing to sign on as a sponsor of such a bill
    UNTIL THE CHURCH OFFICIALLY ENDORSED IT and gate it their nod.
    Then, EVERYBODY wanted to be a co-sponsor. That little bruhaha
    hit the national press.
    Most recently, in a specific instance, the church (which is not
    an officially registered lobbying organization in Utah) lobbied
    against a particular law that destroyed a man's business, and the
    man is now suing the church.
    I am saddened by the degree to which our Utah legislators are in
    the back pocket of the Church: no, they're not on the take (like
    many Mass. legislators are) but in a lot of ways, what they do is
    worse: they're elected to represent the people of the state not
    the church of the state, and even though most of the people are
    LDS, there are clear examples when public sentiment is not the
    equivalent of church sentiment in Utah. When that happens, almost
    always, public sentiment is the loser and church politics win out.
    Yet we deny, and deny, and deny that it happens although we can
    see it plainly.
    John
    

    
    I smashed out the previous response without spell-checking anything
    like "liquor", some punctuation, etc. Sorry about that.
    jpr

    Re: Note 220.3 by CIMNET::REEVES

>   There are two very disturbing trends in Utah politics: 1)the church's
>   influence is pervasive and 2) its influence is constantly denied.
    
    Of course the LDS church has a great influence. When perhaps 75% of the
    people are members of the church, a church which has some pretty
    definite opinions on subjects like tobacco, liquor, abortion, and
    others, then it is not surprising for that influence to be evident in
    the politics of the state, if the state claims to represent the people
    who live in it. Of course, those in the minority will ardently claim
    that it was the church, and not the people of the state that made the
    political decisions. 
    
    You say the influence is constantly denied. It depends on what type of
    influence you are talking about. Does the church tell its members how
    to vote? NO! Does the church tell the LDS legislators how to vote? NO!
    Does the church endorse any particular candidates, whether or not they
    are members of the church? NO! Does the church speak out on issues that
    it considers to be moral issues? YES! It urges every citizen and
    legislator to understand the issues and to vote wisely. 
    
    In my opinion, the church could easily take much greater advantage of
    its influence that it does in the state of Utah. It is remarkable that
    the church exercises the deliberate restraint that it does in political
    matters. 
    
>   Most recently, in a specific instance, the church (which is not
>   an officially registered lobbying organization in Utah) lobbied
>   against a particular law that destroyed a man's business, and the
>   man is now suing the church.
    
    You don't say what business the man was in. 
    
>   I am saddened by the degree to which our Utah legislators are in
>   the back pocket of the Church

    I disagree. The implication is that the church controls these leaders,
    and I say they make their own decisions, though I do not doubt that
    the wishes of their constituency have a strong influence on their
    decisions, which is just as it should be.
    
    Proof positive that the LDS Church does *not* control Utah politics is
    the abolition of prohibition. Utah cast the deciding vote to abolish
    prohibition, in spite of the Church's stand against abolishing it. 

    Rich

    I would like to believe that the church's primary excursion into
    politics is to get people to exercise their vote intelligently,
    and to comment now and then on "moral" issues. Increasingly, what
    seems to constitute a "moral" turns out to be some axe which
    somebody wants to grind. However, the notion that the church takes
    a neutral stand with regard to Utah politics, that it does
    not seek to influence how legislators vote, that it does not
    seek to influence how church members vote, and that it
    represents the will of the church members in the state
    is, regretably, very naive. A high percentage of LDS people in the
    state does NOT mean that those people unilaterally support positions
    which the church feels to be in its best interest. Quite the contrary.
    
    You will remember some years ago President Benson saying that one
    cannot be a liberal democrat and a good Latter-day Saint. Such a
    comment represented a major act of irresponbility on the part of a
    church leader, and Latter-day Saints who are democrats still feel
    the sting of that particular piece of unrighteous dominion.
    
    As you can tell, I have very strong feelings about this situation
    largely because I feel that there has been an enormous amount of
    duplicity by various church leaders who want to maintain the image
    of church neutrality, while doing a lot of back-room lobbying and
    wheeling/dealing. The reality is very much different from the image.
    Such reality, however on harms us when we pretend it doesn't exist.
    Its not the reality but the denial of it that messes things up.
    John

Can someone give us some concrete examples of "back-room lobbying and
wheeling/dealing" by Church leaders?  I haven't lived in Utah since I 
finished college in 1962, so I'm not aware of what is happening.  I think
it is important to avoid limiting our discussion to generalities; we need
to focus on specific instances.  I also realize that "back-room" activities
are not common knowledge and may be hard to document.

Allen

    Re: Note 220.6 by CIMNET::REEVES

    Hi John,
    
    I appreciate your frustration at things that Ezra Taft Benson said a
    couple of generations ago concerning his political views. However, you
    will note that he has exercised great restraint on proclaiming his
    personal political views in the past 20 or so years. Especially since
    becoming the president of the church. Just goes to show that the
    Lord tempers his leaders and prepares them for doing his work.
    
    By the way, I am a pretty politically conservative person myself, so I
    don't share the frustration you express. But I know that some of more
    liberal persuasion do. 

