I agree. That is part of our covenant.

**Given that every person holding a calling in every ward is a sinner and will be to the day they die, I think we should avoid worrying over what they might believe, politically, and simply labor to help them in their calling.**

That is quite true, but isn’t there a line where normal sin gives way to sin that disqualifies one for a calling? For example, I wouldn’t want to vote to sustain somebody I know to be a child-molester as a Primary teacher!

I suspect that the line falls well short of my example.

Thanks for the compliment. I was trying to come up with scenarios we could identify with. I think we can agree that the dividing line between political differences and evil lies somewhere between those two men. Where does Mr. Brezhnev lie in relation to that line?

**
I suspect we are not far apart politically, though perhaps this is not the forum to explore that. I’d love to exchange views privately on which politicians we find loathsome and which I do not, and why. trollingshallows@msn.com.**

I think we’re fairly close, as well. See my blog entries at:
http://www.fairblog.org/2008/01/17/nephite-money-and-coinage/
http://www.fairblog.org/2008/03/06/why-not-all/

That should tell you about my political views….

Part of this exercise was to try to see things from my political opposites’ angle.
While Cindy Sheehan and Representative Dennis Kuchinich may be nutty, at least their stands are consistent with their weltanshauung. On the other hand, though she sounds more “sane” than the hard Left, Senator Clinton appears to be trying to reconcile her political base with reality–and failing.

Of course, this is also on email.

Given that every person holding a calling in every ward is a sinner and will be to the day they die, I think we should avoid worrying over what they might believe, politically, and simply labor to help them in their calling.

I think your analogy to Gorbachev versus Andropov is a good one. It is particularly interesting given that Gorbachev now claims to have been a closet Christian all those years.

I suspect we are not far apart politically, though perhaps this is not the forum to explore that. I’d love to exchange views privately on which politicians we find loathsome and which I do not, and why. trollingshallows@msn.com.

**Leaving aside the clear language of the definition of treason given in the Constitution — which was specifically formulated to rule out political differences as a form of treason, and which I believe cannot possibly be stretched to cover any President in my lifetime — treason is not transitive.**

I agree. I’m doing a “What if….?”.

**Even if Bush were arguably guilty of treason, his supporters might not believe so, and I would not feel justified refusing to sustain a Bush supporter in a Church calling. In fact, the thought simply appalls me.**

As it does I–not only for a Bush supporter, but a Bill Clinton supporter, as well. Or for either man, should he be baptised into the Church.

Moreover, we have covenanted to sustain people in their calling.

As an aside, even though I have problems with President Clinton’s behaviour and policies, I am singularly disgusted with efforts of venom like The Clinton Chronicles, which accuse him of all manor of evil, like murder and drug-trafficking. THOSE people (if Church members) I would refuse to vote to sustain, because of their defamation of President Clinton’s character–unless, of course, they repent.

Or is it that you implying “I would not feel justified refusing to VOTE TO sustain a Bush supporter in a Church calling” [Emphasis Steve's]?

What if you sincerely believe the President (of either party) to be supremely guilty of treason, and that treason is patently obvious to any clear-thinking person–would you refuse to vote to sustain the President, if he were a member of the Church–or supporters who are, even though they should see that treason as clearly as you?

**We were talking about political differences.**

Please forgive me for not being clearer. What I am asking is if and where a dividing line exists between mere political differences and gross sin.

If all of the leaders of the old USSR were members, I could see myself voting to sustain Mikhail Gorbachev, but I cannot justify voting to sustain Yuri Andropov, even though I have the same political differences with both men; my problem is in Mr. Andropov’s APPLICATION of those political differences.

Do I make sense?

**If we are now expanding the discussion to membership in disreputable organizations — including the one in your example that follows, the KKK, which is not a political party — then we are having a different discussion.**

Please forgive me again. I was trying to bring the examples “closer to home.” I live in the US South, and, during the “Jim Crow” era, the US South was dominated by the Democratic Party, which, in turn, was dominated by the Klan–at least in the Bible Belt. This was so to such an extent that to even vote, one had to be a registered Democrat, and to hold office, one had to also be in the Klan–with some authority. This, of course, explains Senator Byrd’s membership in Klan leadership when he entered politics back in the 1940’s. Would his effective
representation of Klan interests from the 1940’s-1960’s merit an opposing vote, if he were a member at that time?

Does this clarify what I’m aiming at?

**Also, I never mentioned “beyond a reasonable doubt” as the standard of proof in such matters. I think you’re extrapolating what I wrote a bit.**

Please let me rephrase. I mean that when asked to vote to sustain a person in political office, you have evidence of such a nature, that, when you give Church authorities the evidence, they logically conclude that the line between political differences and gross sin has been crossed.

I think, though, you answered my question with this:

**Were I to suggest that a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard applied anywhere to this issue, it would be to the calling authority asking for my sustaining vole. If I had relevant information which I had good reason to think the authority did not — such as that the nominee had been sleeping around, as in the case o the young man I mentioned earlier — I would feel a duty to call that information to his attention before giving my sustaining vote. Otherwise, I would feel obligated to extend the benefit of the doubt to the authority making the call.**

I agree. To justifiably refuse to vote to sustain, one must have REAL evidence of REAL gross sin.

Peace!

Leaving aside the clear language of the definition of treason given in the Constitution — which was specifically formulated to rule out political differences as a form of treason, and which I believe cannot possibly be stretched to cover any President in my lifetime — treason is not transitive. Even if Bush were arguably guilty of treason, his supporters might not believe so, and I would not feel justified refusing to sustain a Bush supporter in a Church calling. In fact, the thought simply appalls me. This would be equally true if we were speaking of an Obama supporter three years from now, when there will doubtless be those who accuse [i]him[/i] of treason based on [i]their[/i] profound disagreement with his policies. Or at least I would like to believe I am that fair.

