The Mormon Ethic of Civility

It seems now the timing is perfect for this wonderful article I read today. It was put out by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints newsroom in 2009. A very timely article for what is going on right now!

The Mormon Ethic of Civility

The political world is astir. Economies are faltering. Public trust is waning. Individuals feel vulnerable. And social cohesion wears thin. Meanwhile, stories of rage and agitation fill our airwaves, streets and town halls. Where are the voices of balance and moderation in these extreme times? During a recent address given in an interfaith setting, Church President Thomas S. Monson declared: "When a spirit of goodwill prompts our thinking and when united effort goes to work on a common problem, the results can be most gratifying." Further, former Church President Gordon B. Hinckley once said that living “together in communities with respect and concern one for another” is “the hallmark of civilization.” That hallmark is under increasing threat.




So many of the habits and conventions of modern culture — ubiquitous media, anonymous and unsourced online participation, politicization of the routine, fractured community and family life — undermine the virtues and manners that make peaceful coexistence in a pluralist society possible. The fabric of civil society tears when stretched thin by its extremities. Civility, then, becomes the measure of our collective and individual character as citizens of a democracy.



A healthy democracy maintains equilibrium through diverse means, including a patchwork of competing interests and an effective system of governmental checks. Nevertheless, this order ultimately relies on the integrity of the people. Speaking at general conference, a semiannual worldwide gathering of the Church, Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles asserted: “In the end, it is only an internal moral compass in each individual that can effectively deal with the root causes as well as the symptoms of societal decay.” Likewise, Presiding Bishop H. David Burton emphasized that the virtues of fidelity, charity, generosity, humility and responsibility “form the foundation of a Christian life and are the outward manifestation of the inner man.” Thus, moral virtues blend into civic virtues. The seriousness of our common challenges calls for an equally serious engagement with reasonable ideas and solutions. What we need is rigorous debate, not rancorous altercations.



Civility is not only a matter of discourse. It is primarily a mode of engagement. The technological interconnectedness of society has made isolation impossible. Of all the institutions in the modern world, religion has had perhaps the greatest difficulty adjusting to the reality of give and take with the public. Today, and throughout its history, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints continuously encounters the legitimate interests of various stakeholders in its interaction with the public. Rather than exempting itself from the rules of law and civility, the Church has sought the path of cooperative engagement and avoided the perils of acrimonious confrontation.



Echoing this mode of civil engagement, President Monson declared: “As a church we reach out not only to our own people but also to those people of goodwill throughout the world in that spirit of brotherhood which comes from the Lord Jesus Christ.” Speaking of civility on a personal level, Elder Robert D. Hales of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles taught Latter-day Saints how to respond to criticism: “Some people mistakenly think responses such as silence, meekness, forgiveness, and bearing humble testimony are passive or weak. But, to ‘love [our] enemies, bless them that curse [us], do good to them that hate [us], and pray for them which despitefully use [us], and persecute [us]’ (Matthew 5:44) takes faith, strength, and, most of all, Christian courage.”



The moral basis of civility is the Golden Rule, taught by a broad range of cultures and individuals, perhaps most popularly by Jesus Christ: “And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise” (Luke 6:31). This ethic of reciprocity reminds us all of our responsibility toward one another and reinforces the communal nature of human life.



Similarly, the Book of Mormon tells a sober story of civilizational decline in which various peoples repeat the cycle of prosperity, pride and fall. In almost every case, the seeds of decay begin with the violation of the simple rules of civility. Cooperation, humility and empathy gradually give way to contention, strife and malice.



The need for civility is perhaps most relevant in the realm of partisan politics. As the Church operates in countries around the world, it embraces the richness of pluralism. Thus, the political diversity of Latter-day Saints spans the ideological spectrum. Individual members are free to choose their own political philosophy and affiliation. Moreover, the Church itself is not aligned with any particular political ideology or movement. It defies category. Its moral values may be expressed in a number of parties and ideologies.



Furthermore, the Church views with concern the politics of fear and rhetorical extremism that render civil discussion impossible. As the Church begins to rise in prominence and its members achieve a higher public profile, a diversity of voices and opinions naturally follows. Some may even mistake these voices as being authoritative or representative of the Church. However, individual members think and speak for themselves. Only the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles speak for the whole Church.



