Recently, a young man I knew "back in the day" wrote me a letter and asked me several political ad religious questions wanting to renew our aquaintance and start up a friendly conversation. What follows was my response, which is of such a general character that I thought I'd add it to this blog.
Dear _________
You express yourself well and we’re obviously not on such different levels, but we do have a set of different beliefs. To understand my politics, you first have to understand my religious position, which you may think is weaker than your own. I posted “My Semblance of a Testimony” on facebook a couple of weeks ago:
“I live in a community where many people say they know things beyond a shadow of doubt. They whisper into a microphone about sacred experiences had in sacred places that they cannot deny. For some, this knowledge is limited and often specific, but for others it is quite expansive, seemingly as large as the human will.In my old age, I find that I live within the shadow of many doubts. My spiritual experiences have not removed me from the world, nor distinguished me from the common lot of man. To be honest, the Presence of God has been no more than a haunting in my life, a persistent sense of holiness that seems to imply a holy being. I am a Christian because the sacred books of Christianity are--in my experience--also haunted by that Presence. I happen to be a Latter-day Saint because, at one time in my life, I experienced that divine sensibility reading the Book of Mormon. These days, I'm more likely to experience it in the Bible, but I try not to be biased by what is current.I know only what I have experienced; or, more precisely, what I remember experiencing and what I am today experiencing. That is the whole of my testimony. Like other people, I make deductions and sometimes follow spiritual direction, but these deductions are weaker than experience, fallible, often embarrassingly so. Since I do not find my experience superior to that of Catholics and Protestants, I try not to make claims I cannot back up. My experiences have convinced me that Christianity is the best vessel for truth, but my experiences cannot and should not convince others, who are liable to their own experiences. Often, I am at odds with my Church. I wish this wasn't true, but it is. My experience leads me to different conclusions about a multitude of issues, political and sacred. I find more in her past than in her present that I am able to identify with, but there are very troublesome issues within her past as well. Nevertheless, the ties that bind are tied tightly and I appreciate being tolerated, even when my ideas and views are not welcome. What is a trial for me, I know, is also a trial for her. We've been together for a long time and I'd like to continue the fellowship.But what is most important to me now is the continued sense of God's presence--his haunting of the world. This is what I feel to be most true and what one should be true to.
I’ve inserted this because your religious presumptions are different than mine and so it only seems natural that our conclusions on these issues will be as well. So, I’ll get on with it and respond.
What role does government or should government play in continuing the notion that this is a Christian nation? I’m not sure what defines this term and I’m not sure that the United States qualifies as such. I’m just don’t think it is fair for Conservatives to promote our country as such when applying what they perceive as some of the moral principles of our faith and the abandon that position when it comes to taxes. Whatever role government plays, it should be consistent. Christianity should never become a weapon a weapon of social reform and not, at the same time, be allowed to be a blessing in social reform. I personally believe that government is an appropriate vehicle when it is the most effective vehicle.
Should government meet Christian obligations, or should the people meet their Christian obligations separate from government? (Obligations - I refer to not as protecting peoples rights, and treating people with respect and dignity - to me that is a given. But more in a sense of taxation, in order to develop and fund programs.) The Doctrine and Covenants teaches us “that governments were instituted for the benefit of man,” and by that I understand not that all governments that have ever existed were instituted for the benefit of man (an obvious and historically demonstrable fallacy), but that the tools and skills of government were instituted by God for the benefit of man. It therefore follows that government is one of many means that Christians may use to promote Christian works. Few would really disagree with this; hence we enjoy public libraries, neighborhood fire and police departments, social security, disaster recovery, medical care for seniors and so on. The questions we are debating today are not—or they shouldn’t be—concerned with whether or not there is a proper role for government in these matters, a question long sense asked and answered. The question should properly be whether or not government is the most effective way to do so.