“Let me see if I understand you: You would not vote to oppose people merely for belonging to disreputable organisations; however, you would vote to oppose those who join in their organisations’ disreputable activities. Is that right?”

We were talking about [i]political differences.[/i] If we are now expanding the discussion to membership in disreputable organizations — including the one in your example that follows, the KKK, which is not a political party — then we are having a different discussion.

Also, I never mentioned “beyond a reasonable doubt” as the standard of proof in such matters. I think you’re extrapolating what I wrote a bit.

Were I to suggest that a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard applied anywhere to this issue, it would be to the calling authority asking for my sustaining vole. If I had relevant information which I had good reason to think the authority did not — such as that the nominee had been sleeping around, as in the case o the young man I mentioned earlier — I would feel a duty to call that information to his attention before giving my sustaining vote. Otherwise, I would feel obligated to extend the benefit of the doubt to the authority making the call.

Welcome to the fray!

You made some very good, well thought-out comments, which I’d like to address.

You said, “My experience is that Church members who take political views I find repugnant are almost never evil. They are, at worst, mind-bogglingly stupid, but I don’t believe that’s a disqualification for service in the Church.”

That is my experience, too.

You said, “Floyd, I’d sustain every one of the examples you gave, with the following qualification on your first example: If the libertarian wanted to legalize prostitution because he disbelieved in the law of chastity, rather than because he thought criminalization was bad policy, I would want to be very sure the authority calling him was aware of his views before I sustained him.”

An excellent distinction! Good catch!

You said, “It is a terrible thing to seek to criminalize policy differences….”

I agree. We should only criminalise wickedness.

You said, “I think it is also a terrible thing to seek to demonize policy differences, which is what it would amount to if a member chose not to sustain someone because he supports Bush.”

But what if you honestly thought that President Bush’s behaviour fit the definition of treason, as stated in the US constitution? Under those circumstances, would supporting him not be tantamount to supporting treason?

You said, “I guess that means I would feel obligated to sustain Huebner’s branch president, in spite of his political support for Hitler — at least until he began engaging in acts that went beyond political support….”

Let me see if I understand you: You would not vote to oppose people merely for belonging to disreputable organisations; however, you would vote to oppose those who join in their organisations’ disreputable activities. Is that right?

For example, if Senator Robert Byrd [D-WV] were a member of the Church, and still a member of the Ku Klux Klan, you would vote to sustain him, unless you were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt he joined in the lynchings of Blacks, the shooting of civil rights workers, the bombings of Churches, and/or cross-burnings-as intimidation of non-KKK members–on others’ property! Does this properly illustrate your view?

I can recall only one occasion when I walked out on a speaker in Sacrament Meeting. His talk had degenerated into an anti-Reagan diatribe that would have been completely inappropriate in Sacrament Meeting no matter what politician it was targeted against.

My experience is that Church members who take political views I find repugnant are almost never evil. They are, at worst, mind-bogglingly stupid, but I don’t believe that’s a disqualification for service in the Church.

Floyd, I’d sustain every one of the examples you gave, with the following qualification on your first example: If the libertarian wanted to legalize prostitution because he disbelieved in the law of chastity, rather than because he thought criminalization was bad policy, I would want to be very sure the authority calling him was aware of his views before I sustained him.

It is a terrible thing to seek to criminalize policy differences, in the manner of some extremists on the Left who speak of trying Bush for treason. I think it is also a terrible thing to seek to demonize policy differences, which is what it would amount to if a member chose not to sustain someone because he supports Bush.

I guess that means I would feel obligated to sustain Huebner’s branch president, in spite of his political support for Hitler — at least until he began engaging in acts that went beyond political support, such as expelling Jews from his congregation (as he was reported to have done) or requiring members to give the Hitler salute in church (as he was also reported to have done.) By analogy, if a presiding authority here, today, were to to start handing out Obama buttons — or McCain buttons — to ward members as they came to church, or expelling illegal immigrants or members of the military from the congregation, that would cross a line where I would be likely to refuse to sustain him.

I’m not sure what your point is.

The Church is not a democracy (though there are democratic elements!), and our “sustaining votes” are not elections. There is a reason that we only count “No” votes (We don’t just count them, we find the reason for them.); It is an opportunity for the membership to notify authorities of any possible disqualifying factors. Thus, there is no need anything by “No” votes.

By the by, that is also the reason why “No” voters aren’t punished for refusing to support their leaders.

I can also understand frustration with the US Congress. How many members of Congress (especially in the minority party) have access to pending bills, let alone read them? In 1995, Congress passed a law requiring all bills to be published on their Internet web site, for all to read. Things have changed since then….

Still, in my observations, government officials are usually no more evil than we are. How many of us support legislation to take from Peter to give to Paul?

Sometimes we forget those smiley faces–and that it is impossible sometimes to tell whether a person was joking.

I am familiar with John Rawls’book, A theory of justice. I use his definition of efficiency in my economics classes in contradistinction to Vilfredo Pareto’s.

While I can understand (and sympathise with) Rawls’ desire to help those who are worst off, I observe that in practise, others are either ignored or harmed–sometimes to the extent that they are made even worse off than our worst-off, before we intervened. That is, to paraphrase Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, whenever we raise up somebody, we must be careful that we aren’t lowering somebody else to a point that is lower than the first person’s original state.

Do I make sense?