    Just because a few leaders of the church have been or are vocal about
    their political views is not the same as saying that the church is
    active in trying to control the political views of its members,
    including those who may be elected officials. To make this case, you
    would have to show that the church does this as a general mode of
    operation, or that the leading councils of the church have embarked on
    a strategy of influencing political views, or that sanctioned
    statements and/or publications reviewed by the leading councils have
    shown a tendency to do so. 
    
    What you are talking about, in my view, is a few church leaders who
    have been a bit more vocal and zealous than they perhaps should have
    been on their own personal political views, and not a determined effort
    on the part of the church to do so. That members have the right to
    disagree with the political views of their leaders without fear of
    reprisal is evidenced by your own expressed disagreement with some of
    them. 
    
    Regards,
    Rich

I am very conservative politically, but I was very concerned in the late '50s
when I would hear Ezra Taft Benson (then of the Quorum of the Twelve) speak
in General Conference.  I didn't necessarily disagree with his comments, but
I felt he shouldn't use the pulpit to further his political goals.  However,
I think that from the perspective of Elder Benson, there was no distinction
between his religion, our God-inspired Constitution, and the free agency of
man.  I'm sure he felt his political comments were appropriate for Conference
because to him the political world is part of his religious world (this is
my view of his thoughts).

I was very upset when I moved to the Washington, D.C. Ward in 1962 and heard
Reed Benson (son of Ezra Taft) speak in Sacrament meeting and talk about the
John Birch Society.  He spoke of the JB Society by name during the talk.
(The Church has since then issued statements that such talks should not occur
in Sacrament meeting).  

At the time I heard them, I recognized that Elder Benson and his son were
individuals with different viewpoints than mine about what is appropriate for
Church talks.  In my mind, the Church as an organization was not trying to
influence me politically, only individuals doing so.

Allen

    Please forgive me if I attempt to write a reply and it is partially
    written.  Our link through Santa Clara, Ca and the east coast is flakey.

    Several comments back a statement was made to the effect that the
    church is not a registered lobbyist (sp?).  That is not correct.
    The church is registered. 
    
    I think that the issue mentioned as ruining someone's business is the
    current funbus flack.  This is a situation where there has been a law on
    the books for years prohibiting the consumption of achohol in motor
    vehicles.  This included busses.  Due to someones oversight, (not
    deliberate) these funbuses (taking people to wendover, nevada where
    gambling is allowed) offered people drinks.  When one of the operators
    applied to the state for a beer license for its buses the oversight was
    discovered. 
    
    At that time an attempt was made to change the law to allow achohol
    to be served by these operators.  Toward the time of the vote the
    church did lobby against the law and when it came to a vote the
    law failed.
    
    It might interest you to know the the ACLU (who is always complaining
    against the church for something) actually supported the church's
    right to lobby against this law.
    
    The statement that this persons business was ruined by this effort
    is incorrect.  The one aspect of the business has since been curtailed
    but the busses themselves are as busy as ever.
    
    If you have any other questions I will try and answer them.
    

    One the general question of when should the church become involved in
    a issue.  It is sometimes difficult to see all the various ramifications
    of a particular issue.  The one that comes to mind is the ERA.  If the
    leaders of the church decide, and I don't think that any decision like
    this is made lightly, that in one way or another this particular issue
    is either morally right or wrong they have the right and obligation
    to do something about it.  Included in this are issues that we may not
    see as "moral".  Yes, the church does occasionally influence politics
    but it does not control it.
    
    On the issue of the church having complete control over the legislature.
    I think the recent issue of the cable tv legislation that the church
    wanted passed, and was eventually rejected is a good example of the
    fact that they do not control the politics in Utah.  (this one was
    even addressed as critical in general conference by Elder Neal Maxwell)
    

    Russell Murray
    

    At a recent stake priesthood leadership meeting, our stake president
    related a humorous incident illustrating how much restraint the
    church exercises with regard to voicing its view on politics.
    
    At a meeting in the Salt Lake tabernacle a counselor to the prophet
    delivered a talk which was titled, "Why Every Latter-Day-Saint Should
    be a Democrat".  Within a month the other counselor gave a talk
    entitled, "Why Every Latter-Day-Saint Should be a Republican."
    
    I don't know whether or not this really happened.  Any comments
    or thoughts?
    
    scott

    There's no such thing as neutrality!  If you don't take a stand
    you endorse the status quo by your silence.
    
    To me, this is a sin by omission, rather than by commission.
    
    Richard

    Mark Twain once said, "If the church and state agree, there's
    probably something wrong with the church."
    ;-)
    
    Richard

    
    
    For the record:
    
    	The cable TV law was passed by the legislature in Utah.  It
    	was later found unconstitutional by the Utah Supreme Court.
    	By that time, surveys showed that most Utah voters didn't want
    	the law passed in the first place.
    
    		Drew
    
    

When he spoke in conference about the Church gaining entry to East Germany, 
Pres. Monson emphasized that LDS make good citizens of the countries in
which they live.  This is in keeping with D&C 134:5.

    We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective 
    governments in which they reside,

If I were the head of a country that deprived its citizens of individual
freedoms, however, I'm not sure I would want LDS missionaries in my country,
because of what the remainder of D&C 134:5 says.

    We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective 
    governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and
    inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition
    and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected,...