If we the people mold the government to meet all Christian obligations, from your viewpoint, does that take away any freedoms, including the freedom of choice? Many things impinge on our freedoms, including religious vows and covenants. Citizenship comes with similar obligations and these obligations also impinge on our freedom. (Jury duty would be an affirmative example, keeping laws and ordinance a more passive one.) Paying taxes is one such obligation. The idea of a social contract includes taxation, but also representation. Most Americans willingly accept this idea, but then the quarrels start. At this point, an issue other than a program’s effectiveness is raised—how much taxation is appropriate and are different percentages appropriate for differing incomes. Also issues of bureaucratic waste and priorities. Again, for me, it is an issue that should find its answer in the democratic process rather than by liberal or conservative dogma.
After Christ came to the Americas, the people were blessed, and they "had all things in common". They truly lived and took their Christian obligations seriously. In large part, was this accomplished by their government or by their Church? My understanding is that for most of that time frame, the Church was the government and that it was not until the church became “divided into classes,” rich and poor and so on, and with the rise of civil unrest, there arose the necessity of civil government separate from the church. I think Peter Gomes, minister of the Harvard Memorial Church expressed the situation now (and by implication) the situation then when he wrote,
"Our little systems have their day, and yet even our system of Christian capitalism is inadequate. The rising tide does not lift all boats without putting some people at risk, and because we are not yet good enough to share, we devise reasons why it is somehow God's will that the poor get poorer and the rich get richer."
“I live in a community where many people say they know things beyond a shadow of doubt. They whisper into a microphone about sacred experiences had in sacred places that they cannot deny. For some, this knowledge is limited and often specific, but for others it is quite expansive, seemingly as large as the human will.In my old age, I find that I live within the shadow of many doubts. My spiritual experiences have not removed me from the world, nor distinguished me from the common lot of man. To be honest, the Presence of God has been no more than a haunting in my life, a persistent sense of holiness that seems to imply a holy being. I am a Christian because the sacred books of Christianity are--in my experience--also haunted by that Presence. I happen to be a Latter-day Saint because, at one time in my life, I experienced that divine sensibility reading the Book of Mormon. These days, I'm more likely to experience it in the Bible, but I try not to be biased by what is current.I know only what I have experienced; or, more precisely, what I remember experiencing and what I am today experiencing. That is the whole of my testimony. Like other people, I make deductions and sometimes follow spiritual direction, but these deductions are weaker than experience, fallible, often embarrassingly so. Since I do not find my experience superior to that of Catholics and Protestants, I try not to make claims I cannot back up. My experiences have convinced me that Christianity is the best vessel for truth, but my experiences cannot and should not convince others, who are liable to their own experiences. Often, I am at odds with my Church. I wish this wasn't true, but it is. My experience leads me to different conclusions about a multitude of issues, political and sacred. I find more in her past than in her present that I am able to identify with, but there are very troublesome issues within her past as well. Nevertheless, the ties that bind are tied tightly and I appreciate being tolerated, even when my ideas and views are not welcome. What is a trial for me, I know, is also a trial for her. We've been together for a long time and I'd like to continue the fellowship.But what is most important to me now is the continued sense of God's presence--his haunting of the world. This is what I feel to be most true and what one should be true to.
I’ve inserted this because your religious presumptions are different than mine and so it only seems natural that our conclusions on these issues will be as well. So, I’ll get on with it and respond.
What role does government or should government play in continuing the notion that this is a Christian nation? I’m not sure what defines this term and I’m not sure that the United States qualifies as such. I’m just don’t think it is fair for Conservatives to promote our country as such when applying what they perceive as some of the moral principles of our faith and the abandon that position when it comes to taxes. Whatever role government plays, it should be consistent. Christianity should never become a weapon a weapon of social reform and not, at the same time, be allowed to be a blessing in social reform. I personally believe that government is an appropriate vehicle when it is the most effective vehicle.