Latter-day Saint ethical life requires members to treat their neighbors with respect, regardless of the situation. Behavior in a religious setting should be consistent with behavior in a secular setting. The Church hopes that our democratic system will facilitate kinder and more reasoned exchanges among fellow Americans than we are now seeing. In his inaugural press conference President Monson emphasized the importance of cooperation in civic endeavors: “We have a responsibility to be active in the communities where we live, all Latter-day Saints, and to work cooperatively with other churches and organizations. My objective there is ... that we eliminate the weakness of one standing alone and substitute for it the strength of people working together.”


HERE is a direct link. I hope you guys enjoyed it!

Why I'm a Morman and a Democrat- and that's a good thing

Found this article and had to share. EVERY Mormon who has ever said the statement, "how can you be a Mormon and a Democrat?" MUST read this. I am including it in it's entirety, because the whole thing should be read:

By Boyd Peterson

When I was growing up in Utah, Calvin Rampton and Scott Matheson were our Governors, Frank Moss was one of our Senators, and Gunn McKay was our Congressman. All were Mormon Democrats. My father was a steelworker who believed that the Democrats were the party that ended the Depression, won the War, and fought for the rights of working people.

Evidently many Utah Mormons agreed with him. It was not until the mid- to late-1970s that the Democratic party fell out of favor among Utah Mormon voters. That shift resulted, I believe, because the public debate about morality became more narrowly focused on sexual issues like abortion. But the Mormon retreat from the Democratic party has been detrimental to both the party and the LDS Church. Furthermore, there are moral issues that, I believe, are better represented by the Democrats than by Republicans.

At election time each year, a Church statement of political neutrality is read in LDS congregations throughout the nation, which "affirms [the Church's] neutrality regarding political parties, platforms, and candidates." Importantly, it also stresses that, "principles compatible with the gospel may be found in various political parties." Implicit in this statement is the notion that gospel truth may be found in the Democratic party's platform.

In an interview in 1998, Elder Marlin Jensen, a Mormon Democrat, spoke of the need for political diversity in the Church. Jensen outlined three main concerns Church leaders have with the misconception that the Republican party is the Church party: First, the Church's reputation suffers with the waxing and waning tides of national political fortunes. "There is a feeling that even nationally as a church, it's not in our best interest to be known as a one-party church," stated Jensen.

The late Elder James E. Faust, also a Mormon Democrat and a counselor in the First Presidency, reiterated this point: "It is in the interest of the Church to have a two-party system . . . . Both locally and nationally, the interest of the Church and its members are served when we have two good men or women running on each ticket, and then no matter who is elected, we win."[1]
Second, Elder Jensen suggested that the overwhelming Republican affiliation of Mormons in Utah and throughout the intermountain West weakens the checks and balances of good democratic government. As Elder Jensen put it, "any time you don't have the dialogue and the give-and-take that the democratic process provides you're going to be poorer for it in the long run."

Third, Elder Jensen stressed that it would be "very healthy for the church -- particularly the Utah church" if the common misconception that one cannot be a good Mormon and a Democrat "could be obliterated." Elder Jensen continued, "everyone who is a good Latter-day Saint is going to have to pick and choose a little bit regardless of the party that they're in and that may be required a lot more in the future than it has in the past."[2]

Jensen's call for political diversity recognizes an important truth about political parties and public morality -- there are many moral issues and none of the political parties has a monopoly on them. "I am a Democrat," stated Senator Harry Reid, "because I am a Mormon, not in spite of it."

Like Reid, I believe that the Democratic party takes the strongest position on many moral issues. For example, King Benjamin's address in the Book of Mormon admonishes us to prioritize, "feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants" (Mosiah 4:26). I believe the Democratic party works harder to protect and defend these moral priorities.

Elder Faust stated that his reading of the Book of Mormon also influenced his political views: "I believe what is said in the Book of Mormon, that the Lord values all of his children equally -- black and white, bond and free, male and female, Jew and gentile." As a result, Elder Faust said, "I like to see all people enjoy every advantage, every blessing, every opportunity that comes to them by reason of citizenship."[3]

Furthermore, the LDS scriptures' call to educate ourselves, "to seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith" (D&C 109:7), is, I believe, more constantly supported by the Democratic agenda. I also believe LDS scriptures' insistence that the world and all living things were created spiritually prior to their physical creation calls us to environmental stewardship, another moral issue defended more robustly by Democrats.
Finally, I am a Democrat because I believe LDS scripture and prophets have urged us to live within our means, to be fiscally responsible. Democrats believe we need to pay for any programs we create, and Democratic administrations have, since the Great Depression, consistently lowered deficit spending, while the Reagan and two Bush administrations have greatly increased it. Democrats have a strong record of fiscal responsibility.