That verse states explicitly that persons who have their individual liberties
protected must sustain and uphold the government and must not revolt against
the government.  The verse gives a strong implication that persons not so
protected are not under the mandate to not revolt.

I would like to hear the thoughts of others about when political revolution
might be justified, and whether LDS who participate in protests against their
government are transgressing Church doctrine and/or policy or not.

Allen

Remember how the US got started...  And what we believe about that...


Chad

    Perhaps some good examples might also be found in the Book of Mormon.
    In Mosiah, the people of Limhi suffered greatly under king Noah.
    He was eventually overthrown.  In particular, one named Gideon went
    after the king (Mosiah 19:4).  We find that the character of Gideon
    is that of patriot and hero of the people.  More than that, he was
    a man of God (Alma 1:7-9) who was slain in his elder years by an
    anti-Christ by the name of Nehor.
    
    In the case of China, the students killed, like Gideon, were patriots
    and heroes of the people, but they were enemies of the government.
    This was possible because, as in Gideon's day, the government no
    longer served nor protected the people.  I think the people as a whole 
    look for the opportunities to support liberating movements.
    And, individuals who start successful rebellions are just catalysts for
    reactions just waiting to happen.
    
    
    Steve

I posted this note because I've been thinking about the political and
social problems in Latin America and wondering what I would do if I lived
there; how far would I go in opposing my government for depriving us of our
civil liberties.  It's not an easy question to think through...

Allen

When I was in Chile (before Allende, a socialist/communist was elected), I had
an exerience that reminded me that our Father worksin his own way with all 
of his children.

I was walking along the street with a "local companion" (I was a missionary,
he was not), when I made an offhand remark about the Allende signs on the walls.
We were told not to talk politics, but I thought that a comment on this 
communist was not bad.  From his response it became clear to me that this
good active Mormon that I was walking with was probably a active communist too.
This shocked me a lot, and I thought about it for a long time. I thought how 
If I were to quote to him from the then living Prophet (David O. McKay) I could 
probably offend him very greatly. Awhile later, it bacame more clear to me. That
God accepts this person for his value, and accepts him into his church. And as 
time goes on, he will probably grow to see for himself the basic differences
on helping people between communism and Mormonism. Then he can really choose.
God is not one to force us to decide untill we are ready. 

This suggests to me, that in a country dominated by bad rulers, (my beloved
Chile later with Pinochet), that the Lord will work in the hearts and minds
of the people to prepare them, and ar the right time he will make a way. And
in fact it seems that Pinochet will have to step down now.

I guess that I believe in people teaching and persuading, kind of like the 
Solidarity movement in Poland. I believe that violence as mentioned in the
previouse replies and like Nephi with Laban, is a very special case. When such 
is the appropriate action then he will preapare and inspire the right person
for that. But in general, it is for us to all work within the law, and if we 
feel that we have to step out of the bounds of the law be prepared to accept
the punishment assigned to that action.

May we all listen well enough to be in the right place at the right time.

Len
 

Poland is having terrible problems right now.  They owe in excess of $30
billion dollars, have terrible corruption in government, have some of the
world's worst pollution problems and so forth.  I recently heard a news
report on WGBH radio about how the pollution problem is creating rampant
birth defects and ritardation in children, stifling economic growth, and
so forth.  The U.S. will probably commit about $10 billion in aid, $15 million
of which is (if I remember correctly) earmarked just for the pollution 
problem.  In return, the news media reports Polish leaders promise reform.
This after having soundly lost the majority vote in elections where other
than Communist leaders were allowed on the tickets.  One of the reasons 
sounded by the ruling party for rejecting the election results was that
the people were not really considering the candidates and the issues.
Inistead, they were just voting against them (including scratching out
their names when they were running unopposed) because they were Communist.

If I were Russia, what possible reasons would I have that could justify
holding onto Poland?  They are poor, weakened, corrupt and so forth.  Russia
has made a point of allowing the U.S. unprecedented access to Poland.

Maybe I'm pessimistic.  I know this goes against the grain, and I have great
empathy for the Polish people.  But, I see where Russia has everything to
gain by the U.S. sending big money to Poland.  If we fail, we have been
weakended by the expense.  If we succeed, Poland will be worth having again.
The oppressive government will be either strengthened, or the Russians will
feel 'threatened' by a successful democratic government so close to their
borders and be 'forced' into exercising 'police action'.  The U.S. is 
definitely being told what they want to hear and we are quite willing to 
pay big money to continue hearing it.

On the other hand, we are not blind to the opportunity.  Poland has been
humbled, at least enough that the leadership has come to the negotiating
table.  Will it be enough for sound ideas (the Word) to find its way into
the hearts of all citizens, including the leadership?  Will it be enough that
when/if they are once more prosperous they will be able to successfully resist
outside oppressive influences?  Or, will the situation deteriorate to a 
situation where men curse God and die, or where they repent only because they
fear death and not for any desire to become more righteous as did the remnant
of the Nephite nation?

Thoughts, anyone?


Steve

RE: < Note 257.5 by MIZZOU::SHERMAN >

Regarding aid, President Bush's plan for economic assistance for Poland
only includes some 115 million dollars in direct aid, and a few hundred
additional million in things like concessions in loan repayments and World
Bank assistance. The $10 billion dollar figure refers to a kind of a goal
for Western business investment and cooperation over a period of years; it
is not direct aid. 

