DiscussMormonism.com

Given that I now have a blog up with some substantial writing (as blog posts go) on the subject of the intersection and interface between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and politics, I am going to return to the forum here in the Celestial Kingdom only, for the purpose of developing some debate and discussion on this critical contemporary aspect of both the ideals as well as the living practice of the gospel and its teachings.

I'm doing it here and not in the off topic forum because, in the first instance, that room is for things "non-LDS related", and in the second place, I'm going to assume that in this particular forum, a serious discussion and exploration of opposing views will be able to occur without the psychological and emotional distractions encountered in virtually all other rooms here, including the Terrestrial.

For this first thread, I'd like, as opposed to a lengthy initial essay of first principles and general premises, to post a question, and to do that, I'd like to take us back a little ways to an old post at the MADboards. I had said, as a part of a larger post:

Can one one support or defend the beliefs of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao,

Volgadon replied:

I know several members in good standing, with strong testimonies, who do.

Leaving Marx aside for a while, as he was an intellectual theorist who, though he must certainly bear responsibility for the consequences of his ideas, never himself wielded political power, let us concentrate for a moment on the other three, and especially perhaps, Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung.

1. How is it possible for one professing faithful commitment to the teachings, standards and principles of the gospel, to support, defend and coexist, intellectually and morally, with these personages and with the substance and consequences of their ideas and actions?

2. One totalitarian despot and mass murderer is conspicuously absent here: Adolf Hitler. Why? If a poster were to say "I know several members in good standing with strong testimonies who support and principles of Nazism and the Third Reich", what might be your initial reaction, and if that reaction was of a different kind from the reaction you would have to the concept of "faithful" members in good standing who support the principles and policies of Lenin, Stalin and Mao, how do you account for that alternative reaction?

Given that I now have a blog up with some substantial writing (as blog posts go) on the subject of the intersection and interface between the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

Dearest Droopy,

I'm not here to have a conversation with you but would like to remind you about how to spell the name of your church. I would think you would want to get that right, someday, eventually. So, read my lips and get it right, please:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Thank you,

Paul O

I will just say at the outset that if intellectual substance is not to be had, even in this room, I will immediately go back into my self imposed exile from this board.

Stimulating, creative debate is a two way street.

Learn to be more concise. Shorten things and convey clear thoughts and ideas and it might go better.

Droopy wrote:I will just say at the outset that if intellectual substance is not to be had, even in this room, I will immediately go back into my self imposed exile from this board.

Stimulating, creative debate is a two way street.

I don't care where you go, Droopy. [potentially Terrestrial material deleted]. Just spell the name of the church correctly and you won't hear another word from me. Can you do that? Is it asking too much that you spell the name of the church correctly?

Paul O

Droopy wrote:
2. One totalitarian despot and mass murderer is conspicuously absent here: Adolf Hitler. Why? If a poster were to say "I know several members in good standing with strong testimonies who support and principles of Nazism and the Third Reich", what might be your initial reaction, and if that reaction was of a different kind from the reaction you would have to the concept of "faithful" members in good standing who support the principles and policies of Lenin, Stalin and Mao, how do you account for that alternative reaction?

Adding political ideology to the Church of Jesus Christ only serves to drive wedges between members and does not result in good spiritual fruit.
.

Hi Droopy,

One totalitarian despot and mass murderer is conspicuously absent here: Adolf Hitler. Why? If a poster were to say "I know several members in good standing with strong testimonies who support and principles of Nazism and the Third Reich",

Personally, I do not understand how anyone can criticize Hitler while honoring the genocide recorded in the Old Testament.

Joshua's brutal slaughtering of families; including babies, children, mothers, and the elderly, while raping the young "virgin" girls seems pretty much in line with other powerful modern day leaders of whom you speak.

Seems to me it could be argued that those who believe in the Bible, do, at least to some extent support the idea that those who believe differently, or those not of the chosen lineage should be wiped off from the face of the earth. Certainly there is the belief that there exists a chosen race. (The foundational element of Abrahamic religions is that one must be a part of his tribe to be counted as a chosen child of God, or to receive eternal reward).

I suppose one difference would be that Moses and Joshua claim God told them to do the killing?

:-(

~td~

Droopy wrote:I'm doing it here and not in the off topic forum because, in the first instance, that room is for things "non-LDS related", and in the second place, I'm going to assume that in this particular forum, a serious discussion and exploration of opposing views will be able to occur without the psychological and emotional distractions encountered in virtually all other rooms here, including the Terrestrial.

Hey, Droopy...Glad you are posting with us! I haven't had a chance to look at your blog, but I am looking forward to it when I have a moment. My schedule has been really crazy lately. :)

You are welcome to post political topics in the Celestial Forum as long as they have some relevance to Mormonism.

This thread is a perfect example.

If, however, you are introducing a topic that is purely political in nature, and has absolutely no relevance to Mormonism or spirituality, in some sense, we will have to move it to Off Topic.

I'm not quite sure if you're asking a rhetorical question, or if you expect to find a believing member of the LDS Church on this board who supports Hitler/Stalin/Chairman Mao who will answer your question, or if you are looking for someone to defend one or more ideologies they don't believe in (Maoism, Stalinism, Nazism, and possibly Mormonism as well) to your satisfaction.