Many Mormon Democrats like me are pro-life, and find no pressure to change that view. Senator Harry Reid once told how, when an abortion issue came up for a vote during his first year in the Senate, some senators were expressing to him the importance of his vote. Reid recalled how Senator Barbara Mikulski, "at that time the only woman in the Senate and one of the nation's feminist leaders, told everyone to leave me alone, my vote was a matter of character." Reid's pro-life stance in the Senate has not hurt his career -- in 2006 he became the Senate Majority Leader, the highest-ranking Mormon in Washington.

I believe Mormon Democrats can make a difference, not only like Reid in Washington, but in their own local party. I have witnessed first-hand how Mormon Democrats in Utah county have worked to make the county platform more in-line with LDS values.

Boyd Petersen is the Program Coordinator for Mormon Studies at Utah Valley University, the biographer of Mormon scholar Hugh Nibley, and a former candidate for the Utah State legislature.

The Separation of Church and State

A few months ago I did a post on an Iranian woman who'd been horribly disfigured by acid because she'd refused a marriage proposal. Her attacker had been sentenced to the same fate, and so it seemed justice had finally taken a more fair right turn in that particular case in the Arab world. Or so I thought. Was that sentence a separation of church and state? I know little of the Muslim faith, but if I were wool gathering I would bet that judge's ruling had more to do with public opinion and their religious dogma than the government of Iran enforcing the laws of the land. Because the two are intertwined in many Arab countries.

In Saudi Arabia, a top cleric refused to annul a forced marriage between an 8 year old and a 47 year old man, as long as the man agreed not to have sexual relations with the girl until she'd reached puberty - whatever that means.

"It is incorrect to say that it's not permitted to marry off girls who are 15 and younger," Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh, the kingdom's grand mufti, said in remarks quoted Wednesday in the regional Al-Hayat newspaper. "A girl aged 10 or 12 can be married. Those who think she's too young are wrong and they are being unfair to her."

Christoph Wilcke, a Saudi researcher for Human Rights Watch said, "We've been hearing about these types of cases once every four or five months because the Saudi public is now able to express this kind of anger -- especially so when girls are traded off to older men," Wilcke said.
Wilcke explained that while Saudi ministries may make decisions designed to protect children, "It is still the religious establishment that holds sway in the courts, and in many realms beyond the court."

In another case in Saudi Arabia, a 75 year old woman was sentenced to forty lashes for having her nephew and a friend of his bring her a loaf of bread. Forty lashes!! For having a non-immediate relative visit her of the opposite sex. What about those men I wonder, were they also convicted? Of course not, it's always the woman's fault, no matter her age.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, in Brazil a 9 year old girl who'd become pregnant with twins after being abused by her step-father was allowed to have an abortion - it's legal in Brazil in the case of rape or medical emergency - and what did the Catholic Church do? They excommunicated her mother for allowing it and the doctor for performing the procedure! Even though the child and the twins would've most likely died if allowed to continue to term. What of the vagabond who impregnated her? The church is still mulling over his case because being a rapist isn't as bad apparently.

With the Bernie Madoff's, the Governor Blagojevich's, and more than one case of corrupt judges, I am more than grateful we live in a country where church and state are supposed to be separate. But we must be vigilant. One must only take a brief look around us in other parts of the world to know what can happen if our rights are challenged, or taken away by corrupt people right here at home.

Random Question

I have had this nagging question in the back of my mind, and I was hoping some of you may have studied this in greater detail and might have an answer.

The question is concerning child baptism. I absolutely, totally, completely understand the doctrine which teaches us that children under 8 who die do not need to be baptized because they are perfect and it is therefore unnecessary. That doctrine I have absolutely no problem with- I get that completely. I am having trouble, however, reconciling that with the other doctrine that says in order to enter into the Celestial Kingdom you must be baptized. The Bible Dictionary talks about how baptism is not just for a remission of sins, it is also required to gain entrance into the CK- which makes sense to me, because don't you have to be baptized before you can be endowed and receive other ordinances? So, if that is the case, wouldn't even those who died before they were of age also need to be baptized?

This question is by no means causing me to question my faith, I just don't understand how those two doctrines are combatible- they seem to contradict each other. Any insights from the smartest women I know????