True, the USSR stands to gain by our helping Poland get back on its feet.
But it is still fairly obvious to the world that the USSR is utterly unable
to play the role of economic savior, and that the US is. This is a
humiliation for the Soviet regime. 

That same sense of humiliation is why the USSR will still insist that 
Poland remain in the Soviet sphere, and it is also why the Berlin wall will
not come down anytime soon. They can stand to concede only so many times in
a given year that their policies are empty, defeated, and worthless. 

Having said that, I nevertheless see reason for great optimism. The USSR is
bowing to reality to a degree that, while not as large and rapid as we
would like, is still fairly significant. Also, while I agree that their new
policies reflect mainly self-interest, I would assert that under Gorbachev
their calculations of self-interest indicate a need to end confrontation
and begin cooperation, especially economically. This really *is* one world
now, and even the Soviet Union can see it. 

As such, any kind of 'police action' would be completely counterproductive. 
You might as well drop H-bombs on Poland for all the damage such a move 
would do. I believe Gorbachev rightly sees that given the choice of a 
healthy, productive Poland where the citizens are economically happy or a 
miserable, restless Poland where the citizens are always on the edge of 
anti-government violence, the correct choice is to encourage the former.

The policy of the US is correct, not just because of our sympathy for the 
plight of the Polish people, but also it is in our interest to deprive the 
USSR of any need to use oppression as a foreign policy tool. Where we are 
somewhat misguided, however, is in our rather silly, parochial expectation 
that an American-style democracy in Poland is the natural end-result of all
this. 

Your point that the leaders of Poland and the Soviet Union have been
humbled is possibly the most significant point of all. Events have induced
humility, and humility has lead to a softening of hearts. This is what we
have been praying for, at every altar in every Temple around the world,
all day every day for decades. I have felt the power of those prayers as I 
have participated in them. The hand of the Lord is no doubt recognizable to
at least a few people, but to Mormons, it should be as plain as a shout in 
the ear. 

The presence of full-time missionaries in Poland and the announcement in
the last 'Church News' about the groundbreaking for a Chapel in Warsaw in
which several Polish officials participated is still further evidence of
the hand of the Lord. The end-result of all this will be an environment
where the gospel of Jesus Christ can be preached, and where those who are
baptized can freely fulfil their covenants and worship God as they see fit,
all of which has been prophesied and is in preparation for the return of
Jesus Christ to the earth. 

The only way I'd be pessimistic is if these things were *not* happening. 

/kevin

    Re .0:
    
    This is another in a continuing series of dumb questions......why
    should the issue of whether a LDS person supports or does not support
    the government under which they live be connected with church doctrine?
    
    Isn't that really for the individual to decide?
    
    How can you even uphold individual rights if your own doctrine encourages
    (apparently) corporate rights over indvidual rights? For example,
    what about the woman in Utah who was (I believe) excommunicated from
    the church for her overt support of the ERA Amendment? I was no
    fan of the ERA but I also support individual dissent.
    
    Comments?
    
    Mark

 >   what about the woman in Utah who was (I believe) excommunicated from
 >   the church for her overt support of the ERA Amendment? I was no
 >   fan of the ERA but I also support individual dissent.
  
    I'm sure there are some women in Utah who have been excommunicated
    because of there overt support of the ERA Amendment, but if you
    are talking about Sonya Johnson then that is a different story.
    She was from Virginia or West Virginia and was also telling people
    to not listen to the missionaries.  This was in 1979.  If anyone
    is interested, I can post more information about her.
    
    scott

    Hi, Mark!
    
    I think that further investigation will show that no one is
    excommunicated for being outspoken about issues (be it ERA, abortion
    or whatever).  But, if a person actively and openly incites rebellion 
    against Church leaders, that *may* be grounds for excommunication.
    Even then, the *real* reasons for excommunication may be kept confidential
    and become public knowledge only as far as necessary.  I know a
    lot of folks would like to believe that the Church has some sort
    of secret police going around checking to see if anybody says anything
    bad about Church leaders and slapping them with summary excommunication.
    But, it just ain't so.  :)
    
    Your question is not a dumb question.  The connection is very much
    personal, referring to the connection between government support
    and Church doctrine.  The Church does not encourage rebellion and
    encourages supporting government and living the law of the land. 
    The Church encourages defense of liberty and family.  These
    are doctrinal issues as described in the Scriptures.  So, when is
    it right to allow liberty and freedom to go undefended?  When is
    it right to rebel?  These are indeed personal issues.  A Mormon
    (or Christian) would probably have to do a lot of introspective 
    searching and appealling to the Lord before coming to a sure 
    conclusion.

    If I were in South America, Poland, China, Cuba or whatever, I don't
    know what I would do.  I'm glad I'm here, where all I have to worry
    about is why it is that every time I reach for my wallet, I wind
    up shaking hands with the Duke ... ;-)    
    
    Steve

    Re .9:
    
    Steve:
    
    Three things bother me here....
    
    First, who defines what constitutes "open and active rebellion"?
    
    Second, why should "open and active rebellion" be grounds for
    excommunication? What is Scriptural about excommunication in the
    first place?
    