I also told you on a thread on MADB that my first missionary companion in Italy was a member of Italy's communist party. Demanding an explanation of how this person or people like him "reconcile" their political beliefs with the LDS Church assumes that these people feel that there is anything among their beliefs to be reconciled. If you want to know how someone who is an active communist reconciles these beliefs with belief in the modern LDS Church, or whether one of these people feels there is anything to be reconciled in the first place, ask them.

Perhaps a more salient question is: how can someone who professes a belief in the LDS Church---or Christianity in general, for that matter---support, defend and coexist, intellectually and morally, with administrations in the United States who undertake such actions as, for a few examples:

--supporting the military coup in Chile that led to the Pinochet regime coming into power---a regime not especially noted for its regard for human rights?

--the Mujahideen being funded, armed, and perhaps trained by American operatives during the Reagan administration and lionized by Reagan as "freedom fighters"?

--fighting in court against the rights guaranteed by the divinely inspired Constitution, such as freedom of speech and the press, or the right against unreasonable searches and seizures by government actors?

--pardoning political cronies indicted in the Iran-Contra scandal so that they won't have to face trial?

Why don't we try to reconcile supporting, defending and coexisting with, intellectually and morally, these kinds of actions with a professed belief in the restored gospel?

Personally, I do not understand how anyone can criticize Hitler while honoring the genocide recorded in the Old Testament.

Joshua's brutal slaughtering of families; including babies, children, mothers, and the elderly, while raping the young "virgin" girls seems pretty much in line with other powerful modern day leaders of whom you speak.

Seems to me it could be argued that those who believe in the Bible, do, at least to some extent support the idea that those who believe differently, or those not of the chosen lineage should be wiped off from the face of the earth. Certainly there is the belief that there exists a chosen race. (The foundational element of Abrahamic religions is that one must be a part of his tribe to be counted as a chosen child of God, or to receive eternal reward).

I suppose one difference would be that Moses and Joshua claim God told them to do the killing?

1. The clear majority of ancient Israel's wars were defensive in nature, as they were continually under attack for much of their history. Those that were aggressive in nature were understood to have been authorized by the Lord as a means of destroying peoples who were and an apogee of wickedness and who were "ripe" in iniquity and (and who perhaps could be foreseen as a potential future threat, given those cultural dynamics) God removes a people from the scene under those circumstances.

2. Such "ripeness" in iniquity and its consequences (civilizational collapse usually followed by devastating wars) are common to the Book of Mormon, much of which takes place in an Old Testament context. That the Lord uses other peoples as agents of his judgments, on some occasions (or the forces of nature on others), is as common to the Old Testament as to the Book of Mormon.

3. The Israelites did not engage in "genocide" in the modern sense. They obliterated certain discreet cities and city states, but not entire peoples.

4. They did not engage in the few wars of clear aggression mentioned in the Old Testament because others believed differently from them. These were not "holy wars" in the Islamic sense. They were not wars of forced conversion or even of conquest and subjugation, in the normal sense. They were understood to be instruments in the hands of the Lord of executing judgment upon a people who had ripened in wickedness and were at their moral and spiritual end, as a culture.

The Israelites were not warlike per se, and did not glory and wallow in cults of warfare or violence as did many of the peoples around them. They had a "just war theory" that limited them to the extermination, when authorized by God, of peoples that had become "ripe", and to defense of their own kingdom.

All the modern examples I've used involve naked aggression for the sake of conquest qua conquest and hatred of entire classes of human beings due to either inherent or acquired (class) characteristics, none of which fits the Old Testament context of Israel's military and social history.

Regardless, much of this, as was the Law of Moses itself and its harsh characteristics, was fulfilled and done away in Christ. War still exists, and nothing precludes Christians from going to war for just reasons, even, as the Book of Mormon clearly demonstrates, to the point of large scale extermination of relentless enemies who will not live peaceably and refuse all attempts at peacemaking and coexistence.

I find your insinuation that there is, within Christianity, some inherent tendency toward violence, war or genocide to be just a bit to the left of preposterous. The only time this has ever manifested itself on a mass scale are those times when church has been identified with state (at which times, the state always dominates, at the end of the day).

God utterly destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah through some natural disaster as well, including small children and new born infants. Can God do this? Of course he can, as he is the ultimate giver and sustainer of life, and the mere preservation of physical existence is not his highest priority under certain conditions, among which are "ripeness". Acceptance of God's action here does not have any relation, in a gospel sense, to an authorization to take any action of our own under similar circumstances, quite obviously, as what God does, unless he directly delegates a specific kind of authority to humans on earth, is no license to imitation among mortals.

It is the vary fact that the modern examples I've used, both Nazi and international socialist, involve, indeed, human beings who raised themselves to the position of gods and anointed themselves as arbiters of the ultimate fate of other human beings.

There is no question of deriving authority or sanction in the secular sense, from the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition, nor is there a "just war theory" in the Nazi or communist world.

The means justify the ends.

You are making an apples and oranges comparison, if I haven't made that clear already.