Should government meet Christian obligations, or should the people meet their Christian obligations separate from government? (Obligations - I refer to not as protecting peoples rights, and treating people with respect and dignity - to me that is a given. But more in a sense of taxation, in order to develop and fund programs.) The Doctrine and Covenants teaches us “that governments were instituted for the benefit of man,” and by that I understand not that all governments that have ever existed were instituted for the benefit of man (an obvious and historically demonstrable fallacy), but that the tools and skills of government were instituted by God for the benefit of man. It therefore follows that government is one of many means that Christians may use to promote Christian works. Few would really disagree with this; hence we enjoy public libraries, neighborhood fire and police departments, social security, disaster recovery, medical care for seniors and so on. The questions we are debating today are not—or they shouldn’t be—concerned with whether or not there is a proper role for government in these matters, a question long sense asked and answered. The question should properly be whether or not government is the most effective way to do so.
If we the people mold the government to meet all Christian obligations, from your viewpoint, does that take away any freedoms, including the freedom of choice? Many things impinge on our freedoms, including religious vows and covenants. Citizenship comes with similar obligations and these obligations also impinge on our freedom. (Jury duty would be an affirmative example, keeping laws and ordinance a more passive one.) Paying taxes is one such obligation. The idea of a social contract includes taxation, but also representation. Most Americans willingly accept this idea, but then the quarrels start. At this point, an issue other than a program’s effectiveness is raised—how much taxation is appropriate and are different percentages appropriate for differing incomes. Also issues of bureaucratic waste and priorities. Again, for me, it is an issue that should find its answer in the democratic process rather than by liberal or conservative dogma.
After Christ came to the Americas, the people were blessed, and they "had all things in common". They truly lived and took their Christian obligations seriously. In large part, was this accomplished by their government or by their Church? My understanding is that for most of that time frame, the Church was the government and that it was not until the church became “divided into classes,” rich and poor and so on, and with the rise of civil unrest, there arose the necessity of civil government separate from the church. I think Peter Gomes, minister of the Harvard Memorial Church expressed the situation now (and by implication) the situation then when he wrote,
"Our little systems have their day, and yet even our system of Christian capitalism is inadequate. The rising tide does not lift all boats without putting some people at risk, and because we are not yet good enough to share, we devise reasons why it is somehow God's will that the poor get poorer and the rich get richer."
Over the years, there have been several quotes from General authorities regarding socialism. Conservatives like to bring up (it seems) that most programs developed by Liberals are socialistic, and that Liberals are turning our Free-Market, Capitalistic country into a socialist system. What are your thoughts? Where is that line? My political and economic beliefs are an outgrowth of my religious beliefs, as hard as that has been for most of my co-religionists to accept; which is another way of saying that don’t give a fig for either socialism or capitalism as political parties or economic ideologies. That having been said, I think that honesty impels me to admit that most Latter-day Saints, hearing me out on economic issues, would consider me a full blown socialist. (I am not a communist for the simple reason that I believe what true communists are attempting is only achievable by the grace of a God they do not believe in.) Consequently, I am under the necessity of responding to those quotations you refer to. My response is twofold, one historical and the other relates to my written testimony above. I would first point out that the Church’s road to becoming a conservative and capitalist icon is tied in with the accommodations the Church made with the social morals of American society over a long period of time (1880-1940). The Mormons surrendered not only their “twin relic of barbarism (plural marriage),” but also economic independency from Wall Street. Interpreting Jesus counsel to make friends with the manna of unrighteousness in way that seemed relevant, Church Presidents from Wilford Woodruff onward (but especially through Heber J. Grant), courted the powerful, and hoping to make friends of influence where the real power was, in the world of business. Over the years, in my opinion, that influence became more powerful within the church than was originally intended. More and more, the economic views of the apostles became more reflective what was acceptable in America than what is found in the formative teachings to the Church. And so I see those statements you refer to as the political and economic opinions of men and I am stubborn enough to disagree.
So those are my initial responses and your comments and criticisms are more than welcome.
In friendship,
Doug