    Third, why should the real reasons for excommunication be kept
    confidential? I mean I could see where personal information might
    be involved but couldn't this also be used to avoid airing LDS "dirty
    laundry", so to speak?
    
    Mark

	Hi, Mark!
    
>    First, who defines what constitutes "open and active rebellion"?

	Those local leaders (usually members of the Bishopric) who decide on
	membership must hear all of the information and decide whether any 
	action needs to take place.  They are generally the ones given 
	responsibility to decide, even if a case warrants national attention.  
	The reasons for excommunication are not as clear-cut as some might 
	believe and are highly dependent upon a person's circumstances, 
	available testimony and evidence, and upon promptings from the Spirit.

>    Second, why should "open and active rebellion" be grounds for
>    excommunication? What is Scriptural about excommunication in the
>    first place?

	Probably the best examples I can think of off the top of my
	head are the many times when a people were cut off from the 
	presence of the Lord or were divided from His people.  An 
	anti-Christ might fit in the category of one that might be 
	excommunicated.

	Excommunication as practiced by the Church is not a process of 
	condemnation.  It is the extension of relief from the responsibilities 
	of living up to covenants one has made with the Lord.  The intention 
	is that one day the person may again be reunited with the fold.

	It is also a way to help keep wolves from doing damage to the fold.
	That is, if no action is taken, deviate practices by members could be 
	interpreted as having the consent of the Church.

>    Third, why should the real reasons for excommunication be kept
>    confidential? I mean I could see where personal information might
>    be involved but couldn't this also be used to avoid airing LDS "dirty
>    laundry", so to speak?
    
	Yes, on both counts.  It would be possible for the local leaders 
	to try to avoid airing bad news about the Church.  But, that is 
	neither expressed, encouraged nor implied in the guidelines given to 
	leaders.

	My understanding is that the confidential nature of the reasons play 
	the most significant role with regard to the parties involved.  For
	example, if excommunication is on grounds of adultery, widespread 
	knowledge may cause unnecessary damage.  I offer a case in point
	with regards to my brother and his wife.

	My brother's wife was guilty of adultery over a period of months.  
	The local leadership met concerning her membership.  She and her
	husband attended and she tearfully asked for forgiveness from my 
	brother and from the Church.  At that time, it was decided that no
	action would be taken as to her membership.  Months later, it was 
	found that she had not ceased in her relationship outside of marriage
	in that she moved in with her lover.  The leadership met again and
	this time she was excommunicated.  It was at this time that the rest
	of us family members were clued in about what had happened.  

	We knew my brother and his wife were going through rough times and were
	as supportive as we could be.  But, we were not made privy to the
	fact that she was committing adultery until we absolutely had to 
	know about it.  Had we known from the start, it might have been
	harder for my brother's wife to repent.  She was given the best
	chance to change.  It would have worked out if only she had truly
	repented.  Everyone, including my brother's wife, understood this.

	She is now not a member, but the members still try to help her to come
	back and she still regards them as her best friends, often approaching
	them for friendship and support.  She left her lover and last I heard 
	is remarrying.  My father has a hard time dealing with her because of 
	the great hurt he felt.  My brother has gotten over it in a way, but 
	figures it will be a while before he marries again.  But, everyone 
	appreciates the way that the Church leaders handled the situation.  
	By keeping confidences, the damage and hostility that could have 
	resulted were kept at a minimum.

	Hope that somewhat helps with your concerns, and thanks for asking.

	Steve	

    Re .11:
    
    Hello Steve:
    
    I guess what concerns me is why your brother would even involve
    anyone in the church leadership (except for counseling perhaps)
    with the problem he and your sister-in-law were experiencing.
    
    Is there some LDS rule that says, in effect, "Thou Shalt Report
    All Problems To The Elders?"
    
    With regard to excommunication, how do you square that with, "Judge
    not, lest Ye be judged?"
    
    Mark

Hi, Mark!

My brother approached the Church before approaching any lawyers.  This is
because the Church has resources available that can be used to preserve
marriages (counseling and such) and because his wife was taking actions that 
could result in loss of her membership and invalidation of their eternal
marriage if no action was taken.  They took actions that, if successful, could
have preserved both.  When unsuccessful, the actions taken protected the 
Church and permitted my brother to continue his life with his standards intact.

When the divorce papers were signed, there was surprizingly little animosity
between my brother and his former wife.  This was probably due in large part
to the participation of Church leaders.  Also, as is probably rare, both sides
of the family sided with my brother.  And family members, including Church 
members and non-members, all appreciated the care taken by Church leaders in 
trying to save the marriage.

The Lord is the Head of His Church.  He has called the leaders that represent
His Church.  As such, they represent Him so far as Church matters are concerned.
As to making judgment, we should not of ourselves be judging each other.  But,
as an example of when judgement of others is called for, the leaders of the 
church are counseled to rebuke before all those that sin (1 Tim. 5:20).  
Timothy offers as reason for this the need to have others fear sinning, but 
this is not necessarily the only reason for doing so.  Before rebuking, there 
should be a hearing that includes the testimony of witnesses (1 Tim. 5:19) 
before one having authority.  This describes a portion of how Church 
discipline works.  Compare this also with the process described in the Old 
Testament (Deuteronomy 20:15-21).  Though the penalties since Christ are less 
physical (no more eye for an eye), the need for judgement by Church 
authorities is preserved.  

As to excommunication, the Lord is the Good Shepherd, responsible for keeping 
the wolves out of the fold (John 10:11-13) and, unlike the hireling, will not 
permit wolves to enter in and destroy the flock.  The mechanism by which this
is accomplished involves Church leaders having His authority to act in this 
capacity.


Steve

	In regards to political revolution, I do not ever remember reading
	where the Lord has sanctioned it.  However, I have read where He is
	responsible for placing the political leadership in power at the 
	time as it behooves Him for His purposes.  Also, both the Book of
	Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants have words on it.  I can not
	remember the B of M reference off the top of my head, but the D&C
	reference is in Section 98, verses 23 through 48.  In verse 33, the
	Lord says that His people do not go out to war unless commanded to
	do so.  So I would say that we should preach Christ and His Gospel,
	wherever we are allowed to, irregardless of the political leadership.

    Re .14:
    
    I'm curious about the reference to, "...not going to war unless
    commanded to do so."
    
    Questions:
    
    1. Commanded by whom? God?
    
    2. If God, how does he communicate his commands to go to war?
    
    3. Is the war a Mormon equivalent of a Jihad or a Crusade?
    
    Mark

    Yeah, I'd be interested in some references, too.  My gut feeling
    is that there is some inconsistence in the idea that good Mormons
    never go to war unless God gives them a revelation from the Prophet.
    This seems an over-simplification.  For example, I believe there were 
    good Christian German soldiers who probably fought good Christian
    American soldiers during WW II.  I don't recall hearing anything
    about the Church telling Mormon German soldiers not to fight or
    to rebel against their country.  I think the comments could use
    some elaboration.  Thanks!
    
    Steve

    Re .15:
    
>    1. Commanded by whom? God?

		Yes, God.
    
>    2. If God, how does he communicate his commands to go to war?

		Through His prophets. (See Amos - I can't remember the verse)
    
>    3. Is the war a Mormon equivalent of a Jihad or a Crusade?
    
		Not that I know Of.

    Charles

    
    RE 16:
    
    	Refer to 14, and read the D&C verses there.  Then discuss. 
    I think that individual "Good Mormons" are new in concept from your
    reply.  However, each person has the right to defend their families
    as seems best to them.  D&C 98 also gives some good indications
    as to how a Mormon should respond in general and not just to war.

RE:              <<< Note 257.15 by ABE::STARIN "The Attentive Ear" >>>

>    I'm curious about the reference to, "...not going to war unless
>    commanded to do so."
    
Lest too much be imagined about this reference, let me summarize this
section 98 of the D&C. In verses 23-31, the Lord is speaking about
families, and gives instructions that should someone come along and smite
you and/or your family, you should 'bear it patiently and revile not
against them,' even if they come back and do it a second or third time. At
that point, the Lord will intervene and he promises deliverance. 

The Lord then in verses 32-48 makes a comparison with nations, and says
that this is the way nations should behave as well: "If any nation, tongue,
or people should proclaim war against them, they should first lift a
standard of peace unto that people, nation, or tongue." Then if the
offering of peace is not accepted a second or third time, then they should
take it to the Lord, who will intervene and who promises deliverance. 

*That* is why the Lord says "they should not go out into battle against any
nation, kindred, tongue, or people, save I, the Lord, commanded them."
(verse 33), which is where the above reference comes from. 

So to answer your questions, Mormons do not anticipate Jihads or Crusades.
If it were so, I'm sure we would be advised to store bazookas along with
our wheat and beans. Quite the contrary, Mormons are instructed by the Lord
to do what is necessary and possible to keep the peace. 

/kevin 

    Elaboration is still needed, not that I disagree with verse 33 at
    all.  Part of what I am looking for is that the Lord commands nations.
    But, what nations are commanded of the Lord?  Then, the issue boils
    down to individuals, which is why I brought up the scenario of German
    versus American soldiers.  This seems to me more relevent to some of the
    questions brought up in this topic.  
    
    So, did the Lord command both the Christian German and the Christian 
    American soldiers to go to war with each other?  (Actually, I think
    the answer is a surprising 'yes', but I want the issue to be discussed 
    before elaborating.  I want to learn, too.)
    
    Steve

    
    	RE: .-1
    
    In the sense that the Lord allows us to defend our liberty and our
    families, then yes He did allow the Germans to go to war.  However,
    it should be noted that the individual would not be help accountable
    by the Lord for any killing done.  That accountablity would be on
    the heads of state who started the war.  Also, the individual must
    be able to discharge their duty while at the same time despising
    it.  The Lord does not want His people to revel in killing.
    
    As to the nations, or people for that matter, that the Lord commands,
    I would think that it would include only those who follow Him. 
    Isreal was not upheld when they did not follow Him, and I do not
    think people are upheld, by God, when they do not follow Him. Either
    one is for Him or against Him - you can not follow God and mammon
    at the same time.  Even people who do not follow the God of this
    earth, they are still judged by His commandments and so must some
    day stand before Him and give accountablity for their actions.
    
    War is not good.  War is not what God intended for man.  When men
    try to take away their peoples God given agency, and covet what
    others have, then Satan enters in and war results.  Two neighbors
    at war with each other over something that might have happened years
    ago, and they both have forgotten about, happens all the time. 
    War does not have to be limited to nations or peoples.
    
    I think what the Lord wants is for us to forgive and be "meek".
    Then after the witness of three transgressions against us, He will
    either step in a fight for us, or help us in a sanctioned fight.
    In any case, the first recourse is how Christ taught us - love one
    another as He has loved us.
    

    That's pretty much what I believe.  Thanks!
    
    Steve

Gang,

I could use some feedback on this.  The candidates on the Independent High 
Tech slate would like to involve members of the Church.  However, they are 
aware of potential conflicts of interest and have no intentions of doing 
anything that would result in a bad mix of Church and State.  What they propose 
to do is to arrange for a meeting in a school or other public building, 
probably in the Weston or Belmont area, and invite members of the Boston Stake 
and their friends to hear from and meet the candidates on the slate, to be
given opportunity to sign a petition (so that they can get on the ballot in 
November) and to invite them to become involved in the campaign.  They are 
not seeking Church endorsement and want to get the message out without leaving 
the impression that Church leadership endorses the campaign or any of the 
candidates.  Such endorsement would, of course, not be in line with Church 
policies.

What I'm thinking of is to, on behalf of the slate, write a letter of 
invitation to the Bishops and Branch Presidents for their congregations.  I 
will first want to bounce this off the Stake President to make sure that it 
does not offend or give the wrong impressions.  What follows is a rough draft 
of the letter that I propose to send.  I would appreciate constructive 
feedback or coments before bouncing it off the Boston Stake President.  If 
successful (or at least promising), this might result in similar invitations 
to Hingham, Springfield and Nashua (Mass residents, of course) Stakes as well.  
Thanks!


Steve


Dear <name of Bishop or Branch President>,

The candidates of the Independent High Tech slate would like to invite all
who are residents of Massachusetts and who are members or friends of the 
Boston Stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to participate 
in a political gathering to be held at <not sure where> on <not sure when>.  
This gathering will provide opportunity for interested persons to become 
directly involved in the political process in Massachusetts.  They will be 
able to hear from and to meet the slate candidates, to sign a petition to put 
the candidates on the ballot in November, and will be provided details about 
how they can become more involved in the campaign.  For further information 
please call (508) 460-9338 or (508) 435-4308.  Thanks!



						Sincerly,



						Steve Sherman on behalf of
						Independent High Tech Slate

RE: .0 by MIZZOU::SHERMAN 

>...to write a letter of invitation to the Bishops and 
>Branch Presidents for their congregations...

Um, I don't see how a bishop/branch president could communicate your
letter to his congregation without violating Church policy. A letter
soliciting any kind of partisan political activity may not be read from the
pulpit, it may not be posted on a chapel bulletin board, it may not be
distributed to ward leaders, etc. 

Nor may one send send the letter directly to those on a ward list. That is 
prohibited also, since those lists may be used strictly for Church business
only. 

In any event, I wish you luck, Steve. I believe that Massachusetts could
use some leaders who exhibit the values that the Church teaches.
Nevertheless, the organization of the Church cannot be involved, even to
the extent you suggest. The organization may only be used in furtherance of
gospel purposes. 

Regards,
/kevin

FYI, the policy statement referred to by Kevin is given in note 70.

Mormons seem to have a pretty good grape vine, and I think that the
candidates could use that to pass the word about their public meetings without
violating Church policy.  For example, suppose I received a phone call from
one of the candidates about the meeting.  Assuming I were inclined to do so,
I could call several people I think would be interested and pass the word
along.  Those people could do likewise.  As long as no announcements were
made in Church meetings, buildings, home teaching visits, etc., and as long
as none of us went down the Ward membership list in making our phone calls,
I don't think Church policy would be violated.  That fact that the candidates
are LDS, I'm LDS, and the people I call are LDS is ok as long as we act on our
own and don't involve the Church in any way.  I also think it would be ok to
tell our friends that the candidates are LDS.

One potential problem that you indicated, Steve, that the candidates are
aware of is to avoid any semblence of Church support.  For example, while
I was living in the Washington DC Ward many years ago, I received a political
flyer from a candidate who was LDS.  The flyer gave the names of persons
who supported the candidate.  However, the Church callings of those persons
were also given in the flyer, and I felt that was inappropriate and an
attempt to gain support from Mormons.

Here's a gray-area question.  Let's assume that everybody follows Church
policy to the best of their understanding.  Is it ok for one to pass
campaign literature to a friend in the Church parking lot?  That is a
likely situation in places where Ward members come from different towns and
don't see each other during the week.  How about inside the building?  In a
technical sense they are using a Church facility. (I'm asking about two
people doing it as individuals, on their own time so to speak)

Allen

    Points well taken and thanks!  Looks like what I'll need to do is go 
    ahead and make arrangements and then pursue word-of-mouth.  That is, 
    contact only those whom I personally know and encourage them to invite 
    friends.  Best done outside of Church functions and facilities.  (It has 
    already been pointed out that promotion of such an event over Digital 
    resources would be inappropriate, of course.)  One other thought that had 
    occurred to me was that of inviting candidates from other parties to the 
    event.  However, I suspect it unlikely that they would show (it being, I 
    think, the current trend for established parties to dissociate themselves 
    from independent slates), which would make it all the more difficult to lay 
    claim to the event being non-partisan.
    
    Steve

One nit that just popped in my mind.  When you call your friends to tell them
about the political meetings, introduce yourself as Steve Sherman not
Brother Sherman to avoid bringing the Church into the discussion.

Allen

    Good point.  I'll also probably be up-front in stating that this is 
    political and not Church-related.
    
    Steve

    Now, I can talk about it.  Having recently run for state office (and
    lost, but that's history) I've often asked myself to what extent members
    should become involved in politics.  The Church has a policy of not
    endorsing political candidates and is strict about not allowing Church
    resources to be used to forward campaigns.  But, the Church also
    encourages members to be active in politics as far as voting and such.
    In fact, the current President of the Church is no stranger to the
    political arena.  Then again, we are big on separation of church and
    state.
    
    My own feeling is that members see the policies and decide to "play it
    safe" by not getting involved and sometimes by not becoming informed on
    political issues.  I have had my eyes opened by becoming politically
    active.  I have marched with Catholics to demonstrate support for
    pro-life.  I have protested with regular citizens over the waste of
    sacred state funds on a prison being built as a result of apparent
    sweetheart deals and fraud.  I have been among a Jewish congregation
    as they celebrated God and concerned themselves with current issues.
    I have dined with wonderful folks of Protestant faith who were
    concerned with honesty and competence in government.  I have spoken
    with the homeless who have been made pawns in political infighting.
    
    I note that with the consolidated meeting schedule we have been
    encouraged to take time to be with our families and to become involved
    with our communities.  But, somehow we still have a tough time breaking
    away.  Some of us do become involved, be we are the exceptions and are
    sometimes even regarded as odd or even rebellious.  Many of us are
    content to be uninformed about who or what we should vote for and feel
    justified only in that we voted.  Anyway, that's my observation.
    
    The question is, to what extent should we as Church members become
    involved in politics?
    
    Steve 

>    My own feeling is that members see the policies and decide to "play it
>    safe" by not getting involved and sometimes by not becoming informed on
>    political issues.

Well, Steve, I don't know about this.  It's true that I don't know many LDS
who are active politically, but I doubt that those who are not active
politically have been influenced by Church policies.  I would expect that it
is more a matter of their personalities; some people aren't interested in
politics, debate, confrontation, etc.  Others, perhaps, may value their
privacy and don't want to be in the "public eye".  I'm speculating, of
course, since I haven't discussed this with my friends who are not active
politically.

I do think there is one way, however, in which the Church does influence us
in an indirect way to not be very active in community affairs, and I'm a bit
critical of the Church in this matter.  I'm thinking of TIME.  The Church keeps
us so busy with Church assignments that we don't have much time available
for community involvement.  Some people can handle heavy time loads and are
active in both Church callings and community things (my Bishop is a
selectman of my town, for example), but I think those individuals, who seem
to thrive on activity and involvement with people, are the exception.  I think
that most people, after spending considerable time with their Church callings,
family, employment, garden, house repairs, etc. just don't have time available
for community activities.    

I wonder how other noters feel about political involvement?

Allen

    I would agree with the last statement about having time for political
    involvement.  Mormons tend to have large families, meaning 4 or more
    kids.  I am in that boat with 8 myself.  Just tending to their needs,
    being involved in their activities from school, scouting, and church
    occupies practically all my time.  Then comes my High Council calling,
    which is in reality 5 callings, then Seminary teaching, then Home
    teaching.  Miraculously I find time to be on the Planning Board in my
    town.
    
    Things that fall off the list, Firesides, Broadcasts, "Correlation
    Meetings", OPen Houses, Political Meetings (except for town meeting).
    
    I envy the non-LDS who, because of some interest or passion, dedicate
    themselves so fully to one or two noble causes and accomplish great
    things in that one area.  I do not think that we use "volunteerism" in
    the church, but rather wait until we are called to do something.  Then,
    sometimes we get a half-hearted response.  I remember the time I was
    called to be a ScoutMaster, while living in Utah  I hate camping and think
    that mountains are really only good for one thing, skiing.  I declined
    the calling for obvious reasons.
    
    
    I envy those that are politically involved.  But for me right now it
    just won't fit in an already over-crowded schedule. 

    	This is an interesting subject, being I am interested in what is
    happening around me, but as mentioned before we tend to be so busy
    with family and church, it is very difficult to become involved in
    other activities. You have to give up time somewhere to fit it in. I
    have enough trouble deciding what church activities to go to our not,
    let alone getting involved in politics.
    	I have a Brother that ran for an office a year ago. His opponent
    vowed to see that my Brother would loose his job if she won. It turned
    out she won by a small margin and she held true to her word. Politics
    can be a very tuff environment to be in. It is constantly attacking
    one's standards, which can make it very difficult for any faithful
    Christian. I would like to be more involved, but also find it very
    difficult due to time constraints. My hat off to those that make the
    time. I understand the Church will make an announcement soon to which
    will free up more of our time. 

    Ken
                                                                         

The discussion about a possible change in Church policy is being continued
in note 369.